@contradevian Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 No idea if it has anything to do with the bedroom tax or not. If it is, couldn't they get a lodger in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) edit can't find the big thread. See link-arrears spiking. Desperate really if the supply isn't there to downside. Still could be the start of the 'savings will never materialise'. http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2013/10/more-council-tenants-in-rent-arrears-following-benefit-reforms/ Edited November 2, 2013 by Ash4781 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted November 2, 2013 Author Share Posted November 2, 2013 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.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) 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 November 2, 2013 by LiveinHope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 They're also committing not to make your children homeless, a necessary inclusion imho Quite so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Whats wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longtermrenter Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Good post on Nearly Legal on this Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horridbloke Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 FWIW the other side of the sheet seems to be a pay-your-rent-by-direct-debit nag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darwin Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 I don't see anything on this letter that says your kids will be taken away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hectors House Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hectors House Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-council-chiefs-threaten-evict-2667249 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted November 4, 2013 Author Share Posted November 4, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.