Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think if you're sacked from your job, you don't get to keep the accommodation provided with the job?

189 replies

user1490607838 · 14/02/2020 14:49

Just that really! A man who worked in a school (as caretaker) for 17 years, has been sacked, and he and his wife are now 'sobbing' because they have nowhere to go!

Whilst it can't be easy to have to move out of the property you have raised your family in, surely they must have known that if he ever lost his job, the accommodation would have gone with it?!

They are trying to make out he was 'unfairly sacked' as he was finished from his job whilst on sick leave. But they have been asked to leave the home several times, and in the end had to be forced out

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-sobs-we-nothing-family-21489077

AIBU to think they shouldn't expect to keep the home provided with the job, when the job finishes?

OP posts:
hallamoo · 15/02/2020 10:49

YappityYapYap - The original school closed, but re-opened as an Academy - it's still there. Staff who were in post at the time would've been protected by TUPE and their employment transferred to the new academy.

Nothing sinister, he was sacked for gross misconduct!

SchadenfreudePersonified · 15/02/2020 10:50

Having worked for councils most of my life, you don’t get sacked for gross misconduct on a whim

I'd agree here - I've worked for councils, too - believe me, the unions are red-hot. Getting rid of someone for anything less than murder is pretty difficult.

Whatever he did, it wasn't trivial.

SW16 · 15/02/2020 10:52

He would have had plenty of scope for fighting his dismissal for Gross Misconduct if he had a good case. Union support (as a council employee), and no win no fee lawyer. Or lawyer provided by his insurance if he had it.

That would have been his first line if defence to keep his home, surely? Leaving him eligible for redundancy in due course. Surely you would fight dismissal tooth and nail if you had a case and your job and home depended on it?

However, it seems his dismissal was not successfully contested, so....

karencantobe · 15/02/2020 10:55

Perhaps he did deserve to get sacked.
But I have worked for councils and seen people got rid of for being off ill.

FabulouslyElegantTits · 15/02/2020 10:57

Did anyone else comment on the page? There is absolutely NO negatives or suggestions of how to help themselves - they must just delete them immediately

It's 'Homeless family of 6' @anon

mrsBtheparker · 15/02/2020 10:59

I think the way the council has done it has been harsh

No it isn't, why should the local rate payers provide subsidised accommodation for them? As for 'little notice'. they've had years of notice.

I don't know the current practice but years ago if a soldier died, even on active service, his family had only a short time to vacate their quarter. That always seemed very harsh and I hope someone will tell me it's different now.

YappityYapYap · 15/02/2020 11:04

The council seem unwilling to state what this gross misconduct was though so until they do, you can't just say that all councils do things by the book and none of this is on shaky grounds. Most secondary schools don't have live in caretakers. They had no job to offer him so sacking him was a huge benefit to them not having to pay someone 17 years of redundancy and being able to get market value for the house. Live in caretakers of primary schools is also being phased out.

It doesn't matter if you've worked for the council for years or not. Just because you personally haven't experienced something, it doesn't mean it doesn't go on. The timing of it all just seems convenient. I wouldn't be happy either if I felt I had been unfairly dismissed and along with that, I lost my home. None of you would either but you're all on here calling them CF's when he was suddenly sacked from a job of 17 years and we don't even know why. If you were sacked from your job of 17 years months before the council obviously couldn't offer you a job in it's place, you'd be thinking something very odd was going on and you'd perhaps been screwed over. They'll never be challenged over it though because they're claiming gross misconduct. Whatever this 'gross misconduct' was, it hasn't stopped him getting another job!

I've seen it many times, people conveniently being laid off when big changes are happening. The council are not exempt from not doing things by the book, especially when they have budgets and targets to meet

Kirkman · 15/02/2020 11:12

@YappityYapYap the council cant say what he did.

Surely ig he really thought he was unfairly dismissed that's what he would eb saying. He lost his home because they unfairly sacked him?

Yet, he didnt he lied in the newspaper article saying it was ill health.

Emmelina · 15/02/2020 11:13

He’s had plenty of time to find somewhere else. We’re not talking about getting sacked on Friday and expecting the cottage empty for his replacement by Monday!

Cyberve · 15/02/2020 11:16

Of course they spent it all! Otherwise they wouldn’t be in a grotty hotel somewhere.

I meant that they could have put it in a pension or something too. But yeah they'll have spent it all.

I bet back 10 years ago they could have bought some massive house that is now worth a hell of a lot more. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hope the tiaras were worth it.

YappityYapYap · 15/02/2020 11:17

He is saying exactly that, that he was unfairly dismissed and lost his home in the process. The article says he was sacked and unfairly in his view because he was off sick at the time

bobstersmum · 15/02/2020 11:22

I'm not surprised they are mad they're not going to find alternative accommodation for that price (89 a month!)
Can't say I think it's unfair though, the house belongs to the job.

YouStupidBoy · 15/02/2020 11:25

@mrsBtheparker I think it's 2 years now with the death in service of the person.

x2boys · 15/02/2020 11:34

Than ,he's possibly manipulated the truth, yappity I have never worked for a local.authority but I did work for the NHS I imagine they have similar policies ,it's not uncommon for people to.to "off sick" when they are suspended for gross misconduct .

LunaAzul · 15/02/2020 11:39

They are also on Twitter @6homeless - she thinks they should be able to stay in their house as they put in a pond and the net curtains are theirs...

DH is military, I got sick of moving and knowing that whatever changes I made to a house it wasn't my own and I would have to give it up so we bought.

FabulouslyElegantTits · 15/02/2020 11:47

It's crazy!! There are 4 adults - can they nit just rent somewhere like everybody else does?? I don't actually 'get it'

mrsBtheparker · 15/02/2020 11:49

@mrsBtheparker I think it's 2 years now with the death in service of the person.

Thank you, that seems for more compassionate, my experience is going back over 30 years.

Panpastels · 15/02/2020 12:07

In my experience it is very difficult to get rid of an employee within local authorities if they are permanent staff and worked there for some time. One of my work colleagues has been off sick for YEARS (goes back for a few days every so often) and they are only just in the final stage of HR proceedings.

Panpastels · 15/02/2020 12:09

....and she thinks she is being treated unfairly and I guarantee when she is eventually dismissed she will say it's unlawful Hmm

bruffin · 15/02/2020 12:16

He did try to appeal the sacking but didnt get his appeal in time, he tried to appeal that but the judge said he needed to sue his solicitor.
He may have been dismissed for taking too much time off, I think that comes under gross misconduct. But they havent been evicted with an hours notice. There are 4 adults in the household even if they got to stay surely they should pay market rate not £89

ginghamstarfish · 15/02/2020 12:28

Cheeky twats. Taking legal action to make the cheap rental situation continue as long as possible. The council tax payers there must be thrilled that so much of their money has gone on this instead of actual needed services.

JudyCoolibar · 15/02/2020 12:56

@YappittyYapYap, the Law Report says he was sacked for gross misconduct, and you can be sure the judge saw documentary proof of that. There’s no suggestion that he challenged the dismissal. The very fact that he doesn’t mention the real facts in the article speaks volumes. As people have pointed out, it’s really pretty difficult for a council to sack someone, so trying to suggest there was something wrong with the sacking is really clutching at straws

FabulouslyElegantTits · 15/02/2020 12:58

Ha! Someone's posted asking why they can't privately rent ... how long until it goes 💨

bruffin · 15/02/2020 13:16

to be fair he did try to appeal for the loss of his job but as said before I dont have much sympathy for present position

SchadenfreudePersonified · 15/02/2020 13:26

The article says he was sacked and unfairly in his view because he was off sick at the time

He may have been off sick - it doesn't mean that that was why he was sacked.

When people have committed a serious (sackable) offence, they very often go off sick to try to avoid the repercussions.

(But I'd love to know what he did.)