Open letter to local politicians about Grace's case!
Published on September 18, 2023 by Food & Solidarity
The following letter is redacted to remove personal information. This was sent on friday, so far we have had an initial response from Chi Onwurah's office.
From: Food and Solidarity
To: Chi Onwurah MP and Councillor Irim Ali
CC: Councillor Karen Kilgour, Councillor Ian Tokell, Councillor PJ Morrissey
RE: imminent eviction and risk of street homelessness in your ward Further, failures by local duty solicitors and HAC, including direct discrimination.
Dear Chi Onwurah and Councillor Irim Ali,
We are writing on behalf of our member and your constituent, Grace, and her two adult children. Grace and her family face imminent eviction and possible street homelessness on Thursday the 12th of October. We have brought this to your attention because this situation has been caused by multiple, serious failures from Newcastle City Council, which we believe you have the power to investigate and address.
Harassment, disrepair, and eviction
Since her tenancy began in May 2020, Grace has experienced numerous issues with her housing, which we believe to violate both the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes recurring rat infestations since October 2021, persistent problems with black mould and a broken rear fence. Grace has repeatedly raised these issues with her landlord, but any repairs that have been carried out have usually been slow and insufficient.
Instead of carrying out these repairs, from May 2022 the landlord engaged in behaviour that could be interpreted as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. At this time, the landlord repeatedly told Grace and her family that she wanted to sell the property and that they needed to leave. Because the landlord had not yet served any formal legal notice ending Grace’s tenancy, Grace and her family had a right to remain in their house and should not have been pressured to leave. Pressuring Grace to disregard her legal rights and surrender the property in this way is the kind of behaviour which may be considered harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
This behaviour continued over the following months and then escalated further in September 2022, when it appears that an attempt to sell the house failed. The landlord sent a text to Grace saying that her family had 60 days to leave the property. This was not in the form of a proper legal notice ending the tenancy, and so was both legally void and arguably constituted harassment. The landlord’s husband then sent a barrage of texts and calls to Grace, which Grace and her family found extremely stressful and time-consuming. On the 16th of September, Grace texted the landlord's husband requesting that they only make contact via e-mail. He responded by text message (despite this request) saying that he didn’t know what the problem was.
This conduct again escalated in March 2023. On the 2nd of March 2023, the Landlord attempted to increase the rent by £150 per month, despite this being unlawful due to ongoing disrepair. On the 8th of March, the Landlord and her husband came to the property without the notice legally required. Although initially given access to the property, they then attempted to access the upstairs rooms of the house, which would have meant disturbing one of Grace’s children . Grace refused to do this - as she was legally permitted to - because of her concerns about the effect that this would have on their mental health (they are registered disabled, have diagnosed mental health conditions, and were already under a great deal of stress from this situation). The landlord responded by becoming aggressive, accusing Grace of not engaging with emails, and shouting that Grace’s family were living in the house illegally. (These emails were simply repeated demands that Grace and her family leave the property.) This interaction, and the landlord's aggressive and confrontational behaviour, took a serious toll on Grace’s family, and they felt extremely unsafe in their own home.
Grace’s tenancy is now ending, not because of unpaid rent or anti-social behaviour, but because of a no-fault section 21 order which the landlord only submitted in April 2023. This has been preceded by months of unlawful demands for Grace and her family to leave the property, consistent breaches of the landlord’s own legal obligations, and behaviour which we believe may constitute harassment.
Police misconduct
Not only was this stressful for Grace and her family to witness, it also exacerbated the problems that she faced with her landlord. If Northumbria Police were prepared to ignore an assault against a tenant and facilitate an illegal eviction, then was she not also at risk of illegal eviction? Incidents of misconduct such as this by Northumbria Police leave Grace and other tenants afraid to report abuse or harassment that they face, and in fear that they could face illegal eviction at any time from the people who are supposed to protect them.
An ongoing lack of support from HAC services
Grace and her family have sought support from the Housing Advice Centre (HAC) since early June. While they have been assigned a homelessness prevention officer and told they will be provided with temporary accommodation, Grace and her family still do not know where or when they will be rehoused. They have also been advised that they need to stay in their house until they are evicted by the bailiffs, or they may be considered “intentionally homeless”. This has created further stress for them and may leave them liable for the bailiffs’ costs. Despite the fact they should now be considered to be legally homeless.
Because of this lack of support, Grace has no guarantee that she will not face street homelessness, despite her best efforts to seek alternative housing through the council and private rentals. These failures pose an unacceptable risk to Grace and families like hers, and they need to be addressed urgently.
Direct and indirect discrimination from HAC
Grace’s child is disabled and receives PIP for their diagnosed mental health conditions. They has been trying to apply for council housing separately to Grace and her son since January 2023, but has been struggling to complete the application form because of their mental health problems. After accelerated possession proceedings were issued in August, They contacted HAC for help with filling in their application (a reasonable adjustment). Their homelessness prevention officer, stated that their diagnosed mental health conditions are “not a disability”. After eventually filling in the application, They phoned HAC to check that it was correct, and the application was accidentally deleted by a different HAC employee . They asked this employee to help them re-fill the form they had deleted, but they refused, stating that “disabled people don’t get special attention”. This was both direct and indirect discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010, as it was less favourable treatment towards them because of their protected characteristic of disability, and a failure to provide reasonable adjustment for their disability needs.
It is concerning and alarming to us that employees of the council, who are responsible for helping vulnerable people at risk of homelessness, not only failed to provide the support that They needed, but felt comfortable in making directly discriminatory and bigoted statements against them. We expect action to be taken immediately.
Irregularities with Legal Aid and the consequences for Grace
As people facing the threat of imminent eviction, Grace and her family were entitled to legal advice to support them during the possession hearing. However, the solicitors listed on the court letter as duty solicitors, were unable to act on Grace’s behalf due to a conflict of interest (they are involved in the sale of the house). The other legal aid housing solicitors were hired by the landlord to bring the possession case. We are concerned that two of the local duty solicitors for housing are allowed to regularly act in a way which could place them in conflict with clients in urgent need of housing advice.
Grace also was not able to get support from Citizens Advice, the Civil Legal Advice Service, or her homelessness prevention officer at HAC. Because of this, Grace went to court without any of the advice she was legally entitled to. Grace did this to try to delay the eviction against her and avoid homelessness for as long as possible. For this, court costs of £1,315.00 were awarded against her. Grace has effectively had to pay the costs of legal aid solicitors not to represent her.
This is one more example of Grace not receiving vitally needed support which she was entitled to. We are extremely concerned about the lack of support Grace received from HAC, and that legal aid solicitors have been able to act for landlords unchecked. If there is a legal aid contract for these firms, it needs to be re-examined immediately.
Next Steps
We have brought this to your attention because Grace’s situation has been caused not by her own mistakes or failings, but serious failures by HAC, Northumbria Police and the local legal aid solicitors. Despite the enormous pressure she is under and the hardship she has faced, Grace has remained a model citizen throughout this ordeal, and has fully and peacefully complied with her obligations. She has paid her rent in full and on time, even when living in appalling disrepair and facing (arguable) harassment. She has cooperated with the legal process and attended court, even when this has incurred heavy costs to her. Grace has done everything in her power to avoid becoming homeless, but these failures mean that she is facing this situation regardless.
We previously wrote to councillors Kilgour, Tokell, and Morrissey (who we have copied into this letter) on the 10th of August. However, despite the urgency of the situation, we have still not received a response from any of them. Please find a copy of this letter (which highlights the problems which Grace has faced with disrepair and harassment in more detail) attached to this correspondence.
We are obviously extremely concerned about Grace’s situation, and also eager to make sure that other residents of Newcastle will not be failed in a similar way and face street homelessness. As the sitting MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, we call upon you to act urgently to address these problems as thoroughly as possible.
We therefore request the following:
An explanation as to why the recommendation 2.9 ‘Homelessness’ in the “Allocations and Lettings: Summary of Proposed Changes and post consultation recommendations” regarding homelessness was seemingly not approved by cabinet on 17th July 2023? Had this been in effect now, Grace and her family have the best chance of being housed without the risk of them having to spend time in temporary accommodation.
HAC must:
Immediately provide Grace and her family with an offer of temporary accommodation and a date on which they can move into it, so that they will not face street homelessness.
Ensure that in future, people who face eviction and street homelessness by a definite date are provided with alternative accommodation and a moving date well before this eviction takes place.
Provide Grace’s child (with a mental health diagnosis) with a support worker who will make reasonable adjustments for their disabilities and help them apply for council housing.
Apologise to Grace’s child for the discrimination they have experienced, commit to preventing discrimination in future, and carry out any training necessary to ensure that no-one else who relies on emergency homelessness services faces discrimination.
Newcastle Council should review its legal aid contracts/arrangements with the legal firms involvedto ensure that they do not become conflicted in a way which denies people urgently needed legal advice.
That you work with the Northumbrian Police and Crime Commissioner's Office in your role as an MP to ensure that future police work does not enable illegal evictions or abusive landlords.
Given the urgent nature of this case, we ask that you respond to this letter no later than the 22nd of September, explaining what actions you will take to support Grace and other families in this situation. We would also appreciate it if the councillors we previously attempted to contact could explain why they did not reply to our previous correspondence, and what steps they are now taking to address this situation.
Yours sincerely,
on
There are so many things at fault in this case, there needs to be a review of policy for all involved parties.
I add my full support to this open letter.
Miriam Hadcocks.