End gatekeeping at councils! A domestic violence survivor’s experience of homelessness

I had heard so many people’s frightening stories about how they were treated by the council, so when I decided to make a homeless application I thought it first best to research the law and the homelessness process, specially on domestic violence, for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). On the day I tried to make the application, I was gatekept almost immediately. I was told that I had accommodation and that they were unsure if I could open an application at all. When speaking to a housing officer, for quite some time, I had to keep stressing the fact that I was fleeing domestic violence and that although I was not ‘street homeless’, I was still homeless because I was in a refuge.

After a lot of back and forth, debate and protest with the housing officer – and with input and support from a HASL member and a friend – over the fact that the council weren’t following their own homelessness procedures (according to their website and the law). The fact that I am applicant who had escaped domestic violence was not taken seriously by them, in fact, they seemed to think it was a reason to treat me differently, by claiming that my refuge accommodation meant that I was not homeless. I was finally told that a homelessness application could be opened but that I then needed a separate appointment. The appointment was for two days time, but we were unable to make this date, so another was arranged for the next day.

The day I went to open the application, I provided my allocated housing officer with a folder containing supportive evidence of my circumstances and my medical evidence. The process should have been to open a homelessness application, collect some cursory evidence, and explain the process to the applicant. Instead, I had to debate and justify why I was making an application to RBKC and why I couldn’t go back home. At this stage, I was also told that the application didn’t seem strong. I explained what the legislation says to the housing officer and that domestic violence survivors have an exception to the local connection test (for obvious reasons) when approaching a council with a homelessness application. Although the reason for the application to RBKC was made on the basis of my complex and specialist medical needs and being under the care of Chelsea and Westminster (C&W) hospital, it was extremely premature for the housing officer to make these inquiries at such an early stage – when simply opening an application.

Over the course of many weeks I then had to keep chasing the housing officer to find out what was going on. She eventually emailed me to say: ”I am unable to continuously provide updates on the situation.” They made me feel like I was an annoyance.

The housing officer did call me on few occasions, but only to request information I had already provided, such as my mother’s details – who she said she would contact, but didn’t. She chased my doctor several times too to ask for a report to be signed and submitted which was vague on details, but my GP wanted to speak with me first to get all the necessary information of my conditions. Social Services were also asked for a report; the council said that the decision would be based on this. In the end, the decision was made without key information and without proper investigation. I was made to feel intimated and pressurised throughout the process and I was met with really ill-mannered attitudes when asking for more information and updates as to what was happening.

Whilst waiting for the investigation to be completed so a decision could be made, I got a call from the housing officer asking me to choose between two councils (Lambeth or Barnet) for my homelessness application to be referred to. It seemed that a homelessness duty had been accepted, but when I asked the housing officer if the duty towards me was recognised she did not confirm this and insisted that I decide between the two councils then and there. She told me that a referral had been made on the basis of local connection. I was feeling pretty anxious but persevered by trying to explain that the local connection does not apply to domestic violence survivors – in response to which I was told that this means I am free to ‘approach any council’.

I continued to try to give reasons as to why I had approached RBKC – based on my medical needs and because the hospital support I am receiving is at C&W hospital, and that I was regularly being driven by paramedics from my refuge to the hospital – but the housing officer consistently brushed off what I was saying and told me that if I did not choose then she would be choosing Lambeth for me due to local connection. Bearing in mind that local connection is usually based on living or working in an area of ‘choice’ over a period of time, for me, moving into a refuge in this part of London was not a choice. The housing officer was boxing me in to agreeing to Lambeth with no opportunity for me to consider Barnet – even though that would still leave me miles away from C&W hospital and vulnerable.

I told her I was being forced and that I was documenting our conversation. I ensured that I kept asking her if she was saying that I must decide on a borough then and there and she said ‘Yes, I am or I will decide Lambeth for you’. I felt that it was a predetermined action when asking me to choose, knowing that I would have no real choice but to opt for Barnet rather than Lambeth (for reasons which I had already made clear to the housing officer). I was bullied into choosing a borough, and I was told that my medical needs were secondary to local connection.

I was later informed that I would get a decision letter in the post and that Barnet would be in contact with me as the referral would be made by the end of the day. I have not had any form of contact from Barnet. However, they have contacted my key worker asking for a copy of my documents.

A referral to another council under local connection after a homeless duty is recognised, is not an action that has to be done, especially if there are special circumstances. I am still at a loss as to why severe needs are discounted in favour of meeting a local connection test. This incident has left me especially shaken and feeling bullied, resonating the helplessness of the situation that I had escaped. The support of HASL really gave me the confidence to know that I am important and that I should not be bullied into compromising my health and rights.

For me, remaining in a domestic violence home continued due to the fear of how would I survive if I ever left – where would I go? How would I start over? How would I eat or sleep ? How would I rebuild my life? Domestic violence is a horrible situation to be in and come from, and unfortunately the victim (in turn, survivor) is the one that ends up losing their home and having their life up-rooted.

When I fled domestic violence, I used to be confident in our government, councils and support networks – they have policies and laws and are supposed to help and support people, right? They are supposed to help me get back to a better quality of life, help me find a suitable, safe and long-term secure home, and live free of domestic violence. By not being given the help and by making the experience of getting support horrible through bullying and intimidation, recovery becomes an unnecessary struggle. Councils are making the process so difficult through unpleasant and unnecessary gatekeeping that they are actively contributing to people not being able to leave abusive environments, or having to find themselves going back to these domestic violent situations.

I have now put the council’s decision to review, but had it not been for the skills in being able to research and communicate (which I am not always able to) and for HASL’s support and guidance, I dread to think what would have happened or where I would have ended up.

It is with this ordeal that I am reminded of a few words from Gladstone Women’s Health:

”A domestic violence victim can’t even start a plan to leave until they first believe that life outside of that relationship is better and possible.”

HASL print workshop!

October 15 @ 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm

DIY Space for London,

96-102 Ormside St
London, SE15 1TF

 

(EN)

Join graphics collective Queen Mob and Casiopex for a lino, risograph and screenprinting workshop.
Get inspired by tales and graphics from Latin American resistances, and make some prints about local housing struggles.

Casiopex is a print maker and anarchist from the state of Mexico who, among other projects, is involved in community land struggles in Jalisco and a social centre in Guadalajara.
Queen Mob Collective is a printmaking collective with no geographical base who enjoy making rowdy visuals with autonomous community groups.

Come with ideas for visuals and slogans to fight the housing crisis together.
There will be a creche and crayonz for kidz and a Pot Luck Lunch! So bring a dish to share

(ES)

Vengan a jugar con los dibujos, los linoleos y la serigrafia con QueenMob y Casiopex
Tomaremos las experiencias de la resistencia en latinoamerica y con la inspiracion de la grafica haremos algunas impresiones de la lucha por las viviendas locales.

Casiopex le gusta compartir grafica y recetas de cocina! Esta involucrado en algunas luchas de defensa de la tierra en jalisco y participa en una biblioteca autonoma en Guadalajara.
Colectivo QueenMob es un colectivo de grafica que no tiene un punto geografico establesido y que disfrutan de hacer imagenes ruidosas con comunidades autonomxs.

Vengan con sus ideas visuales y frases de la lucha para peliar juntxs contra la crisis inmobilaria.
Habrá una guardería y crayones para lxs ninxs y chamacxs. Es de trage.. Pues traigan un plato de comida para compartir!

HASL supports the East Street 3

On 21st June 2015, people from Walworth, south London, resisted an immigration raid by the UKBA in our neighbourhood. People blocked the UKBA van in a street just off East street in which a local shop worker was being detained. As the crowd grew in support, riot police officers suddenly violently attacked the crowd using dogs and helped the UKBA van to drive away with the person inside. This person was later deported – forcibly and violently removed from his neighbourhood and community.

3 people were arrested for their presence at this resistance. This month, these three people are on trial at Blackfriars Crown Court. Their charges could potentially see them receive 1-3 year prison sentences if found guilty.

HASL shows our support for those now on trial. A number of our members were also at that resistance of the immigration raid last year as many of us live in the area and call it our home. We know that the only violence on that day came from the riot police and the UKBA. We believe that we should all feel safe and secure in our homes and neighbourhoods and should be able to live free from the threat of detention and deportation. We know that fighting for good quality homes that we all need and deserve, means also fighting for our right to decide where we make our home.

In the days following the raid, people visited the shops and stalls on East street market handing out information on people’s rights if there are immigration checks and raids. As on the day itself, there was lots of vocal support from stallholders, other workers, and people passing through the market for the resistance that had occurred.

This immigration raid was not an isolated racist attack on our communities but one action amongst many orchestrated by local and national government and their developer friends to displace and impoverish working class people, particularly working class people of colour.

East Street lies in between the former Heygate estate and the Aylesbury estate. When they were both there, the Heygate and Aylesbury estates were homes for thousands of households – until Southwark council decided to sell them off and demolish them. The Heygate estate was once made up of 1,000 council homes but has been replaced with private, ‘luxury’ flats. The Aylesbury estate is still standing, but hundreds of households have been forced out and so many homes now stand empty. Following the Heygate, these quality homes will be demolished and private flats will replace them. These estate demolitions have caused the social and ethnic cleansing of their former residents on a large scale and the huge loss of what was good quality council housing in the area.

Whilst the council and developers are forcibly removing people from their homes and communities, others face the UKBA breaking into their homes and workplaces and being thrown into a van as we witnessed on East street last year. These events are happening side by side, on a daily basis, in the same neighbourhoods, targeting the same people.

In HASL, many of our members have experienced forced evictions from their homes, displacement from their communities and deep poverty as they attempt to remain in the area they call home. A lot of our members have also fled the poverty they faced in other countries, trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Here, they face harassment from the Home Office, poor quality housing and homelessness, and restricted or no access to benefits and council housing. We support each other and take action collectively against the root causes of our exploitation and oppression. This is what happened on East street over a year ago, and this is why we support everyone who was acting in defence of their neighbourhood that day.

Read the East Street Solidarity Statement and blog

Find out more information on your rights during immigration checks and raids from Anti-Raids Network

Lambeth council – we need to talk about gatekeeping

HASL has highlighted two serious cases of unlawful gatekeeping by Lambeth council as well as other extremely poor treatment of these two homeless HASL members, but Lambeth council have so far failed to respond to address these issues and our wider concerns.

One of the cases of gatekeeping, where a family were turned away from help and returned to their severely overcrowded accommodation, resulted in a woman being physically assaulted by a member of another household in the shared accommodation they were living in.

The other case saw the housing officer pretend to open a homeless application for our member, and then a month later, when our member enquired what had happened to the application, it turned out he had been lying and had never started one in the first place.

These members have pursued reviews and complaints about their treatment with the council, but Lambeth’s internal processes are still not acknowledging the issues we have faced nor are they resolving them satisfactorily. HASL members and supporters have also collectively shown their concern and support for these HASL members using twitter and visiting the housing office as a group.

We are calling on Lambeth’s councillor for housing Matthew Bennett and the head of the housing office to meet with us to listen to these issues and finally work to resolve them. He must acknowledge the seriousness of what has happened in these cases.

As well as unlawful gatekeeping for many months, causing significant harm to our members and their families, both members have also faced other appalling treatment at the housing office. Some issues include:

• Both members have medical needs that were ‘assessed’ by housing officers with no medical background. Similar to the infamous ATOS medical assessments for disability benefits, these ‘assessments’ were incredibly crude and used an out-dated understanding of vulnerabilities and disabilities. ‘Oh you can do this, can you? You’re fine and don’t require any assistance’ is essentially the conclusions drawn from these poorly conducted assessments. These inadequate assessments have serious consequences for our members who were left without suitable housing.
• When allocating temporary accommodation to one of our members, a proper suitability assessment, which took into account her children’s needs and well-being, was not conducted.
• After not receiving the council’s decision letter, our member has been denied her right to review the decision when she did finally got the letter, because she had missed the original deadline. This again goes against what the law says which says clearly that a review can happen within 21 days of receiving the letter (not the date the council sent the letter, especially if it didn’t arrive!)

Current homelessness law does not do enough to protect and support homeless people, but Lambeth council can’t even manage to follow the basic law that exists – from our experience they have regularly failed to meet their legal obligations, causing us significant harm and distress.

We know we are not the only Lambeth residents facing these problems at the housing office. We have spoken to others at the housing office who have spoken about gatekeeping and we have witnessed people in the housing office being unlawfully turned away without help. As well as dealing with these two cases, Lambeth council must change the practices in the housing office so that people are treated with respect and given the help they need.

One of the people affected by gatekeeping at Lambeth explains her situation:

At every single step of the homelessness process I have been denied help by Lambeth council. It has been such an impossible struggle to get even the most basic help that I’m legally entitled to. As well as dealing with homelessness, my medical needs, and trying to get on with my life, I have had to spend huge amounts of energy and time dealing with Lambeth council’s homelessness service. What should be a really simple procedure, where they can support homeless residents, has lasted many months and caused me significant distress and anxiety and further worsened my medical needs. The disrespect and poor treatment I have faced has felt so hurtful and demoralising. 

If I am struggling to get through the homelessness process, and I’ve had incredible support from HASL, then what chance do others doing this alone have?

Lambeth must address the issues we have raised.

How is she not vulnerable? How can she be homeless?

Thank you to everyone who has tweeted and retweeted our image to Southwark’s housing councillor @steviecryan and Southwark council in support of our member.

After not responding to the many tweets, Stephanie Cryan tweeted that she uses twitter for personal use but that we can contact her on her work email address which is: stephanie.cryan@southwark.gov.uk Although she has previously responded to ‘work’ issues on her twitter account before.

A number of supporters have already sent her an email expressing their concern that our member, who has suffered 33 years of domestic violence, is not considered vulnerable enough for a full homeless duty.

Please do send an email expressing your concern and support for our member and requesting that Southwark reverse their appalling decision and ensure that our member receives a full homeless duty and ultimately the secure council housing that she desperately needs. Let her know if you’re a Southwark resident, but please contact her even if you’re not. Remember to cc us in haslemail[at]gmail.com And do keep on tweeting too, because this makes this important issue public.

Our member is deeply demoralised by the degrading treatment she has received when accessing housing help from the council. We know this is not the only example of survivors of domestic violence, and other homeless people, being failed by the council. We have offered to meet with Stephanie Cryan to talk about how the homelessness process can be improved. But how can we meet with the council whilst our member faces homelessness and the council deem that this is acceptable?

We cannot let Southwark council get away with this poor treatment of a homeless survivor of domestic violence.

Southwark council, no more delays – safe housing now

Our member A and her family have been living in poor quality and severely overcrowded private rented accommodation. Like many other households in London and across the UK facing rising rents and low incomes, this is often the only accommodation they can afford. Overcrowding, particularly in the private rented sector, is an issue that many HASL members are faced with and we will be raising this issue, organising around it, and taking more action on this issue in future.

In A’s case, the overcrowding is so bad that it meets the legal definition of statutory overcrowding – a definition that is unhelpful because it fails to capture many overcrowded households and conditions as the threshold is so high. A’s household meeting this definition shows the serious nature of this overcrowding.

Southwark’s housing allocations policy rightly gives people in such housing need high priority on the housing waiting list so that they can access secure, social housing quickly.

Our member A attempted to inform the council of her housing condition to get her correct place on the housing waiting list back in May this year and was told she would hear back from Southwark council in 2 weeks time. Yet almost three months later she still hasn’t heard anything and their housing situation has got even worse. If they had responded to her request, the family could have secured the safe, social housing they desperately need.

The other week, the ceiling in the kitchen fell through. You can see from the photos that this was an incredibly dangerous incident. A’s young children are too scared to enter the kitchen for fear that more will fall in. The kitchen is largely unusable. The landlord isn’t interested in doing the vital repairs and threatened eviction when A called about the incident.

A reported the conditions to Southwark’s environmental health team who visited and said they would try to get the landlord to do the repairs. The landlord has made it clear that they are not interested in this.

Why are Southwark council not taking stronger action to protect these vulnerable tenants and take harsher action against this exploitative and neglectful landlord?

Southwark council must take urgent action to ensure that A and her family are given their correct place – band 1 – on the housing register, which should have been done back in May. Their delay and neglect has meant that the family have been forced to endure unacceptable and worsening conditions for longer.

Why not send the councillor for housing@steviecryan a tweet or two about this case demanding A be given her band 1 position and safe housing now?

Together, we’ll hold Southwark council to account for their inaction and neglect of vulnerable tenants and fight for the secure, social housing in our communities that we all need.

 

Southwark council decide DV survivor can be street homeless – Stand up to Southwark council!

Update today, cllr for Housing Stephanie Cryan responded to our email saying that they are looking for private accommodation for C. We have responded that this is unacceptable. We will not let Southwark council avoid a homelessness duty to C with an offer of insecure, unaffordable private rented accommodation. Forcing homeless people into the homelessness-generating private sector is not a solution. Homeless people, particularly survivors of domestic violence, need the security of council housing. We reiterate our request that the council reverse their cruel and harmful decision not to accept a full homeless duty towards C and we invite you to support our demand (see below).

We are deeply concerned and distressed that our member C, who is a survivor of long term domestic abuse which has left her with post-traumatic stress syndrome, anxiety, panic attacks and other medical issues, has been deemed not in priority need and therefore able to live on the streets by Southwark council yesterday.

We are calling on Southwark to immediately reverse this decision, accept a full homeless duty to C and ensure that she has suitable temporary accommodation in Peckham where she has important family connections. Please join us in tweeting the council @lb_southwark and the councillor for housing @steviecryan to show your support for C.

The new vulnerability test used by councils to decide whether someone is vulnerable enough to be deemed ‘priority need’ – and therefore owed a full homeless duty if other criteria are met as well – looks at whether the applicant would suffer significantly more than ‘an ordinary person’ if they were faced with street homelessness. Clearly our member C, who suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by many years of domestic abuse, would suffer more than an ‘ordinary person’ if she is forced into street homelessness, which is a very real threat. (Although obviously there are clear problems with this test as no one should be forced into street homelessness.)

We are shocked that the council found otherwise, and we are deeply concerned at some of the reasons they gave in deciding that C can live on the streets – they literally say she has the ‘skills’ to deal with street homelessness. Here are some of the statements made by the housing officer when coming to the decision. C’s attempts to get on with her life, and her vital support networks, are used against her as proof by the housing officer that she can cope with homelessness with statements such as – you made an ESA application, therefore you can live on the streets, you made this homeless application, therefore you can live on the streets. As well as these ridiculous conclusions, there is also a deep lack of understanding of vulnerability (having good mobility and literacy skills are used as evidence that she is not vulnerable) and the daily struggle many survivors experience in dealing with domestic violence. These are just some of the hurtful statements contained in the letter that C read yesterday. (our bold and italics)

“This Authority understands that you were naturally adversely affected by your experiences as the victim of domestic abuse. However we are of the opinion that your experiences have not prevented you from managing your affairs and accessing relevant services and support from friends and professionals organisations…As a result, we are satisfied that your medical and social issues have not prevented you from undertaking most everyday tasks. It is therefore considered that you have the ability and skills to cope in your situation of homelessness.”

“It is the Council’s opinion that you are not vulnerable as a result of your medical condition or your history of domestic violence. We have considered that these circumstances do not significantly impede your normal function or impair your ability to manage your daily tasks, including using public transport, shopping, cooking and managing your health and finances.”

We are also concerned that when C went for her homelessness interview last month, she was denied her supporter that she requested attend with her. Again highlighting how Southwark council have failed to support the interests and well being of survivors. It is likely that the absence of a supporter would have made the interview more difficult for C.

Last month, with the support of South East London Sisters Uncut we highlighted Southwark’s poor treatment of DV survivors with our member S. Southwark council reversed their decision as a result of public pressure on twitter and promised to investigate and produce a policy to ensure that DV survivors receive adequate support and treatment through the difficult homeless application process. But we have not heard anything from Southwark council about this, and yesterday’s decision clearly shows that staff urgently need training on understanding domestic violence and its impact on survivors’ lives.

We will be supporting C to review the council’s decision, but we also believe it is unfair and detrimental to her well being that she should be made to go through this difficult process. We hope that Southwark will take immediate action to reverse the decision.

Lambeth council’s systemic gatekeeping of single homeless people

HASL have uncovered – and are challenging – yet more gatekeeping of homeless people by Lambeth housing office. We have blogged about our member Mary Luz who was denied housing help last May and forced to return to severely overcrowded housing. We knew from conversations with people at the housing office and from our visits there that this was not the only instance of gatekeeping at Lambeth housing office.

It is very common for single homeless people to face gatekeeping at housing offices, as often they may not meet the automatic priority need test (for example, if you have children, you are automatically in priority need). In this case, we have found Lambeth housing office have a built-in policy to gatekeep single homeless people. Homelessness is rising, and youth homelessness in particular – a group that is likely to be significantly affected by Lambeth’s unlawful policy.

Our long time HASL member, we’ll call her Liz to protect her privacy, has recently faced gatekeeping by Lambeth council which has resulted in her being kept homeless for two extra months, and facing anxiety, stress and demoralisation that comes with being treated so poorly and denied basic rights. Liz requested a homelessness assessment at Lambeth housing office back in March 2016. She stressed the important mantra that she was homeless and in priority need – which means that the local authority is legally obliged to conduct inquiries into the person’s situation. She was booked what she was told was a homelessness assessment for the following week.

 
Attending the homelessness assessment with a buddy, the housing officer attempted a number of gatekeeping tricks, but Liz and her buddy thought they had navigated these successfully ending the meeting with the officer informing her that he would open a homeless assessment. He handed her numerous forms to fill out which again seemed to suggest the opening of a homeless assessment. Again during this meeting, Liz stressed she was homeless and in priority need at which the legal obligation to conduct inquiries kicks in.

After not hearing anything for almost two months, Liz contacted him to find out what had happened to her application. He didn’t respond, so with the help of HASL she wrote a letter to Lambeth council last week threatening legal action. This finally prompted Lambeth into action and revealed their gatekeeping tactics and lies that they had subjected Liz (and numerous other single homeless people) to. She was informed that she had not in fact had a homeless assessment but a ‘housing assessment for a single person’. So she would now be booked in for an actual homeless assessment this week – having to go through another stressful interview/meeting talking about her homelessness and vulnerabilities, as well as this assessment now being delayed by two months.

It turns out that Liz was lied to about being booked a homeless assessment, lied to during the meeting where she was told an application would be opened, and lied to by the housing officer that she was not eligible to join the housing register. Importantly, the ‘housing assessment for a single person’ meeting, suggests that it is Lambeth’s policy to gatekeep single homeless people with this meeting.

Liz explains herself:

“I feel extremely demoralised by this experience. Dealing with homelessness and the homelessness application process is difficult enough – finding out that you believed you went through this process already, but actually you hadn’t because they purposefully had decided not to meet their legal obligations is even more difficult. They have made me endure homelessness for an unnecessary extra two months.

They make it such a struggle that you want to give up, which of course, is entirely their plan. I also feel furious at the multiple lies told to my face to deny me my rightful access to housing. I feel thankful that I’ve got the support and solidarity of my housing action group so I’m not going through this alone.”

Liz has made a formal complaint about the situation and HASL will be planning further actions to challenge gatekeeping and mistreatment. She should not be made to endure the homeless process again because of Lambeth’s failures to do this the first time and should be placed in band B where there is criteria for homeless people working with the council to deal with homelessness. Of course, twitter is a helpful place to make public complaints to @lambeth_council @cllr_peck and @cllrmattbennet about issues in their housing office.

HASL have also drawn up a pledge against gatekeeping that we will be approaching Lambeth council with.

1 year of mistreatment and highly unsuitable housing because of Lambeth council.

Please help us demand the secure, local social housing that Mary Luz and her family desperately need after over a year of appalling, dangerous housing conditions and neglect and mistreatment from Lambeth council. Join our twitter and email storm this Monday 10am–12pm. More details below.

Mary Luz won’t give up and neither will we!

In response to pressure from Mary Luz and HASL, Lambeth council said they would review the temporary accommodation and banding that the family have. Mary Luz collected together statements of support to bring her and her family back to their home borough from children’s schools, Mary Luz’s doctors, the family’s church, and her English teacher at English for Action. She did this by the 7 day deadline set by Lambeth. But they have not given an outcome to their review within the one month deadline they set themselves. The family have spent yet another month in unsuitable accommodation. This delay is just another insult in the long list of failures and mistreatment Mary Luz has endured. Her youngest daughter almost missed her SATs exam because of the long journey to school, causing her enormous distress. Lambeth must give the family the secure, social housing that they should have got a year ago!

This month marks 1 year since Mary Luz first approached Lambeth council for housing help because of severe overcrowding. She was unlawfully turned away without any housing help by the council and the family were forced to remain in unsuitable, severely overcrowded housing for many more months, causing the family great stress and hardship. Mary Luz was then the victim of an assault in the accommodation, by a woman from another family sharing the accommodation. This domestic violence incident was caused by Lambeth council’s neglect.

After the assault, Lambeth finally opened up a homeless application and provided temporary housing– but only after the intervention of HASL and English for Action who challenged the council’s gatekeeping tactics. They were yet again trying to send Mary Luz back to dangerous, unsuitable accommodation.

This was in December, and the council provided unsuitable temporary accommodation for the family out in Lewisham. The children have a two hour journey to school, and Mary Luz has long and difficult journeys to visit her doctors and her hospital who are all based in Lambeth.

The catalogue of poor treatment and severe neglect – with consequences that put the family in physical danger – is extensive.

If Lambeth council had provided housing help when Mary Luz visited them in May last year, the family could have been given social housing, as their allocations policy states that private rented accommodation where council enforcement action is needed, gives people this priority. If the council had offered any housing help, it’s likely the family would be in social housing by now. Lambeth must make sure that the family are given the secure, social housing back home in their home borough that they desperately need.

Leader of Lambeth council Lib Peck hasn’t made an effort to support her resident Mary Luz. But she does have time to meet and speak to property developers next month.

This is Mary Luz’s message to the council:

I’m still waiting for an answer – every day I am. My daughters are too – desperately waiting to move back to Lambeth because they have many activities in the borough – they can’t go to any more and it makes them so upset! I don’t know how to calm them down – it makes me feel terrible. At the moment they’re doing exams, and they arrive late to school because of the long journey, it makes them feel so bad. How much longer will I have to wait for Lambeth’s reply?

Please join us tweeting and emailing the council to demand urgent action is taken. See our template tweet and email below.

Tweet to Council Leader Lib Peck & Cabinet Member for Housing, Matthew Bennett

Email:

lpeck@lambeth.gov.uk, cknaggs@lambeth.gov.uk, mpbennett@lambeth.gov.uk, haslemail@gmail.com

Dear Lambeth council,

Hopefully you are familiar with Mary Luz’s case. I’m writing to express my concern that Lambeth council have not yet taken the urgent action needed to make sure the family are given the social housing they should have been given a year ago.

Mary Luz and her family have spent yet another month in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The review was supposed to be concluded within a month, yet the family have heard nothing. The situation is extremely urgent, particularly as her children have exams this month.

The family have endured over a year of appalling and unsuitable housing conditions, because of Lambeth council. They desperately need to return to their home borough to secure social housing.

HASL have contacted you about a number serious incidents of poor treatment Mary Luz was subjected to. We do hope that you will listen to these and respond. Right now, our concern is the immediate housing needs of the family.

We hope you will act immediately to make sure the family have access to secure, social housing.

Yours sincerely,

Southwark council – accept your duty to house a survivor of domestic violence and her family

Southwark council must support survivors, not force them back to abusive relationships.

HASL and Sisters Uncut are supporting ‘S’ and her three children who have been told by Southwark council that they must leave their interim accommodation even though they have nowhere else to go.  Southwark council’s housing officers have told S that it is safe for her and her children to return to her abusive partner so they will not accept a full homeless duty and provide temporary accommodation for the family.

We are deeply concerned at Southwark council’s treatment of a survivor of domestic violence. S explained the difficulty it took to reach the stage where she felt able to escape, and now Southwark are forcing her to return.

We are calling on Southwark council to make sure the family are kept in their accommodation and that a full homeless duty is accepted. Southwark council must listen to and respect the experiences of survivors of domestic violence. The family desperately need a secure home. They have already fled their previous home, they must not be thrown onto the street with nowhere to go.

Please join us and Sisters Uncut tweeting Southwark council in support of S.

We all need safe, secure, social housing. No one should be forced to live in an unsafe situation.

Read more on Southwark’s treatment of survivors of domestic violence in this blog by Sisters Uncut cross-posted below.

In January, a woman who we’ll refer to as ‘S’ escaped with her three children from the home that she was sharing with her abusive husband. After years of physical, sexual, financial and psychological abuse, S’s household had become a place so unsafe that she actively avoided being alone when her husband was around. After a recent incident of physical abuse, S took her children and sought help from Southwark Council. As a mother of three young children fleeing an abusive relationship S has the right to secure and stable housing, a place where she can find respite from the suffering and the hardship that her and her family have endured.

However, although Southwark Council initially provided S with temporary accommodation, they soon rescinded their support. They sent a letter to S stating that “it is reasonable for you to continue to occupy your accommodation (with your husband)” and that “we are not satisfied that your continued occupation of the property would lead to any further domestic abuse towards you”. This is the place that S had fled only a month before; a place where, in the final months before escaping, she had slept in the living room with the couch pressed against the door to prevent her husband from coming in at night to molest her.

The fact that Southwark Council believe this house is an acceptable place for S to live is a disgusting example of their failure to provide a safety net for survivors seeking to live a life free from fear. Their message to these women is clear: we don’t believe you and this isn’t our problem.

Currently, councils have a duty to house people who are homeless due to experiencing domestic violence if they are a UK citizen or eligible for support (i.e. can access benefits), are pregnant or have children, or are care leavers or under 18. Additionally, councils should take into account any vulnerabilities a person presents with, such as a mental health condition or having an experience of domestic violence. Many councils choose to overlook the additional vulnerability someone has after experiencing domestic violence when it comes to coping with homelessness.

It is clear that Southwark do not take domestic violence seriously and do not believe it is their responsibility to intervene, support survivors and hold perpetrators accountable for abuse. Just a few months ago, Southwark Councillor Dan Garfield was found guilty of abusing his wife. Worryingly, Southwark Council had been aware of the abuse perpetrated by him and even after his first police caution for assaulting his wife, was promoted to a position of authority within Labour in Southwark. Southwark Council have since defended this decision stating they “felt it was right to allow those involved to deal with this as a private family matter”.

Domestic violence is not a private matter: the anti-violence movement was founded in order to challenge this antiquated and harmful notion that violence against women that happens within a relationship should not be a public issue. In reality, we know that intimate partner violence often intersects with, and is reinforced by, harmful state practices and policies such as denying women safe housing when they need to leave an abusive relationship. Councils must take responsibility for providing safe housing and suitable support services for survivors.

With S’s case, Southwark Council have decided this is not a matter of domestic abuse but merely a “relationship breakdown”. In a letter written to S., Southwark write that “relationship breakdowns are commonplace and naturally it is difficult for parties involved to communicate and live together when their relationship is strained – however this does not render the tenancy unreasonable for your continued occupation”.

We can see then that even where women fleeing violence do meet the eligibility criteria for being housed, councils can simply decide they do not have a duty towards them by claiming that the relationship the woman has left was not abusive. This perpetuates a dangerous message to survivors: you will not be believed, so do not bother to disclose to anyone.

Sisters Uncut call for Southwark Council to urgently review their treatment of domestic violence survivors.

Homeless assessment teams currently have very little training on how to recognise domestic abuse; in S’s case, this meant her relationship has “not been deemed as domestic violence” in spite of her own account of the abuse and several third-party supporting documents (such as police references and a letter from a domestic violence agency). Rather than support S, the council have treated her with suspicion. Her words have been purposefully distorted to suggest her relationship was not actually abusive. By refusing to believe S’s account of her own abuse, Southwark have effectively chosen to take the side of S’s abuser, and their disturbing gaslighting tactics reflect those employed by her ex partner.

Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth (HASL) and Sisters Uncut are coming together to shed light on Southwark’s mistreatment of domestic violence survivors. We demand secure and stable housing for all survivors of domestic violence who desperately need housing to flee an abusive relationship.