To think this woman should not rely on the council?

[tessofthedurbervilles]

A woman I got chatting to disclosed that her and her five kids were going to be evicted from her house due to complaints from neighbours about their anti social behaviour. Her whole attitude was one of it being someone elses' fault and responsibilty 'the council won't rehouse me' how dare they.
Nobody with 5 kids should be thrown out on to the street but her whole attitude was that her and her brood were someone else's responsibility.
I suggested she look for somewhere pdq but she looked at me blankly and said 'if I sleep in my car and the press get wind of it they will have to do something'
Is it me? AIBU to think your kids, love, your problem....move over Jeremy Kyle..I'm after your job!

ANyway to the OP

YANBU with the header title of the thread

OTOH sadly the kids 8are* entitled, as children, to rely on society of which the council is designated rerpesentative in these situations

There is no perfect answer is there. This family will have worked hard to get evicted. It takes ages and the least little effort on the part of the family will cause it to be put off indefinitely.

And yes it is hard on the kids, but as others have said you have to consider the kids who live next door too.

Perhaps the only good outcome (aside from the neighbours getting back to a normal life) is that the next problem family might hear about it and make some small effort to control themselves and their kids.

They should not be re-housed as far as I am concerned. Flame away if you wish.

For them to be in a position where they are being evicted they would have had to be causing a huge amount of trouble. We are not just talking about throwing stone shouting and swearing etc. and it would have been constant for years.

The family will be well known to all the local agencies and they will have been getting the extra help and support they are entitled to/need, well they will have been offered it anyway. Whether this is taken up or not is another question.

I am sick to death of hearing that a mother of 5 children isn't capable/doesn't have the time to be looking for somewhere to live. This is tosh, of course it is possible.

This lady is the only one making her children homeless, only her actions or inactions have got her where she is. She is more than capable of sourcing private accomodation like many others. If she CHOOSES not to then she is making her family homeless.

Yes she is jac absolutely right

So what then? We cannot allow her to do this

AS for offerd help, you're joking yes? have you ever had dealing with SS? I ahve, from a Sn perspective: it ain't there.

If the woman has mental health ior SN issues they need dealing with.

if not then very probably at this moment she shouldn't have care for her children.

That is a fair given IMO

What happens then though is the awful thing- the mess that si the care system etc. It should be a refuge, it's not

If we are saying that the woman herself is either a criminal or mentally unfit then in both cases we would be justified in removing the children from her care and giving them at least some chance of a normal life (I've been in care so I know how bad that can be sometimes)

If you do that as a temporary thing though you could find that in effect you are babysitting for her while she carries on as she was.

I don't see any reason she shouldn't be made homeless, but perhaps it would be fairer to treat it as a criminal offence rather than as a breach of the tenancy.

The reason I say that is that if you are a council tenent and you abuse your neighbour who owns their own house you will be evicted. But if someone who owns their own house abuses their council tenant neighbour they will not.

Arresting people regardless of their income level for abusing neighbours would be better.

Woul;dn't that depend on mental health isue if found though?

If for example she was found to hve a treatable disorder, one controllable with meds? Quite possible, then it really would be temp care; however if she were found to have something mroesevere it'd be lifelong care plus possibly even hospitalisatioj for Mum, as she certainly cannot care for herself whatever outcome. Alcohol / drugs same thing.

I agree about the council tenant stuff; we've ahd a nightmare with home owner next door and nothing we can do. At the same though there's an argument that a tenant behaving so would liekly also be damaging the home- and a council has a duty of care to all residents which doesn't exist within the private sector.

yanbu...i think these people should be housed on an island somewhere, let them all annoy each other.

A friend of mine's father runs a school for severely disruptive teenagers who have been repeatedly kicked out of mainstream education. It's basically trying to keep them out of jail for a few more years, but: many of them have been helped. They are in a stable environment with the resources there to help them. But, the government decided that it was pointless sponsoring them until they're 18, and decided that they wanted to stop sponsorhip at 16. So, these boys would turn 16, have to be sent from the school, given some money, a council flat and directions to the nearest job centre. Completely barking.

Peachy, yeah good points. The 'damaging the home' thing IS a tenancy breach so that should stay as it is.

The neighbour thing should be criminal law and things like excessive noise are a bit of both so they'd be prosecuted under the law AND be faced with the possibility of eviction as two seperate things. Just like if you get arrested for dangerous driving you can also lose your driving job.

The welfare of the kids is important, but would not be a reason to stop criminal charges.

Oh I agre Riven but I woudnt say the kids desefve help less than anyopjne because with this thread the key is not knowing

The kids could easily all be tiny
Mental health status of mum

etc

If this tgread was reposted with theb situation 'The lady next door is losing her home but is a single Mum of five under 7 with manic depression that mean she struggles with self care and causes an nuisance to us neighbours' most of us would be aghast.

So whsilt the scrote mentality family with a home full of feral teens is also a possible outcome, it is ahrd to comdemn at this stage.

Peachy I have huge amounts of dealings with SS and have seen the good and the bad.

I also have massive amounts of experience in families being evicted for terrorising neighbourhoods.

I still stand by everything I say.

This woman is not going to be homeless if she pulls her finger out and gets a private rental for her and the kids end of story.

I don't understand the issue.

About renting privately has anyone actually seen a landlord that takes people on benefits? Never mind the cost which most can't afford.

There was a long topic here on MN by people who are landlords about why they really can't rent to people who claim housing benefit (which includes some working people). In many cases the insurance won't cover them if they do so in effect it's illegal.

Plus some of the usual "well we don't want those kind of people..." but mostly it was because they can't.

Exactly Onager

Only reason we're not going to be homeless is our landlady inherited the house we're in

I too have masses of experience of SS_ both through old job and as a parent of 2 SN children. I've seen dedication and hard work- and almost always completely ruined by tiny budgets / over work / lack of manpower.

'About renting privately has anyone actually seen a landlord that takes people on benefits? Never mind the cost which most can't afford.'

Yes, that's really something to consider when the council is going through the lengthy process of evicting such a tenant.

It's not an overnight process or even as easy a one as for private tenants.

The council has to demonstrate to a court why this entire family needed to be evicted.

You know, there are three agencies in our village: none of them take HB claimants. Ever. That's really quite scary if someone loes their job (often through no fault after all, esp. atm). bad enough losing your home- been there- but if the kids have to lose school, friends etc as well that's awful.

I think the tenancy laws here suck, but that's a whole 'nother thread and it's not the first time by far I've bitched about British tenancy laws.

No really Exp?

Think it is relevant tbh: a council has a duty of care.They need to know to what they are pushing someone. FAir enough if it forces them off their ass and into the to rent section; very different if it forces them into a cardboard box.

I was thinking yesterday about a lady I used to know (now long dead), she could easily ahve been the lady in the OP- she used to wander from house to house thretening people, swearing etc. Very aggressive. She died at 49 from early onset dementia, trhe behaviours had been as result of that.

She was lucky to have had a supportive family but without it- well she'd have been unanble to respond to letters etc, yet becuse of her dx would ahve appeared at time also to have been 'NT' (I think IIRC it was the cancer that killed her, battle between the two tvbh, which got her first)

I guess thats why I have some elvel of wariness to condemn, having seen the other side in the parent of a loved one.

The council also has a duty of care to tenants whose lives have been made hell by anti-social tenant.

I realise that some have mental issues, but MANY are just, well, anti-social.

And it blights other peoples' lives and has even caused murder (not to mention property damage).

Why is it always, 'Oh, poor thing, she was mental and didn't get support'?

There's a chance that's true, there's an equal chance she had other council organisations trying to help and continued to behave in a fashion that was anti-social and may have put peoples' lives and health at risk.

So we spare her and her family and everyone else just has to put up with it?

Then we wonder why people have huge senses of entitlement and no one wants to live on certain estates?

she sounds like the type of person who gives single parents bad press, do all her kids have diff fathers !! sorry to stereo type I know that is not always the case. The fact she is being moved on suggests she is trouble, unfortuantly people like her seem to know how to work the system, ie sleeping in the car and involving the press. It is really unfair on the genuine single or 2 parent families who just want to provide for their familes as best they can but need a bit of support at certain times.

Well, that's a good point, tooty. So she gets rehoused and some other lone parent who may have had just as hard a life but doesn't break the law gets to spend more time in overcrowded housing or in a B&B.

I mean, how mentally ill or in need of 'support' are you if you know how to work the system the way she was planning to?

they get rehoused most of the time anyway.

Well no Exp- but then e do get back to the central debate; what do we do?

And actually the answer here is who knows? far too little ijnfo to make an accurate judgemnt; just as you cannot assume MH etc you can't just write it out.

I wonder if all councils have tenancy support workers? used to be a sorta midway between homestart and housing. Seemed to have some results at this sort of thing. IIRC the ohter thing that worked was moving trouble makers away but that may be as often these problems escalate don't they? neighbour A upsets B who winds up c who has already had a barney with A's MIL.....you know it goes!

If all this has been applied, and Lady still cannot maintain a decent tenancy with acceptable behaviours then backl to the start- she's out, kids elsewhere. Desirable no, but needs must as you say, in the care of all others.

Just, my experience is of how often the stuff that can be done is either missed otr left to late, or indeed left to tenant to sort out (here's a letter informiing younof your rights, except obviously nobody ah asked if you can read it.... when DH had severe depression our home was 50% council owned and he would not read letters and council refused to deal with me at all even with GP letter).

So I am not anti the ahrdline, just in favour of doing everything to rpevent it first.

Oh and I thought alst night, I'm not sure the entitlement culture is the right phrase. I'm entitled to support. why? Because I paid in NI as long as I was able to work. No, I personally think the issue isn't so much entitlement as a willingmess to accept dependancy. If dh loses his job we will work as ahrd as we can to ensure that the deopendancy is kept as short as possible as we hate it. indeed, Dh already ahs his small hobby buiness allplugged inr eady to go for 16 hours- we'll still need TC's etc to survicve, even HB, but we'lll also pay a bit back even though not much and we will put massive amounts into it to try and ensure that if he doesn't get a job quickly then it atkes over instead.

Whys oemone would be willing to forfeit that independance without a care is truly beyond me.