The mother who was kicked out of her flat after a journalist visited her believes many more homeless tenants are the victims of revenge evictions – but says the council is too afraid to confront the private landlords who provide emergency accommodation.
Angela Barnett, 33, was given a formal apology and paid £300 by Brighton and Hove City Council after the local ombudsman upheld her complaint about how her eviction with her two-year-old son from Windsor Court in October last year was handled.
The ombudsman’s report raised pointed questions about the timing of her eviction and the complete lack of evidence that the racial abuse she was accused of had actually happened.
The council believed Baron Homes, the private landlord of Windsor Court, even though a statement from their caretaker failed to detail any racial abuse, and police informed a council officer that the log for the crime reference Baron Homes supplied did not mention Miss Barrett.
Despite this, the council insists it “does not recognise the term revenge evictions” and said it had stressed the importance of robust record keeping with Baron Homes.
However, opposition Green housing spokesman David Gibson described a recent report into the evictions of people as a “whitewash” and called on the council to do more to prevent the practice.
Miss Barnett says she believes the investigation into her eviction was a cover up, and that the council is scared of rocking the boat with the private landlords who provide most of the city’s emergency and temporary accommodation.
She said: “It was obvious they were trying to cover it up. They knowingly used a crime reference number knowing it wasn’t about me. It says in the report that the officer didn’t record that conversation – surely it would be important to record that information that was pinning up my eviction?
“The council doesn’t want to admit revenge evictions are a thing because they would have to rock the boat with the emergency accommodation providers.
“They’re tied up in contracts with them and if they had to end them that’s a massive chunk of their emergency accommodation gone and they would have to find it somewhere else.
“Revenge evictions are happening and Brighton and Hove City Council are clearly trying to cover it them up. It’s happened to me, and it’s happening to other people. I am lucky enough to have had the support to see the whole thing through over ten months.
“I was lucky that I had the proof that I genuinely hadn’t done anything wrong.”
Many homeless families and vulnerable people end up in either Windsor Court in the city centre or Percival Terrace in Kemp Town, both of which are privately run.
When families and vulnerable people first come to the council, they are put into emergency accommodation, and then when their homelessness application is accepted (i.e. they are found to be truly homeless through no fault of their own), their housing is classed as temporary accommodation.
Because of the severe lack of housing in the city, families can stay in blocks like Windsor Court or Percival Terrace for many months before being moved somewhere more suitable.
The council has plans to convert the Oxford Street offices into council-run temporary accommodation, but a planning application is not due until spring next year, and it is likely to be some months after that that it’s ready for homeless people to move in.
Green housing spokesman David Gibson said: “Following concerns voiced by the Emergency and Temporary Housing Residents Action Group (Ethrag), Greens succeeded in passing a motion at housing committee calling for the investigation of evictions.
“The council believed Baron Homes, the private landlord of Windsor Court, even though a statement from their caretaker failed to detail any racial abuse” – I’m assuming there’s a clause missing…
It’s astonishing that the council doesn’t recognise the term ‘revenge eviction’. Does it recognise the official term ‘retaliatory eviction’ which means the same thing – tenants being evicted after making a complaint to or about their landlord? It’s a significant enough issue to have prompted a change in the law. Or has the council adopted the ostrich position and exposed it’s thinking and speaking parts for inspection!