Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Homeless Jobless and Wifeless

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
i believe if a new scheme is introduced into the forces it will be directed towards Army personnel and this would have an adverse affect on moral and fairness. I said some time back, we all require to stand together on this issue. As the saying goes, he he shouts loudest gets heard.

Their reasons for looking at only garrison towns etc, is to make the issue look small. They couldn't be further from the truth. There will be more and more service families requiring housing help in the future and thats not to mention single personnel.

hitback
 
Hitback said:
i believe if a new scheme is introduced into the forces it will be directed towards Army personnel and this would have an adverse affect on moral and fairness. I said some time back, we all require to stand together on this issue. As the saying goes, he he shouts loudest gets heard.

Their reasons for looking at only garrison towns etc, is to make the issue look small. They couldn't be further from the truth. There will be more and more service families requiring housing help in the future and thats not to mention single personnel.

hitback

I would agree, it must be all service persons, and as I am sure you are well aware may people on leaving the service return to their home area or some where near, or to somewhere where suitable employment exists. Limiting things to 'garrison' towns would first place an unreasonable potential load on laces like Aldershot and let the rest of the country off the hook. I for one cannot understand the moral justification for not doing something about the problem, perhaps you should ask ministers to explain that.
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
I have been asking Minister for the last 3 years. The information from the DCLG constantly states media coverage and how do we explain this issue. Spin and more Spin, thats all I've seen.

The questions that have been asked by the DCLG have been sent to me but the answers haven't!! The benefit local Garrison Town make out of forces personnel is huge and their burden is very small. Lord Denning articulated the legal terms for Benefit and Burden he stated; Let he who accepts the Benefit also accept the Burden.

Regards

Hitback
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
I have 96 pages of information from the DCLG. The following is of interest and looks at the wording of the Homelessness Legislation. The first entry by the JSHAO sums up the lack of knowledge service personnel have about their future housing needs in civvie street. It would be interesting to know the % of service personnel that aren't getting out of the forces that attend the Housing Options briefings. These briefings are mostly attended by service leavers, aren't they?

That's why I believe it's very important to have a greater spread of briefings at all military locations. As said before, they could be attached to the CDT Teams that visit all military location at least once a year.

Regards

Hitback

P.S You can still sign the Petition by using the link at the bottom. Thank you.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Nov 06

We come across lots of people that are under the misapprehension that Time in Service Accommodation establishes a local connection particularly at our Housing Options briefings.

This is further complicated by the fact that a minority of local authorities do acknowledge that lengthy periods in the same location qualify or at least accumulate points on Housing Needs Registers. Some will recognise time spent in SFA but only as an irregular and normally only if you have been an IO for more than 6 months.

The irony is of course that with key worker status an individual could now establish a local connection and purchase a property through NewBuild HomeBuy. A colleague who could not afford HomeBuy would leave without a local connection.

I do however have a great deal of sympathy with local authorities. The rules as they stand at present (first promulgated in DE circular 14/93) are designed to spread the load - the alternative would put huge demands on what in some cases are small local authorities

I think we should tread carefully, we run the risk of upsetting some local authorities big time and losing what little good will we currently have.

OIC JSHAO
HQ Land Command
Wilton
Salisbury
Tel: 01722'


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]> 30/11/06 10:28:41 >»

I am currently gathering evidence for you , but in the interim have a look at xxxxxx attached email . It articulates the peculiarities that exist with eligibility of granting Key Worker Status that I previously discussed with you. By simple default of KW status eligibility - local connection has already been established. So I am really confused as to why accruing local connection points whilst living in an area whilst still serving, is so difficult to sustain with DCLG.

Not withstanding xxxxxxx other comments about flooding local authorities - I come back to the same point that I made during our first meeting in that this is about parity of treatment - regardless of how long somebody has to wait for accommodation to become available when they leave the Services, they should start as equal to the rest of society. In other words create a level playing field before personnel leave the Armed forces.
Suggest we meet to see how we can take this forward. What is your diary like for the 14 Dec?


AD Housing 020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frances Walker

Sent: 10 January 2007 17:38

Subject: Re: Local conection

Thanks for your email and sorry to take a while to get back to you. I am afraid that I did not pick up till now your offer to meet in December. I did not mean to be rude and am certainly very happy to do so now, if this would be helpful. My diary is relatively free at the moment.
I wonder whether it would help if I try to clarify the position on the allocation of social housing and local connection. I am not sure whether we are at cross-purposes to some extent.

When it comes to letting social rented housing, local authorities (LAs) must comply with part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This was revised by the Homelessness Act 2002 -which came into effect in Jan 2003. Prior to the 2002 Act amendments, LAs could decide who qualified to go on their register. They would often impose residency qualifications, or a local connection.

As a result of the 2002 Act amendments, LAs can no longer set their own qualification criteria. Anyone is eligible to go on the housing waiting list, except certain persons from abroad and people guilty of unacceptable behaviour. However, the allocation legislation allows but does not require LAs to take into account certain factors in determining between people in the "reasonable preference" categories. The reasonable preference categories are those people who should be given priority for social housing. The allocation legislation gives examples of the sort of factors which could be taken into account, including -

"any local connection (within the meaning of section 199 [of the 1996 Act]) which exists between a person and the authority's district".

Section 199 is part of the homelessness legislation and provides -

"(1) A person has a local connection with the district of a local housing authority if he has a connnection with it -

(a) because he is, or in the past was, normally resident there, and that residence is or was of his own choice,

(b) because he is employed there

-------I believe some information may have been removed from here?

(2) A person is not employed in a district if he is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown.

(3) Residence in a district is not of a person's own choice if -

(a) he becomes resident there because he, or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, is serving in the regular armed forces of the Crown

------- I believe some information may have been removed from here?

I thought it might be worth setting out the above, so that you are clear that the definition of "local connection" in the allocations context is set out in statute - it is not simply a matter of what DCLG can or cannot sustain. This provides that service personnel do not have a local connection through employment or residence of choice, where they are serving in the armed forces. If the Government wanted to change this, a change to the primary legislation would be required.

Having said that, LAs do not have to take into account local connection in determining priorities. Where they do so, this will have to be clearly stated in their allocation scheme. Also, even if they do take into account local connection, the fact that a serviceman or woman may not be able to demonstrate that he has one -

- will not make him/her ineligible
- will not necessarily mean that he/she has no priority.

It will simply mean that he has less priority than someone who does have a local connection. However, clearly in very high demand areas this could mean that he/she has little chance of being housed until he/she has acquired such a connection (in other words until he/she has found other employment or lived there for a certain amount of time after leaving the armed forces).

I have just written to the LAs which house the larger military establishments (you kindly sent me the list) to try to find out what their allocation scheme provides, and for any data they can give me about service personnel on the waiting list and/or allocated accommodation. I am attaching copy of the letter. Hopefully, this may give some idea of the extent of the issue.

suggests in his email, there is a sound policy rationale for the local connection provisions as they relate to servicemen. In the allocations context, this is to avoid creating disproportionate pressure on waiting lists in those districts which host military bases and at the expense of other residents of the district. Any proposal to change the legislation in the allocations context could well generate strong localised opposition.

I am afraid that I am a little bit puzzled by the reference to key worker status and NewBuild HomeBuy. I am not sure how someone would establish a "local connection" in this context and, even if this were a relevant for NB HB, what effect this would have on the statutory provisions which govern local connection in the allocations context. Could you explain a bit more? I am probably being a bit dim.

Sorry for the length of this email. Look forward to hearing from you.

Frances

Frances
Social Housing Management Branch
DCLG
020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Jan 07


Frances

Thank you for this. Your email confirms my understanding of the housing Act. It is item 2 of Section'199 that I am wanting to remove. Service families can be posted into an area for virtually the whole of their career so from their perspective they are fundamentally contributing to the community - Council tax , supporting and contributing towards the local economy , spouse employment, dependants in education etc. I just want a level playing field for them to accrue points as everybody else who resides and works in that locality.

I have also been collecting data which I will send later. This will give an indication of likely numbers and geographical spread.
think it would be useful for us to speak , I am free 23, 25,26 Jan

AD Housing
SpPol 020721M
 
When I came out in '78 I had nowhere to live and no job, needless to say the next few years were very hard indeed.
The Navy in their wisdom kept me on sea going ships until two weeks before I left; counting a ship I had been on for two years as a shore draft, despite us spending more time at sea than many a big grey thing.
I had no idea what help might be available it was an extremely depressing time.
These things are now a distant memory but I would support any move to improve the lot of people leaving the services.
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
Please sign the Petition and write to your MP asking them to support EDM 288. The issue of housing for service leavers has not improved over the years and nothing the JSHAO says will convince me otherwise. This is an issue thats been left for nearly 30 years and its well over due an overhaul. We will see more veterans on the streets over the next 5 years, fact not fiction.


Hitback
 
Dear K**** *****

Thank you for your email. Mr Field has signed EDM 288.

With best wishes
Jill Hendey
Secretary to Rt Hon Frank Field MP

Result.. :eek: I have e-mailed my thanks to the MP for Birkenhead for supporting this EDM
 

mikh

MIA
Father_Famine said:
Hi

I received a letter yesterday from Rosie Cooper my MP who claims she cannot sign it because she is a Parliamentary Private Secretary or similar.
(I will check proper wording when I get home)

Terry

Same here FF, Tony Cunningham government whip said the same thing, but he has passed my concerns onto the relevant ministries.


Always a Civvie confirmed that this is practice/custom
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
The EDM has now got 215 MPs pledged to it. The last group of five are Labour MPs! Seeing as they are in power lets hope they do something about this disgraceful legislation.

It's all down to the pressure brought to bear on our political masters by all of you that have emailed their MPs. If you haven't read the start of this issue then here is a quick synopsis;

The current Homelessness Legislation discriminates against service personnel and their families. It puts us at a distinct disadvantage when competing with civilians for Social Housing /Housing Associations. An early day motion is currently being signed by MPs which if carried, will help change this legislation, but we need more of them to sign it if we are to get the government to take notice. We now need your support to get this through. Go to the link at the bottom to send a Royal British Legion pre-written email to your MP asking them to support our armed forces.

If you wish to read the EDM and view which MPs have already signed, then go to the first link at the bottom of my threads.

Thank you for all your support.

Regards

Hitback
 

hackle

Lantern Swinger
Moderator
The EDM, the petition and the campaign are all strongly supported by the British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF).
 
I don't know how this doesn't equate to the homeless situation and Social work sections of local councils.
If you have no 'roof' over your head and genuine homeless then Councils will normally house you.However do not expect to be placed into a ready made home in a locality of your choice.

The usual course is that you would need to stay at a Hostel
initially and then council or private rented council housing stock.
Council housing lists are usually run on a points system for allocation

However-----------I suppose it depends on the area and availability of accomodation. The Southern counties must be really short of available spare housing.

Without going into details --certain person I know was forced out of her home through no fault of her own. The previous Landlord supplied a letter of proof and reasons the accomodation was not available and the council accepted it . Within Six months she had a single bedroomed flat -help with furnishing etc etc.
She was without work at the time so recieved a lot of help financially --most of the aid was given by a social worker assigned to her.

So why the difference with Services personnel on leaving the forces.
 
Greenie said:
I don't know how this doesn't equate to the homeless situation and Social work sections of local councils.
If you have no 'roof' over your head and genuine homeless then Councils will normally house you.However do not expect to be placed into a ready made home in a locality of your choice.

The usual course is that you would need to stay at a Hostel
initially and then council or private rented council housing stock.
Council housing lists are usually run on a points system for allocation

However-----------I suppose it depends on the area and availability of accomodation. The Southern counties must be really short of available spare housing.

Without going into details --certain person I know was forced out of her home through no fault of her own. The previous Landlord supplied a letter of proof and reasons the accomodation was not available and the council accepted it . Within Six months she had a single bedroomed flat -help with furnishing etc etc.
She was without work at the time so recieved a lot of help financially --most of the aid was given by a social worker assigned to her.

So why the difference with Services personnel on leaving the forces.

Quite simply you do not unlike the woman you mentioned, have a 'connection' with the area. Living in Pompey of Guz for 22 years in the RN gives you no legal connection with either locality thus absolving the council from any responsibility. I believe the rule was first concieved to stop chavs going to holiday resorts and getting housed there, but it was extended to stop councils having to house ex-servicemen.
 

Harry1

Lantern Swinger
I notice my local MP Douglas Hogg hasn't signed. He should be ashamed considering the number of RAF Bases in is constiuency. Me thinks I need to rattle his cage a little.
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
Harry1 Please do. If you read some of the information placed on here last week, you will see that the DCLG is disregarding RAF and NAVY Bases in gauging how bad this issue is. The DCLG etc say this issue doesn't affect RAF, NAVY personnel as much. I believe they are trying to keep the numbers down, to make the issue seem smaller than it really is.

Get those emails sent and rattle those cages, before the government places some spin on this very important issue.

Hitback
 
My local MP Malcolm Bruce has signed the EDM. I note the date he signed it was after I sent him an email or 2. If your MP hasn't signed it demand answers from them as to why they have not signed. I see no reason why we can't name and shame them.
Lindsay
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
The following letter has been sent to my MP Mrs Nadine Dorries Mid Beds. I shall keep this site and all the others updated on it outcome.

Hitback



Dear Nadine,

I am writing to you to ask if you could organise a meeting with myself and Mr Cameron. I would like to discuss with him the problems en-counted by service leavers under the current Homelessness Legislation 199(2)and (3). As your EDM 288 points out it has an averse affect on those that have served their country and that's not acceptable. The information I received from the DCLG and the MoD shows this issue does have an adverse affect and should be addressed, however, they are also playing with words and not doing anything to move forward.

The armed forces are feeling betrayed by our politicians at present and the covenant has been broken between those that serve and the countries people. As you are aware I have already spoken with Mark Harper MP about this but I believe it requires to be addressed by the leader of his party and I hope the future leader of this country. The website I've been running this issue on have had about 200,000 pings and service news letters have been covering it as well. I talk with many service personnel and their families as well TA soldiers and they feel that the current legislation is a disgraceful act by a countries government.

I also understand that Mr Cameron is a very busy person with lots to cover as the opposition party leader, but this is an issue that affects many service leavers and their families which requires his time and up most attention. I believe those that serve in Her Majesty's Armed Forces will see his support a good reason for electing his party in the next general election.

If more information is required on this issue then please email me or Peter could back brief on whats been going on and the issue in general.

Kind Regards

Hitback
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
Has anyone on RumRation had a reply from their MP about supporting EDM 288? My understanding is, from other site users, their MPs are now ignoring their request to support the EDM. I have told them to put pen to paper and post a letter to their MP asking why they are failing in their duties to represent and support their constituents.

Hitback
 

Hitback

Lantern Swinger
This is some MPs from my list that have not signed EDM 288. If we could send an email to as many as possible that would be great. I will place another list up here next week.

If you get a reply or notice one of the names below on the EDM them please inform us on the site.

To get an idea of what EDM 288 is about, please click on the link at the bottom of this entry.

Regards

Hitback

Smith, Ms Angela C. (Lab) * Sheffield, Hillsborough http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/586.html

Smith, Angela E. (Lab/Co-op) Basildon http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/189.html

Stunell, Andrew (LD) Hazel Grove http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/498.html

Simmonds, Mark (Con) Boston & Skegness http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/473.html

Sheridan, Jim (Lab) Paisley & Renfrewshire North http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/835.html

Sheerman, Mr Barry (Lab/Co-op) Huddersfield http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/399.html

Shaw, Jonathan (Lab) Chatham & Aylesford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/229.html

Swinson, Jo (LD) * East Dunbartonshire http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/830.html

Teather, Sarah (LD) Brent East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/303.html

Williams, Stephen (LD) * Bristol West http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/114.html

Younger-Ross, Richard (LD) Teignbridge http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/326.html

Reid, Mr Alan (LD) Argyll & Bute http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/822.html

Rennie, Willie (LD) * Dunfermline & West Fife http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/821.html

Robathan, Mr Andrew (Con) Blaby http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/460.html (Ex Army)

Ruddock, Joan (Lab) Lewisham, Deptford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/604.html

Ruane, Chris (Lab) Vale of Clwyd http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/175.html

Ryan, Joan (Lab) Enfield North http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/319.html

Roy, Mr Frank (Lab) Motherwell & Wishaw http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/836.html

Rammell, Bill (Lab) Harlow http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/185.html

Randall, Mr John (Con) Uxbridge http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/396.html

Redwood, Rt Hon John (Con) Wokingham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/571.html

Plaskitt, Mr James (Lab) Warwick & Leamington http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/35.html

Pope, Mr Greg (Lab) Hyndburn http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/59.html

Prentice, Bridget (Lab) Lewisham East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/105.html

Purchase, Mr Ken (Lab/Co-op) Wolverhampton North East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/655.html

Purnell, James (Lab) Stalybridge & Hyde http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/547.html

Osborne, Mr George (Con) Tatton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/221.html

O'Brien, Mr Stephen (Con) Eddisbury http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/172.html

O'Brien, Mr Mike (Lab) North Warwickshire
http://www.mikeobrien.org.uk/ Please call his main office.

Munn, Meg (Lab/Co-op) Sheffield, Heeley http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/583.html

McNulty, Mr Tony (Lab) Harrow East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/393.html

McDonnell, John (Lab) Hayes & Harlington http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/643.html

McCabe, Stephen (Lab) Birmingham, Hall Green http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/24.html

Lammy, Mr David (Lab) Tottenham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/513.html

Lewis, Mr Ivan (Lab) Bury South http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/88.html

Ladyman, Dr Stephen (Lab) South Thanet http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/204.html

Luff, Peter (Con) Mid Worcestershire http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/38.html

Lucas, Ian (Lab) Wrexham http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/465.html

Love, Mr Andy (Lab/Co-op) Edmonton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/320.html

Lloyd, Tony (Lab) Manchester Central http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/483.html

Linton, Martin (Lab) Battersea http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/623.html

Levitt, Tom (Lab) High Peak http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/588.html

Hunter, Mark (LD) * Cheadle http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/494.html

Howells, Dr Kim (Lab) Pontypridd http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/160.html

Hope, Phil (Lab/Co-op) Corby http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/463.html

Harris, Mr Tom (Lab) Glasgow South http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/832.html

Hague, Rt Hon William (Con) Richmond (Yorks) http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/261.html (He has refused to sign, RAF constituenets have asked him)

Hall, Patrick (Lab) Bedford http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/508.html

Goggins, Paul (Lab) Wythenshawe & Sale East http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/493.html

Gidley, Sandra (LD) Romsey http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/576.html

Follett, Barbara (Lab) Stevenage http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/16.html

Flynn, Paul (Lab) Newport West http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/155.html

Eagle, Angela (Lab) Wallasey http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/177.html

Eagle, Maria (Lab) Liverpool, Garston http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/446.html

Ennis, Jeff (Lab) Barnsley East & Mexborough http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/268.html

Davey, Mr Edward (LD) Kingston & Surbiton http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/429.html
 

Latest Threads

Top