Eviction of a Blind women.

[mashcov]

Dear friends of east Dulwich please read below what happen to Barbara.

We request that the eviction of Barbara Hoyte on East Dulwich Road be halted. We believe the eviction to be illegal as Barbara was not informed of the court proceedings concerning eviction and so was not given the opportunity to put forward her case in court. Barbara is blind and so she was not able to read the letters sent to her by Wandle, she was therefore unaware of the impending eviction and was taken by surprise when bailiffs arrived at her home and removed her from the property. Wandle was aware of Barbara's blindness and had been specifically requested to correspond with her neighbours in order that they could read any letters for her. Not only did Wandle fail to do this but we believe they have deliberately concealed from the court her disability is order to remove her from the property without opposition.

Wandle has also concealed another important matter in this case; Wandle owes Barbara compensation of approximately ?7000. This is for their failure to repair a leak which resulted in considerable damage to property.

The housing officer had verbally promised, in the presence of witnesses, that they would be paying her compensation for the leak and collapsed ceiling which they failed to repair for two years. They said they would deduct the arrears accrued from this compensation.

A law firm, Duncan-Lewis offered to negotiate on Barbara's behalf concerning the compensation and arrears. This law firm knew that Barbara was blind and was instructed to send any correspondence concerning the claim to her neighbours at 110D so this neighbour could read it to her. Unexpectedly the law firm dropped Barbara's case claiming that the legal aid had been withdrawn and despite promising to inform the neighbour they instead sent a letter to Barbara which she did not see. This allowed Wandle to proceed with the eviction unopposed, Barbara had no legal representation and no knowledge of the eviction proceedings. After being evicted, Barbara challenged Duncan-Lewis as to why they had not followed her instructions concerning correspondence and was shocked to hear they admitted that they were instructed by Wandle not to send the letter to her neighbour. It is apparent that Wandle and Duncan-Lewis have colluded in keeping Barbara in the dark concerning her situation and have succeeded in evicting a blind and vulnerable woman from her home. Duncan-Lewis should have been acting in the best interests of their client and should have been particularly mindful of her special requirements as a disabled person.

We believe their actions constitute serious professional misconduct. Furthermore they have openly admitted that they have been taking instruction from the landlord rather than their client when deciding how to correspond with Barbara, they also admit to agreeing to drop Barbara's case due to the advice of Wandle. When asked who at Wandle had told them not to send the letter to her neighbour, they claimed it was the housing officer.

When pressed as to the identity of this housing officer they have given the name 'Tracy Bird' Tracy Bird is not a housing officer at Wandle. We believe Tracy Bird is a specialist lawyer Wandle has hired specifically to aid in evictions. Duncan-Lewis has worked with Tracy Bird to ensure that Barbara had not opportunity to fight the eviction. This has been disgraceful conduct from both Wandle and Duncan Lewis, the only reasonable conclusion we can make for this collusion is that Wandle made a deal with Duncan-Lewis in order to avoid the compensation pay out and have Barbara evicted instead. I can only speculate on the details of such an agreement but if this is the case both companies should be investigated for corrupt practices,

Wandle has concealed from the court these crucial matters and failed to follow the pre-action protocol before initiating eviction proceedings.

Barbara is an extremely vulnerable person due to her disability and she has not been previously advised correctly to claim the benefits she was entitled to.She has now started to claim disability allowance and PIP which should help her to pay her rent in future.

The arrears have arisen due to a reduction in housing benefit by the local authority as Barbara was deemed as having an excess bedroom. However, during this time the bedroom was uninhabitable due to the leak and collapsed ceiling which Wandle failed to repair. Barbara would have been able to take a lodger in this room to help pay the excess but the condition of the room was uninhabitable. Since the room was repaired Barbara has indeed been able to take a lodger to help with the cost of the rent and you will see from her rent statement she has been making regular payments reducing the arrears.

In October 13th 2013 the arrears stood at ?3700, but now currently stand and ?2500. This begs the question why Wandle have decided to pursue her eviction at a time when she is steadily paying of the arrears? Why have they decided NOW is the time to make a blind woman homeless?

Even before claiming all the benefits she was entitled to Barbara was making steady progress in the payment of the arrears. With the future extra help provided by additional benefits she has only just commenced to claim it is with surety that Barbara can promise she will be able to make repayment at an accelerated rate.

Wandle have promised on the phone that they will allow Barbara to reclaim the flat if she immediately pays the total arrears owing. However, they have yet again made this promise verbally and our previous knowledge of Wandle housing association leads us to believe they may renege on this promise and so we think it better to appeal to the courts to resolve this matter. Barbara is willing to pay off the arrears in full should she be required to do so to regain her home. However she had previously been awaiting compensation from Wandle which they advised they would be paying her after deducting the arrears.

Due to the extreme straitened circumstances and hardships she has suffered due to her disability and maltreatment by Wandle we think the compassionate course of action would be to reinstate Barbara in her home and allow her to pay off any arrears gradually.

When Barbara asked Wandle over the phone Why they conspire, not let me get any help what so ever form anyone or anywhere and take advantage of my disability to evict me ? they told me ? for your welfare?.

[Otta]

Nasty story. What, if anything, are you asking people to do?

Does this woman have no support package in place?

And I get that she couldn't read the letters, but why didn't she take them next door to be read to her? She must check her doormat for mail surely?