To think that if you commit to providing refugees with a roof over their head, you should not be allowed to sling them straight out again?

[IncompleteSenten]

tdpelmedia.com/the-identity-of-the-heartless-landlord-kicking-out-a-ukrainian-family-of-nine-has-been-revealed

Obviously there are situations where instant removal is required - abuse, assault etc.

But generally, if nothing has put people at risk, and particularly when the roof over their heads is actually a separate dwelling as in this case, you should not be allowed to give them a month to get out with no reason. Just - fuck off, we're turning off the internet, piss off out of that house.

I’d be interested to see the other side…

Agree. Two sides to every story. The landlord lives next door. Speaks volumes to me.

my thoughts exactly

I'd also be interested to hear the other side.

Impossible to form an opinion when the story is told from only one side. And as the quote from neighbours claims they don’t understand, as the host family are lovely people, then I’d say that makes it even more likely this isn’t as portrayed.

I feel the other side to this story would be interesting.

Definitely two sides to every story.

We have no idea what's going on here. Perhaps the family of 9 are an absolute nightmare with noise, drinking, smoking and are distressing the owners wh live next door or perhaps the owners have to urgently sell up.

I suspect it's not a simple tale.

I would like to hear the other side of the story before making a judgement.
We don't know what has happened yet the property owner is being portrayed as an ogre.
As an aside, the refugee's are only supposed to be here as a temporary measure, yet the man states they will never return to Ukraine. ( I was lead to understand that no makes under the age of 60 could leave, so how did a 36 year old manage to? )
Plus nine people in a two bed property was never going to be ideal.
There's a lot more to this than we're being told.

Led, not lead

You don't know the other side. Seeing the photos and knowing it's a two bedroomed bungalow... I wonder how many people were supposed to be living there when the landlord agreed to this. Bearing in mind the experiences of MN's who have taken in refugees, and my own experience, I don't think the council would have approved this as accommodation for that many people.

I am also looking at 5 people in a 2 bed... there is more to this.

Why are you blasting off when you clearly don't know the other side?? Or did you just want to be goady. Very glaringly, 9 people in a 2 bed tells you that is a massive problem in itself. Can you really not think of a single issue?

I think people are trying to do the right thing, and it doesn’t always work out.

We only know half the story though so it's impossible to judge

I've just looked at the article - 2 parents and 5 children - have I missed something? That's only 7.

I feel there is another side to this story. The five people in two bed stands out. I am shocked that the newspaper published so many personal details of the couple without knowing the full story. Poor journalism.

We had to have a council home inspection before being approved for hosting.

There is no way that a council would agree to 9 (or 7) people in a 2 bed bungalow.

Something definitely doesn't add up.

@Littlefish both mother in laws.

Apparently the dad is there because there's a rule that 4+ children permits him to leave Ukraine to help raise them.

I donated this morning and looked briefly at a few comments about this case - it appears that the landlord didn’t ‘kick them out’, but the council ordered him to remove them as the small home was deemed unsuitable.

How strange that the Ukrainian man was allowed to leave Ukraine. I thought all men had to stay behind and fight. Just as strange is listing the credentials of the homeowner but not having a statement from them, only from a neighbour. Also weird to have the word heartless in " ".

Most definitely an article thats hinting at things it cannot say, so don't take the article at face value.

I'm cynical about all the coverage this story is getting and the way it is being presented.

There could be valid reasons why it didn't work. There could be reasons why it's no longer possible for the hosts. Or there could be mean, fickle hosts deciding to evict a family for no reason. But this story in all its iterations doesn't tell us which it is.

There were always going to be issues with the half-baked way the Government introduced this scheme. Housing traumatised refugees needed much more infrastructure than the government was prepared to provide.

There are two sides to every story and the landlord hasn't shared theirs.

So you can't judge when you don't know the whole story.

Quoting from an online source:

’According to the requirements of the legislation, restrictions on crossing the border to leave Ukraine do not apply to individuals in this category, in particular:

• who raise three or more children under the age of 18;

• who raise a child (children) under the age of 18 on their own;

• dependent on a child with a disability under the age of 18 or an adult child who is a person with a disability of the I or II group, until he/she reaches 23 years of age;‘

As you can see at least 2 of the above apply.

I assumed that was to help the lone parent but there are another two adults apparently who would help raise the 5 children. Either way it still doesn't negate the rest of the weirdness.