Shelter – A new CEO

Shelter has a new CEO in the form of Campbell Robb who takes over from 1st January 2010.

It will be interesting to see how he leads the Charity that has had to restructure (ie get people to do more for less) as a result of its love affair with the LSC.

One fears the continuing squeeze on publically funded Legal advice provision will only see more turmoil ahead for the good folks over at Shelter.

Myth or Fact is Paul Flynn MP a muppet?

 

 

A very interesting post from Smoking gun. Whilst admittedly a little dated I was similarly startled by Mr Flynn’s statements which, apparent from the complete lack of detail, seem to be based on no actual research into the subject of homelessness at all.

I have therefore emailed him enquiring as to what charities he was referring to when he states

‘Some homeless charities are so rich they indulge themselves in useless expensive gimmicks.’

EDIT – Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:15:05 +0000
From: paulflynnmp@talk21.com
Subject: Re: hello and a question
To: house184@hotmail.co.uk

It was on the charity Crisis. I did a detailed blog on it. It should be available on a Google search. If not get back to me please.
 

Paul Flynn MP House of Commons London SW1A OAA
Dip into now daily blog on paulflynnmp.co.uk.

Gatekeeping – Common Local Authority Boll**ks

‘You would expect Local Authority professionals to tell you the truth’ says a Youth Support worker endeavouring to help homeless 16 year old.

‘Well yes, you would in theory’ House replies with a sinking heart as House prepares to enlighten said innocent worker to the joys of Local Authority bad practice (or misfeasance perhaps in some cases?) .

So what common rubbish do Local Authorities spout with depressing repetition? Well the list is rather long and will be visited in posts to come but these are some common ones.

1, ‘You can’t make a Homeless Approach here as you don’t live here’ – This has a boll**ks rating of 10/10 and is probably the most popular weapon in a Local Authority’s Gatekeeping arsenal with thousands and thousands of homeless persons shot with it each year.

Section 183 of the Housing Act 1996 shows that a person might apply to any Local Authority for assistance. If the Local Authority tell you this just bare in mind they don’t actually want to help you however if you persist and include words like ‘complaint’ and ’advice from Housing Law professional’ you may find the Local Authority relents. If you don’t have a local connection with the area the LA can try and refer you to a Local Authority you do have a connection with if they would otherwise owe you a full ongoing duty to provide you with accommodation but for this they must do enquiries which is why a Local Authority will try and fob you off before helping you

2. ‘Because you lost your home as a result of rent arrears we don’t have to help you’ - Bollo**ks rating 4/5 on this one. Again a popular weapon for inflicting injury on homeless applicants nationwide.

 If the Local Authority has a reason to believe you may be homeless they should take a homeless application from you and begin to perform enquiries as laid out in section 184.

One of these enquiries is whether the applicant became homeless intentionally. Whilst they perform these enquiries if they have reason to believe you might have a priority need for accommodation they should secure that suitable accommodation is available for you (sec 188)

 The Local Authority must then notify you in writing as to what decision they have come from as result of their enquiries as per section 184 (this is why such notification is commonly known as a section 184 letter)

A section 184 letter is something many Local Authority’s don’t want to give you. This is because it takes work and you have the right to review their decision (and these decisions are usually ineptly and unfairly come to).  If the Local Authority say you not entitled to a 184 decision letter ask them to say why this is so in writing so you can take it to your local CAB / Law Centre (if there are any left). You may find help is slightly more forthcoming.

3. To a 16 / 17 year old

‘Social Services have to provide you with accommodation we can’t help you at all’ – A Bollo**ks rating of 3/5 After R v London Borough of Southwark [2009] UKHL 26 this is rather common. In fact if the Social Services department hasn’t confirmed that said child is indeed a child in need or that they will be placing while an assessment is carried out then the Local Authority has a reason to believe that said 16/17 year old may have a priority need for accommodation and as such should secure suitable accommodation is available for the 16/17 year old. Hopefully then some sort of joint assessment should be carried out.

There are also occasions when the 16/17 year old may not want the assistance of Social Services and should therefore be placed by the Local Authority.

 House cannot guarentee the quality of the above advice and if you are unsure about how you have been dealt with suggests you seek some proper advice, if you can find it and are eligible for it.

Belgium lead the way in tackling homelessness

Another sign that the world is doomed has come from Belgium where it appears that thousands of years of evolution has created a society where a female can enter a competition to win basic shelter for a year.

Coming to the UK soon, undoubtedly.

Housing Law advice quality guidance

Thanks to LAG for pointing out that the LSC have published a new edition of ‘Housing, improving your quality. A guide tot he common issues identified through peer review.’

Worth a read for any adviser who actually has time to properly supervise and do casework at the same time.

Link also added

Distress for Rent Act 1737

Nearly Legal brings you upto the minute, excellent summaries and reports of all things Housing Law.

House brings you an 10 year old article about the Distress for Rent Act 1737 and those pesky post NTQ trespassers that I’m sure are the bane of every CLS Housing Adviser everywhere.

Also any clients in rent arrears beware for it would appear that should they have any cattle or be growing crops in the backyard they are in danger of losing them!

8 and may distrain stock or cattle on the premisses, for arrears of rent

And from and after the said twenty fourth day of June, which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty eight, it shall and may be lawful to and for every lessor or landlord, lessors or landlords, or his, her, or their steward, bailiff, receiver, or other person or persons impowered by him, her, or them, to take and seize, as a distress for arrears of rent, any cattle or stock of their respective tenant or tenants feeding or depasturing upon any common, appendant or appurtenant, or any ways belonging to all or any part of the premisses demised or holden; and also to take and seize all sorts of corn and grass, hops, roots, fruits, pulse, or other product whatsoever which shall be growing on any part of the estates so demised or holden, as a distress for arrears of rent; and the same to cut, gather, make, cure, carry, and lay up, when ripe, in the barns or other proper place on the premisses so demised or holden; and in case there shall be no barn or proper place on the premisses so demised or holden, then in any other barn or proper place which such lessor or landlord, lessors or landlords, shall hire or otherwise procure for that purpose, and as near as may be to the premisses, and in convenient time to appraise, sell, or otherwise dispose of the same, towards satisfaction of the rent for which such distress shall have been taken, and of the charges of such distress, appraisement, and sale, in the same manner as other goods and chattels may be seized, distrained, and disposed of; and the appraisement thereof to be taken when cut, gathered, cured, and made, and not before.

Don’t let it be said House doesn’t bring you useful stuff

Housing Benefit – If you’re bored

Just a quick note to say that House has added a link to the DWP’s Housing Benefit section where you can find all sorts of useful things.  The Adjudication and Operations circulars are well worth a look.

Subsidising LSC contracts – legal?

In these troubled times with providers being squeezed left right and centre by the LSC who continue to expect more for less (can anyone say paying for your own audits…!) House has heard of a number of organisations who instead of not bidding for contracts are bidding knowing full well they will have to use resources to deliver the contract not mentioned in their bid.

Why would they do this? Well perhaps it’s due to the fact that losing a contract may lead to a reduced chance of successfully bidding  for other profitable contracts, which ironically are used to bridge the gap between what it costs to deliver and how much the LSC pay.

Losing a contract and thus service delivery may well effect the Organisation’s ability to change policy, the Organisation may become less well known leading to a fall in charitable donations.

House believes many NFP Organisations are playing this balancing game, too afraid to tell the LSC to hrm ’stick it’ for fear that other ’For Profit Organisations’ (who as a sweeping generalisation pay their staff far less than NFP staff, give them far fewer benefits and whose quality of advice is hrm questionable in House’s experience) will come along and grab the contract.  

House wonders though whether those who donate to NFP organisations realise they are subsidising the delivery of services that they’ve may already have paid for by paying tax!

House also wonders if the practices of such NFP Organisations are indeed legal?

DWP misadvising non workers / econimically inactive

THIS tribunal case (forgive the slightly indirect link but it’s a word file) highlights a personal bugbear of House’s.

House has had many pregnant clients or clients with children who are not considered ‘workers’ or whom are otherwise economically inactive that have been advised they aren’t entitled to claim JSA but should in fact claim IS only for the DWP to decide (usually about at least 6 weeks later)that they aren’t entitled to IS  as they have no right to reside and that in fact they should claim JSA!

As DDJ Poynter, who sounds rather frustrated to say the least points out; -

 

1             Whilst I appreciate that the Secretary of State has no wish to profit from incorrect advice given by his staff, there is something unattractive about advising a claimant who is properly receiving jobseeker’s allowance (and is content to do so) to claim income support instead and then, once she has done so—and has given up her right to jobseeker’s allowance—telling her she is not entitled to income support. Claimants are certainly left with a strong and justified sense of grievance when that happens.

2             In cases where the claimant is a British or Irish citizen, or has leave to remain in the UK, there may be circumstances in which it is correct for Jobcentre staff to advise a lone parent who is receiving jobseeker’s allowance to cease her jobsearch and claim income support instead.

3             However, such cases are likely to be few and far between because:

(a)          even if the lone parent would be entitled to income support, ceasing to sign on may affect her eventual entitlement to retirement pension by making her ineligible for unemployment credits under regulation 8A of the Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 and forcing her instead to rely upon the less advantageous rules for home responsibilities protection; and

(b)          in any event, it is government policy that lone parents should be encouraged and assisted to seek work.

4             In cases where the right to reside is an issue, such advice will almost always be incorrect. The structure of the right to reside test means that a lone parent who is an EEA national (other than a citizen of the United Kingdom or Ireland) will only be entitled to income support if they have acquired a permanent right of residence or are the separated (but not divorced) spouse of another EEA national who has right to reside in the UK.

5             I therefore take the opportunity provided by this case to express the hope that the Secretary of State will remind Jobcentre staff nationally that lone parents who are of working age (and who are capable of work) should be advised to claim—or to continue to claim—jobseeker’s allowance unless it is clear either:

(a)          that they would satisfy the right to reside test if they were to claim income support; or

(b)          that they will not be able to receive—or to continue to receive—jobseeker’s allowance for some other reason.

6             The Secretary of State has an incentive to do what he can to ensure that the advice given by his staff is correct. Where wrong advice is given, he can increasingly expect claimants to seek compensation from him under the Financial Redress for Maladministration scheme. A guide to that scheme is supposed to be available to members of the public in every DWP office. It can also be found on the DWP website (currently at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/financial-redress/).

hrm – Mr Brown

From Mr Brown’s speech today -

And I do think it’s time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.

From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes.

These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That’s better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.

hrm…