ChatterBank0 min ago
Is Horsham Council Morally Wrong In This Instance?
https:/
Ok. The Council has the law on it's side but A. This man is not a trespasser pitching up illegally on someones land.
B. He doesn't appear to be the cause of any likely health hazard.
C. He works in a very worthy and much needed occupation.
D. He isn't a burden on the state with a pack of ferile kids running amok around his humble abode.
His crime is he cannot find affordable housing within the area he works but feels comfortable and content with his lifestyle. He is not a moaner and certainly does not appear to display any sense of imagined entitlement.
I feel this reflects very badly on the local housing authorities who will more than likely put those who least deserve social housing first before the needs of a poorly paid working man who is trouble to no one.
How do feel about this gentleman's circumstances? Yes I know the Council has the law on their side but morally should they house him first before wielding eviction orders. They are not so robust when evicting trespassing travellers on their own property, after all ,so why chase this man who is on private land with permission.?
Ok. The Council has the law on it's side but A. This man is not a trespasser pitching up illegally on someones land.
B. He doesn't appear to be the cause of any likely health hazard.
C. He works in a very worthy and much needed occupation.
D. He isn't a burden on the state with a pack of ferile kids running amok around his humble abode.
His crime is he cannot find affordable housing within the area he works but feels comfortable and content with his lifestyle. He is not a moaner and certainly does not appear to display any sense of imagined entitlement.
I feel this reflects very badly on the local housing authorities who will more than likely put those who least deserve social housing first before the needs of a poorly paid working man who is trouble to no one.
How do feel about this gentleman's circumstances? Yes I know the Council has the law on their side but morally should they house him first before wielding eviction orders. They are not so robust when evicting trespassing travellers on their own property, after all ,so why chase this man who is on private land with permission.?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by retrocop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
How obtrusive is his ‘home’ on the surrounding area? It looks to be very nicely made up both inside and out though.
The council has been in touch with him regarding his housing needs but don’t know what, if anything he was offered.
Sometimes the state interferes more than it should but to let him off would give everyone and their dog the opportunity to flout planning laws so I do understand the council stance.
Morally I think he should be allowed to stay but legally and long term he should not.
The council has been in touch with him regarding his housing needs but don’t know what, if anything he was offered.
Sometimes the state interferes more than it should but to let him off would give everyone and their dog the opportunity to flout planning laws so I do understand the council stance.
Morally I think he should be allowed to stay but legally and long term he should not.
He was first served notice to evict more than 2 years ago - he's had plenty of time to find alternative accommodation.
He claims he can't afford to buy in the area but he could rent or even become a lodger as so many people have to do.
Lots of people would love to live on private land 'off grid' like this and some do manage to get planning permission but it really can't be a free for all.
He claims he can't afford to buy in the area but he could rent or even become a lodger as so many people have to do.
Lots of people would love to live on private land 'off grid' like this and some do manage to get planning permission but it really can't be a free for all.
The precedent is the worry. But he's been there a while unmoved on which should count for something. And now the council has taken an interest one wonders how quickly they'd have moved a group of belligerent travellers on. But anyway, surely there's no issue; the council, having opted to make him homeless will be putting him at the top of the list for a council home, maybe one with room for his box in the back garden, so he'll be settled in the new place before he needs to leave.
There appears to be a precedent in this case, coincidentally, again in Sussex.
Apparently if he has made no attempt to conceal his presence to anyone and has lived there for over four years the council can issue a certificate of 'lawfulness to continue residence'
Hopefully the council will issue him with the keys to council accomodation instead.
Apparently if he has made no attempt to conceal his presence to anyone and has lived there for over four years the council can issue a certificate of 'lawfulness to continue residence'
Hopefully the council will issue him with the keys to council accomodation instead.
Why should he be given council accommodation? He is a single man in full time work and could rent privately. If his wages are that low he can't afford to rent a modest flat or room he would surely be entitled to housing benefit?
He has been living very cheaply for a few years with no rent, council tax, water rates or fuel bills to pay. Surely he could have saved a deposit for a flat or room? Lots of people have to work two jobs to pay the bills.
He has been living very cheaply for a few years with no rent, council tax, water rates or fuel bills to pay. Surely he could have saved a deposit for a flat or room? Lots of people have to work two jobs to pay the bills.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.