refugees living on the street

[user1490094090]

Are people aware of how many refugees are living rough in the uk? You get housed when you are an asylum seeker, but not when you get refugee status. Tens of thousands, including children, end up on the streets. Anyone else shocked? I find it unacceptable such a rich country.

so they choose to keep them on the streets instead?

There are no accurate figures on the numbers of homelessness in this country because evidencing anything approaching accuracy in this field is in nobody's interest. Local authorities are always going to underclaim the extent of homelessness in their area because to admit otherwise is evidence that they have a) failed in their duty of care and b) they would have to get off their backsides and do something. The same goes for central government. Charities which provide services in this sector cannot be relied upon for accuracy - they are more likely to overclaim - it means more funding for them, more awareness, more 'impact' - the holy bloody grail in the charitable sector these days.

The media haven't got a bloody clue and will mix up the terminology anyway. Homelessness doesn't have to mean sleeping in a street doorway. Many refugee families are likely to rely on local support networks made up of those from their country of origin. Young homeless British people are likely to be sofa-surfing with friends. Older British nationals are likely to present with a whole host of additional support needs - mental health problems, addictions, some with learning difficulties. Some of these support needs will be evident before the individual became homeless and may have contributed to the person becoming homeless. Others will be a result of- or at least exacerbated by- the experience of becoming homeless. The longer someone sleeps rough for, the greater the possibility of that individual becoming 'entrenched' - and greater the difficulty in supporting that person in a sustained tenancy.

Within the homelessness sector in general, there is a greater need for people to prove a 'local connection' in order to be able to claim housing benefit. Many members of the general public will not realise that beds in homelessness hostels run by charities are not paid for by the charities themselves and a homeless person cannot just rock up and be admitted (direct access). There are very few direct access beds these days, most are referred via the local authority which then pays for that bed via housing benefit. That means that if I decided to suddenly move to the other side of the country the local authority will not have a duty to house me in that new area, they will try to send me back to where I can evidence a 'local connection'. This will apply for British nationals and non-British nationals who have recourse to public funds (e.g. refugees). However, the wait for housing benefit to kick in can mean that for some who are already borderline destitute, this can push them into full destitution which then becomes a cycle very hard to break out of.

There's an issue in my town with dogs or anyone with active drug addictions not being allowed to enter the 2 local hostels.

This will at least in part be down to the hostel provider's perception of risk. Traditionally there have been 'wet' and 'dry' hostels to distinguish between those which will accept people with alcohol issues, for example. Some of this will be down to the ethos of the provider but a lot of it these days will be around risk. The provider is accepting a duty of care to all residents - not only one - some hostels may have very young men and women resident who may be very vulnerable. Some hostels will not be employing staff who are trained to deal with someone in detox or will know how to respond in the event that someone ODs. There are specialist detox and rehab services and it is up to the Local Authority to make an assessment as to which type of service to commission in their area.

so they choose to keep them on the streets instead? so far, they have chosen to stay together, i don't know how many nights they would have to watch their children sleep rough before they break and give them up to the authorities, but if it was me i don't think I would ever. There is no guarantee they would be well cared for in foster homes, and there is no guarantee that they would see them again.

I do feel that more people would if they understood how bad the situation is. A lot of people, including some on here, just don't know.

We can all afford a couple of quid a month though in donations. If everyone gave up the cost of a glass of wine a month that would be £5x millions

We can, but there are so many causes out there. Few are in a position to donate to all of them. Most people have charities which are important to them personally. I have charities that are close to my heart and which I donate to, unfortunately homelessness is a long way down my list as sad as it is.

Yeah I understand. To be fair I give more to animal charities than to homeless. Shitty times

How do long addicted homeless people find the strength to detox without support and an environment to help them?

Unfortunately even with help and support it is hard to get clean, having worked with several drug using mums who were given loads of support from substance misuse teams, given social housing, provided with furnishings etc so they can keep their children they still haven't been able to stay clean and it has all fallen apart again, children removed and Mum back to sofa surfing and doing what she needs to do to get her fix.

I wonder if the refugees know that this is a possibility before they come here?

Thats a good point Head. I have thought that watching families leaving Syria and wanting to come to the UK especially when there are other countries they could settle in far nearer. I do wonder what they think we have here as opposed to the reality.

Actually that is completely untrue. UKBA are obliged to house all asylum seekers who do not have a place to stay, including single asylum seekers. They actually have preferential treatment to UK citizens who nobody is obliged to house if they do not have children or fall in to groups such as the sick.

A lot of this accommodation is outside the South East, and many rough sleeping asylum seekers have simply decided to return to London and give up their housing rather than not being offered or entitled to it.

Info concerning it here:

england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/23379/ShelterGuide_AsylumSeekers_and_Refugees.pdf

You could at least try and get it vaguely right...

Billsykes, you clearly don't understand the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee....

I misread your initial post and thought you said asylum seekers.

When your refugee status is accepted basically you start getting the same housing rights as UK citizens. I can't really see the problem with that? I would like to help them all, sure. But I can't really see why they're a special case.

Families have a right to be housed together according to the 1977 housing act and children are not taken into care purely because their children are homeless. So this family you are speaking to are misleading you. Children are taken into care only when their parents are turning down reasonable offers of housing.

Children sleeping rough would automatically go in to care if discovered by the authorities so claiming rough sleeping is the only option to keep families together is not true either.

BillSykes
Which bit is untrue? The link you provided seems to back up the PP in that asylum seekers get accomodation. Although if refugee status is given, it sounds as if they are in the same boat as the rest of the UK population - which does imply having children should mean emergency accomodation is provided.

My own, admittedly anecdotal, experience would suggest that people coming to the UK do have an unrealistic idea of the reality... just as plenty of UK emigrants do! (eg. emigrating to Oz for endless beach BBQs...)
I am aquainted with one refugee (who's been here about 5 years) who freely admits it's not as they expected. However, it's better than where they came from. Also, although this is 10 years ago now, I worked with nurses from India and Pakistan who were under immense pressure from families back home to be living the dream in the UK. They had left their children behind for the time being which was obviously extremely hard for all concerned, and were astounded at living costs here. It occurred to me they'd probably be better off saving up and returning home with the money rather than settling in the UK, but the family pressure remained...
I also had conversations with various people when visiting these countries myself where the assumption was that I was rich in a way that meant I could stay in 5* hotels and not have to work, with a flash apartment in the UK and a nice car... rather than the idea that I rented a room, scrimped and saved, and carefully eked out the savings in cheapo hostels when travelling. Obviously I was/am still in an extremely fortunate position simply to be able to do that/due to global exchange rates, and having the NHS and so on, but obviously not as flash as the impression given. Having said that, with the rise of the internet I don't know what people think nowadays...

Sorry, Bill, x-post there

How do you determine they are refugees rather than economic migrants?

I misread it BBC, I thought she said refugees were entitled to housing but asylum seekers were not.

Asylum seekers often don't have to leave their UKBA accommodation when their claim is accepted anyway. The tenancy agreement is simply transferred from UKBA to the refugee.

Hard to feel sorry for them in particular when there are lots of UK born people living on the streets too.

Greed. Those with an ability to really stop homelessness and poverty choose not to.

I am not "speaking to" this family as a disinterested passer by, I am trying to get them housed,

This family was given 7 days to vacate the asylum seeker accommodation after getting their refugee status. They were left totally destitute, they own nothing but the clothes they are wearing.

The best we can do is sleeping on the floor of a church creche room. ( churches are exempt from laws on toilets and other minimum standards for accommodation,) That is better than the park, where they have been sleeping, but they are still on the floor, without bedding, washing facilities, heating, .....

There is no other option available for them, other than to give the children up.

Yes, children are taken into care simply because the parents are destitute.

Children sleeping rough would automatically go in to care if discovered by the authorities so claiming rough sleeping is the only option to keep families together is not true either

I don't know what you are saying here, yes , we all know that there children are at risk of being taken away from them for ever.

But there is no housing available, nothing at all, so they sleep rough together, or the parents carry on sleeping rough, and the children go into care. These are the only two options. There is nothing else.

People just don't realise what is going on. Children sleeping on the street in London. Its Victorian.

These people are refugees!

There is housing available. Just not where they want it. Refusing to take accommodation in the North East or temporary accommodation in Coventry because you want to live in London is not the same as being offered no accommodation at all.

They will have been offered something as there is a legal obligation to offer them something. Not liking something and turning it down is not the same as not being offered it.

How do you determine they are refugees rather than economic migrants?

I don't.

The British government does

Asylum seekers often don't have to leave their UKBA accommodation when their claim is accepted anyway. The tenancy agreement is simply transferred from UKBA to the refugee.

That is not true, they are given a certain number of days to vacate, and it makes no difference if they have somewhere to go or not. The maximum number of days is 28. The chances are very much against anyone without family links, how can you get a deposit together and references, and a bank account, to take up a tenancy in that time. You can't. Even if you are entitled to housing benefit, and other benefits. You only get those later, normally once you have an address.

And in many cases, refugees are given far less than 28 days. 7 days to vacate is quite common.

There is housing available. Just not where they want it. Refusing to take accommodation in the North East or temporary accommodation in Coventry because you want to live in London is not the same as being offered no accommodation at all.

They will have been offered something as there is a legal obligation to offer them something. Not liking something and turning it down is not the same as not being offered it.

I don't know where you are getting this from, because this just plain isn't happening, in fact a lot of destitute rough sleepers head for London from the North East because they are offered nothing there, and London is warmer.

The tragic reality is, the vast majority of British rough sleepers are there because of either addiction issues or mental health problems meaning they cannot reliably live independently in the kind of home they are given, can't manage the process of applying for and living on benefits, etc.

I think most people know that, but that doesn't mean that it's okay, acceptable, or any less worthy of our sympathy and attention than homeless refugees. The lack of places for people with addiction and mental health problems to go is disgusting. This is something that has been a problem for decades (and the government is aware of it), but which has been routinely put on the backburner.

albeit predictable from posters with a long history of anti-refugee bigotry.

You mean the ones that won't buy into you and Emily's, sorry, users open borders dogmas?

Yes, because they're claiming they are rough sleeping to 'keep the family together'. But it won't do that because the children will be taken into care sooner or later.

You say the same thing every time this comes up. That British people on the streets are hopeless and deserve it and can't be helped so noble asylum seekers should be prioritised.

Most private renters only get 28 days notice if they have to move. They're covered by exactly the same rights and legislation every single British citizen is. They're being treated the same as everybody else.

So what do you want to happen? Do you want to see them fast tracked into permanent accommodation in the area of their choice ahead of British citizens who've been waiting longer? Do you want them to get special privileges the rest of the population don't get?

How exactly do you think that will make the rest of the UK population feel about the asylum system and taking more asylum seekers? Do you really think that would ultimately be productive? Especially in the current climate.