Interview with a Homerton paediatric doctor: Hackney council’s housing team is putting a disabled boy at grave risk

In my latest podcast episode, I speak with Hannah Caller.

She’s a paediatric doctor who recently made a formal safeguarding referral to Hackney council social services to try and stop Hackney’s housing team from evicting a disabled and autistic boy from his council home.

I’ve been podcasting about Hackney council’s aggression towards this family for a couple of months.

What is a safeguarding referral?

A safeguarding referral is a formal alert sent to a council’s social services team.

Referrals are usually made by doctors and other professionals who believe that a vulnerable person like a disabled child is at risk of harm and abuse and so forth.

Social services must put together a team of professionals to investigate safeguarding referrals. They have a legal duty to investigate.

But what was the first thing the council did when it received this referral?

It closed the referral down.

How is Hackney council putting this boy at grave risk?

In this case, the boy is believed to be at risk of harm from the housing department of his own council. You could say that Hackney council is the abuser. That’s because the council insists that this family must be evicted and the boy must be torn from his home and school, and put into temporary housing.

The boy can’t cope with change or stress. He melts down on public transport – and he’d have to get public transport to travel from temporary housing to his school.

At the moment, his school is just across the road from the council house that Hackney wants to evict the family from. The boy has 1-2-1 specialist support at the school and an EHCP.

He is familiar with his school, his teachers, his neighbourhood and his routines there. If the family is evicted, he may be out of school for some time, because of his problems with travelling.

The council could grant the family a tenancy and let them stay, but the council refuses to do that.

This is not the only case I’m dealing with where professionals are making safeguarding referrals to raise the alarm about council and housing association behaviour towards disabled children. Interesting times.

Proving an autistic boy has meltdowns by prodding him into one

Update Sunday 15 March: my story re: this young disabled and autistic boy being forced to get public transport has been picked up here.

———-

Today, my podcast returns to the ongoing story about Hackney council’s attempts to evict a disabled and autistic boy and his family from their council home.

Bailiffs were due again to evict the boy and his family on Friday just gone, but fortunately, a court saw sense and suspended the bailiff’s eviction warrant for 8 weeks because of the risk to the boy’s health.

In the meantime, the council has come up with a gross idea to test the boy’s behaviour on public transport.

The council’s proposal is to stick this boy and his family in temporary housing 10km* away from the school where he is settled. He’ll have to get public transport from the temporary housing to this school.

The boy’s teachers and medical supporters all say that the boy can’t cope with public transport and has bad meltdowns on it.

The council doesn’t believe them. It is proposing that an assessor of some sort takes the boy on public transport to get “direct observational evidence” of what happens.

In other words, the council wants to put the boy in an environment that he can’t cope with to record him not coping with it.

Is this actual abuse?

*Had 10k and missed off the m. It’s 10km.

Hackney council will evict a disabled child this Friday. This is why progressives hate Labour.

Update 6 March: the baliff’s warrant has been suspended for 8 weeks – good news and finally some common sense after weeks of rubbish. More soon.

—————

My latest podcast episode, which is about Hackney council’s plan to evict a disabled and autistic 8 year old boy and his family from their council home this Friday – March 6 at 10am.

The council is getting court bailiffs in to evict the family, which is charming.

As I’ve said in previous podcast episodes – the council does not have to evict this family. The problem is just a tenancy issue and the council could choose to grant the family a secure tenancy to stay in their home. The council simply refuses to.

Instead, it’s the bailiffs on Friday, at which point the boy and his family will be chucked into temporary housing miles from the boy’s school where he is settled with 1-2-1 support.

The boy won’t be able to cope with the stress and he can’t cope with public transport. The council has been sent pages of medical and school evidence which makes this very clear.

This, my friends, is a classic example of reasons why so-called progressives cannot bear the Labour party.

Here’s hoping voters in the upcoming local elections in Hackney put a very big boot in.

Harassment by councils when you’re trying keep a disabled boy housed

In my latest podcast episode, we hear about the ways that councils drive people in housing need to the brink. DWP does the same sort of thing with people who claim benefits.

This episode is the fourth about a family with a disabled and autistic 8 year old boy. Hackney council is trying to evict this family – with bailiffs – from their council home of 18 years.

The boy’s paediatric doctor is so concerned about the threat this eviction poses to the boy’s health that she’s making a safeguarding referral – ie she feels that the boy needs protecting from the council.

Meanwhile Kyla, the boy’s mother, says she is feeling suicidal because the council won’t stop calling and emailing to tell her to get out of her home of 18 years and to move her family into temporary housing.

Her daughter talks about her mother’s deteriorating mental health in this episode.

Harassment by bureaucracy, innit. Councils and the DWP are masters of it.

If you don’t succeed at evicting a disabled autistic boy from his council home…

… try again!

Last week, Hackney council tried to evict an 8 year old disabled and autistic boy and his family from their council home – an eviction by bailiffs. High point for civilisation, that was.

The London Renters’ union and other supporters and neighbours stopped the eviction, but needless to say, a letter has been received to say that the bailiffs will be sent again.

In this latest podcast episode, the boy’s 18 year old sister explains what that is like. She lives in the home, so she’ll be evicted too.

This is a council actively making a disabled autistic boy homeless when he and his family could be granted a tenancy in their council home. Instead, the family will be put in temporary housing in Newham – miles away from his school and support, and the routine he relies on.

And this at a time when we’re hearing story after story about the terrible effects of temporary housing on SEND kids.

I’ll be back.

Tomorrow Hackney council evicts a disabled child and his family

Update 12:30 10 Feb: Eviction resisted! Bailiffs turned up and left when they saw the London Renters’ union and Focus E15 people there. Very good work. Pity it comes to this. More soon

Update 10:30am 10 Feb: the bailiffs were supposed to turn up at 8am this morning. They’re over 2 hours late, so dragging that out painfully for the family.

Update 9 Feb: the court did not suspend the bailiff’s warrant, so this family will be evicted tomorrow. Another hanging judge for you there. This system is loaded.

I mean – for god’s sake.

My latest podcast episode below is about a family that is being evicted by bailiffs tomorrow.

They are being evicted by their own council – Hackney. So, that’s a council actively making a family homeless and threatening them with temporary housing.

The family hasn’t actually done anything hugely wrong. The mother’s name is not on the tenancy agreement and there are reasons for that, as I explain in today’s episode and last week’s one.

Hackney council could show discretion and grant the family a tenancy, or at least withdraw the bailiff’s warrant to give the family more time to sort things out – and even for the council to work with the family to sort things out. But no. Out they go.

There’s no excuse for this kind of aggression from councils. Lack of council resources is certainly no excuse. I’m sick of that one being trotted out.

The mother, Kyla, has a court hearing this afternoon to try and get the warrant suspended and the bailiffs stopped. If that doesn’t happen, they’re out of their home of 18 years and into the wonderful world of temporary housing.

You want to know why people hate Labour? Well, here’s another reason, in case you needed more. Which you probably do not.

Great week for bastards.

Why put a disabled kid in costly temporary housing when his family could stay in their council house?

My latest podcast episode.

I talk to Kyla, who has an autistic and disabled son aged 8.

Kyla, her son and her daughter live in a council flat in Hackney. Kyla has been there for 18 years.

Next week, the family will be evicted by bailiffs, because Kyla’s name is not on the tenancy. She thought it was, because she’s been paying the council rent in her name. Turns out that was a use and occupation charge. She didn’t understand what that was. Who does.

Question is: why won’t the council just grant her a tenancy at the council place? Making the family homeless and then sticking them in some temp  housing hellhole will be ridiculously expensive for the council. Council costs for temporary housing are already out of control.

Why can’t the council negotiate with the family and come up with a solution that makes life as easy as possible for the family and the little boy? He will find a house move and a school move impossible to tolerate.

Why do councils have the nuclear option as their default? A council actively making a family with a disabled child homeless is pretty terrible.

ANOTHER leaked email telling support workers not to help disabled housing and benefits claimants

In my latest podcast episode:

Another professional has leaked an outrageous email to me – the second in as many weeks.

In this email, a Hackney council officer tells an education specialist to stop writing support letters for families with disabled children who need to be moved out of terrible housing.

This officer works with autistic and SEND children. Their families need these support letters to tell their councils why they must be rehoused. Some letters say that children are at high risk of death in their current housing.

Pat McFadden – the new fibbing head of the DWP

I also talk about Pat McFadden, newly-minted secretary of state for the DWP.

I’m intrigued by the lies Pat McFadden is telling about people being able to declare themselves longterm sick to claim benefits. This is rot. People cannot declare themselves long term sick to claim benefits. They have to go through a humiliating work capability assessment and then wait for the DWP to decide if they should get benefits. Often, the DWP decides they should not.

I talk with Latoya Wray in this episode. She works 3 minimum wage jobs and claims a bit of universal credit to stay afloat.

When she’s not doing that, she’s living in fear of her 8 year old autistic son falling to his death from their flat in a Hackney highrise council block. She has medical and education reports saying that her son is at high risk of death and that the family urgently needs rehousing.

Unfortunately, as seen in the leaked email, education specialists have been told not to write letters to tell that council to rehouse families with autistic and disabled children who are at high risk of death in their housing.

Pat McFadden needs to take his fingers out of his ears and pull out the one he has in his butt, and listen to Latoya. This is what life is really like when you need to claim benefits and help with housing.

Leaked email: Council tells NHS staff to stop writing rehousing support letters for families with disabled children

My latest podcast episode is about an extraordinary email that a senior health professional leaked to me.

The email says that a Hackney council officer told health and medical staff to stop writing supporting letters for families who need to be moved out of terrible housing – that’s families with disabled children.

The email was circulated in this consultant’s NHS workplace.

This is outrageous. Families want and NEED these supporting letters to give to the council. The letters are medical evidence that a child’s health issues and disabilities are made worse by their awful housing. They prove that the family must be moved. Some of these letters say that disabled children are at risk of death in their homes.

But this email tells NHS staff to stop writing them.

The email is full of other rubbish. It says that families of disabled children can find a place to rent in the private sector in one month – implication being that they don’t need to get on the council housing waiting list or ask for a transfer somewhere better. A month for low income families to find a place to rent in the private sector? That’s just fantasy. We might even call that a lie.

The email also says that the council has a robust system in place “to identify need and allocate housing.”

That’s rubbish. There are families in the podcast who have letters and reports which say that their disabled children are at high risk of death because of the state of their current housing – but they still haven’t been moved.

So. I have a few theories on why a council might want to shut medical staff up on the topic of potential council failures to keep disabled children safe.

How Hackney cuts

Updated 11 July 2010. Information on cuts lobbies and organising groups at the end of this blog.

Have started to spend time in Hackney, with people likely to be affected by public sector cuts. Will post interview extracts here while I work on a longer piece with video, and go back to people to see how they’re getting on:

Anthony Rhoden:

I meet Anthony Rhoden at a Saturday afternoon Hackney Unites clinic for people who need free workplace and employment advice. Two Russell Jones and Walker solicitors are there as advisors, as well a TUC and local union rep.

A longtime (now unemployed) chef and restaurant worker, Rhoden says that he is a Unite organiser for bar and restaurant employees -‘there’s a lot of problems in the catering industry – there were lots of problems even before the recession. It happened to me all the time – wouldn’t get paid, or wouldn’t get all my pay. People don’t know they have rights. You get bullied all the time.’

In a recession, though, people count themselves lucky to have a job, even if they’re abused in it. That’ll be nowhere more the case than in Hackney. Hackney’s unemployment figures are already the worst in London, with a June 2010 TUC analysis putting the ratio of people claiming jobseekers’ allowance to available jobs at 24:1.

‘There’s no work anywhere,’ says Rhoden. He looks at me oddly when I put to him the coalition’s idea of moving the unemployed to areas where there are jobs. Like me, he’s not sure such a place exists. It ain’t in an obvious vicinity, that’s for sure. Joblessness will be even worse in Hackney, and in places like Lewisham and Deptford, if the public sector is hit as badly as the coalition proposes to hit it. Councils and the NHS are the biggest employers in these areas – there’s almost nowhere else to go.

Rhoden says he wants to start his own catering business, but that he signs on for now. He lives in temporary accommodation in Wigan House (he’s lived there for three years, waiting for his old block to be rebuilt) and relies on a housing benefit to meet his rent of about £100 a week.

The conversation takes a turn for the disturbing when we get to the subject of this housing benefit and the government’s targeting of it: Rhoden refuses to believe that housing benefits will be cut. He doesn’t talk about campaigning against the cuts – he says that he never ‘gets involved in the politics. I’m not a political person. The politics never changes anything and it never helps us.’

Now I’m looking at Rhoden oddly. Very. I wasn’t expecting this – I was as primed as ever for anger and a tide of anti-Cameron obscenity, but had nothing up the sleeve for denial. I tell Rhoden that George Osborne has housing benefits very much in his sights, and that if Osborne wins, Rhoden may find his housing benefit entitlement takes a ten percent hit.

Rhoden shakes his head. He says again that ‘there’s no way that they’ll cut the housing benefit.’ I say I hope he’s right and that I hope he knows something I don’t. The truth is that I suspect that Rhoden is exactly the type of guy Osborne is after – and exactly the type of guy Osborne wants the everyone-on-welfare-is-a-scrounger brigade to get after – because he’s been collecting JSA for more than 12 months. If he continues to collect JSA, which he may have to if his catering business idea doesn’t fly, he could be looking at losing ten quid a week, even as a council tenant.

‘There’s no way that they’ll cut it,’ Rhoden says firmly. ‘There’s no way they will do that. They will leave housing benefit alone.’ I has absolutely no idea how to interpret this confidence. It could be innocence – if Rhoden doesn’t follow politics, he may not know that Osborne is after housing benefits. That’s hardly a happy thought – he’s unlikely to be the only one. I suppose it could be the misplaced hauteur the right forever bangs on about – Rhoden isn’t worried about benefit cuts, because he’s confident the state will forever pick up his various tabs.

Of course – he wouldn’t be the only one. There are plenty of people with high expectations of handouts. One of the Russell Jones and Walker solicitors makes this point when she tells me that her firm was involved in a lot of final deal negotiations for well-placed City staff when the banks crashed.

‘The reality is that it didn’t hit them very hard,’ she says. ‘They negotiated good deals to leave, and then not very long after they left, they were negotiating good deals into other jobs.’ She says that by comparison, it can be very difficult to negotiate reasonable deals for people leaving the public sector.

She and the other Russell Jones and Walker solicitor say that from their perspective, very little has changed in the banking industry. They say that people are still awarded bonuses, but they just have them deferred so that they appear to be collecting nothing, or a lot less right now. ‘They like it like that. It looks like they’re not taking very much now, but they will just collect it all in the future.’

I wonder if the grassroots is up for a fight for public services, though. I want it to be, but that’ll hardly make it happen. Who would lead such a fight? Public sector trade unions? Hah. The PCS may put up a geniune fight, but Unison won’t.

I attend a meeting of Hackney locals and trade union members which is led by Brian Debus – a man who is walking testimony to Unison’s hatred of popular pro-public service, leftwing activists. Debus is one of the four Socialist party activists Unison has banned from office for demanding that Unison stop funding the pro-privatising Labour party. There is a great deal of difference between what Unison does and what it says.

This meeting of about 50 people knows that. It agrees that unions are too weak and too slow to organise effectively against the coalition juggernaut.

Union membership is low. Strike action is notoriously difficult to organise. Solidarity strikes are illegal. Legal strike action is painfully hard to achieve: unions must ballot, then request permission to strike from industrial action committees that are made up of people who’d prefer to make history as negotiators, rather than pinkos. If strikes go ahead, they may backfire. The Murdoch media hates the public sector and strikers, and will doubtless happily publish coalition press releases that claim public services were easily delivered on days when half the public sector workforce was out.

The meeting decides that the fight for services has to be rooted in communities, like the poll tax resistance. I think of Rhoden at this point, and wonder what will happen when he works out that the money is about to go.

Lobbies and meetings this week:

Camden TUC meeting to organise against cuts on Monday 12 July

Lewisham council: lobby against council cuts at Lewisham council buildings, Catford, Wednesday 14 July 5.15pm. Organised by the NUT.

News of cuts at Lambeth, and proposals to try and keep local people in employment.

Southwark Unites will hold a meeting against the cuts on Monday 19 July.

More to come.