Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
@contradevian

Pay Your Rent Or Lose Your Kids?

Recommended Posts

This was posted on Twitter. Was going to tack it onto one of the hundreds of Bedroom Tax threads that Sarah has created, but it begs the question of whether social tenants are at higher risk of losing their kids if they get evicted for non payment of rent, or renters in general. Not heard too many cases of 'hard working homeowners' having their children into care, if they fail to meet mortgage payments. Maybe this is just scaremongering.

I guess a lot will depend on the post eviction circumstances. Social services don't seem to have much problem with a family being moved into a B&B.

BYESigFIIAACO8z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the social landlord may have over stepped the mark

Danger Game

“Can social services take children away because the family is found to be intentionally homeless?

No. Social services can only forcibly take a child away from her/his parents if there is clear evidence of a risk of abuse and a court order has been obtained. If social services offer to house the children but not the rest of the family, the parents are not normally obliged to accept this option.

If social services offer to house the child alone, you should get specialist advice from a local Shelter advice centre or other housing advice agency immediately.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an unnecessary and nasty addition to the letter. I would expect social services to be informed so that they are aware but there is no need to include it as a threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an unnecessary and nasty addition to the letter. I would expect social services to be informed so that they are aware but there is no need to include it as a threat.

It could be taken as a veiled 'threat' of consequences,

or

the last paragraph could also be a fairly straightforward notification that they are obliged by law to contact social services, thereby covering themselves should the person in receipt of the letter complain that their details have been passed on to the authorities. In that light it is fairly clearly and well written, perhaps the double meaning lies in the brevity.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be taken as a veiled 'threat' of consequences,

or

the last paragraph could also be a fairly straightforward notification that they are obliged by law to contact social services, thereby covering themselves should the person in receipt of the letter complain that their details have been passed on to the authorities. In that light it is fairly clearly and well written, perhaps the double meaning lies in the brevity.

They're also committing not to make your children homeless, a necessary inclusion imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have got a friend who was threatened with eviction last week by local council over their refuse collection.

Funny thing was the council concerned no longer has any social housing (was transferred to independent housing associations long ago, and to top that my friend neither rents social housing nor rents privately.

Unfortunately there are some idiots in local councils who are up themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like scare tactics from whoever is trying to collect arrears.

I guess SS would have to be informed if a family with children becomes homeless, but the wording of this makes it sound like a threat. Pay up or else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last paragraph could also be a fairly straightforward notification that they are obliged by law to contact social services, thereby covering themselves should the person in receipt of the letter complain that their details have been passed on to the authorities. In that light it is fairly clearly and well written, perhaps the double meaning lies in the brevity.

This.

To my mind, choosing to see this letter as a threat regarding the possibility of losing the children is a bit of a glass-half-empty reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

To my mind, choosing to see this letter as a threat regarding the possibility of losing the children is a bit of a glass-half-empty reaction.

There are a lot of problems with it, if you read Longtermrenters link to the Nearly Legal blog.

In the absence of any plausible legal or practical justification for the inclusion of that sentence in the letter, one can only conclude that it was intended as a threat. It is a demand for payment of outstanding arrears accompanied by a sentence which the Council must have known full well would be read as ‘we may well take your kids into care’. Pay up or we take your home and your kids. Is this kind of demanding money with menaces really what Councils are reduced to?

Do Banks and building societies feel the need to refer to social services when evicting home owners?

No, this is designed to intimidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No idea if it has anything to do with the bedroom tax or not. If it is, couldn't they get a lodger in?

It's against the rules to sublet the property- so this may not be possible without exposing yourself to the eviction threat you are trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's against the rules to sublet the property- so this may not be possible without exposing yourself to the eviction threat you are trying to avoid.

Its against the rules to sublet yes, but not to get a lodger in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.