Many thanks for the advice – I wasnt aware of there being housing advisors….so thank you.

I was particularly intrigued by Tim Scott’s comments. I presume he is involved in one of the London council’s housing allocation department (?)

He is obviously quite defensive about the council’s and NowMedical’s roles and behaviour in respect of the processes they have in place to determine priority.

We all must not forget that much (if not everything) of what is approved or disallowed depends on the decisions of individual operatives in HA. I seem to have been particularly unlucky.

I do worry about Tim’s comments in as much as they reflect the somewhat polemik and blinkered attitude that some civil servants et al. have in this country. Tim, who claims to have considerable working knowledge of the Locata scheme, uses a hypocritical argument (a falsification of cause and effect), to claim that the possible improvement of a health issue cannot be synonymous (or contiguous) with the removal of the cause of the health issue. Pure logic states that if there is a unique causal relationship between to facts (i.e. A causes B), then the removal of the cause (not A) leads to change in the causality. Put in its extreme form: If not A, then not B).

I have encountered this inability to employ unfalsified logic (or even reason) throughout my dealings with the council. It certainly does not seem to be a job requirement at Housing Allocations to be intellectually competent. I suppose, “if you pay peanuts . . .”

I find Tim’s attitude and grandeur throughout this blog extremely annoying. His naïve praise of NowMedical, a company that issues recommendations by it’s quick “fax” service for GBP 30 and has rejected something like 97% of priority claims in the Borough of Lambeth, belies his disdain for the supplicants.

It is clear, and obvious to anyone in post-Thatcher Britain, that social housing has been systematically dismantled and there are therefore far more applicants than available housing.

Unfortunatly, the creative “brains” in HA have evidently chosen to resolve the problem by placing as many applicants as possible (even if by neglectful behaviour and falsification of facts) in the worthless Band D, which was only created to pacify (or keep off their backs) those who think they may be entitled to housing. This should be considered disingenuous, if not a scam. People are being deliberatly misled about their chances of receiving help with housing, their time and energy, and their hopes, wasted.

There will have to be a massive shake-up of the current system. Dishonest and unhelpful civil servants must be dismissed and held personally (and financially) responsible. Councils and collaborating Ombudsmen should be fined substantially. The role of Ombudsmen in the regulation (or rather “non-regulation”) of governance is particularly shameful. Medical advisers must be investigated as to their qualifications and the statistical rates of their rejection of supplicants. They too should feel consequences for their lack of impartiality and for their disregard of their peers, who are often trying to earnestly help their patients. Generally, many should feel deeply ashamed.

I’m spent!

Frank

P.S.
This to Tim: If you’re going to mock peoples’ use of apostrophes, please don’t reveal your own grammatical laziness by employing the non-word “cos” in place of “because”.

I’d also love to know why you think the authorities a “little soft” for recommending central heaing for children with autism. Do you live without central heating? Perhaps you recommend the integration of Social-Darwinism into the Council’s guidelines. Sad.

Case comment on Allison now up. I agree with you.

From a very very quick reading I don’t think Shala has been substantially overturned at all. I don’t think from a very speedy reading that the chaps own medical evidence was THAT strong. Therefore the LA taking the views of the ever so ‘impartial’ role of Dr Keen and Non-Priority medical that he wasn’t in priority wasn’t unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. They do seem to have shown that they considered (as much as LA’s ever really consider) the other evidence and gave not Wednesbury unreasonable reasons for dismissing it.

As to overturning Shala – not so sure, still reading the judgment – post to follow v. shortly.[now up]

Come on Nearly Legal, how did you miss that one?!

I’ve just re-read the exchange this morning. You are right, that comment did sound patronising – wasn’t meant to but it did. I can only plead a long and difficult day and apologise. I’m imposing a ‘no posting while wound up’ rule on myself.