DBC Megathread

[Steady Eddie]

7 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Is this for real ?

I believe it is, it popped up in my Facebook feed yesterday. I’m told that if Alice takes the blue pill she gets to be Raina Chatel for the day, sadly the little red pill gives you the Devon Watson Cheshire Cat experience. 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Omobono said:

I don't believe the eviction was down to the state of the garden ,  you have to go to court to get an eviction ,  and there have to be very good grounds for it to be granted , there must be something else much more serious , I am sure it will all come out in due course ,

Or the tenancy has not been renewed under the new(ish) review policy as the property is no longer appropriate (3 bed house occupied by a single person, say?). 

[Amadeus]

On 4/30/2022 at 8:12 AM, Manx17 said:

A person was evicted on the 4th of April because the garden was not kept to Douglas corporations standard . Up to now the house hasn’t been touched only for an eviction notice in the window and the garden has been left to over grow. I will keep this updated so the Manx public can see how long a corporation house will sit lying empty not making any money after them paying a lot of money for court appearances and advocates. whilst the last tenant paid the rent every week  without fail and who is now sleeping rough on the streets. It will be interesting to see how long they will let the garden go to ruin.

I can't comment on any individual cases for obvious reasons but I think it's quite clear even to anyone unfamiliar with the very complex and lengthy process that comes before an eviction is even considered, that your post is wildly inaccurate. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Amadeus said:

I can't comment on any individual cases for obvious reasons but I think it's quite clear even to anyone unfamiliar with the very complex and lengthy process that comes before an eviction is even considered, that your post is wildly inaccurate. 

Well except that we know in the Ross Ward case that the Courts failed to protect someone who was clearly vulnerable, so the systems can't be perfect.

[Omobono]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well except that we know in the Ross Ward case that the Courts failed to protect someone who was clearly vulnerable, so the systems can't be perfect.

Sadly it didn't protect the poor dog he allegedly cruelly beat to death ,  in this life what goes around generally comes around ,

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

It will as they are going to the papers. I’ve actually took the person off the streets. So it is not hearsay and yes they were taken to court for the garden. 

If so, why didn't the court deny the eviction order?

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Omobono said:

Sadly it didn't protect the poor dog he allegedly cruelly beat to death ,  in this life what goes around generally comes around ,

Well the only evidence of that I could find was when he was accused of an "offence which is said to have taken place against his West Highland Terrier on October 26th last year. It's alleged he didn't provide the correct skincare, bathing or grooming for his pet".  Which obviously isn't good, but hardly beating the poor thing to death.   It's the sort of 'offence' that even if true you would expect to be dealt with informally with advice and perhaps the involvement of the MSPCA. 

There's no evidence of what then happened and the fact that it went to a pre-trial review suggests it could have then been dropped.  If the animal had been killed you would expect a proper trial and it's the sort of case the media are keen to pick up on.  The only other mention I could find was a prosecution for illegally servicing fire extinguishers (there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were dangerous or not working, just that he didn't have the right paperwork).  I don't know the full story to either of these, but you get the impression that he was a bit of an awkward customer and perhaps had mental  health problems and someone in authority took against him.

[Bandits]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't know the full story to either of these, but you get the impression that he was a bit of an awkward customer and perhaps had mental  health problems and someone in authority took against him.

That could be a high proportion of people in social housing. Should they be kicked out into the street too? 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Bandits said:

That could be a high proportion of people in social housing. Should they be kicked out into the street too? 

No, that was exactly my point.  In that case there seems to have been no support until charities such as Housing Matters and Graih became aware and got involved and by then the eviction was underway.

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

If so, why didn't the court deny the eviction order?

Again, looking at the Ross Ward case (here's Graih's story, from before Ward died), it may be that communication was the Courts was poor and letters ignored by the tenant because they thought they were OK.  Possibly the judge (and maybe even the Council) thought that the property had already been vacated until the process was well advanced.

 

[Gladys]

13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

No, that was exactly my point.  In that case there seems to have been no support until charities such as Housing Matters and Graih became aware and got involved and by then the eviction was underway.

Again, looking at the Ross Ward case (here's Graih's story, from before Ward died), it may be that communication was the Courts was poor and letters ignored by the tenant because they thought they were OK.  Possibly the judge (and maybe even the Council) thought that the property had already been vacated until the process was well advanced.

 

That story possibly underlines a need for someone who is possibly subject to eviction to have someone on his side appointed by DBC at their cost, to help him understand what was going on and represent his best interests. 

A guardian ad litem type person. 

[John Wright]

19 hours ago, Gladys said:

That story possibly underlines a need for someone who is possibly subject to eviction to have someone on his side appointed by DBC at their cost, to help him understand what was going on and represent his best interests. 

A guardian ad litem type person. 

A duty advocate scheme for possession hearings, with Citizen Advice Service debt counsellor, would assist. Especially if the court could call on social workers and community mental health professionals.

But beware, some people won’t be helped. They’ve not paid rent, damaged property, or been antisocial to neighbours, for all sorts of reasons. Often mental health related. 

It’s like the guy who was evicted and then died. The rent outstanding  wasn’t much. But he had an unshakeable, wrong,  belief that it was ( or would be ) paid as part of his benefits ( despite having been told that wasn’t the case - repeatedly ) and that  he wasn’t in arrears, and didn’t need to attend court.

So, you’ve got to get them to attend, as well.

Lots of people, for all sorts of reasons, lead what we would consider chaotic lifestyles, things we would consider important, essential even, don’t necessarily figure highly.

[Gladys]

38 minutes ago, John Wright said:

A duty advocate scheme for possession hearings, with Citizen Advice Service debt counsellor, would assist. Especially if the court could call on social workers and community mental health professionals.

But beware, some people won’t be helped. They’ve not paid rent, damaged property, or been antisocial to neighbours, for all sorts of reasons. Often mental health related. 

It’s like the guy who was evicted and then died. The rent outstanding  wasn’t much. But he had an unshakeable, wrong,  belief that it was ( or would be ) paid as part of his benefits ( despite having been told that wasn’t the case - repeatedly ) and that  he wasn’t in arrears, and didn’t need to attend court.

So, you’ve got to get them to attend, as well.

Lots of people, for all sorts of reasons, lead what we would consider chaotic lifestyles, things we would consider important, essential even, don’t necessarily figure highly.

I was thinking more that it would be for the housing authority to have the responsibility of providing/offering independent representation to the potential evictee - if that hadn't been provided, or the option given, the application would be rejected.  Even if the evictee did not co-operate with whoever was appointed, at least there would be someone "in their corner" who could explain the situation, disabuse them of any misconceptions and hopefully persuade them to attend.

Agreed and understood regarding the rest.  

Going back to the situation described by Manx17, there has to be more than an unkempt garden to that tale.  

ETA the representation would be offered at an earlier stage than the actual hearing  perhaps when the first arrears letter was sent. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Gladys

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I was thinking more that it would be for the housing authority to have the responsibility of providing/offering independent representation to the potential evictee - if that hadn't been provided, or the option given, the application would be rejected.  Even if the evictee did not co-operate with whoever was appointed, at least there would be someone "in their corner" who could explain the situation, disabuse them of any misconceptions and hopefully persuade them to attend.

Agreed and understood regarding the rest.  

Going back to the situation described by Manx17, there has to be more than an unkempt garden to that tale.  

ETA the representation would be offered at an earlier stage than the actual hearing  perhaps when the first arrears letter was sent. 

Possession claims aren’t just for social housing, there’s a large private rental market plus possessions when mortgages go into default. I was trying to think of one scheme that covered all.

[Gladys]

10 hours ago, John Wright said:

Possession claims aren’t just for social housing, there’s a large private rental market plus possessions when mortgages go into default. I was trying to think of one scheme that covered all.

Yes, a scheme that covers all rental repossession orders should be considered.  I don't see a reason why private landlords should not be required to advise potential evictees of avenues to obtain advice when the first demand letter goes out, but not at their cost. 

Social housing is slightly different, although many would argue that there should be no difference.  There is already a degree of social service being offered with means testing and also assessment of the housing needs as the tenant's circumstances change.   You don't get many private landlords not wanting to renew a tenancy because the tenant no longer has their family living with them - if you pay the rent and observe the terms of the tenancy, you can stay, generally.  Are there many private evictions in comparison to social housing? 

Mortgages are different because most will have received legal advice when they took the mortgage out.  Not so with many tenancies, I would guess. 

[John Wright]

36 minutes ago, Gladys said:

1. Are there many private evictions in comparison to social housing? 

2. Mortgages are different because most will have received legal advice when they took the mortgage out.  Not so with many tenancies, I would guess. 

1. When I was frequently in high court they ran about 50:50.

2. But that might have been 5, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. About buying. Not about the prospect of becoming homeless.

The truth is that tenants, social, or private, or mortgagors facing possession are often in financial crisis, they’re definitely in housing crisis. Their circumstances have often changed from when they became tenants or mortgaged home owners. There isn’t that much difference in my experience.

Lives are in chaos, heads in sand, if evicted they end up requiring housing somehow, by someone. It’s better they can make arrangements with their landlord or lender and stay in situ.