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.

 

On Location – Unwelcome!

Tomorrow, New London Architecture (NLA) are hosting “On Location” – a day long event, with walking tours in and around Southwark throughout the afternoon. Attendance at the event costs a ridiculous £358.80 per ticket (unfortunately Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth couldn’t afford that!)

The aim of the walking tours is for Southwark and its eager property developing partners to point out ‘regeneration’ opportunities across the borough – in their own words, the tours will ‘look at the areas of major development opportunity in the borough of Southwark, looking at the Council’s forward strategy for Elephant and Castle, Old Kent Road, Peckham and Canada Water’ so that they can ‘discuss what these key strategic areas for London need to do to maximize their development potential’.

HASL and residents of Southwark are all too familiar with the effects of the social, economic and political forces at work and social cleansing in our communities. This event highlights the ongoing struggle against the housing crisis, where the council and its affiliates engineer to displace poor, working class people and disappear social housing altogether. “Regeneration” will not benefit us and it is a gross and violent attack on our communities. This has been a strategy of many councils long in the making, but we are seeing a more aggressive push in recent years with horrible consequences.

We have already seen what happened to the Heygate Estate, its communities destroyed rather than the council offering to do the cheaper option of a refurbishment (a chronology of the disgusting events by Southwark Council and its business opportunists can be found here). The Aylesbury Estate – on walking tour A – far larger than the Heygate Estate, has also seen residents decanted under the promise of securing housing that is affordable and decent, a promise which almost never materialises. Many people HASL have met find themselves placed on the estate in temporary accommodation, waiting precariously and full of unease until the site is eventually demolished for owner-occupied property which few can afford. Alongside the destruction of housing itself, the Labour-run Southwark Council have created increasing numbers of homeless people and families. They are complicit in creating a hostile culture, which demonstrates to many residents that they are no longer welcome to live in the area.

Speakers at tomorrow’s event include

– Leader of the council, Cllr Peter John, a real property barrister and member of GMB, who has yet to show any sign of putting an end to the abusive gatekeeping practices at Southwark’s housing office in Peckham;

– Steve Platts, director of regeneration, who is thirstily planning a huge amount of regeneration in the borough;

– Many senior directors from property developers such as Delancey and Berkeley Homes.

The event starts at 9am with a meet and greet and speeches at London South Bank University. The walking tours will happen in the afternoon. More about the event can be found on eventbrite here. If you happen to see a bunch of people in suits with clipboards on this tour, and you feel confident, be sure to let them know what you think. You can also join your local housing action group to take action!

 

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.

HASL member takes landlord to court

 

 

More often than not, our direct action casework is needed because the law is practically useless for tenants. Sometimes, however, we can take on the landlords and win.

 

HASL has been working closely with DC Resists – a group of residents (sadly, many are now former residents) at the beautiful Dorchester Court estate in Herne Hill. The estate had been taken over by a shady landlord company called Manaquel, who are in many ways the most extreme example of greedy, heartless profiteers of the housing crisis.

 

Since taking over Dorchester Court the company has raised the rents to eye-watering levels. They’ve allowed the buildings to fall into disrepair. They evicted families just because they could. In short: they destroyed a community because they could squeeze a greater profit out of their asset.

 

Dorchester Court didn’t roll over. They opposed Manaquel at every step, and HASL were proud to help.

 

 

When they came to evict Ravi he approached a tenant-friendly lawyer, who helped him to defeat Manaquel’s possession claim on a technicality. Manaquel tried again, and Ravi’s solicitor spotted an even more technical defence to the claim, which was rejected by Lambeth County Court on new year’s eve. Ravi appealed – and won.

 

Ravi argued that – because Manaquel is a company – it can’t sign documents like an ordinary person can. Instead, two authorised people have to sign all of its documents in order for the signature to comply with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. One of the documents (the certificate attached to the ‘prescribed information’ that landlords have to provide when they take a deposit) wasn’t properly signed, so the Section 21 notice wasn’t valid.

 

Tenants can only win temporarily – it’s only a matter of time before the landlord tries again.

 

In the private sector these technical defences are the only way of beating private landlords. It’s always worth checking – and checking carefully – whether the landlord has complied with all the technicalities that the law requires in order to take away someone’s home. HASL recommends that you see a legal aid solicitor if your landlord tries to evict you – especially because the new Deregulation Act has introduced several new technical defences.

 

*UPDATE* Landlord tries again – and fails!

In May 2016 the landlord issued another ‘no-fault’ eviction claim to kick Ravi out.  The landlord used the ‘accelerated procedure’, a super-quick process where the courts can take away someone’s home without a hearing.

 

The landlord’s solicitor had ticked a box saying that no deposit had been taken, and signed a statement saying that the contents of the form were true.  In fact the first Section 21 claim had been dismissed because the landlord had taken a deposit but failed to protect it.  The landlords were asking the court to evict Ravi on the basis of information that was plain wrong.

 

The court was unimpressed with Ravi’s landlord’s solicitors and struck their claim out, telling them to start again.

HASL is 3!

 

Yesterday afternoon HASL celebrated our third birthday with a birthday lunch club at Pembroke house in Walworth with about 50 of our members, supporters and friends. It was a really lovely afternoon and the high attendance and general loveliness of the afternoon hopefully captures our organising of the last three years and how much we have grown and developed as a group. The birthday lunch club also captured what these lunch clubs are all about and the various important roles they play –

A really warm, friendly, supportive atmosphere to chat and hang out, sometimes talking about housing, and other issues, but sometimes forgetting these as well

Linking up people with other groups we organise with that can provide support, for example, introducing someone who does not have English as a first language to English for Action, introducing people to Anti-Raids Network and Sisters Uncut.

Collectivising child care with some children’s activities, alongside children playing together, and hanging out with adults too. As one parent noted, ‘If you leave them [your children] for a little bit, you find someone else is looking after them!’

A chance to celebrate our recent wins. One of our members had moved into her new council home the day before and was really delighted. Throughout the afternoon people also commented on how HASL has helped them ‘it is so hard to find someone who helps with these problems, thank you for the help’, ‘the support from the group really means a lot to me’ and lots of similar sentiments.

Making sure we have good quality food! We try to make sure that we collect really fancy, luxury food donations, cos we all deserve quality food. We also try to make sure that we have plenty of food so people can take some home with them too. Our solidarity-donations network of supportive, local shops is slowly growing which is really exciting. Lots of people commented on how delicious the food was.

Action planning together on our cases. We were able to do some action planning and provide support with Sisters Uncut on an urgent case.

Collective organising! A number of people helped to organise the lunch club, and on the day so many people took on roles and contributed in lots of different ways to make sure that it ran really well.

Thanks to all our members, friends and supporters who came to the lunch club and helped out and who have been involved over the last three years! It was so nice to see how big and awesome we have got! Here’s to more housing action, solidarity and support!
See you at the next action, meeting, lunch club or other events!

Demanding #AnswersAndAction at Olive Morris House

Thanks to everyone who joined us and English for Action this afternoon outside Olive Morris House in support of Mary Luz and her family calling on Lambeth to give them the secure, local, social housing they desperately need. Mary Luz and her family have had an incredibly difficult time of appalling housing and it’s really inspiring that they have the energy to keep on fighting. And fighting is best done together of course!

Lambeth council and the housing office staff definitely saw and heard the HUGE support the family have! And we’ll keep on taking action and supporting the family until Lambeth take the action needed!

We tried to present this beautiful house (see photos below) with clear and simple messages to Lib Peck or any other housing managers, but we were quickly evicted by security.

Our pressure is having an impact. After our twitter storm on Monday, Mary Luz received letters saying the council are reviewing their decision of temporary housing and banding. But maybe they’re trying to save face. We won’t stop until we have the keys to local, social housing. You can still contact the council on twitter and by email to show your support for Mary Luz and her family with a template letter and tweets here.  Come along to meetings to meet and get involved in the group and get good homes for everyone!