|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 11:46:48 GMT
Our council tried to force us to sell our £200,000 home to make room for asylum seekers: Elderly couple's horror after strongly-worded letter lands on their doorstep
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 14, 2024 12:18:01 GMT
Bullying? Forcing the couple to sell? Surely both bits of OTT reporting and misunderstanding of the report, but it is the Mail. According to the info in the link, and the copy of the letter from the council to the couple, the property had been identified as vacant — in this instance wrongly, for which the council apologised, and the couple don't appear to have been harassed. Current data shows that more than one million properties are unoccupied across England**. Getting empty dwellings back into use seems a sensible exercise. Had this property been available, it would probably have ultimately saved the council spending on rents while, at the same time, acquiring a bricks and mortar asset... ** www.local.gov.uk/about/news/empty-homes-england-rise-nearly-10-cent-five-years |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 12:23:17 GMT
Why are they being compulsory purchased to house 'Asylum Seekers', I thought Sunak said UK homeless were priority housing, another bullshit lie, Sunak is determined to inundate us with migrants, he has no intentions of stopping them.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 14, 2024 12:29:51 GMT
Bullying? Forcing the couple to sell? Surely both bits of OTT reporting and misunderstanding of the report, but it is the Mail. According to the info in the link, and the copy of the letter from the council to the couple, the property had been identified as vacant — in this instance wrongly, for which the council apologised, and the couple don't appear to have been harassed. Current data shows that more than one million properties are unoccupied across England**. Getting empty dwellings back into use seems a sensible exercise. Had this property been available, it would probably have ultimately saved the council spending on rents while, at the same time, acquiring a bricks and mortar asset... ** www.local.gov.uk/about/news/empty-homes-england-rise-nearly-10-cent-five-yearsAgree. Why are they being compulsory purchased to house 'Asylum Seekers', I thought Sunak said UK homeless were priority housing, another bullshit lie, Sunak is determined to inundate us with migrants, he has no intentions of stopping them. And also agree. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 14, 2024 12:40:14 GMT
Apologies Fair Society posted this as thread elsewhere (now deleted) when I saw this and agree it’s not a bad policy but surely our own homeless or those looking for accommodation should come first.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 12:59:57 GMT
Well the Council have never gone down this route before because it doesn't benefit their property developer mates, property developers want land to build new, especially greenbelt, it's generally always passed after the bulging brown envelopes have been handed out.
The property developers will not like this scheme, and yet if it is done properly it might actually work, but FFS they must know what properties are empty they've got the electoral roll to check and Council Tax bills, why are they frightening old people, typical dumb unorganised Councils.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 14, 2024 13:03:36 GMT
Why are they being compulsory purchased to house 'Asylum Seekers', I thought Sunak said UK homeless were priority housing, another bullshit lie, Sunak is determined to inundate us with migrants, he has no intentions of stopping them. Reading the Council's letter to the couple, it is citing a particular current problem facing the Resettlement Team at Northampton Council, for which bringing vacant properties back into use could benefit the owners and those refugees and asylum seekers who urgently need accommodation.
Compulsory purchase is an option spelled out in the council's letter, but it also says: "We might be able to help/advise and work with owners to bring their properties back into use".
"Compulsory purchase only for refugees and asylum seekers" appears to be a story of the Mail's making...
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 14, 2024 13:07:42 GMT
Why are they being compulsory purchased to house 'Asylum Seekers', I thought Sunak said UK homeless were priority housing, another bullshit lie, Sunak is determined to inundate us with migrants, he has no intentions of stopping them. Reading the Council's letter to the couple, it is citing a particular current problem facing the Resettlement Team at Northampton Council, for which bringing vacant properties back into use could benefit the owners and those refugees and asylum seekers who urgently need accommodation.
Compulsory purchase is an option spelled out in the council's letter, but it also says: "We might be able to help/advise and work with owners to bring their properties back into use".
"Compulsory purchase only for refugees and asylum seekers" appears to be a story of the Mail's making...
The mails slant on this isn’t the problem,the problem is that the council are prioritising asylum seekers over those who already live here. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 13:17:26 GMT
Why are they being compulsory purchased to house 'Asylum Seekers', I thought Sunak said UK homeless were priority housing, another bullshit lie, Sunak is determined to inundate us with migrants, he has no intentions of stopping them. Reading the Council's letter to the couple, it is citing a particular current problem facing the Resettlement Team at Northampton Council, for which bringing vacant properties back into use could benefit the owners and those refugees and asylum seekers who urgently need accommodation.
Compulsory purchase is an option spelled out in the council's letter, but it also says: "We might be able to help/advise and work with owners to bring their properties back into use".
"Compulsory purchase only for refugees and asylum seekers" appears to be a story of the Mail's making...
The mail are just quoting from the letter 'Councils supports Asylum Seekers, and refugees across three different projects: Homes for Ukraine, Afghan, and Asylum Dispersal'.
Not a mention of our own UK homeless people, the Mail have not made it up, so why is it 'a story of the Mail's making'?
Why are the Councils giving priority to these groups of people, the UK homeless FIRST, no other country would prioritise foreigners over their own people, except us woke UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 14, 2024 13:26:49 GMT
Well the Council have never gone down this route before because it doesn't benefit their property developer mates, property developers want land to build new, especially greenbelt, it's generally always passed after the bulging brown envelopes have been handed out. The property developers will not like this scheme, and yet if it is done properly it might actually work, but FFS they must know what properties are empty they've got the electoral roll to check and Council Tax bills, why are they frightening old people, typical dumb unorganised Councils. The Mail's story is about an "elderly couple who had just moved into their £200,000 house" — but we don't know how long had the house been empty before the couple moved in, it could have been days, or weeks, or months. So easy for a council employee, given the task of traipsing round the streets looking for empty dwellings, to note down the address and pass it to the letter writing dept.
***
Some years ago, we had a summons for non-payment of Council tax. Came as a shock because we pay by a direct debit. Checking with the bank confirmed that we'd not cancelled the DD — but also showed payment hadn't been collected.
So we checked back with the council by phone and were told it had installed a new computer system, following which there'd been some glitches, and some payments hadn't been collected.
It appears that rather than go through all council tax payers, whatever dept was responsible thought it was easier to send out summonses and wait for the squeals. When we squealed, there was no apology, just an abrupt: "So when are you going to pay it?" — typical dumb unorganised Councils, indeed...
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 14, 2024 13:43:07 GMT
Reading the Council's letter to the couple, it is citing a particular current problem facing the Resettlement Team at Northampton Council, for which bringing vacant properties back into use could benefit the owners and those refugees and asylum seekers who urgently need accommodation.
Compulsory purchase is an option spelled out in the council's letter, but it also says: "We might be able to help/advise and work with owners to bring their properties back into use".
"Compulsory purchase only for refugees and asylum seekers" appears to be a story of the Mail's making...
The mails slant on this isn’t the problem,the problem is that the council are prioritising asylum seekers over those who already live here. There's no definite indication that the council is prioritising asylum seekers over others, but it is giving a reason for its current increased need.
Admittedly, the letter could have been better written — on the other hand, perhaps it got the response that was intended from the Conservative client media... |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 14, 2024 13:49:25 GMT
Councils bullying old and vulnerable out of their homes . . .
Except had you read the article you'd have seen they weren't and can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 13:52:26 GMT
The mails slant on this isn’t the problem,the problem is that the council are prioritising asylum seekers over those who already live here. There's no definite indication that the council is prioritising asylum seekers over others, but it is giving a reason for its current increased need.
Admittedly, the letter could have been better written — on the other hand, perhaps it got the response that was intended from the Conservative client media... It's just winding people up, how do you think homeless veterans, vulnerable, and families are going to feel who have lived here all their lives and more often that not especially under the section 21 notice where landlords can just boot people out of their properties for no apparent reason, how do you think they are going to react when they see letters like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 13:56:11 GMT
Councils bullying old and vulnerable out of their homes . . .
Except had you read the article you'd have seen they weren't and can't. Typical of steve, he hasn't got the gist of the thread, but leopards never change their spots, do they?
BTW don't think I am going to respond to your next rambling posts trying to put your spin on it, I know what I meant, it's not my problem you thinking for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 14, 2024 13:58:12 GMT
Well the Council have never gone down this route before because it doesn't benefit their property developer mates, property developers want land to build new, especially greenbelt, it's generally always passed after the bulging brown envelopes have been handed out. The property developers will not like this scheme, and yet if it is done properly it might actually work, but FFS they must know what properties are empty they've got the electoral roll to check and Council Tax bills, why are they frightening old people, typical dumb unorganised Councils. The Mail's story is about an "elderly couple who had just moved into their £200,000 house" — but we don't know how long had the house been empty before the couple moved in, it could have been days, or weeks, or months. So easy for a council employee, given the task of traipsing round the streets looking for empty dwellings, to note down the address and pass it to the letter writing dept.
***
Some years ago, we had a summons for non-payment of Council tax. Came as a shock because we pay by a direct debit. Checking with the bank confirmed that we'd not cancelled the DD — but also showed payment hadn't been collected.
So we checked back with the council by phone and were told it had installed a new computer system, following which there'd been some glitches, and some payments hadn't been collected.
It appears that rather than go through all council tax payers, whatever dept was responsible thought it was easier to send out summonses and wait for the squeals. When we squealed, there was no apology, just an abrupt: "So when are you going to pay it?" — typical dumb unorganised Councils, indeed...
I had exactly the same some years ago.
So I wrote to the council, politely explaining their error - only to get an increasingly threatening letter by return.
This happened several times over, with the council refusing to sort themselves out and getting increasingly threatening.
In the end I visited them in person. They were just as abrupt then but with me sitting in front of them, they had no option but to get it sorted.
These days I'd just let them take me to court and waste their time.
|
|
