Grace L
After two and a half years in temporary accommodation, Thomas and Alice (not their real names) are appealing to Hastings Council to give them and their young child a secure home.
Unlike other homeless families in temporary accommodation who are on the waiting list for social housing and can bid for places as they become available, Thomas and Alice are not eligible for social housing because Hastings council say they are ‘intentionally homeless’. Their temporary accommodation is paid for by the social services department at East Sussex County Council.
Tenants in temporary accommodation have no tenancy rights and Thomas and Alice are now also facing possible eviction by their temporary housing landlord, Roost. Roost has given them a final warning that they are not keeping their flat tidy enough and incredibly, as confirmed by Social Services, this is legitimate grounds for immediate eviction. Thomas described his terrifying conversation with a social worker after they received this ‘final warning’ about what would happen if they were evicted. The social worker said, in the presence of their 6 year old daughter, that the council would only rehouse their daughter “on her own” i.e. take her into foster care.
This is not hyperbole. This is not sensationalism. A young couple could literally lose their daughter because their landlord wants them to keep their flat tidier.
So a family with no previous involvement with social services, where there has never been any suggestion of any risk of abuse or neglect, has been threatened that their daughter will be taken away from them simply because they don’t have a secure home.
The very idea of it would make your blood run cold. Yet it is the logical next step in a situation that is an entirely dystopian farce. Thomas and Alice have been forced to claim legal aid to challenge Hastings council’s decision not to house them. And Hastings council in turn is paying lawyers to defend their decision in a court case which has now dragged on for nearly 18 months and nobody knows when the courts will have time to schedule a final hearing. All the while, another public body, the county council, pays a private company to house them and further public resources are expended on monitoring this family by an overstretched social services department, even though the only risk to the child comes from the possibility of that same private landlord making the child homeless again.
The stress of living in this legal limbo is completely debilitating and destructive, and with no end in sight, housing campaigners are planning to go with Thomas to Hastings Council on Thursday 28 August at 10am to demand that the council give this family a stable future.
Thomas and his supporters met with the council over a month ago and Chris Hancock, head of housing, promised to look into their case. But the council has written this week to say they are not prepared to end the legal action or allow them to bid for social housing because the council ‘believes there is merit in defending [their] decision’.
Alice is a student and Thomas, who is autistic, is a full time carer for Alice because she is also disabled. Because they are reliant on benefits to pay their rent they have been unable to find any private landlord willing to rent to them. They have recently linked up with other people to set up a housing co-op in a bid to try to take control of their housing situation but this is obviously not a quick fix. The public money spent on their temporary accommodation in the past two and a half years totals almost £50,000, which could no doubt have been put to much better use buying a property for a housing co-op.
The story of how Thomas and Alice ended up ‘intentionally’ homeless highlights the difficulties that vulnerable people encounter in getting the right support when they live in private rented accommodation. They suffered abuse and harassment from neighbours, including being threatened with a knife just for complaining about noise and aggressive behaviour, which was repeatedly ignored by the police, the council, and their landlord. As they struggled to cope with this they got into rent arrears as they literally tried to run away from it all by staying out of their home, all day, every day. Eviction was the crisis that forced the council to step in and rehouse them. But as long as the case remains in legal limbo they are only subject to scrutiny meetings with social workers, rather than any practical support to get them into proper secure housing which would undoubtedly be best for their daughter and themselves.
This is not just a waste of public money, time, and resources. It’s a cruel system that punishes people, especially those with disabilities and mental health problems, for ‘failing’ at maintaining private tenancies. Living in insecure housing perpetuates mental health hardship and passes this trauma, instability and insecurity onto the next generation.
Hastings council could simply accept the legal case put forward by their solicitor that Hastings Council was wrong to define them as ‘intentionally homeless’ – because the reason they got into rent arrears was due to their disabilities making them unable to cope with their situation, rather than a deliberate refusal to pay. The council doesn’t need to wait for a legal hearing to do that. They could just accept a housing duty towards them now and help them get into secure housing. Who wins if they don’t?
Living so long in temporary housing has been a huge cause of stress for the family. The private companies like Roost who profit from renting substandard accommodation to the council for homeless families, impose what Thomas describes as “a regime of being watched and scrutinised”. Temporary tenants can be evicted without notice for any reason and Thomas believes that the reason they have been given a warning to evict them is because they have repeatedly complained about disrepair and unsafe conditions such as a window which is nailed shut and other windows which don’t shut properly at all. Thomas described how staff from Roost come in fortnightly without notice to carry out inspections – “they point out ‘there’s lot of laundry there’ but ignore the buckets on the floor to catch water from a leak that they hadn’t fixed”!
Thomas has previously suffered from depression and anxiety and feels completely overwhelmed by the situation he is faced with. “If you looked at it and you could see why they’re doing what they’re doing I could understand. It would be ok if you could see a reason – but we can’t. It seems pointless.”
A council housing officer took the decision that Thomas and Alice were ‘intentionally homeless’ after just one meeting, and then refused all attempts to meet or communicate by phone or email after that meeting. How much of this hardship and waste of public funds could have been avoided if the council took a little more time to meet and listen with empathy and compassion to the people who come to them for help?
If you want to support Thomas and Alice or contact the council on their behalf please email the leader of the council cllr.glenn.haffenden@hastings.gov.uk or come to the council offices, Muriel Matters House, at 10am on Thursday the 28th of August.
Maybe we can help Thomas and Alice, but hopefully we can also push the council to change their policies. In other areas which have one unitary council, rather than being split between county and borough, they do not have any financial incentive to push families from one department to another and do not use ‘intentional homeless’ rules at all if families are eligible for housing through social services. This could and should become the official policy of Hastings Council right away.
Thomas has joined Unite Community and is being supported by the local branch of Unite the Union. For more information please contact him via the Unite branch secretary on grace.lally@unitetheunion.org
Response from Roost
We are aware of the recent article concerning Thomas and Alice and feel it is important to provide clarification, particularly where comments have been made about Roost and the accommodation we provide.
Property standards
The claim that Roost supplies “substandard accommodation” is not accurate. All our properties are subject to the same safety, compliance, and quality requirements as any other rented housing. We are also one of very few private landlords in the area to employ a large, full-time local maintenance team, enabling us to respond quickly and effectively to repairs. Regular checks are undertaken, and where works are needed, they are carried out without delay. We take pride in providing housing that is safe and suitable for families.
Property visits
It is not correct that visits take place without notice. All tenants are notified in advance of visits and inspections by text message to the mobile number they themselves provided at the start of their tenancy. This is our standard practice and we maintain records of these communications.
Final warning
We cannot discuss or disclose any specific details of any one case, however any final warnings issued are not issued without due reason. We always attempt to discuss with tenants, and their support network, any concerns in how they are treating the property, and any damage caused is always taken very seriously. Our priority is to maintain our properties to a good standard, both for current occupants and for any future tenants urgently requiring such accommodation. Where dialogue does not resolve ongoing issues, we have a duty to take formal action.
Roost works hard to balance the needs of vulnerable tenants with the responsibility we hold to ensure our properties remain safe, well-maintained, and fit for occupation. We fully understand the wider difficulties faced by families in temporary accommodation, but we believe it is important that the facts are represented accurately.
Thank you, Grace, for bringing the disgraceful treatment of this family to public attention.
It strikes me that both HBC and ESCC are flagrantly breaching public sector equality duties to give “due regard” to the family’s needs as vulnerable disabled people (s149 Equality Act 2010) and to make “reasonable adjustments” (ss 21, 22 and 29).
Each authority should have properly considered these statutory duties in order for any determination and acceptance of “intentionally homeless” to be lawful.
And, of course, lawyers acting for the family will be fully aware both councils are driving a coach and horse through s191 Housing Act 1996 (intentional homelessness) where the key factor is proof of “intent” – a duty that falls solely on landlords, not tenants.
Roost – the unscrupulous private provider of temporary accommodation cynically reaping the profits while ignoring its repair responsibilities – is equally reprehensible.
Whether Roost, HBC or ESCC recognise it or not, Roost has a contract with the family, irrespective of type.
It’s a long-established principle in contract law that it is an “implied term”, whether expressly stated or not, that the contract is compliant with extant legislation.
Therefore Roost is in breach of contract for failing to uphold the family’s rights to family life and peaceful enjoyment of their home under the Human Rights Act 1997.
Yet this morally and legally perverse decision by HBC and its political leader Cllr Glenn Haffenden defends this cruel, inhumane treatment as having “merit”!
I suggest the actions of ESCC and its social worker in threatening a disabled child of six that she will be forcibly separated from her parents is misconduct in public office – an alleged criminal offence.
But as I have found out to my cost – and no doubt Unite as well – moral and legal right are no match for corporate might when political leadership ignores openness, transparency, accountability and, ultimately, democracy.
Do you have a reference of any sort, Grace, that would identify the family’s case to authorities without compromising their clear need for anonymity?
And could further demo be arranged for HBC’s next Cabinet meeting, 6pm, Monday September 1 at Muriel Matters House?
All attending could be handed factsheets with demands for lawful treatment of the family. And Unite could try to book a slot for the half-hour public questions session. Agenda and phone/email details for so-called “democratic services” are on this link: Agenda Template
I have emailed Grace’s news story and my response to Cllr Haffenden (cllr.glenn.haffenden@hastings.gov.uk) and urge others to kindly consider supporting this worthy cause.