Really useful information, all the hard work you have put into producing this is much appreciated. Also one could use the freedom of information process to obtain updated or more specific details of the property types a particular person or family are eligible from the relevant council/s. This assumes that the question would not be likely to result in a hostile attitude from the housing team.
Absolutely, if more people requested this kind of info it might prompt councils to think about publishing much more on their website rather than get annoyed every time someone asks the housing officer the same question over and over again. Averages of those who have directly applied to Part 6 would also be very useful.
I’m currently been given the relief duty the 56 days is coming to an in the next week or so, the council said the 56 days is just a guiidnline and those no time set for when the relief duty ends
not if you're owed the main housing duty - the statutory Code of Guidance is very clear there is a time limit and that decisions should be made on day 57 after the relief duty started except where there are particularly complicated circumstances, in which case the council can take an additional 3 weeks.
At the end of my tether now. Too vulnerable to go into temp accom, local rates do not nearly cover rent costs, can't buy. Been tempted to let myself slip away in the cold. It would be so hard on my family but I really cannot cope anymore. Only 31 but my life is on hold. Feel worthless and degraded. Been like this since 2021. 😢 how to cope, how to survive? I don't know anymore.
@@FlabbyAbi have you thought about moving areas? If you apply for a college course in a different area or get a job there it means you have a need for housing in that area. Worth a try I know a few people who have done it.
Have a look at this video - priority need means something very specific and is different from medical priority / priority banding / priority points: ua-cam.com/video/uG6nHqj5JPA/v-deo.html
I'll do a video about how it works in practice. Basically, if you're homeless and approach Council 1 where you have no connection, but you do have a connection to Council 2 and it's safe for you to be in Council 2's district, legally, the Council must accept your homeless application, place you in emergency (interim) accommodation, carry out an assessment and create a PHP, and only then can they start the referral process to Council B. But pragmatically in this situation in most cases you'd be better off going straight to Council B. Have a look at this video for a bit more detail on when referrals go wrong: ua-cam.com/video/TbhYgurNXKQ/v-deo.html
I have issue with the term "fleeing domestic abuse"... The council give these mothers a house and the ability to essentially abduct children from their father. To be clear, councils are using tax payer money to finance a person who ALLEGES domestic abuse. If its not true (and its insane that councils let people self declare it) then the father and children are brutalised. Government should allow fathers to have a fair trial i stead of giving the mother a house to help her abuse a father with impunity.
Family courts get it wrong in a number of ways, but I'm not sure if there is a system that is gonna get it right 100% of the time and yes, it can be abused, but much of the legislation is based on serious case reviews where people came to serious harm when there was reason to believe they were at risk of abuse. If you have suggestions you'd be surprised how much impact you can have if you raise them in local authority public meetings with constructive solutions. Councils have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that someone is at risk for the main duty to kick in, so I don't think it's accurate to say that the current system gives impunity to the mother, though I'm sure public authorities do get it wrong. but as I say, where there is so much risk involved and it's so complex, it's impossible to get it right every time.
@homelessnessbestpractice it absolutely does give impunity to the mother here's how: Local authorities are housing parents who have "dependant children". Domestic abuse claims merely bolster the application. Even without the domestic abuse claim local authorities will still provide housing if they have "dependant children". 1) Do you know how the council determines whether the parent has dependant children? (I do, I'm interested if you know). 2) do you know what residential interest that parent will get upon signing the tenancy agreement? 3) crucially....do you know how often the parents need to have the children?
If you make absolute statements like 'mothers have impunity' people will stop listening, even if there is some truth in what you're saying. I have worked with male victims of domestic abuse where the law has rightfully protected them and their children. So making blanket statements weakens your voice at best, and damages your credibility with the officers who have a huge amount of largely unchecked power at worse and can even reinforce their incorrect opinions. Housing law in regards to domestic abuse does not favour the mother, even if individual housing officers / social workers might do. Anyone who states they are at risk of abuse, male or female, must be taken seriously and the initial duty to rehouse temporarily is a low threshold to get them somewhere safe, but the council then has to carry out it's own inquiries. Family court proceedings are part of that assessment but it's not authoritative and often the courts won't be involved at all - housing officers make their own assessments. Councils have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities who is the victim. This obviously involves very difficult assessments of very complex relationships, and even the best officers will get it wrong. As I say, the current legislation is designed to minimise harm. If you can offer coherent, specific ways in how the assessment process could be more accurate you can push for improvements with your local council's policies. To try to answer your questions: 1. Some councils decide who the main carer is and thus who gets priority need by who gets the child benefit claim, but that's unlawful. They should look at who provides the care the majority of the time if the parents are separated. 2. Could you elaborate what you mean by this? 3. There's no set amount of time. Family court judges have been criticised by housing judges for trying to set out how the care of the children should be shared between parents and housing authorities can disregard such instructions - family court judges shouldn't be doing it.
@@homelessnessbestpractice I appreciate your fully thought out response. But in my view councils are hurting children as they don't speak to the other parent. In my case the council gave my ex a homeless duty and she asked for the child benefit I was recieving to get more bedrooms. I was also homeless as I had to move into my parents house. About a year earlier my ex had given a cabin we had built on someone's land to the landowner. At the time only shd could live in it as it was tied to her job (I was the spouse and dependants). So I figured I could move near her when I get somewhere closer. However my ex asked for me not to work when I had the children and also complained that my house was too small...I rented a room in a farmhouse. In the private rental sector... I started having my children 6 days a fortnight and my ex had them 8 but I managed to sort my work so I could have my children every other week. My ex disagreed and put a maintenance claim in: My ex said she had rent of (around) £465 per month plus bills etc and I should contribute to her. And I thought "why would I pay a homeless person to house the children"? And so I went to my MP and asked what was going on...he said she was the main carer because she gets the benefits. And so I asked him how he determined father's had agreed to mother's being the main carer or whether mothers were harbouring children to get housing and maintenance... I said if would be far simpler for me to pay for all of her house since I was the one who was made homeless by her actions. He told me to go to court. I eventually got her to agree to equal shared care but the court took 20 months to get anywhere...and what l learned is that it's a mechanism to control father's. Whenever they house a mother, the do so in a way that breaches the equality act and by displacing the fathers income. It's brutal. Not a single parent should be signing tenancies for housing until the law changes to recognise children are equally and jointly responsible for children; and for abuse allegations to be heard in a criminal court instead of the privacy of the family court. After a house is given the court have an implied requirement to act in the financial interest of government, not children. It's there purely to put father's under the auspices of court orders.
It's such a great video .. very informative
Glad it helped
Thank you for all you have done I hope you know how much help you and the guys truly are 😊
Really useful information, all the hard work you have put into producing this is much appreciated.
Also one could use the freedom of information process to obtain updated or more specific details of the property types a particular person or family are eligible from the relevant council/s. This assumes that the question would not be likely to result in a hostile attitude from the housing team.
Absolutely, if more people requested this kind of info it might prompt councils to think about publishing much more on their website rather than get annoyed every time someone asks the housing officer the same question over and over again. Averages of those who have directly applied to Part 6 would also be very useful.
Thanks for this great information 🙏
I’m currently been given the relief duty the 56 days is coming to an in the next week or so, the council said the 56 days is just a guiidnline and those no time set for when the relief duty ends
not if you're owed the main housing duty - the statutory Code of Guidance is very clear there is a time limit and that decisions should be made on day 57 after the relief duty started except where there are particularly complicated circumstances, in which case the council can take an additional 3 weeks.
At the end of my tether now. Too vulnerable to go into temp accom, local rates do not nearly cover rent costs, can't buy. Been tempted to let myself slip away in the cold. It would be so hard on my family but I really cannot cope anymore. Only 31 but my life is on hold. Feel worthless and degraded. Been like this since 2021. 😢 how to cope, how to survive? I don't know anymore.
Don't give up.
@@FlabbyAbi have you thought about moving areas? If you apply for a college course in a different area or get a job there it means you have a need for housing in that area. Worth a try I know a few people who have done it.
Wow 👌 thank you for this
Are the numbers the same for those with priority needs?
Have a look at this video - priority need means something very specific and is different from medical priority / priority banding / priority points: ua-cam.com/video/uG6nHqj5JPA/v-deo.html
Great video. ❤
Whats yonstop people hust moving to another council but dont they have to have local connections 🤔
I'll do a video about how it works in practice. Basically, if you're homeless and approach Council 1 where you have no connection, but you do have a connection to Council 2 and it's safe for you to be in Council 2's district, legally, the Council must accept your homeless application, place you in emergency (interim) accommodation, carry out an assessment and create a PHP, and only then can they start the referral process to Council B. But pragmatically in this situation in most cases you'd be better off going straight to Council B. Have a look at this video for a bit more detail on when referrals go wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/TbhYgurNXKQ/v-deo.html
I have issue with the term "fleeing domestic abuse"...
The council give these mothers a house and the ability to essentially abduct children from their father.
To be clear, councils are using tax payer money to finance a person who ALLEGES domestic abuse.
If its not true (and its insane that councils let people self declare it) then the father and children are brutalised.
Government should allow fathers to have a fair trial i stead of giving the mother a house to help her abuse a father with impunity.
Family courts get it wrong in a number of ways, but I'm not sure if there is a system that is gonna get it right 100% of the time and yes, it can be abused, but much of the legislation is based on serious case reviews where people came to serious harm when there was reason to believe they were at risk of abuse. If you have suggestions you'd be surprised how much impact you can have if you raise them in local authority public meetings with constructive solutions.
Councils have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that someone is at risk for the main duty to kick in, so I don't think it's accurate to say that the current system gives impunity to the mother, though I'm sure public authorities do get it wrong. but as I say, where there is so much risk involved and it's so complex, it's impossible to get it right every time.
@homelessnessbestpractice it absolutely does give impunity to the mother here's how:
Local authorities are housing parents who have "dependant children". Domestic abuse claims merely bolster the application. Even without the domestic abuse claim local authorities will still provide housing if they have "dependant children".
1) Do you know how the council determines whether the parent has dependant children? (I do, I'm interested if you know).
2) do you know what residential interest that parent will get upon signing the tenancy agreement?
3) crucially....do you know how often the parents need to have the children?
And councils aren't giving claimants housing after a family court order...
They give them because of something else
If you make absolute statements like 'mothers have impunity' people will stop listening, even if there is some truth in what you're saying. I have worked with male victims of domestic abuse where the law has rightfully protected them and their children. So making blanket statements weakens your voice at best, and damages your credibility with the officers who have a huge amount of largely unchecked power at worse and can even reinforce their incorrect opinions.
Housing law in regards to domestic abuse does not favour the mother, even if individual housing officers / social workers might do. Anyone who states they are at risk of abuse, male or female, must be taken seriously and the initial duty to rehouse temporarily is a low threshold to get them somewhere safe, but the council then has to carry out it's own inquiries. Family court proceedings are part of that assessment but it's not authoritative and often the courts won't be involved at all - housing officers make their own assessments. Councils have to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities who is the victim. This obviously involves very difficult assessments of very complex relationships, and even the best officers will get it wrong. As I say, the current legislation is designed to minimise harm. If you can offer coherent, specific ways in how the assessment process could be more accurate you can push for improvements with your local council's policies.
To try to answer your questions:
1. Some councils decide who the main carer is and thus who gets priority need by who gets the child benefit claim, but that's unlawful. They should look at who provides the care the majority of the time if the parents are separated.
2. Could you elaborate what you mean by this?
3. There's no set amount of time. Family court judges have been criticised by housing judges for trying to set out how the care of the children should be shared between parents and housing authorities can disregard such instructions - family court judges shouldn't be doing it.
@@homelessnessbestpractice
I appreciate your fully thought out response.
But in my view councils are hurting children as they don't speak to the other parent.
In my case the council gave my ex a homeless duty and she asked for the child benefit I was recieving to get more bedrooms. I was also homeless as I had to move into my parents house. About a year earlier my ex had given a cabin we had built on someone's land to the landowner. At the time only shd could live in it as it was tied to her job (I was the spouse and dependants).
So I figured I could move near her when I get somewhere closer.
However my ex asked for me not to work when I had the children and also complained that my house was too small...I rented a room in a farmhouse. In the private rental sector...
I started having my children 6 days a fortnight and my ex had them 8 but I managed to sort my work so I could have my children every other week. My ex disagreed and put a maintenance claim in:
My ex said she had rent of (around) £465 per month plus bills etc and I should contribute to her.
And I thought "why would I pay a homeless person to house the children"?
And so I went to my MP and asked what was going on...he said she was the main carer because she gets the benefits.
And so I asked him how he determined father's had agreed to mother's being the main carer or whether mothers were harbouring children to get housing and maintenance...
I said if would be far simpler for me to pay for all of her house since I was the one who was made homeless by her actions.
He told me to go to court.
I eventually got her to agree to equal shared care but the court took 20 months to get anywhere...and what l learned is that it's a mechanism to control father's.
Whenever they house a mother, the do so in a way that breaches the equality act and by displacing the fathers income. It's brutal. Not a single parent should be signing tenancies for housing until the law changes to recognise children are equally and jointly responsible for children; and for abuse allegations to be heard in a criminal court instead of the privacy of the family court. After a house is given the court have an implied requirement to act in the financial interest of government, not children. It's there purely to put father's under the auspices of court orders.
The council who have no figures for 2,3,4 bed homes answer to u due to a friend’s experience I know is not accurate
which council?
@ Waverley