AIBU to not want to have homeless people with complex needs placed in the house next door to me?

[StressedandNameChanged]

I live in a 2 storey terraced house in a small residential street in an area with lots of rows of similar small terraced houses. It’s not the smartest area of town and hasn’t had the best reputation, but it was affordable when we moved here over 15 years ago, and we have been happy here. I live with my dh, and my youngest ds 12.

The end terrace house next door to me was bought by a private investment company earlier this year, and I recently found out that this was part of an organisation which combines property investment with supported housing. Following a lot of enquiries on my part, I found out that they planned to use the house as a house share for 5 vulnerable adults with complex needs and a history of homelessness. Complex needs means at least 2 of the following issues: substance misuse; history of offending; history of anti-social behaviour; mental health problems.

Communications with the organisations who will be managing the property have been problematic. They were initially very evasive, but once I had more info, the housing manager agreed to come to a residents’ association meeting to discuss the plans for the property. It didn’t go very well. On the agenda at the same meeting were problems with an existing supported housing project in the neighbourhood, where due to staffing issues and some challenging clients, the police are being called out every night.

The housing manager later offered to come and speak with dh and myself but as we were away at the time, we said we would arrange a date when we got back. Unfortunately, while we were away a neighbour put up some very offensive signs around the property, including some in my garden and went to the local paper. (This may be the same neighbour who has also been cutting cctv cables at the property). Since we got back we have tried to get in touch but no response. There is a meeting set up with the neighbourhood policing team and others, but the housing managers are not available to attend that either.

Meanwhile I have heard from elsewhere that at least one tenant would be moving into the property in 2 weeks’ time. I think the company running the property are trying to get it as a done deal with people living there before talking to anyone.

I know people can change and this is hopefully a good opportunity for the people who will be placed next door, but I also know there is no magic wand for people who have struggled with multiple serious issues for several years, and there will be relapses. I am worried about the location and the suitability of the property for this use. Most people who have suffered high levels of trauma and are trying to move away from a chaotic lifestyle want their own place where they can control their surroundings, not a shared house. I am worried about 5 vulnerable adults being housed together in a small Victorian terraced house with poor sound proofing. Many houses around here are used for student housing and they live 5 to a house, but they are groups of friends who choose to live together, and they can usually escape to their parents’ homes for a break. I know from experience the level of disruption just one tenant in a shared house can cause if they kick off, mainly to the other tenants but also to the neighbours. I am worried about some of the visitors they will attract. I am worried about the possible high turnover of tenants. I am worried about the potential disturbance for ourselves and other neighbours. I know what the streets around other hostels are like, and I will not feel safe if my street becomes like that. I am worried about the failure of the people managing the property to communicate, which doesn’t bode well if problems do occur. I am stressed out and losing sleep worrying about it.

Yes, I know I am being the very definition of a NIMBY, but I am amazed that this sort of facility can be placed in a residential street without any consultation with neighbours, the local authorities, the police or any existing services in the area.

OP, in your position i would research in great detail the law surrounding planning position in this type of scenario, but I am a lawyer. I think it might be worth your while speaking to a direct access barrister specialising in planning and put to them the question of what you can do next. I would also follow the council's formal complaints procedure ending with the local government Ombudsm an on the basis that what is happening, should have been entirely foreseeable. Also do some research on the company running this property. And who owns it.

Cross post, I've just seen your update and misunderstood. I thought the property was a council run initiative. Sorry.

My BF works in one of these places and although its very rewarding for him there is not a chance in hell i would want to live next to one.

@Joe66 I'm not a lawyer, but I have researched it to the best of my ability. It is a grey area in planning law, as hostels are not defined in legislation but are a sui generis class defined by case law. The company running it are taking advantage of planning legislation designed to enable housing provision for adults with disabilities in shared houses.

The council has been trying since July to get the information from the company which would enable them to establish whether they can require them to ask for planning permission. They have only just got that information, along with information elicited from meetings with staff, partner agencies and local residents, and it is now with their legal department to make a decision.

If the council decides that they cannot require them to apply for planning, then we will have to seek legal advice. We will also have to look at what can be done to prevent too many of this sort of housing clustering in one area and too close to other supported housing, possibly through the local plan, and also work with our MP to see if the legislation can be reviewed.

I used to live in a terrace next door to a halfway house.

They played booming music all night, yet they had the nerve to bang on the wall when we used our blender in the kitchen at 6pm. It was impossible to have the windows open without the stench of weed permeating our house.

If I hadn't experienced this first hand it would be all too easy to call you a NIMBY, but I can wholly sympathise, OP.

@Vinylsamo that seems bonkers. Human rights applied correctly is a balancing of rights. The rights of the other non-anti-social tenants who are equally vulnerable have rights as well, the right to feel safe, for a family life. As do other people nearby, which will inevitably include other vulnerable people. Are there KPIs involved from the council's point of view?

You are most definitely not being unreasonable.

I would take legal advice ASAP.

No one would want to live next door to such a property

The one my bf works in allows residents to have thibgs such as samuri swords and knife sets despite sone being so violent that the female staff have to have a male member of staff with them at all times.

So the arsonist didnt surprise me one bit.

I live in a social housing flat (not supported living) Im childfree by choice ,ive never been drunk Ive never been interested in drugs. So now we have some stereotypes out of the way ................ ive been in this flat for 24 years.

The first four years we had an elderly lady living beneath us. Lovely woman She moved to a nursing home when the flat became too much for her.

The next nineteen years we had a single bloke living downstairs Also a lovely neighbour. Type of bloke who would do anything to help anyone. Found dead in the flat last year.

Flat sits empty for a year.

2018 Now we have a shouty weed smoker in the flat underneath The smell is overpowering. We cant have the windows open its that bad.

He had the gall to moan at DH about me going for a piss in the night. Hes a selfish cunt.

HOWEVER lets apply some critical thinking. Why are housing associations doing this now In our case we have had decent neighbours for such a long time Why change NOW? Because when it comes to bulldozing these estates for regeneration and building luxury homes there will be no public or media support or sympathy for those who live on the housing estates including those of us who have done nothing wrong.

Its genius Its clever................and its deliberate.

" combination of funding cuts and short term contracts being given to the lowest bidder. "

This is also what is behind substandard work being done on tenants homes.

Got Niemoller running through my head now.

"We are in touch with the police, environmental health, our MP and councillors. We are also in touch with the company managing the property, but the head office rarely responds to our emails, and never answers any questions we ask."

HelenaDove Thu 06-Jul-17 14:49:56

www.cfoi.org.uk/2017/07/bring-housing-associations-and-public-service-contractors-under-foi/
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Thu 06-Jul-17 14:51:55

Housing associations are not subject to the FOI Act and can refuse to answer requests about fire risks, safety problems, eviction policies, waiting lists and other matters.

Examples of requests for information which housing authorities have refused include:

the cause of a fire in a housing association flat, requested by a neighbouring tenant [1]
whether potentially toxic lead pipes were used for the water supply to a property [2]
the amount of flytipped waste and litter collected from a housing association’s estates [3]
the number of repossession orders served since the ‘bedroom tax’ came into force, and the number of those tenants who had no arrears before that date [4]
the policy which permitted an association to pack up an evicted tenant’s possessions and confidential documents instead of allowing him to collect them [5]
the number of properties adapted for disabled persons (the requester said she wanted: ‘just the number, nothing else’) [6]
the number of asylum seekers housed [7]
the number of properties empty for more than 6 weeks [8]
the electricity bill which led a tenant to be charged £1,200 to cover the costs of 6 communal light bulbs [9]
the make and model of street lighting on an estate which the requester found ‘overpowering’ at night. He wanted to use the information to contact the manufacturer to see if they could suggest a remedy [10]
details of a contract for emptying septic tanks shared by a housing association and privately owned properties. The requester, a private owner, wanted to know the basis on which he was being charged [11]
the numbers of complaints about repairs [12]
the circumstances in which tenants have been given permission to sublet and action taken against those subletting without permission [13]
the policy on dealing with requests for an individual’s own personal information under the Data Protection Act and the relevant application form [14]
the job description of the housing association’s Head of Governance [15]

Such information is routinely disclosed by local authorities in response to FOI requests. Most of the above requests were made through the whatdotheyknow.com website and referred to the FOI Act. This prompted many housing associations to point out that the Act did not apply to them. This would not have prevented them releasing information voluntarily and the fact that they didn’t do so is revealing. Typical comments included: “We do not wish to reply to your enquiry as we are not subject to the FOIA legislation” (Midland Heart); “As Wirral Partnership Homes LTD does not fall under the Freedom of Information Act we are not obligated to respond to your enquiry”; “Great Places Housing Group is not a public body under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act and is not under any obligation to respond to requests made under this legislation”; “Our client is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and is therefore not obliged to answer a request made under that Act” (solicitor for Genesis Housing Group to a person who had been evicted)

"Public service contractors

The bill would also allow the public to see information held by contractors about public services they provide including social care, health, public transport, parking enforcement, school inspections and privately run prisons.

Information held by a contractor is only available under FOI where the contract entitles the public authority concerned to obtain that information from the contractor. Where the contract does not, the information is not accessible under FOI. Examples of contractor-held information refused under FOI include:

The number of complaints from the public against court security officers provided by G4S and the number of officers charged with offences.
the number of prison staff at HMP Birmingham and the number of attacks at the prison. Also held only by G4S.
information about rehabilitation projects at HMP Bronzefield, near Ashfield in Surrey, run by Sodexo.
the value of penalty fares issued on the London Overground and Docklands Light Railway by private sector inspectors.
the costs of bringing TV licensing prosecutions, which is held by Capita and not known to the BBC.
whistleblowing policies applying to Virgin Care staff providing NHS services.
the number of employees providing outsourced services for Brent Council employed on ‘zero hours’ contracts
the numbers of parking tickets issued, then cancelled on appeal, by Islington traffic wardens offered Argos points as incentives to issue tickets by NCP Ltd.

The bill would require contractors to supply authorities with information to answer FOI requests regardless of what the contract says. Public authorities would then be able and required to answer FOI requests made to them for information about their contracted out services as well as those which they provide directly.

Local Safeguarding Children Boards

These multi-agency bodies co-ordinate and develop policies for child protection in every local authority area but are not subject to FOI. They include representatives of social services, the police, the NHS, education bodies and others, but FOI requests to those bodies for information about a safeguarding board’s work are refused. The information is said to be held purely on behalf of the board itself and not used for the authority’s own purposes. Bringing safeguarding boards under FOI would allow more access to information about their work to deal with child abuse, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and the protection of children from extremism.

A draft of the Freedom of Information (Contractors Etc) Bill can be found here.
[1] Request made in July 2009 to Paddington Churches Housing Association, now part of Genesis Housing Group.

[2] Request in October 2012 to Genesis Housing Group

[3] Request in December 2016 to Great Places Housing Group

[4] Request in January 2014 to Yorkshire Housing

[5] Request in August 2012 to Genesis Housing Group.

[6] Request in March 2016 to Thirteen Group

[7] Request in September 2015 to Halton Housing Trust

[8] Request in September 2016 to Wirral Partnership Homes Ltd

[9] Request in May 2013 to Affinity Sutton

[10] Request in April 2014 to Peabody Trust

[11] Request in March 2017 to Amicus Horizon

[12] Request in October 2011 to Midland Heart

[13] Request in February 2015 to Place for People Group Ltd

[14] Request in May 2017 to Great Places Housing Group

[15] Request in 2011 to Peabody Trust. Job descriptions are regularly published when a job is advertised and not regarded as the post-holder’s personal information under the Data Protection"

the model seems to have shifted to that of housing the most in need and at this point those with antisocial behavior who are unable to function with the usual social restrictions are the ones that need the most help.

I don't think you're being unreasonable at all.

Five adults with problems are very likely to keep having problems in their new house and then also have other problems as a result of sharing a house!

Would you be able to move?

Just keep calling the police, every single time the law is broken. Eventually the owners will have to move.

Im really sorry OP that you're in this situation, and for the tenants - however bad their behaviour is - as the project sounds like it was set up to fail. Yes there are people who are difficult to house but the set up you describe sounds like a bog standard houseshare (eg no evening /weekend support) so it's taking the most complex clients who will attract the most money (payment by results) but scrimping on the service. I've worked in projects with people with very complex needs and would expect a detached house with some grounds around, with a night security/concierge on site it to mitigate some of the expected issues. Before anyone jumps on me for suggesting really fancy accommodation - the region where I work there are still lots of fairly run down but large victorian properties in the inner city that are used for this purpose.

YeTalkShiteHen i read the full thread and god you're embarrassing. You did shout loudly about people being a snob for being NIMBY. I dont believe everyone deserves a chance, some have exhausted the good will and money and energy from the general public like this arsonist. I'd rather they are not homed and something else that will get MNHQ deleting my post.

@Threadastaire - I don't think they should be housed anywhere near decent people.

I used to manage schemes like this 25 years ago and also 15 years ago the house next door to me was turned into council emergency accomadation.

Are there ever problems? Yes of course there are.

But not often - maybe an incident every couple of years and this tended to be noise or fighting- not something that directly affected my family or property
And you do have somewhere to take your complaints to where hopefully some notice will be taken. If nightmare neighbours move in and it's their own home you often have nowhere to turn.

YeTalkShiteHen i read the full thread and god you're embarrassing. You did shout loudly about people being a snob for being NIMBY. I dont believe everyone deserves a chance, some have exhausted the good will and money and energy from the general public like this arsonist. I'd rather they are not homed and something else that will get MNHQ deleting my post.

@yesyes - this and she still doesn't have the grace to admit she was wrong. All the other SJWs that were shouting people down are oddly silent now too. Your post may well be deleted that do gooders don't like to be challenged.

There was a south coast university that did this. Bought houses that came up for sale on roads near the campus and filled them with anarchic partying students.The nearby residents soon put houses up for sale which were bought by the university. Row of houses bulldozed, new uni building - bingo!

Libertarian I think you'd be surprised about some of the neighbourhoods this happens in.

I'm guessing fairly few are in Westminster.

My mother in law, bless her, is such a good woman and I adore her so much, but she is a Knightsbridge-based SJW and she loves this kind of shite.

She clucks when my husband and I complain about the festering heap of shite that is the string of HA flats around the corner from us in Zone 2, where they house all sorts of down-on-their-luck types.

There's drug dealing at all hours but mostly while I'm walking my dog at 6am, vile music, cider cans, vomit, etc. The mirrors were clipped out of our car 2 nights before we were due to drive to France - though they cost £1000 to replace they can be quickly sold for £15 which works well enough for a drug addict who will never face any consequences.

According to my MIL, we want only rich people in Fulham. Honestly, you can't make it up.

I'm suddenly wondering if what we've been living across the street from isn't simply a drug house but some kind of halfway house. There's drug dealing, drug users, shouting at all hours outside, and even when the police come no one ever gets arrested except the time one of them stabbed another one.

I know what the average rent is here and I've always wondered how they could afford that and drugs all while seeming to never go to work ever.