Don't make us homeless for Christmas (From Bournemouth Echo)

Unfortunately the governments new idea's on housing benefit is going to make this happen more and more! Private landlords are going to be even more reluctant to house any one on housing benefit as they know the government is planning to tighten how much claimants will get - which inturn will make it harder for tenants to keep up the payments, especially ones with families. Many tenants who receive housing benefit will find their leases will not be renewed or they will be told to leave! Watch this space!

I understand that there is other private accomodation that is available to the family and the landlords will deal with DSS claiments. But the sticking point is the two dogs and they won't accept those.

if this is the case, shouldn't the story be changed to reflect that?

Don't tennents have any rights at all ? I don't think that landlords have the power to just order people out without fair warning .

What a pity this family are to be homeless at any time of year. It is a frightening thing when you have children and yet another story in the Echo tells of a former stockbroker gone bust, who was given financial help to get a 2 bedroomed house by Poole Council.

That couple have no children, but do have a dog, which I presume they are taking with them - so why cannot someone offer this family a home where they can take their children AND their dogs?

Landlords putting the bar up to people who want to have pets in rented properties is probably the single highest reason why there are so many unwanted animals in rescue centres.

It is about time some landlords opened up to allowing children and pets in their properties.

So many council houses are taken up with elderly people living in 2, 3 and 4 bedroomed properties all over the country and it is about time such people were moved out into smaller homes to make way for families with children.

No rented property is for life, so why should a council one be either, when the country is in such dire straits for lack of affordable council housing?

I sincerely hope this poor family will get a home of their own and *soon*. It must be bad enough to have the worry of a child with cancer, let alone have the added worry of no home to bring him home to after his treatment!!

But the sticking point is the two dogs and they won't accept those

Well if that's the case then surely the story remains the same or are you suggesting that they abandon their pets?

We know the reason why theres not much social housing dont we,if it wasnt sold off the asylums get given them within weeks of coming here,hope the little boys ok god bless him

How can someone living on benefits afford to keep two dogs? I am afraid it is a case of getting your priorities right.

if she moves out without an eviction order and bailiffs etc, then she has made herself deliberately homeless and therefore not entitled to be rehoused by the council, according to council rules which have been in force since year dot. unless im reading it wrongly she is leaving the house just because the landlord told her to go. she must stay until a court order evicts her.

Maybe the government should not be so keen to sell off council houses. These were introduced to house families who could afford to buy etc. , not to sell off at a discount.

Loyal2AFCB wrote:
How can someone living on benefits afford to keep two dogs? I am afraid it is a case of getting your priorities right.

I couldn't agree more.
.
Not only are dogs an expensive pet to keep but a lot of landlords won't allow dogs which restricts her options.
.
As a dog owner myself I can understand why she doesn't want to have to give up my dogs but her children have to come first and by giving up the dogs she's more likely to find a new home.

We have to leave our privately rented accommodation, as our landlord wants his house back, but as ive been told time and time again, you DO NOT have to leave the accommodation until the landlord has been to court to get an eviction notice. We where told we had to leave the property back in August, but as our landlord has not been to court to get an eviction notice we have remained in the property..Poole Borough Council are trying to find us alternative accommodation, they have found our 2 daughters and their children alternative accommodation as they where also living with us, and as we can now not afford the rent there is a thing called discretionary housing payment which we had to apply for, which we have been accepted on. so there is help out there, you just need to keep on at them, and push for it, also you need to be actively bidding on properties on the housing register.

So sad. While your PM dines with the Murdochs, the people suffer. The situation here in America where it's OK to take away a person's Social Security but not his machine gun.

I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

I hope someone can help them. Children - especially unwell children - need a stable home to live in. It must be extremely stressful to be put in this position. I hope they find somewhere.

What about Kingston Lacy estate?? Thats got 5 bedrooms and a couple of acres of ground for the dogs to run around, come on christchurch council, whats the matter with ya, get them over there, bed and breakfast, How dare you

We where told by the council that we would have to find alternative homes for our pets, as they could not guarantee that we could get re-homed with them, and if we insisted that we kept them with us, then we would be intentionally making ourselves homeless. So we did just that, and re-homed our animals with a re-homing centre, which was upsetting as the dog was 12 years old, and we had had him since 8 weeks. We also didnt find out until Friday just gone where we would be for christmas. The council will only put people in B & B as a last resort, they will try halfway accommodation first, but both of these will not take pets.
We had to have a guarantor to move into the property we are in now, but as our guarantor can no longer do it, and as we are on 'top up' housing benefit we can not get privately rented accommodation anymore.
The government doesn't make anything easy if you have lived in the country all your life! We actually had to prove we had lived in the borough all our lives to be put onto the register with a local connection!

Cant believe anyone could leave this family homeless for Christmas, especially with her little boy being so ill. I have just read this article, dont think we live in a fair society. Please read and comment
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1379150/Family-12-re
fugees-handed-6k-mon
th-UK-home.html

We where told by the council that we would have to find alternative homes for our pets, as they could not guarantee that we could get re-homed with them, and if we insisted that we kept them with us, then we would be intentionally making ourselves homeless. So we did just that, and re-homed our animals with a re-homing centre, which was upsetting as the dog was 12 years old, and we had had him since 8 weeks.

Quite frankly I think that's appalling and the council should be sued for forcing people to give up beloved pets, especially a dog that old. It's completely sickening especially in this day and age.

Clunge wrote:
So she is 31, has an 13 year old, so pushed that one out aged 18. I'm very sorry for someone with a genuine illness, but what age was she when she was diagnosed? Was that before the 3 other kids?
She may have worked, paid taxes, and supported herself and her kids, though maybe she never has?
If you can't afford to support a large family, then don't have one, that's not a difficult concept is it?

There are so many many assumptions here. What if she met her husband aged 14, was diagnosed young with her debilitating illness so they married young, he worked hard got killed in a car accident leaving her bereft and destitute only to find out her beloved eldest child has cancer? Or maybe she just made bad choices, it happens. Who are you to judge with no knowledge of her personally.

Further the housing law is geared for profit making and short term lets. It's not idel for families needing stability or a home life. This has recently been compounded by the insane choices the government has made regarding benefits. (whilst dropping the top tax rate which many landlords pay). In Bournemouth a large % of family homes have been converted to HMO making a dire situation virtually untenable. (and nothing to do with immigrants)


Also in Belgium owning pets is considered part of family life and landlords are not allowed to ban them. Our landlord insisted we have contents insurance and we paid £500 extra on our deposit, £1750 in total.

If you add the one month rent required on top of deposit and to the £3-500 agency fees and moving van hire it can cost upwards of £2500 to move house. If you only get 2 months notice and account for the shortage of accommodation in the rental market it's no winder people struggle.

Things are going to get far worse before they get better. The laws and regulations don't just need change they need t be re-written from scratch.

TD61 wrote:
What a pity this family are to be homeless at any time of year. It is a frightening thing when you have children and yet another story in the Echo tells of a former stockbroker gone bust, who was given financial help to get a 2 bedroomed house by Poole Council.

That couple have no children, but do have a dog, which I presume they are taking with them - so why cannot someone offer this family a home where they can take their children AND their dogs?

Landlords putting the bar up to people who want to have pets in rented properties is probably the single highest reason why there are so many unwanted animals in rescue centres.

It is about time some landlords opened up to allowing children and pets in their properties.

So many council houses are taken up with elderly people living in 2, 3 and 4 bedroomed properties all over the country and it is about time such people were moved out into smaller homes to make way for families with children.

No rented property is for life, so why should a council one be either, when the country is in such dire straits for lack of affordable council housing?

I sincerely hope this poor family will get a home of their own and *soon*. It must be bad enough to have the worry of a child with cancer, let alone have the added worry of no home to bring him home to after his treatment!!

Absolutely. The PTB seem to be able to facilitate the world and his wife (and kids) with accommodation as soon as they land on our shores, due to the Common Purpose brainwashed officials who now run every aspect of our lives. It will all end in tears and sooner rather than later.

Miss Opinionated wrote:

Clunge wrote:
So she is 31, has an 13 year old, so pushed that one out aged 18. I'm very sorry for someone with a genuine illness, but what age was she when she was diagnosed? Was that before the 3 other kids?
She may have worked, paid taxes, and supported herself and her kids, though maybe she never has?
If you can't afford to support a large family, then don't have one, that's not a difficult concept is it?

There are so many many assumptions here. What if she met her husband aged 14, was diagnosed young with her debilitating illness so they married young, he worked hard got killed in a car accident leaving her bereft and destitute only to find out her beloved eldest child has cancer? Or maybe she just made bad choices, it happens. Who are you to judge with no knowledge of her personally.

Further the housing law is geared for profit making and short term lets. It's not idel for families needing stability or a home life. This has recently been compounded by the insane choices the government has made regarding benefits. (whilst dropping the top tax rate which many landlords pay). In Bournemouth a large % of family homes have been converted to HMO making a dire situation virtually untenable. (and nothing to do with immigrants)


Also in Belgium owning pets is considered part of family life and landlords are not allowed to ban them. Our landlord insisted we have contents insurance and we paid £500 extra on our deposit, £1750 in total.

If you add the one month rent required on top of deposit and to the £3-500 agency fees and moving van hire it can cost upwards of £2500 to move house. If you only get 2 months notice and account for the shortage of accommodation in the rental market it's no winder people struggle.

Things are going to get far worse before they get better. The laws and regulations don't just need change they need t be re-written from scratch.

Good points - Miss Opinionated, but add to them the suggestion that those making a lot of money out of these Council/benefits rentals might also have considerable influence - within those Councils and elsewhere - and you get somewhere you could call........say, Boscombe.

Lots of talk but no real action - becuase it suits some powerful private Landlords?

Miss Opinionated wrote:

Clunge wrote:
So she is 31, has an 13 year old, so pushed that one out aged 18. I'm very sorry for someone with a genuine illness, but what age was she when she was diagnosed? Was that before the 3 other kids?
She may have worked, paid taxes, and supported herself and her kids, though maybe she never has?
If you can't afford to support a large family, then don't have one, that's not a difficult concept is it?

There are so many many assumptions here. What if she met her husband aged 14, was diagnosed young with her debilitating illness so they married young, he worked hard got killed in a car accident leaving her bereft and destitute only to find out her beloved eldest child has cancer? Or maybe she just made bad choices, it happens. Who are you to judge with no knowledge of her personally.

Further the housing law is geared for profit making and short term lets. It's not idel for families needing stability or a home life. This has recently been compounded by the insane choices the government has made regarding benefits. (whilst dropping the top tax rate which many landlords pay). In Bournemouth a large % of family homes have been converted to HMO making a dire situation virtually untenable. (and nothing to do with immigrants)


Also in Belgium owning pets is considered part of family life and landlords are not allowed to ban them. Our landlord insisted we have contents insurance and we paid £500 extra on our deposit, £1750 in total.

If you add the one month rent required on top of deposit and to the £3-500 agency fees and moving van hire it can cost upwards of £2500 to move house. If you only get 2 months notice and account for the shortage of accommodation in the rental market it's no winder people struggle.

Things are going to get far worse before they get better. The laws and regulations don't just need change they need t be re-written from scratch.

Bash the landlords again.
Is it fair that if a tenant doesn't pay the rent and they can stay in the house for long term.?
If the landlord needs to sell his property or wants it back for himself then why shouldn't he be able to give notice?
Most landlords are on it for the long term so a good tenant long term is beneficial , but if he's not getting paid or the tenants are a nuisance then what's wrong with 2 months notice?

H2o-hara wrote:
Don't tennents have any rights at all ? I don't think that landlords have the power to just order people out without fair warning .

If on a six month contract then the landlord can give two months notice after 4 months.
If contract rolls on then its 2 months notice again from a rent due day.
Why would the tenant have any further rights? They don't own the property.
Who know the reasons? Maybe the house is not being looke after. Maybe he needs to sell.
I tenants had rights to stay long term then there won't be any landlords as why would they risk it?

glamgran12 wrote:
We have to leave our privately rented accommodation, as our landlord wants his house back, but as ive been told time and time again, you DO NOT have to leave the accommodation until the landlord has been to court to get an eviction notice. We where told we had to leave the property back in August, but as our landlord has not been to court to get an eviction notice we have remained in the property..Poole Borough Council are trying to find us alternative accommodation, they have found our 2 daughters and their children alternative accommodation as they where also living with us, and as we can now not afford the rent there is a thing called discretionary housing payment which we had to apply for, which we have been accepted on. so there is help out there, you just need to keep on at them, and push for it, also you need to be actively bidding on properties on the housing register.

And you're proud of the fact that he has to get an eviction notice before you'll move out?
It's tenants like you that tar others.
He's entitled to get his property back. He's given you the legal notice required, you're now as good as squatting so the landlord has to go to court.

Arjay wrote:
rozmister wrote: "If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them"

What a wonderfully vague phrase 'more in need' is!
At some stage, a human being has to use their judgement to decide who is 'more in need' ?...
With their 'freebie' legal aid lawyers in tow, many foreign nationals - especially those with different coloured skin - are likely to be advised to play the race card, at the first opportunity.

So the 'decision makers' will probably decide in their favour, simply for a quieter life....
It's all wrong of course, but who would dare to complain in today's UK ?....

Yes it is vague because it's done on a case by case basis. Being homeless already or in overcrowded or unsuitable accomodation, having a disability or health problem that makes your accomodation unsuitable, being a young person leaving care or a combination of all of the above. You also need a connection to the local area; either you've lived here or close family has. The system is meant to protect the most vulnerable and needy in our society - if it sometimes fails its because of the people who administrate it. Local government now has more power to set their own criteria and some London councils have already changed their criteria to give priority to local working families. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Bournemouth does.

rozmister wrote:
I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

Spot on! But the majority of the racist population of Bournemouth dont want to hear the truth but would rather blame a bogeyman.

rozmister wrote: "The system is meant to protect the most vulnerable and needy in our society - if it sometimes fails its because of the people who administrate it"

'MEANT' to protect....

I rest my case....it's all so vague that it will be those that bully the most effectively who get the best results.

Not, I fear, the most needy.

So it will be those with access to the most aggressive lawyers (which, in practice, will mean only those eligible for legal aid) who will get designated as 'needy'.
Heaven help you if you are one of those who is unfortunate enough to have fallen on hard times, but don't have the 'savvy' to know how to play the system...

The council has no where for them to go?!? Well I know for a fact there is one spare house! My old one, the council purchased my house in October to " restock" council homes and it is still empty now!!!

Deserted wives and mothers form a
queue. You will never know until it happens to you! Walk a mile in my
shoes as the saying goes.

Loyal2AFCB wrote:
How can someone living on benefits afford to keep two dogs? I am afraid it is a case of getting your priorities right.

You really are a total a*rsehole.

Arjay wrote:
rozmister wrote: "The system is meant to protect the most vulnerable and needy in our society - if it sometimes fails its because of the people who administrate it"

'MEANT' to protect....

I rest my case....it's all so vague that it will be those that bully the most effectively who get the best results.

Not, I fear, the most needy.

So it will be those with access to the most aggressive lawyers (which, in practice, will mean only those eligible for legal aid) who will get designated as 'needy'.
Heaven help you if you are one of those who is unfortunate enough to have fallen on hard times, but don't have the 'savvy' to know how to play the system...

You couldn't use a lawyer to add extra points to your case on Home Choice and you wouldn't get legal aid either. You could possibly use legal aid to make claims of discrimination but these would be long winded and could take over a year to come to court...hardly skipping to the front of the housing queue.

I said meant because in every system there are mistakes and people are let down. Generally our housing system works and plenty of people are successfully housed through it. Unfortunately no system can have a 100% success rate.

And yes there are people that 'play the system' but that's nothing to do with immigration. Look at all the WHITE BRITISH people caught committing benefit fraud - is it acceptable for them to play the system because they're not an EU citizen/refugee???

rozmister wrote:
I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

Social housing and benefits should be available for those who have contributed to this country, through work, NI taxes etc. It should not be available for those who just turn up on our shores and expect and get everything.
A good proposition would be that any immigrant is entitled to benefits after 3 years of working in this country and contributing to the tax system. Before that period, no benefits, no housing and no NHS. It would be then interesting to see how many would want to come to this country?
Its not being racist its just being sensible and remember Charity begins at home.

Too many dogooders would not agree with you,most people will but not say so.

goatty wrote:

rozmister wrote:
I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

Social housing and benefits should be available for those who have contributed to this country, through work, NI taxes etc. It should not be available for those who just turn up on our shores and expect and get everything.
A good proposition would be that any immigrant is entitled to benefits after 3 years of working in this country and contributing to the tax system. Before that period, no benefits, no housing and no NHS. It would be then interesting to see how many would want to come to this country?
Its not being racist its just being sensible and remember Charity begins at home.

They don't turn up and get given everything now - that was my point. And if the problem is people not contributing why is it fine that you can be born here and go straight from school onto a life of benefits??

I know I'm straying from the topic of this article now because that's not the case here but it's ridiculous to claim the problem is immigrants. It's not - it's people who are too bone idle to work and contribute and that includes plenty of White British born and bred. Charity might begin at home but it SHOULD begin with those most in need rather than the people whose skin colour and birthplace fit your agenda. Why should it be immigrants who have to contribute for 3 years before they claim? Why not everyone?? If you change the word immigrant to black what you have to say is disgustingly racist, can you not see that?

My own personal opinion is that everyone should have to contribute for three years before they can claim (regardless of race or birthplace) and that benefits like JSA should be time limited and paid in vouchers after a certain period like they are in the USA. I just have a problem with reading ignorant racist comments on the internet that aren't even based on the truth.

Cannot see your point of view. Why is stopping immigrants claiming every benefit going a racist comment. Nobody has mentioned the black word. Romanians and Eastern Europeans are not black, but one must ask why after travelling through probably 6 countries why do they not stay in any of those? They come here purely for the easy to get benefits.
Go to France and fall over and see if they will treat you! The first thing you get asked for is your insurance or credit card. Go to the USA and live for a while like I have done. No freebies there, but you know that when you move there. Come over here and its a free for all.
Where I do agree with you, is that JSA should be paid in vouchers for food. BUT, I really think you need to open your eyes and see the reality of the problems that exist. Immigration is a massive problem that is causing civil unrest and a drain on the benefit system. There is absolutely no justification that any immigrant white or black should breeze into this country and expect free dentistry and free hospitals then benefits and housing allowance. They have contributed nothing to the system.
Liberal Do Gooders should once in a while open their eyes and smell the coffee

rozmister they might not turn up and get everything but quatada seems to be doing ok and while money is spent on this piece of ***** while elderly people cant afford heating some of us look at your soppy stupid liberal garbage and come to the verdict that people like you are fools who live in cuckoo land

Loyal2AFCB wrote:
How can someone living on benefits afford to keep two dogs? I am afraid it is a case of getting your priorities right.

£11 for a whacking great bag of 'Wagg'.Lasts my dog about 3months.I have a big Bull Terrier & he eats loads.Work it out.Doesnt have to cost loads.

goatty wrote:
Cannot see your point of view. Why is stopping immigrants claiming every benefit going a racist comment. Nobody has mentioned the black word. Romanians and Eastern Europeans are not black, but one must ask why after travelling through probably 6 countries why do they not stay in any of those? They come here purely for the easy to get benefits.
Go to France and fall over and see if they will treat you! The first thing you get asked for is your insurance or credit card. Go to the USA and live for a while like I have done. No freebies there, but you know that when you move there. Come over here and its a free for all.
Where I do agree with you, is that JSA should be paid in vouchers for food. BUT, I really think you need to open your eyes and see the reality of the problems that exist. Immigration is a massive problem that is causing civil unrest and a drain on the benefit system. There is absolutely no justification that any immigrant white or black should breeze into this country and expect free dentistry and free hospitals then benefits and housing allowance. They have contributed nothing to the system.
Liberal Do Gooders should once in a while open their eyes and smell the coffee

Romanians and Eastern Europeans don't have to stop in their closest country because they aren't asylum seekers. They are EU citizens and can come and go as they please within the EU. My sister lives in Sweden because her husband got work out there - according to your theory she should have stopped in France and lived there. She went where the work was the same as many Romanians and Eastern Europeans. As well as the Eastern Europeans who claim their benefits there are plenty who work hard in industries English people look down their nose at; fast food restaurants, cleaning, caring, fruit/vegetable/flow
er picking, farm work, etc.

Also they would treat you in France as long as you had your EHIC card on you which covers you for healthcare treatment in the EU. You'd be treated exactly the same as a French person providing you'd taken your EHIC card with you.

I have no interest in 'smelling your coffee' because quite frankly I think it's BS. The whole immigration debate is a way for our government to offload blame for THEIR poor decisions. If everyone is looking at the immigrants and thinking it's all their fault they fail to notice that there are plenty of lazy British people who spend their lives avoiding anything remotely like hard work whilst playing the system for all it's worth.

By all means restrict immigration and the claiming of benefits by immigrants but I'd like to see the same restrictions on benefits for British born and bred. If you haven't paid into the pot you shouldn't get a penny out.

People complain about immigrants wanting something for nothing but don't seem as bothered if it's Jean from down the road who expects the rest of us to pay their way. The reason I think your comments are racist is because your problem is with people based on their race rather than their attitude. I object to ANYONE having a free ride - not people of a certain race. When you discriminate based on race it's racist.

And yes Qatada has done well out of our benefit system but to put that into perspective 59 MILLION people lived in the UK during the last census. He was just ONE of them. He's a drop in an ocean of people. I'm more worried about the 1.2 BILLION pounds we lost in benefit fraud last year than one immigrant whose played the system and ended up in the spotlight. The cost of his individual case is significantly less than the cost of benefit fraud. But I guess while we're focusing on Qatada and the outrage we feel about that one immigrant at least we're not focusing on the 1.2 billion pounds the DWP let slip away last year...

rozmister wrote:
I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

Yes its so fair.Thats why EVERYONE from ****holes in Eastern Europe etc want to move to UK.

If Thatcher hadnt come up with genius ideas to sell Council Housing things wouldnt be as bad.

We're sinking! We need to block immigration & close loopholes for asylum seekers.

Talkingheadera wrote:

glamgran12 wrote:
We have to leave our privately rented accommodation, as our landlord wants his house back, but as ive been told time and time again, you DO NOT have to leave the accommodation until the landlord has been to court to get an eviction notice. We where told we had to leave the property back in August, but as our landlord has not been to court to get an eviction notice we have remained in the property..Poole Borough Council are trying to find us alternative accommodation, they have found our 2 daughters and their children alternative accommodation as they where also living with us, and as we can now not afford the rent there is a thing called discretionary housing payment which we had to apply for, which we have been accepted on. so there is help out there, you just need to keep on at them, and push for it, also you need to be actively bidding on properties on the housing register.

And you're proud of the fact that he has to get an eviction notice before you'll move out?
It's tenants like you that tar others.
He's entitled to get his property back. He's given you the legal notice required, you're now as good as squatting so the landlord has to go to court.

Someones made money out of extortionate rents....

Talkingheadera wrote:

Miss Opinionated wrote:

Clunge wrote:
So she is 31, has an 13 year old, so pushed that one out aged 18. I'm very sorry for someone with a genuine illness, but what age was she when she was diagnosed? Was that before the 3 other kids?
She may have worked, paid taxes, and supported herself and her kids, though maybe she never has?
If you can't afford to support a large family, then don't have one, that's not a difficult concept is it?

There are so many many assumptions here. What if she met her husband aged 14, was diagnosed young with her debilitating illness so they married young, he worked hard got killed in a car accident leaving her bereft and destitute only to find out her beloved eldest child has cancer? Or maybe she just made bad choices, it happens. Who are you to judge with no knowledge of her personally.

Further the housing law is geared for profit making and short term lets. It's not idel for families needing stability or a home life. This has recently been compounded by the insane choices the government has made regarding benefits. (whilst dropping the top tax rate which many landlords pay). In Bournemouth a large % of family homes have been converted to HMO making a dire situation virtually untenable. (and nothing to do with immigrants)


Also in Belgium owning pets is considered part of family life and landlords are not allowed to ban them. Our landlord insisted we have contents insurance and we paid £500 extra on our deposit, £1750 in total.

If you add the one month rent required on top of deposit and to the £3-500 agency fees and moving van hire it can cost upwards of £2500 to move house. If you only get 2 months notice and account for the shortage of accommodation in the rental market it's no winder people struggle.

Things are going to get far worse before they get better. The laws and regulations don't just need change they need t be re-written from scratch.

Bash the landlords again.
Is it fair that if a tenant doesn't pay the rent and they can stay in the house for long term.?
If the landlord needs to sell his property or wants it back for himself then why shouldn't he be able to give notice?
Most landlords are on it for the long term so a good tenant long term is beneficial , but if he's not getting paid or the tenants are a nuisance then what's wrong with 2 months notice?

I'm not bashing the landlords, we always pay our rent. But we only have a short tem tenancy and would really struggle to find somewhere suitable if they decided to evict us so they could sell the house. 2 months is not a lot of time to come up with the money needed to move and find a decent house that will take kids and pets.

Most landlords are not in it for the long term at all, We asked for a years secured tenancy and they refused. So we feel unsettled. Even tho they assure us they won't sell... yet. It's not just a house, it's our home. We pay and extortionate amount of money so we should have the right to feel settled not for a few months but years. Most tenants are good, productive families who just want a place to call home. the government needs to encourage landlords to come in to the housing sector for families and provide private sector with the same benefits that social housing has: Long term assured tenancy with the right to decorate and have pets. in returen I pay my rent and look after the house. it is not too much to ask. Whilst the students and hmo reign tho, families are marginalised and struggling. No one wants to stay until they are evicted but the GOVERNMENT forces honest decent people to do this or the will be declared intentionally homeless and left to rot.

stevobath wrote:

rozmister wrote:
I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

Yes its so fair.Thats why EVERYONE from ****holes in Eastern Europe etc want to move to UK.

If Thatcher hadnt come up with genius ideas to sell Council Housing things wouldnt be as bad.

We're sinking! We need to block immigration & close loopholes for asylum seekers.

Yeh everyone comes for housing it couldn't be that come because they come from a country with unemployment, a poor education system, cities run by organised crime gangs and general economic deprivation for all but the very rich??

In case you couldn't read my post there are no loopholes for asylum seekers. They're not housed in general housing stock but properties rented by companies like G4S specifically to house asylum seekers. That's not my opinion that's fact. That's what the law in the UK specifies. There is no 'loophole' for asylum seekers - they get what they're given until they are granted leave to remain.

why do these people cross borders to get here you are meant to apply for asylum in the first safe country and are prisons are full with foriegn criminals if people are fleeing persercution by all means we should help but not if you come to comit crime we have enough home grown villains of are own as for eastern european pickpockets and service till scammers they should never have been allowed in

contric wrote:
why do these people cross borders to get here you are meant to apply for asylum in the first safe country and are prisons are full with foriegn criminals if people are fleeing persercution by all means we should help but not if you come to comit crime we have enough home grown villains of are own as for eastern european pickpockets and service till scammers they should never have been allowed in

I know it's really hard to read previous comments but people from Europe AREN'T asylum seekers so they can go to whichever country they like. They aren't fleeing persecution they are moving freely within the EU which is their legal right. It's NOTHING TO DO WITH ASYLUM. The ignorance of people in the Echo's comments section really astounds me some days.

at no point did i say eastern europeans were asylum seekers but i said there pickpockets and service till scammers shouldnt be allowed in but soppy liberals always read what they want it to read rather than what it actually says

http://www.refugeeco
uncil.org.uk/practic
e/basics/facts - maybe people would benefit from reading this before they comment about asylum seekers again. As my teacher used to say when you assume you make an **** out of u and me - try finding out some facts.

contric wrote:
at no point did i say eastern europeans were asylum seekers but i said there pickpockets and service till scammers shouldnt be allowed in but soppy liberals always read what they want it to read rather than what it actually says

I thought because the only nationality you mentioned were Eastern Europeans you meant they were asylum seekers. My mistake.

I'm actually pretty right wing about immigration and justice but thanks for stereotyping me based on the fact I don't agree with your racist views that are based on absolute BS rather than facts and figures.

I believe our immigration system should be like Australia's and the benefits offered to the unemployed should be a lot less than they currently are and anyone who commits a crime should be deported from the UK and banned from re-entry.

However I don't think that our housing shortage (caused by Maggie Thatcher and the greed of our previous governments) is anything to do with immigrants or that immigration is why there isn't enough money in the pot (the government mismanages funds that's why we're stuck like this) - Immigration and asylum seeking is a great scapegoat for our governments failings and blaming people based on their race regardless of the actual facts is racism. You might not like to accept that but it is; it's literally the dictionary definition - "Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race."

rozmister wrote:

goatty wrote:
Cannot see your point of view. Why is stopping immigrants claiming every benefit going a racist comment. Nobody has mentioned the black word. Romanians and Eastern Europeans are not black, but one must ask why after travelling through probably 6 countries why do they not stay in any of those? They come here purely for the easy to get benefits.
Go to France and fall over and see if they will treat you! The first thing you get asked for is your insurance or credit card. Go to the USA and live for a while like I have done. No freebies there, but you know that when you move there. Come over here and its a free for all.
Where I do agree with you, is that JSA should be paid in vouchers for food. BUT, I really think you need to open your eyes and see the reality of the problems that exist. Immigration is a massive problem that is causing civil unrest and a drain on the benefit system. There is absolutely no justification that any immigrant white or black should breeze into this country and expect free dentistry and free hospitals then benefits and housing allowance. They have contributed nothing to the system.
Liberal Do Gooders should once in a while open their eyes and smell the coffee

Romanians and Eastern Europeans don't have to stop in their closest country because they aren't asylum seekers. They are EU citizens and can come and go as they please within the EU. My sister lives in Sweden because her husband got work out there - according to your theory she should have stopped in France and lived there. She went where the work was the same as many Romanians and Eastern Europeans. As well as the Eastern Europeans who claim their benefits there are plenty who work hard in industries English people look down their nose at; fast food restaurants, cleaning, caring, fruit/vegetable/flow

er picking, farm work, etc.

Also they would treat you in France as long as you had your EHIC card on you which covers you for healthcare treatment in the EU. You'd be treated exactly the same as a French person providing you'd taken your EHIC card with you.

I have no interest in 'smelling your coffee' because quite frankly I think it's BS. The whole immigration debate is a way for our government to offload blame for THEIR poor decisions. If everyone is looking at the immigrants and thinking it's all their fault they fail to notice that there are plenty of lazy British people who spend their lives avoiding anything remotely like hard work whilst playing the system for all it's worth.

By all means restrict immigration and the claiming of benefits by immigrants but I'd like to see the same restrictions on benefits for British born and bred. If you haven't paid into the pot you shouldn't get a penny out.

People complain about immigrants wanting something for nothing but don't seem as bothered if it's Jean from down the road who expects the rest of us to pay their way. The reason I think your comments are racist is because your problem is with people based on their race rather than their attitude. I object to ANYONE having a free ride - not people of a certain race. When you discriminate based on race it's racist.

And yes Qatada has done well out of our benefit system but to put that into perspective 59 MILLION people lived in the UK during the last census. He was just ONE of them. He's a drop in an ocean of people. I'm more worried about the 1.2 BILLION pounds we lost in benefit fraud last year than one immigrant whose played the system and ended up in the spotlight. The cost of his individual case is significantly less than the cost of benefit fraud. But I guess while we're focusing on Qatada and the outrage we feel about that one immigrant at least we're not focusing on the 1.2 billion pounds the DWP let slip away last year...

But I don't think British claimants are on the street corners or in Churches spouting off anti-western propaganda and promoting terrorism.
Unfortunately for this Country it is Liberals like you and not the Governments who have caused problems with your limp wristed actions against terrorists such as Qatada and the opinion that everyone should benefit from our free for all society.
We should be more like Australia and the USA. Only let in who we want to let in and then only if they can support themselves.

contric wrote:
why do these people cross borders to get here you are meant to apply for asylum in the first safe country and are prisons are full with foriegn criminals if people are fleeing persercution by all means we should help but not if you come to comit crime we have enough home grown villains of are own as for eastern european pickpockets and service till scammers they should never have been allowed in

They cross loads of countries to get here as they cannot free housing and all the benefits they get here. Shut the borders NOW and let in only people we want, who can support themselves without benefits and can speak English

A week till Christmas let's hope this
family get settled in a decent home.

Sad story but can see this happening even more over next few years .. this country is finished ... if you don't have money now you certainly wont in 5 or 10 years time.

The rich get richer & the poor dont get a f**king thing ...

Unfair to rehouse pets .. another cost for already suffering animal charities ... Pets are part of the family.

Hope you find suitable housing , and all the best in your sons rehabilitation.

give them the 2 bedroom flat in poole that those old posh people rejected to live in their car! Poor family I hope they get something xxx

goatty wrote:

rozmister wrote:

goatty wrote:
Cannot see your point of view. Why is stopping immigrants claiming every benefit going a racist comment. Nobody has mentioned the black word. Romanians and Eastern Europeans are not black, but one must ask why after travelling through probably 6 countries why do they not stay in any of those? They come here purely for the easy to get benefits.
Go to France and fall over and see if they will treat you! The first thing you get asked for is your insurance or credit card. Go to the USA and live for a while like I have done. No freebies there, but you know that when you move there. Come over here and its a free for all.
Where I do agree with you, is that JSA should be paid in vouchers for food. BUT, I really think you need to open your eyes and see the reality of the problems that exist. Immigration is a massive problem that is causing civil unrest and a drain on the benefit system. There is absolutely no justification that any immigrant white or black should breeze into this country and expect free dentistry and free hospitals then benefits and housing allowance. They have contributed nothing to the system.
Liberal Do Gooders should once in a while open their eyes and smell the coffee

Romanians and Eastern Europeans don't have to stop in their closest country because they aren't asylum seekers. They are EU citizens and can come and go as they please within the EU. My sister lives in Sweden because her husband got work out there - according to your theory she should have stopped in France and lived there. She went where the work was the same as many Romanians and Eastern Europeans. As well as the Eastern Europeans who claim their benefits there are plenty who work hard in industries English people look down their nose at; fast food restaurants, cleaning, caring, fruit/vegetable/flow


er picking, farm work, etc.

Also they would treat you in France as long as you had your EHIC card on you which covers you for healthcare treatment in the EU. You'd be treated exactly the same as a French person providing you'd taken your EHIC card with you.

I have no interest in 'smelling your coffee' because quite frankly I think it's BS. The whole immigration debate is a way for our government to offload blame for THEIR poor decisions. If everyone is looking at the immigrants and thinking it's all their fault they fail to notice that there are plenty of lazy British people who spend their lives avoiding anything remotely like hard work whilst playing the system for all it's worth.

By all means restrict immigration and the claiming of benefits by immigrants but I'd like to see the same restrictions on benefits for British born and bred. If you haven't paid into the pot you shouldn't get a penny out.

People complain about immigrants wanting something for nothing but don't seem as bothered if it's Jean from down the road who expects the rest of us to pay their way. The reason I think your comments are racist is because your problem is with people based on their race rather than their attitude. I object to ANYONE having a free ride - not people of a certain race. When you discriminate based on race it's racist.

And yes Qatada has done well out of our benefit system but to put that into perspective 59 MILLION people lived in the UK during the last census. He was just ONE of them. He's a drop in an ocean of people. I'm more worried about the 1.2 BILLION pounds we lost in benefit fraud last year than one immigrant whose played the system and ended up in the spotlight. The cost of his individual case is significantly less than the cost of benefit fraud. But I guess while we're focusing on Qatada and the outrage we feel about that one immigrant at least we're not focusing on the 1.2 billion pounds the DWP let slip away last year...

But I don't think British claimants are on the street corners or in Churches spouting off anti-western propaganda and promoting terrorism.
Unfortunately for this Country it is Liberals like you and not the Governments who have caused problems with your limp wristed actions against terrorists such as Qatada and the opinion that everyone should benefit from our free for all society.
We should be more like Australia and the USA. Only let in who we want to let in and then only if they can support themselves.

I said in the comment above yours I thought we should have a system like Australias in place. But wait - I'm a liberal who caused all the problems and that's my opinion, does that mean you're a liberal who caused the problems too?

A Liberal...you must be joking. Out of the Eu, Close the Borders and bring back hanging.

goatty wrote:
A Liberal...you must be joking. Out of the Eu, Close the Borders and bring back hanging.

But you seem to be so wise you can deem me a liberal based on a handful of comments on a newspaper website and we share views...so you must be?
Or is your meaning of liberal anyone who doesn't wholly share your views regardless of if the opinions they hold are liberal or not?

rozmister wrote:

stevobath wrote:

rozmister wrote:
I wonder how many people on here actually understand how the social housing system works and the law surrounding private letting? Because there's plenty of comments about how the landlord shouldn't be able to do what he does or how their problem arises from asylum seekers/EU citizens stealing all the housing.

The landlord has to give them notice but is well within their rights to ask them to leave the property. While it's horrible that this family will be homeless at Christmas I'm sure their landlord followed the law otherwise the headline would be "Landlord illegally evicts family"!

As for EU citizens/asylum seekers stealing all the houses - asylum seekers are actually housed by G4S and other agencies who hold the contracts to house asylum seekers. They cannot take housing from the social housing/council housing pool for this; they can rent them directly from the council but that means they would have been unavailable to the general public because they wouldn't have been on Home Choice. Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status have the same entitlement to be housed as you or I - as do EU citizens. If they are housed before a UK family it is because they are deemed to be more in need (giving them more points when bidding on Home Choice). If the UK family was more in need than the refugees/EU citizens they would be housed over them. I know it's difficult when you want to be racist and blame someone else for the fact British people have cocked up their own country but the idea all council/social housing is housing refugees/asylum seekers/EU citizens is racist propaganda.

Yes its so fair.Thats why EVERYONE from ****holes in Eastern Europe etc want to move to UK.

If Thatcher hadnt come up with genius ideas to sell Council Housing things wouldnt be as bad.

We're sinking! We need to block immigration & close loopholes for asylum seekers.

Yeh everyone comes for housing it couldn't be that come because they come from a country with unemployment, a poor education system, cities run by organised crime gangs and general economic deprivation for all but the very rich??

In case you couldn't read my post there are no loopholes for asylum seekers. They're not housed in general housing stock but properties rented by companies like G4S specifically to house asylum seekers. That's not my opinion that's fact. That's what the law in the UK specifies. There is no 'loophole' for asylum seekers - they get what they're given until they are granted leave to remain.

Or they run off & become illegals then.
Yes G4S making loads out the system.Why cant our homeless be put into accomodation 'Run by G4S?'..

Is that not ludicrous? You can be born & bred in this country but have no home.

We're too soft.We are taken advantage of.Look over to France.Asylum seekers live in shanty type towns waiting to sneak onto lorries etc coming to UK!

live-and-let-live wrote:
if she moves out without an eviction order and bailiffs etc, then she has made herself deliberately homeless and therefore not entitled to be rehoused by the council, according to council rules which have been in force since year dot. unless im reading it wrongly she is leaving the house just because the landlord told her to go. she must stay until a court order evicts her.

Problem there is; if she waits until a Court orders eviction, she could well be liable to pay both her Legal costs and her Landlord's Legal costs, including the Bailiff's costs, that is, if the Bailiffs are involved in the eviction, which is inevitable.

Aha!.. you might say.. "she can get Legal Aid!"

Try finding a Legal-aid solicitor in the Bournemouth, Christchurch or Poole areas, I don't think there is one.

Solicitors representing Landlords are ten-a-penny. Not so for Tenants seeking Legal representation under the Legal-aid system.

If the Tenancy is not protected by Law and the Landlord wants his property back, then there is nothing she (or anyone) can legally do about it.

A legal eviction is just that, a legal eviction, whether ordered by a Court of Law or by a Landlord.

Complying with her Landlord's properly served 'Section 21 Possession Notice' would not be seen by the Council as making herself 'intentionally homeless'.

I know of two nice houses left empty
near Creekmoor, but they will probably
be demolished!

errrmmm there are loads of legal aid solicitors in bournemouth and poole, there is Gales in winton and some ine the town centers. You have to call and ask around that's all..

Does anyone know if this poor family got a home?

mummy123abc wrote:
errrmmm there are loads of legal aid solicitors in bournemouth and poole, there is Gales in winton and some ine the town centers. You have to call and ask around that's all..

Does anyone know if this poor family got a home?

I have several times 'googled' Legal-aid Solicitors in the Bournemouth area and results show Southampton as nearest, with none in Bournemouth, Poole or Christchurch.

I have noted Gales in Winton and you add that there are "loads of legal aid solicitors in bournemouth."

If you don't mind, I'd like to know where or how you found them?

Please either post the info here or e-mail me direct on..

jambonick@ntlworld.c
om.

Thank you.

Mr Moore of Gales is very efficient.

Quality Solicitors also accept legal aid; there's a branch in Bournemouth, a branch in Poole and a branch in Canford Cliffs. I know a few people who access their services through legal aid.

It's not Bournemouth sorry Boscombe, my mistake. Still if you're THAT desperate for a solicitor I don't think you can be fussy about the location of their offices.

rozmister wrote:
It's not Bournemouth sorry Boscombe, my mistake. Still if you're THAT desperate for a solicitor I don't think you can be fussy about the location of their offices.

No, I'm not "THAT" desperate for a Solicitor!

Nor do I have any objection to solicitors who are located in Boscombe: probable reason is that I just happen to live in Boscombe!

Lovely place is Boscombe, particularly since it was twinned with Beruit !!

Ps: No need to shout.. I ain't 'deaf'!

Thanks anyway.

I googled legal aid solicitors and put my postcode, it comes up with a list and a map of all the nearest legal aid solicitors, if I called one and they were full I asked if they knew any others, usually they do!