Let them garden!

Landlords, city councils, please, no more of this:

Don’t dump your rubbish on tenants. Don’t force tenants to enjoy their summer weekend barbecue surrounded by your rubbish. They can’t afford to have it removed for you.

And no more accidental pulling up of flowers sowed by tenants.

Let them garden!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/08/let-them-garden-call-for-landlords-to-help-tenants-and-wildlife-flourish

Two great tips for people with money in the UK

This is something I’ve been fantasizing about for a long time. There are other solutions on this website that will help you light up dark homes and enable heat from the sun to enter in colder weather and help vent hot air overnight in hot weather.

  • Eco-Mate Sandalwood and Cedarwood Concentrated Non-Bio Laundry Liquid, Plant-based, 100% Biodegradable Paper Bottle & Contents, Vegan Friendly, Natural, Hypoallergenic, Plastic Free, Pack of 3 https://amzn.to/41d8G9K

Sounds fantastic! I love the fragrance of sandalwood and cedar. You too?

Mean-spirited, vengeful landlords versus landlords who have their heads screwed on properly

In England, many landlords do what they can to make the lives of their tenants as hard as possible. That strikes me as stupid, but it’s a consequence of the English class system. Landlords don’t consciously think about such things; they just have this fixed idea that people who rent deserve to be abused in some way.

I used to know a landlord in Southampton, who was a retired builder who took his boat over to France in the summers and who ran into me one day, a scientist (class system thinking kicking in), and showed me a new place that he was building and then blurted out “It does not need to be good as it’s only for tenants” before he kicked his shin when he remembered I was one of his tenants.

I used to know another one who was a friend for a while, who called tenants “bad tenants” if they called him to say that the heating was not working or that the washing machine he provided was not working. He was not a bad dude at all. His train of thoughts was simply pervaded by English class ideas without him being aware of it.

Landlords in England don’t even think twice about deliberately using inappropriate materials that encourage mold development in tenants’ homes. It does not occur to them. They don’t think about it at all. They grab the cheapest or the same tin of wall paint and apply the obligatory 2 tiles because that is what they’ve always done.

They don’t realize that if they don’t do whatever they can to support their tenants’ health and their general ability to support themselves, they are being pretty stupid. It is a mere consequence of the class system that landlords install energy-guzzling heating systems just because those were the cheapest ones on the market.

It does not mean that they are mean-spirited. It’s just how they are brought up. You eat fresh food and you give moldy and stale food to the poor. That’s just the way it is.

My current landlord, by contrast, is vengeful and mean-spirited.

He knows that I have been trapped here for years. He knows that I have made four attempts to escape from my abuse situation here in Portsmouth (while based at this flat) that all failed because I had no money. None. I had three options. Suicide, going homeless without access to financial support or remaining trapped in my sadistic abuse situation.

Over the years, he has made several attempts to evict me. Those attempts always contained stupid little errors that made it easy for me to show up in court and say “Your honor, this eviction attempt is not legal and here’s why”.

Each of these exercises cost him money. They cost me money too, and a lot of time. They sometimes forced me to run around all over town delivering documents and copies of documents, as required by law.

(He was of course also gathering information from me, for example with regard to which documents I had and which ones I did not have, as well as of my understanding of the legal process, but I doubt that he was doing that consciously.)

This guy is into playing stupid little games.

(He has some bad childhood hangups, so I understand.)

Instead of cutting his losses by giving me the money that would enable me to get away and finally establish a new life elsewhere – which landlords in the States commonly do, so I understand – he prefers to sustain bigger losses, take me to court, time and time again, just so that he can play his stupid little games.

Maybe he has a hangup with regard to women who went to university. Maybe his parents were once evicted by a Dutch landlord. I have no idea.

He changed his company’s bank account without informing me (the old bank account ceased to exist), and he later changed his office address without informing me. His new office address has no doorbell and no letterbox. Most of the time, postal mail gets returned or is not acknowledged. He sends letters and e-mails on different letterheads for companies of which at least one does not even exist…

(Remember that I can’t call anyone without needing to travel out of town first, so I no longer have an easy way of contacting his offices. When I still could, my calls and other tenants’ calls, however, also used to be ignored.)

He does childish things like make appointments for inspections and then send someone over on the wrong day just so that he can say that I am a problem tenant.

Maybe his childhood included evictions, indeed. Maybe he now takes joy in seeing bailiffs show up at his tenants’ doors. More likely, I think, he is simply playing stupid eviction games because it helps him get over his childhood hangups.

Whatever it is that is driving his petty vengeful behaviors, the only way you can stop someone who is that unhinged from continuing to play his stupid little games is to stop playing along with these eviction games altogether. After all, if you succeed in blocking the eviction attempt, all you have done is guarantee that you remain someone else’s toy.

It has been suggested on one occasion that he is the one behind my ordeal in this town. I don’t think so. First of all, that ordeal began several years before I moved into my current flat and second, I don’t think my landlord is as stupid as to engage in deliberately sabotaging a tenant’s income and all that. (Go into my flat to take socks from my dirty laundry or break my folding stepping stool, etc?) That would be quite a different ballgame, a much riskier one.

There’s this, too:

Even organizations like Shelter and Centrepoint are pervaded by silly English class ideas. It’s much easier to get support from them if think you are uneducated, not too smart and very poor. They have no problem with causing extra costs for you if they realize you don’t fit that bill. That too is pretty petty.

The same kind of pettiness is at work when homeless people are arrested for “vagrancy” under a 200-year-old law: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/02/thousands-of-homeless-people-arrested-under-archaic-vagrancy-act

By the way, the UK may be the only western country where you can be evicted for no reason, in a so-called “no-fault” eviction, which the UK government has been promising to end for a long time too. Just like that 200-year-old Vagrancy Act.

Homeless? You may soon no longer be breaking the law

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick MP, has told the House of Commons that the Vagrancy Act should be “consigned to history”.

Oh, that’s good of him, isn’t it?

At the same time, the UK government has quietly eroded the corona virus eviction protection – which was much less extensive than the one in the US to begin with – Lime Legal informed me this morning. It pointed me towards this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/28/eviction-orders-being-issued-despite-uk-government-covid-pledge

Landlords…

Never had any problems with landlords in the Netherlands. Never.

Had three in Florida. The first and the third were fine, but the second one was not and his attorney was rumoured to have mafia ties, I kid you not. But I heard that later. I think it was actually a legal aid lawyer who told me that who I talked with later, long after I’d moved out and his lawyer started pestering me. I’ll spare you the details.

My third landlord was the husband of the person I volunteered with on Saturdays and sometimes Sundays. (He was a builder, built huge places, the way they are in Florida. Nice guy. I think he was in the US Army for a while, and they lived in places like Morocco. ) She stopped by one day – to bring me two birds – and was appalled and suggested I move in to one of their places. They owned a small apartment building that was mostly used by snowbirds (people from for example Canada who take winter vacations in Florida).

Some time later, I moved to Britain.

In Southampton, I knew several landlords. (Only one of them was mine.)

One said that only educated people were decent human beings, and I was too shocked to respond. He called tenants who rang him because the washing machine or heating wasn’t working (properly) “bad tenants”. This was not my own landlord, but someone I met within a business context and was friendly with for a while. Wasn’t actually a bad guy at all, strangely enough.

I also knew one who proudly told me how he had tricked an elderly woman with beginning Alzheimer’s out of her flat, I kid you not.

On another occasion, the same guy was talking with me about a new building he was constructing and then added that it did not have to be very good “as it is only for tenants”.

In Portsmouth, I’ve met two who dump rubbish on other people’s front courts and patios. I caught one red-handed and the other one admitted it.

I have principles.

If I can help make things better for people who come after me who are less strong in some way – okay, except physically as I am getting old and I am feeling it – I will try to do that. And that baffles the hell out of (most) Brits. But that is not my problem.

Tony Blair on social engineering

Interview with Mark Easton, BBC. Date unknown, but near the end of Tony Blair’s premiership.

Keep in mind that “hooliganism” and “anti-social behaviour” are often labels used to indicate (and reject) people from a lower socioeconomic class in Britain and that this “hooliganism” for example gets expressed in graffiti.

Of course, causing (increased) financial hardship for parents by taking any benefits away is most definitely not “in the best interest of the child”.

Tony Blair did consider graffiti “anti-social behaviour”. During a photo-op as part of his crusade, he hosed down graffiti and said that older generations of his family would have abhorred such behaviour. It then turned out that his own grandmother had been a “commie” graffiti vandal.

There probably is a work by Banksy somewhere in response to all of this.

Tony Blair also criminalized a lot of behavior that is essentially merely human behavior. That too was in nobody’s best interest and probably did nothing toward decreasing inequality in Britain.

It did not enable (more) people to flourish.

Homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability

Today is the third of three days at the Supreme Court that focus on homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability (or rather, priority).

courthouseThe three cases are:
– Hotak (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
– Johnson (Appellant) v Solihull MBC (Respondent)
– Kanu (AP) (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)

(Interveners in all three cases:
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Shelter, Crisis and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.)

What is it all about? Predominantly 189(1)(c) in the Housing Act 1996:

189 Priority need for accommodation.

(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation—

(a) a pregnant woman or a person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(b) a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(d )a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) specify further descriptions of persons as having a priority need for accommodation, and

(b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (1).

(3) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult such associations representing relevant authorities, and such other persons, as he considers appropriate.

(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

Hotak is a pretty straightforward case, at first sight; the two other cases are less clear. Hotak concerns two brothers, one of which (Sifatullah) would certainly be considered vulnerable if the other one (Ezatullah) had not said that he would look after his brother. The brothers were living in a friend’s flat in Southwark, but told to leave because of overcrowding. Ezatullah’s immigration status at the time, however, made him ineligible for housing assistance.

Southwark did give the brothers temporary housing while it made its mind up. It decided that Sifatullah was unintentionally homeless, and eligible for assistance, yet did not consider him vulnerable in terms of in priority need of housing because his brother was looking after him. This is where the case went off the rails.

If Sifatullah were a pregnant woman, unintentionally homeless (as it is called), and eligible for assistance, whether the person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside supports her or not makes no difference, as one of the lawyers highlighted on Monday.

Another one pointed out that the law does not contain an element of comparison. A person’s own condition makes him or her relatively vulnerable when on the street, and the law had the intention of preventing and eliminating all homelessness. This would mean that a) there is no such thing as “an ordinary street-homeless person” (used by Southwark to compare Sifatullah against) and b) one could say that being homeless in itself already points toward a person being less able to fend for himself or herself, as homelessness is not the norm in this country.

It looks like the practice of the application of this legislation – carried out by the decision-making housing officer – has been moving toward comparing a blind applicant with street-homeless blind applicants, deaf applicants with street-homeless deaf applicants, mentally ill applicants with street-homeless mentally ill applicants, applicants with substance abuse with homeless people with substance abuse.

More specifically, practice seems to be more and more relying on the premise that all homeless persons are, almost by definition, street-homeless mentally ill and/or substance abusers and/or physically ill, deserving no special protection (in Johnson, for instance). The law was not intended that way. The law does not even say anything like this.

The pregnant woman, however, is never compared with other pregnant women to determine her vulnerability. The same applies to any persons who have lost their home in a flood.

“Ideas about vulnerability are perhaps most often applied by those in more powerful positions to define those in less powerful ones.” (Kate Brown)

Housing matters at the Supreme Court – 5

Today in Court 2:
Aster Communities Limited (formerly Flourish Homes Limited) (Respondent) v Akerman-Livingstone (AP) (Appellant)

courthouseNot broadcast live.

A clear case of a causal relationship between someone’s disability and the reason for issuing proceedings, in my view. Someone unable to comply with what is expected from him. (One could see it as maladministration, perhaps.)

Will the Supreme Court see a violation of the Equality Act and let this weigh heavier or will other interests overrule?

Not an easy case.

Update: still went live later.

PS
See also my earlier post about this case.