This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/20/family-reunited-housing-battle-separation-benefits-cap
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Family reunited after housing battle led to homelessness and separation | Family reunited after housing battle led to homelessness and separation |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| When Titina Nzolameso got a letter from Westminster council offering her new accommodation 50 miles away in Milton Keynes, she had little over 24 hours to work out how she was going to uproot her five children from London and find them new schools in a part of the country she had never visited, far from the friends and support structures she had built up over the previous 17 years. “I didn’t know anything about Milton Keynes; I didn’t go and look at it,” she says during an interview at her lawyer’s office. | When Titina Nzolameso got a letter from Westminster council offering her new accommodation 50 miles away in Milton Keynes, she had little over 24 hours to work out how she was going to uproot her five children from London and find them new schools in a part of the country she had never visited, far from the friends and support structures she had built up over the previous 17 years. “I didn’t know anything about Milton Keynes; I didn’t go and look at it,” she says during an interview at her lawyer’s office. |
| Convinced that this was not the right thing for her family, she turned the offer of housing down. With hindsight, this is a decision she regrets. As a result, Westminster council judged that it no longer had a duty to provide housing for her and her family. She became homeless and her children were removed from her by social services, split up, and sent to three separate foster families. The children, aged between eight and 14, were driven away by police to new homes, where they remained for a year, while Nzolameso fought court case after court case to be rehoused and reunited with her family. | Convinced that this was not the right thing for her family, she turned the offer of housing down. With hindsight, this is a decision she regrets. As a result, Westminster council judged that it no longer had a duty to provide housing for her and her family. She became homeless and her children were removed from her by social services, split up, and sent to three separate foster families. The children, aged between eight and 14, were driven away by police to new homes, where they remained for a year, while Nzolameso fought court case after court case to be rehoused and reunited with her family. |
| A precedent-setting supreme court judgment last month quashed Westminster council’s arguments that an offer of housing in Bletchley, Milton Keynes represented a suitable option for the family – criticising officials for failing to establish “how practicable” it would be for the family to move out of the area, and for failing to justify why the family had not been offered accommodation either in Westminster or as close by as possible. Her victory is likely to have a significant impact on how councils carry out their duty to house homeless families. | A precedent-setting supreme court judgment last month quashed Westminster council’s arguments that an offer of housing in Bletchley, Milton Keynes represented a suitable option for the family – criticising officials for failing to establish “how practicable” it would be for the family to move out of the area, and for failing to justify why the family had not been offered accommodation either in Westminster or as close by as possible. Her victory is likely to have a significant impact on how councils carry out their duty to house homeless families. |
| I became more unwell. I couldn’t sleep and I couldn’t eat. I had never, ever been separated from the children before. | I became more unwell. I couldn’t sleep and I couldn’t eat. I had never, ever been separated from the children before. |
| Nzolameso has been reunited with her children, and housed in temporary accommodation on the outskirts of London (at Westminster’s expense), but the experiences of the past four years have proved scarring for everyone in the family, and life is only just beginning to return to normality. She is angry at how much her children have had to suffer as a result of the protracted legal battle and of being taken into care. “It’s not good to separate children like that,” she says. “Nzolameso’s health also suffered as a result. “I became more unwell, because I was so upset,” she says. “I couldn’t sleep and I couldn’t eat. I had never, ever been separated from the children before. I didn’t know how I was going to find accommodation for the family.” | Nzolameso has been reunited with her children, and housed in temporary accommodation on the outskirts of London (at Westminster’s expense), but the experiences of the past four years have proved scarring for everyone in the family, and life is only just beginning to return to normality. She is angry at how much her children have had to suffer as a result of the protracted legal battle and of being taken into care. “It’s not good to separate children like that,” she says. “Nzolameso’s health also suffered as a result. “I became more unwell, because I was so upset,” she says. “I couldn’t sleep and I couldn’t eat. I had never, ever been separated from the children before. I didn’t know how I was going to find accommodation for the family.” |
| Her case has ramifications for the Conservative government, as the legal consequences could make it harder for local authorities in London to send their social housing tenants and homeless people out of the capital to cheaper properties far from central London. It is a process that’s been happening with increased frequency since the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition capped the amount payable for privately rented properties according to their size and location in 2010 and introduced the benefit cap in 2013, placing an upper limit on the total benefits allowances of £26,000 a year. And it is set to increase further: the Conservatives will unveil plans in next week’s Queen’s speech to lower the cap to £23,000. | Her case has ramifications for the Conservative government, as the legal consequences could make it harder for local authorities in London to send their social housing tenants and homeless people out of the capital to cheaper properties far from central London. It is a process that’s been happening with increased frequency since the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition capped the amount payable for privately rented properties according to their size and location in 2010 and introduced the benefit cap in 2013, placing an upper limit on the total benefits allowances of £26,000 a year. And it is set to increase further: the Conservatives will unveil plans in next week’s Queen’s speech to lower the cap to £23,000. |
| Last month, Inside Housing reported that London councils placed 1,388 households outside the capital between July 2013 and June 2014, up 77% on the same period the year before, when there were 783 placements outside London. Nzolameso, 51, was evicted from her home in Bayswater, central London in October 2012, because of a radical cut to the amount of housing benefit she was entitled to: her weekly rent had been £1,150, but after a cap placed on the local housing allowance, she was only allowed to claim around £400 a week and she had fallen into rent arrears. Her family was housed (at the much higher cost of £456 a night) in bed and breakfast accommodation for several months, until January 2013, when she received the offer of a home in Milton Keynes. | Last month, Inside Housing reported that London councils placed 1,388 households outside the capital between July 2013 and June 2014, up 77% on the same period the year before, when there were 783 placements outside London. Nzolameso, 51, was evicted from her home in Bayswater, central London in October 2012, because of a radical cut to the amount of housing benefit she was entitled to: her weekly rent had been £1,150, but after a cap placed on the local housing allowance, she was only allowed to claim around £400 a week and she had fallen into rent arrears. Her family was housed (at the much higher cost of £456 a night) in bed and breakfast accommodation for several months, until January 2013, when she received the offer of a home in Milton Keynes. |
| A refugee advice centre (Nzolameso claimed asylum on arrival from the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1998), told her that she could request a review of the decision. She turned the offer down, concerned that it would be hard to get the medical support for her health conditions and more importantly, to reproduce the support network of friends who could look after her children when she was hospitalised for those conditions. | |
| Related: The families priced out of their London homes by benefit cap | Amelia Gentleman | Related: The families priced out of their London homes by benefit cap | Amelia Gentleman |
| For a while she was put into emergency housing in Ilford. The legal process that she has been sucked into over the past three years, since she received the Milton Keynes offer, is head-spinningly complicated, but in February 2014, Westminster council ruled she no longer had the right to emergency housing, and she became homeless. “I had no choice but to let social services take my children into care,” she says. It was a profoundly difficult time for her children; although they were able to remain at their school, they were devastated at being split up and removed from their mother. | For a while she was put into emergency housing in Ilford. The legal process that she has been sucked into over the past three years, since she received the Milton Keynes offer, is head-spinningly complicated, but in February 2014, Westminster council ruled she no longer had the right to emergency housing, and she became homeless. “I had no choice but to let social services take my children into care,” she says. It was a profoundly difficult time for her children; although they were able to remain at their school, they were devastated at being split up and removed from their mother. |
| “They were very unhappy. They didn’t talk too much about it, but I could see how sad they were. They would say: ‘Mummy, when can we find a house? We don’t like foster care. It’s no good here.’ They missed their mother’s love.” | “They were very unhappy. They didn’t talk too much about it, but I could see how sad they were. They would say: ‘Mummy, when can we find a house? We don’t like foster care. It’s no good here.’ They missed their mother’s love.” |
| She spent months looking for a property big enough to house the family, where the rent was within the limits allowed by the reduced housing benefit allowance. She knew staying in central London was not going to be possible, but even in the outskirts there was almost nothing affordable; she quickly discovered that the landlords at those places that she might have been able to afford with housing benefit payments were unwilling to accept new tenants who were receiving benefits, because of the uncertainty about whether benefits were going to be cut further. | She spent months looking for a property big enough to house the family, where the rent was within the limits allowed by the reduced housing benefit allowance. She knew staying in central London was not going to be possible, but even in the outskirts there was almost nothing affordable; she quickly discovered that the landlords at those places that she might have been able to afford with housing benefit payments were unwilling to accept new tenants who were receiving benefits, because of the uncertainty about whether benefits were going to be cut further. |
| She was only reunited with her children when Westminster council was forced by judicial review to provide the whole family with temporary accommodation on the outskirts of London in February. Her current rent is £310 a week, much less than she was paying in Bayswater. She has never argued with the decision that the original rent was too high. Her legal case looked at why it was that the council did not make more of an attempt to find something closer to London. “I accept that it was expensive – accommodation in London is expensive,” she says, “I never demanded to live in Westminster.” She points out that the cost of putting five children in foster care, while the legal battle continued, was also extremely high. | She was only reunited with her children when Westminster council was forced by judicial review to provide the whole family with temporary accommodation on the outskirts of London in February. Her current rent is £310 a week, much less than she was paying in Bayswater. She has never argued with the decision that the original rent was too high. Her legal case looked at why it was that the council did not make more of an attempt to find something closer to London. “I accept that it was expensive – accommodation in London is expensive,” she says, “I never demanded to live in Westminster.” She points out that the cost of putting five children in foster care, while the legal battle continued, was also extremely high. |
| Had she known that her children would be removed, she would never have turned down the Milton Keynes offer. “I would have accepted it. If I am given another offer outside London, I would take it this time,” she says. | Had she known that her children would be removed, she would never have turned down the Milton Keynes offer. “I would have accepted it. If I am given another offer outside London, I would take it this time,” she says. |
| The supreme court judgment makes it clear that local authorities have a statutory duty to provide accommodation in their own area “so far as reasonably practicable”, reiterating that if it is not reasonably practicable, then there is an obligation to offer accommodation “as close by as possible”. It criticised the council for having paid insufficient attention to Nzolameso’s personal circumstances. | The supreme court judgment makes it clear that local authorities have a statutory duty to provide accommodation in their own area “so far as reasonably practicable”, reiterating that if it is not reasonably practicable, then there is an obligation to offer accommodation “as close by as possible”. It criticised the council for having paid insufficient attention to Nzolameso’s personal circumstances. |
| Baroness Hale, the supreme court judge, said: “There is little to suggest that serious consideration was given to the authority’s obligations before the decision was taken to offer the property in Bletchley.” The team making the decision knew little about her case, and “did not ask any questions aimed at assessing how practicable it would be for the family to move out of the area. Nor were any inquiries made to see whether school places would be available in Bletchley and what the appellant’s particular medical conditions required.” | Baroness Hale, the supreme court judge, said: “There is little to suggest that serious consideration was given to the authority’s obligations before the decision was taken to offer the property in Bletchley.” The team making the decision knew little about her case, and “did not ask any questions aimed at assessing how practicable it would be for the family to move out of the area. Nor were any inquiries made to see whether school places would be available in Bletchley and what the appellant’s particular medical conditions required.” |
| Although the judgment does not herald an end to the use of out of area accommodation, it will make it harder for councils to do so. Nzolameso’s lawyer, Jayesh Kunwardia, told the press after the ruling that councils would need to be more transparent about their decision to rehouse vulnerable people, in cheaper areas, miles away from the capital. “Budget cuts will not be tolerated by the courts as an excuse to move homeless families miles away from their friends and support networks.” | Although the judgment does not herald an end to the use of out of area accommodation, it will make it harder for councils to do so. Nzolameso’s lawyer, Jayesh Kunwardia, told the press after the ruling that councils would need to be more transparent about their decision to rehouse vulnerable people, in cheaper areas, miles away from the capital. “Budget cuts will not be tolerated by the courts as an excuse to move homeless families miles away from their friends and support networks.” |
| Cllr Daniel Astaire, Westminster city council cabinet member for housing and regeneration, says: “As we said at the time, we were disappointed with the ruling as the court of appeal had previously upheld the council’s decision on this individual case from 2012. Nevertheless, we have been taking on board what the court has said and we will continue to review our procedures and make any necessary changes to the way in which decisions are explained to applicants. | Cllr Daniel Astaire, Westminster city council cabinet member for housing and regeneration, says: “As we said at the time, we were disappointed with the ruling as the court of appeal had previously upheld the council’s decision on this individual case from 2012. Nevertheless, we have been taking on board what the court has said and we will continue to review our procedures and make any necessary changes to the way in which decisions are explained to applicants. |
| “However, we are pleased that the ruling does not, in any way, bring into question the principle of this or other authorities housing people out of borough where it is necessary. This could have had major financial implications for central London authorities in particular.” | “However, we are pleased that the ruling does not, in any way, bring into question the principle of this or other authorities housing people out of borough where it is necessary. This could have had major financial implications for central London authorities in particular.” |
| Nzolameso remains uncertain about the long-term security of her current accommodation; although as a recipient of employment support allowance she is exempt from the benefit cap, there is an outside chance that she could be asked again to move from the capital if there’s a problem with her tenancy. The children are still anxious that the ordeal might be repeated. “They ask: ‘Mummy, will we be going back to foster care?’ I tell them, no,” she says. | Nzolameso remains uncertain about the long-term security of her current accommodation; although as a recipient of employment support allowance she is exempt from the benefit cap, there is an outside chance that she could be asked again to move from the capital if there’s a problem with her tenancy. The children are still anxious that the ordeal might be repeated. “They ask: ‘Mummy, will we be going back to foster care?’ I tell them, no,” she says. |
| • This article was amended on 20 May 2015 to remove some personal details. |
Previous version
1
Next version