Skip to content

Living In A Box

March 25, 2013

First the good news. I have found somewhere for Steven and I to live. It’s available from mid May and I can afford the rent without having to rely on Housing Benefit. It also means that Steven’s compensation money will not have to be used to pay any rent. It’s also within about 25 minutes walking distance from my work, so I will save on travelling expenses.

Thats the end of the good news. The bad news (and theres quite a bit of it) is that it’s only a studio flat. One room and a small kitchen and shower room. It boasts a dressing room but I can’t quite see where that fits in. Steven can have the bed which pulls down every night and I’ll buy a sofa bed for myself. The room is very pokey, so they’ll probably only be room for an armchair, the TV and a storage system for all Steven’s DVDs and CDs. I’ll flog my DVDs and I’ll trade in the PC for a laptop. It’s ironic because the whole flat would probably fit into one of the rooms we had at Center Parcs last week.

Goodness knows how we’ll manage with the lack of space. I think Steven will find it very difficult. He likes having his own space and that is going to be very hard. We’ll have to stop the overnight respite as well because there won’t be anywhere for the support worker to sleep. Although to be honest, as a result of the fairer charging policy, it wasn’t really worth having the respite – having one night out was costing quite a bit and that’s before I even set foot outside the door.

Hillingdon will be persuing their application to manage a private tenancy on Steven’s behalf. I had an interesting conversation with a housing lawyer, who felt it is scandalous, that someone with such high level needs as Steven is being forced into private housing, but that’s their local housing policy for you. I’m fascinated to see how they present Steven to potential private landlords in order to secure a tenancy. I guess it will be the complete opposite to 2010. Then, in order to get their way, they had to spin Steven in the worst possible light. Now, they’ll have to present him as unproblematic. It doesn’t matter; to them the spin is everything.

I think we’ve got some tough times ahead.

Update 26th March 2013:

I heard back from the landlord of the studio flat today via the estate agents. He will not be offering us the tenancy as he doesn’t think the flat is suitable for a disabled person. I don’t know whether there’s anything discriminatory there but he’s right. A studio flat is wildly unsuitable but I haven’t got much choice. That’s the third place we’ve been turned down for now – I think the council have really underestimated how difficult it is to get a privately rented property when one of the occupants is LD.

I also had an email from the council – they also think the studio flat is “unsuitable and too limited”. No shit Sherlock. They just don’t get it. We’re only in this horrible position because of their rigid interpretation of the law and their own local housing allocation policies.

Advertisements

From → Social Care

2 Comments
  1. Anne Marie Watson permalink

    I think you’re right Mark they will turn things around to suit themselves we are at the same point as you. They made things out to be really bad to keep zara in a brain injury unit even though she had no brain injury. And now lying to get some care for her.

  2. Liz permalink

    This really is a desperate state of affairs! I cannot understand how your LA can just pretend they have no responsibility to house Steven – and you along with him of course.

    My daughter has a clinical negligence settlement – and as a consequence questions of funding and responsibility get extremely murky, as no-one seems to understand the law, or the role of the Court of Protection. It is bizarre, but funds from such a source are supposed to be disregarded – I don’t know if they same disregards would apply to Steven. Trying to find answers to this unusual and complicated question, I came up with this:

    “the Fairer Charging Policy provides that the capital sum represented by an award of damages for personal injuries which is administered by the Court of Protection should not be taken into account by a local authority when a person is means tested.” Sorry, lost the source – but your legal advisors may be clearer on this.

    Don’t know whether Steven’s damages are disregarded in the same way – but I do know that if they are held in the CoP and administered by a Deputy – you – they just might be.

    Also, as far as I understand it, only a Deputy can sign a tenancy agreement on behalf of someone who lacks capacity – so who are the LA applying to?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: