|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - eviction
The Bedroom Tax, which started in April 2013, is a tax on tenants on low incomes needing to claim housing benefit in order to be able to pay their rent. Added to the background of widescale cuts already affecting the poorest in society, the Bedroom Tax further attacks poor and vulnerable people by snatching 14% or 25% off their already tiny incomes.
For Ashfield social tenants this brings an increased risk of eviction and homelessness as things stand.
This is an attack not just on those unlucky enough to be unemployed in the current economic climate it also affects those with jobs - in the past few years approximately 90% of new Housing Benefit (HB) applications have been from people with jobs!
Contrary to the political rhetoric blaming claimants for being 'greedy', the high cost of Housing Benefit is due to landlords charging very high rents and employers paying very low wages. Politicians claim that the Bedroom Tax is about cutting the 'welfare bill' and reducing homelessness, but if those were genuine aims the government would re-introduce rent controls and build more council houses. Instead of these simple and fair measures, the Bedroom Tax further impoverishes the poorest people and paves the way for further privitisation and landlord profits.
Ashfield Homes Ltd and Ashfield District Council can choose to evict tennants falling into arrears through Bedroom Tax or choose instead to assist them in various ways:
WE THE RESIDENTS OF CASA SERENES SUBSIDIZED PERMANENT HOUSING PROGRAM FOR DISABLE ADULTS, ARE GOVERNED BY SACRAMENTO AREA EMERGENCY HOUSING CENTER AGENCY.
WE WONDER WHY HUD DOES NOT REGULATE AGENCIES THAT CONTINUALLY VIOLATE HUD REGULATION.
OUR STAFF DOES NOT ADHERE TO HUD REGULATIONS AND GRIEVANCES THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ARE EITHER BEING WITHHELD FROM HUD OR THEY ARE BEING IGNORED. WE ARE CONSTANTLY THREATENED WITH LOSS OF OUR HOUSING, WHILE SHOWING HUD REGULATIONS TO SUPPORT OUR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BASED ON CIVIL CODES AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS WE ARE TOLD THOSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO US AS WE ARE A PROGRAM. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD TO MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS OR WE WOULD BE EVICTED!
EVICTIONS RECENTLY HAVE BEGUN TARGETING THE "RING LEADERS" THAT STIR UP TROUBLE. AFTER HAVING OUR OWN APARTMENTS FOR 6+ YEARS, WHEN SUDDEN FINANCIAL ISSUES POPPED UP WE WERE INFORMED THAT WE WERE NO LONGER GOING TO HAVE SINGLE UNITS, AND THAT WE WOULD BE MOVING INTO 2 BEDROOM UNITS AND FORCED TO SHARE WITH ANOTHER RESIDENT, WE WERE TOLD FAILURE TO COOPERATE WOULD RESULT IN THE AGENCY'S REFUSAL TO PAY OUR SUBSIDY FOR US, AND WOULD END IN AN EVICTION, AND RETURN TO HOMELESSNESS.
THEY EVICT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE, VIOLATING OUR RIGHTS, AND HUD REGULATIONS. THEY REFUSE TO INCLUDE ACCEPTABLE DEDUCTION WHEN CALCULATING OUR RENTS, AND THEY ARE NOT GIVING US THE FULL UTILITY ALLOWANCES AS SET FORTH BY THE SHRA.
SO WHY HAS HUD FAILED TO STEP IN TO STOP THE FRAUDULENT MISUSE OF GRANT FUNDS, PREJUDICE, MISMANAGEMENT UNLAWFUL, RETALIATORY EVICTIONS THAT ARE PROCEEDED OVER BY JUDGES NOT FAMILIAR WITH HUD GUIDELINES THAT PROHIBIT EVICTIONS UNLESS PROPER PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED!
In Florida, renters have too many rights. Rights that extend above the landlord. The eviction process should only take 1-2 weeks if the renter does not pay. They should not be allowed to stay in a property for free until the courts decide whether or not to evict them.
Presently, to delay matters, renters only need to respond without paying any money to stay longer in a home. Where is the justice in this? A simple response to the court can delay getting them out for another few weeks. Meanwhile, they can do as much damage to your property as they like and not be responsible. Again, where is the justice in this? Florida courts need to be more proactive in the eviction process.
Fort Myers courts, in general need to listen to landlords when they show up to court on time and the renter does not. In other states when a renter does not show up for court they are evicted and not given a second chance. Why is it in Flroida they are given a second chance?
To Rob Ford and the Toronto City Councillors,
We, the residents and the workers of Toronto Community
Housing Corporation (TCHC), and their supporters, are
demanding a halt to the privatization the TCHC.
Privatization of the TCHC would place our community in
the hands of big business profiteers who would likely
increase rent, neglect their obligations to repairs and layoff
maintenance staff as to increase their profits. Furthermore,
privatization can mean the widespread destruction of our
housing to build condo or other commercial enterprises.
Canadians have a right to affordable and quality housing.
This means that beyond just preventing privatizations, we
need a massive increase in funding to public housing. We
must end repair backlogs, decrease rent rates, provide
adequate subsidies to those in need and massively expand
the TCHC. The expansion of housing would provide
tremendous employment, particularly for local youth, and
must be paid at union wages.
In light of the recent scandal, we believe that TCHC
tenants are best able to end corruption or any abuses of
power thought direct democratic control. No to corporate
ownership! For democratic tenants control of the TCHC!
The Katikkiro of Buganda
On February 5 2009, we received notice from Ms Equatorial Real Estate Limited through their lawyers which warned us (over 2000 families) against putting up any structures on Plots 2697 and 2698 Block 273 Konge, Kyamula and Buziga in Kampala. ERE was registered on 16 November 2007 and acquired the title on 1 January 2008 usurping the due process from the sitting tenants. They claim they would like to implement a city master plan for the area. However, the Buganda Land Board has not communicated to us about the new tenant and we shall deal only with BLB as the landlords.
Jim Harvey, a 76 year old resident of Buckland Brewer in Devon, has been threatened with notice to quit his allotment by Buckland Brewer parish council.
Jim has tended his allotment for seven years and has taken on two others, when asked to by the council, so that these did not revert to wilderness.
In 2007, Jim applied to the council to erect a polytunnel to help him supply his extended family with organic produce throughout the year. Even though planning permission was not required, the council refused Jim’s request and, at the time, gave no reasons for its decision.
Later in the year, Jim erected a polythene covered greenhouse. In response, the council demand that he remove the ‘unauthorised structure’. Yet, the greenhouse did not require planning permission nor did the council have powers to regulate the erection of ‘structures’ on the allotments. This is because neither Jim nor any other allotmenteer had signed a tenancy agreement specifying terms and conditions.
Jim has refused to comply with the council’s demand, because it had no power to make such a demand.
Effective 1 March 2008, the council imposed terms and conditions on allotment holders, including a requirement to seek permission to erect ‘structures’. As the term ‘structure’ is not defined, it could, in theory, mean beanpoles, cold frames or scarecrows. But, the transparent aim was to get Jim to remove his greenhouse.
The council is now attempting to use the new tenancy agreement retrospectively to evict Jim and voted to serve notice to quit.
Spennymoor Town Council retracted the Lease for Spennymoor Town FC and agreed that if a suitable business plan was created by 24th July 2007 they would negotiate terms for a new lease.
A (what was believed to be) suitable business plan was drawn up. However on the night of 25th July 2007 the Brewery Field was issued with an eviction notice effective in 28 days.