Shocking images reveal elderly couple living on the streets after being evicted from their home

Dispute: The couple failed to pay their rent following changes to how pensions are paid

It's an image which should shame Britain in the 21st century.

Huddled together under seafront shelter, an 84-year-old man and his 75-year-old partner are now living rough on the streets of Bournemouth.

The couple, who are not being named, are attending a local soup kitchen to be fed.

It is understood that until recently they had been living in a privately-rented home.

But following changes to their pension, they failed to pay their rent and were evicted.

Pensions are now paid electronically into bank accounts but the couple are said to dislike using debit and credit cards and internet banking and have been unable to collect their money in their usual way.

As a result they are homeless while the matter is slowly resolved.


Struggle: The couple are attending a local soup kitchen in order to be fed


Charity workers have reacted with shock and anger at the situation.

Robin Richmond, a church volunteer, stumbled upon the couple’s plight while he was helping a church get set up to assist local homeless people.

Mr Richmond said: “They have helped people through voluntary organisations and it is a real pity that in their hour of need they have been left to live on the streets.

“At a time when people are so concerned about the misuse of benefits it appears that the system is radically failing a couple who, on the face of it, we should be honouring and not forgetting.”

Bournemouth Council says it has offered the couple emergency accommodation but this was refused.

Kelly Ansell, Bournemouth Borough Council’s strategic housing manager, said: “The couple’s situation was recently assessed and they were offered emergency accommodation but this was refused.

“We would urge them to make further contact with the council’s housing team.”

But campaigners say more must be done to help the pair.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-images-reveal-elderly-couple-3861255#ixzz37UIvbfW0


Gives a whole new slant to 'Care in the Community'!

If they didn't ask for help, what was anyone supposed to do? It sounds like they've been offered help and refused it anyway. They should have just learnt how to use a debit card.

Its disgusting Sassy but sadly it does not surprise me.

Hopefully someone will assist them and get the whole thing sorted out as quickly as possible.What a mess.

They didn't pay their rent, so what did they expect? They have the money so they can rent somewhere else if they want to.

Didn't housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord? If so,why was it stopped?

nicko wrote:Didn't housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord? If so,why was it stopped?

So that people take responsibility for themselves I think.

It doesn't say they were on HB, just that they didn't like the way their pensions were paid. There's not enough detail in that article, and the fact is that they didn't pay their rent so obviously the landlord evicted them. It's not the fault of anyone else if they didn't ask for help.

So pensions are now paid direct to bank accounts - and they dont want to use cards or internet banking.

What is stopping them visiting the bank once a week and drawing out their pension as cash the same way they presumably did from the post office before the changes?

This is not some little village with no access to banking (which is a problem) this is a huge town with multiple branches of the banks to deal with the large tourist flow.

Nicko - they would not have been getting housing benefit but paying their rent from their pensions.

sphinx wrote:So pensions are now paid direct to bank accounts - and they dont want to use cards or internet banking.

What is stopping them visiting the bank once a week and drawing out their pension as cash the same way they presumably did from the post office before the changes?

This is not some little village with no access to banking (which is a problem) this is a huge town with multiple branches of the banks to deal with the large tourist flow.

Nicko - they would not have been getting housing benefit but paying their rent from their pensions.

Exactly. Maybe they're a bit wary of using banks, but they can't be so naive surely. All they need to do is decide if they want to be homeless or if they want to learn how to get money out of the bank. They must have a bank account. I don't think anyone can be blamed for their situation - and certainly it's no reflection on society in general. They're lucky they can go to a soup kitchen.

sphinx wrote:So pensions are now paid direct to bank accounts - and they dont want to use cards or internet banking.

What is stopping them visiting the bank once a week and drawing out their pension as cash the same way they presumably did from the post office before the changes?

This is not some little village with no access to banking (which is a problem) this is a huge town with multiple branches of the banks to deal with the large tourist flow.

Nicko - they would not have been getting housing benefit but paying their rent from their pensions.

Probably because like a lot of old people they don't trust banks, went to the post office and got their money and then used cash. There are many people who don't have bank accounts and don't trust banks. It could be that they had been in one of the banks that had to bailed out, so they lost money and wouldn't use a bank again.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:So pensions are now paid direct to bank accounts - and they dont want to use cards or internet banking.

What is stopping them visiting the bank once a week and drawing out their pension as cash the same way they presumably did from the post office before the changes?

This is not some little village with no access to banking (which is a problem) this is a huge town with multiple branches of the banks to deal with the large tourist flow.

Nicko - they would not have been getting housing benefit but paying their rent from their pensions.

Probably because like a lot of old people they don't trust banks, went to the post office and got their money and then used cash.   There are many people who don't have bank accounts and don't trust banks.   It could be that they had been in one of the banks that had to bailed out, so they lost money and wouldn't use a bank again.    

Well they should pull themselves together. Where is the money going if they don't have a bank account?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Probably because like a lot of old people they don't trust banks, went to the post office and got their money and then used cash.   There are many people who don't have bank accounts and don't trust banks.   It could be that they had been in one of the banks that had to bailed out, so they lost money and wouldn't use a bank again.    

Well they should pull themselves together. Where is the money going if they don't have a bank account?

  

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they should pull themselves together. Where is the money going if they don't have a bank account?

  

Well for goodness sake. This pair say they don't use debit cards, so clearly they'd rather be homeless. People can't be nannied all the time - it's pathetic.

nicko wrote:Didn't housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord? If so,why was it stopped?

The Government in their wisdom decided a few years back that housing benefit would be paid directly to the tenant, and they have the responsibility to pay that money to the Landlord.

The system is a joke, I rent out a house and am now in the position of having to evict my tenant because she has kept the £450 the housing department have paid her for the last 2 months. I'm going to lose a lot of money because I have to give her 2 clear months notice, that's after she has missed 2 payments, then I have to pay court costs and for baliffs to remove her. And the really stupid thing is, even though I have informed the local council she is not passing the money on to me they have to continue to pay her the benefit, so by the time I get her out she will have made about £2000.

I can't imagine I am the only landlord in this position, so I can't find a lot of sympathy for people who don't pay their rent I'm afraid.

harvesmom wrote:

nicko wrote:Didn't housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord? If so,why was it stopped?

The Government in their wisdom decided a few years back that housing benefit would be paid directly to the tenant, and they have the responsibility to pay that money to the Landlord.

The system is a joke, I rent out a house and am now in the position of having to evict my tenant because she has kept the £450 the housing department have paid her for the last 2 months. I'm going to lose a lot of money because I have to give her 2 clear months notice, that's after she has missed 2 payments, then I have to pay court costs and for baliffs to remove her. And the really stupid thing is, even though I have informed the local council she is not passing the money on to me they have to continue to pay her the benefit, so by the time I get her out she will have made about £2000.

I can't imagine I am the only landlord in this position, so I can't find a lot of sympathy for people who don't pay their rent I'm afraid.

I know someone in the same position - she won't rent out her house to people on HB any more because one of them just didn't pay their rent. There's no reason why they shouldn't pay of course, but some just don't.

So an 84 year old man and a 75 year old woman, who probably have health problems, might have dementia or the beginnings of it, can't cope with a change in the system and don't want to use a bank, probably were completely thrown when they could no longer get their pension from the Post Office, sounds like they were paying the rent themselves and only have not paid it because of changes the Government brought in, and you have no sympathy for them because you have lost money under another system, and you are strong and healthy and presumably not old. How nice.

Sassy wrote:So an 84 year old man and a 75 year old woman, who probably have health problems, might have dementia or the beginnings of it, can't cope with a change in the system and don't want to use a bank, probably were completely thrown when they could no longer get their pension from the Post Office, sounds like they were paying the rent themselves and only have not paid it because of changes the Government brought in, and you have no sympathy for them because you have lost money under another system, and you are strong and healthy and presumably not old.   How nice.

Who says they have dementia?

Look, being old doesn't mean someone is helpless. Some people have real problem, not silly ones like refusing to use a bank account. Why should the landlord put up with them not paying their rent. Perhaps if they'd explained why, he or she could have helped them with the bank account, although they weren't obliged to of course.

Who are the people on benefits?

A section of them are the irresponsible people in society.

A section of them are the lazy people in society.

A section of them are incapable of looking after themselves.

So who came up with the idea of handing them cash to spend how they want??

Sassy wrote:So an 84 year old man and a 75 year old woman, who probably have health problems, might have dementia or the beginnings of it, can't cope with a change in the system and don't want to use a bank, probably were completely thrown when they could no longer get their pension from the Post Office, sounds like they were paying the rent themselves and only have not paid it because of changes the Government brought in, and you have no sympathy for them because you have lost money under another system, and you are strong and healthy and presumably not old.   How nice.

Well firstly people are not just thrown out, its a long process and ultimately its a judges decision. Secondly, they were offered temporary accommodation I see and refused it. Thirdly where does it say they have heath problems or dementia. Fourthly they would have been offered help with their finances before it got to this point.

Left to you Sassy we would have all the worlds illegal immigrants living here unquestioned, everyone would be handed out benefits like strawberries and if people don't pay their bills well hey, let them get away with it. Do you ever stop and wonder where all this money comes from? If it were your house they were living in and they didn't pay you I doubt you would be as sympathetic.

And I have no idea what me being strong and healthy has to do with it, if I don't pay my mortgage I doubt the Building Society will have any compassion for me whatever my age or state of health.

So I suppose you don't think someone of 84 DOESN'T have health problems?

The readers of the Daily Mirror give me hope that there are kind people in the world


Do you think more should be done to help this homeless elderly couple?

YES

92%

NO

8%

Who can actually see the situation for what it is, an old couple, who can't cope with modern things that have been thrust upon them, have refused help because they are too proud, and it's a good job it's not the middle of winter.

Sassy wrote:So I suppose you don't think someone of 84 DOESN'T have health problems?

The readers of the Daily Mirror give me hope that there are kind people in the world


Do you think more should be done to help this homeless elderly couple?

   YES

   92%

   NO

   8%

Who can actually see the situation for what it is, an old couple, who can't cope with modern things that have been thrust upon them, have refused help because they are too proud, and it's a good job it's not the middle of winter.  

As I said, old people don't necessarily have health problems, and they're still people who are capable of making decisions. They've been offered help and they don't appear to be accepting it. If they're too proud, that's their problem. Sorry, but there comes a time when people just have to pull themselves together, whatever their age.

75 isn't even that old these days.

You will find this is half a story. If they are on benefits and have ill health, a landlord, with their permission can apply to have the rent paid directly to him for a start so they would never even have to deal with banks.

All this would have been looked at before an eviction notice was served.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:So I suppose you don't think someone of 84 DOESN'T have health problems?

The readers of the Daily Mirror give me hope that there are kind people in the world


Do you think more should be done to help this homeless elderly couple?

   YES

   92%

   NO

   8%

Who can actually see the situation for what it is, an old couple, who can't cope with modern things that have been thrust upon them, have refused help because they are too proud, and it's a good job it's not the middle of winter.  

As I said, old people don't necessarily have health problems, and they're still people who are capable of making decisions. They've been offered help and they don't appear to be accepting it. If they're too proud, that's their problem. Sorry, but there comes a time when people just have to pull themselves together, whatever their age.

75 isn't even that old these days.

84 is and even at 75 life is much, much harder, even with decent health and living on the streets would and probably is seriously undermining their health very quickly. They don't seem to have family, I'm sure you would all agree, you would never want this to happen to your parents or grandparents, no matter how 'difficult' they were. Would you?

harvesmom wrote:You will find this is half a story. If they are on benefits and have ill health, a landlord, with their permission can apply to have the rent paid directly to him for a start so they would never even have to deal with banks.

All this would have been looked at before an eviction notice was served.

He wouldn't be obliged to do that though. He might have just given notice to leave. It doesn't say if they refused or tried to sort it out.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As I said, old people don't necessarily have health problems, and they're still people who are capable of making decisions. They've been offered help and they don't appear to be accepting it. If they're too proud, that's their problem. Sorry, but there comes a time when people just have to pull themselves together, whatever their age.

75 isn't even that old these days.

84 is and even at 75 life is much, much harder, even with decent health and living on the streets would and probably is seriously undermining their health very quickly.   They don't seem to have family, I'm sure you would all agree, you would never want this to happen to your parents or grandparents, no matter how 'difficult' they were.   Would you?      

Well they've managed so far, and if they didn't ask for help, how was the council supposed to know?

What I find stupid is that some people are blaming the council, society, anyone other than the people who didn't pay their rent.

PS on the health issues, notice how he is leaning on a stick?

Your humanity is truly overwhelming.

Sassy wrote:PS on the health issues, notice how he is leaning on a stick?

And? Lots of people use sticks. I'm just saying that them being old doesn't necessarily mean they're not to blame for defaulting on the rent.

:aspukeas: :aspukeas: 

Sassy wrote:Your humanity is truly overwhelming.

I always think it's best to have a logical mind, and save my sympathy for people who have real problems, not those who make themselves homeless just because they don't want to use a bank account.

I wonder how their pension was paid before, and where it's going now. Presumably, they used to pay the rent in cash or something.

Sassy wrote::aspukeas: :aspukeas: 

Why aren't you on your way to Bournemouth to save them rather than trolling on a forum?

How did they pay their utility bills?

Raggamuffin wrote:

harvesmom wrote:You will find this is half a story. If they are on benefits and have ill health, a landlord, with their permission can apply to have the rent paid directly to him for a start so they would never even have to deal with banks.

All this would have been looked at before an eviction notice was served.

He wouldn't be obliged to do that though. He might have just given notice to leave. It doesn't say if they refused or tried to sort it out.

No, that's why I say its half a story, I prefer to have the full facts before I start wailing about how awful the Landlord/council have treated them. I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:
Didn't housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord? If so,why was it stopped?

So that people take responsibility for themselves I think.

It doesn't say they were on HB, just that they didn't like the way their pensions were paid. There's not enough detail in that article, and the fact is that they didn't pay their rent so obviously the landlord evicted them. It's not the fault of anyone else if they didn't ask for help.

  

AS with his forum chums Tommy, BAndy and Puzzler before him ~ nicko seemingly hates anyone on any kind of benefits, and blames all disabled and poor people for creating their own predicaments...

"Birds of a feather flock together..", and one only has to watch who nicko repeatedly supports and who he attacks in his posts..

So we are still stuck at the fact they somehow cannot do with a bank exactly what they used to do with the post office.

Here is a thought - when the government all those years ago started changing all benefits to bank payment because it is more secure that way (no more "lost" giros - and no more benefits claimants having to wait 3 days past their due payment day before they can report the money missing) they introduced a basic post office bank account - very very basic. You go to the post office with a card instead of a giro and get the money in cash over the counter exactly like you did with a giro.

So when the pensions were changed over this couple would have been told about a post office account - about how they would instead of having a pension book of giros have a card - and how they would take that card and hand it to the cashier who would give them their money. Instead of signing they would enter 4 numbers. (or they could apply to have it kept as signing if a pin number was problematic)

So visit same place with same frequency to get same amount of cash.

Now either the couple are so confused they could not cope with even that small change - and like the woman who had her door kicked in to be forcibly taken to hospital for a caesarian there has been a massive failure long before the headline story and the couple should never have been living in a private rented flat in the first place because they should have been in the care system - or they are being stubborn jackasses.

If they are totally confused the care services should have put their foot down long ago and taken them into supervised care whether they agreed or not because they were incapable of self care.

If they are being stubborn jackasses they have made their choice let them live with it. Being elderly, or disabled does make a person helpless and the elderly and disabled have as much right to make poor decisions and suffer the consequences as the rest of us. If they have had mental competency tests which show they understand the choices they are making then let them make them. They should not have one off exceptions made for them just so other people do not have to come face to face with the nasty consequences of bad decisions.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So that people take responsibility for themselves I think.

It doesn't say they were on HB, just that they didn't like the way their pensions were paid. There's not enough detail in that article, and the fact is that they didn't pay their rent so obviously the landlord evicted them. It's not the fault of anyone else if they didn't ask for help.

  

AS with his forum chums Tommy, BAndy and Puzzler before him ~ nicko seemingly hates anyone on any kind of benefits, and blames all disabled and poor people for creating their own predicaments...

"Birds of a feather flock together..", and one only has to watch who nicko repeatedly supports and who he attacks in his posts..

The are on a pension - not benefits. I do not know why people have dragged HB and benefits in general into this.

sphinx wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:
  

AS with his forum chums Tommy, BAndy and Puzzler before him ~ nicko seemingly hates anyone on any kind of benefits, and blames all disabled and poor people for creating their own predicaments...

"Birds of a feather flock together..", and one only has to watch who nicko repeatedly supports and who he attacks in his posts..

The are on a pension - not benefits.  I do not know why people have dragged HB and benefits in general into this.  

Well I did, because unless they are on a large private pension (in which case one would assume this is also paid into a bank account and not in cash) they will be receiving housing benefit on top of their state pension.

harvesmom wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He wouldn't be obliged to do that though. He might have just given notice to leave. It doesn't say if they refused or tried to sort it out.

No, that's why I say its half a story, I prefer to have the full facts before I start wailing about how awful the Landlord/council have treated them. I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Some people are blaming the banks too! Not on here - on other sites.

It's not the landlord's fault, it's not the council's fault, and it's not society's fault.

BigAndy9 wrote:
Who are the people on benefits?

A section of them are the irresponsible people in society.

A section of them are the lazy people in society.

A section of them are incapable of looking after themselves.

So who came up with the idea of handing them cash to spend how they want??

   AS USUAL, BAndys opinions on this story seem to have very little (if any) direct relevance.

WHAT a surprise, or not..

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So that people take responsibility for themselves I think.

It doesn't say they were on HB, just that they didn't like the way their pensions were paid. There's not enough detail in that article, and the fact is that they didn't pay their rent so obviously the landlord evicted them. It's not the fault of anyone else if they didn't ask for help.

  

AS with his forum chums Tommy, BAndy and Puzzler before him ~ nicko seemingly hates anyone on any kind of benefits, and blames all disabled and poor people for creating their own predicaments...

"Birds of a feather flock together..", and one only has to watch who nicko repeatedly supports and who he attacks in his posts..

What the fuck is the matter with you? All Nicko asked was 'Didn't housing benefit used to be paid direct to the landlord? If so,why was it stopped?

So all he was asking was why was there a change to the way benefits are payed.

So what the hell is wrong with asking that?

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So that people take responsibility for themselves I think.

It doesn't say they were on HB, just that they didn't like the way their pensions were paid. There's not enough detail in that article, and the fact is that they didn't pay their rent so obviously the landlord evicted them. It's not the fault of anyone else if they didn't ask for help.

  

AS with his forum chums Tommy, BAndy and Puzzler before him ~ nicko seemingly hates anyone on any kind of benefits, and blames all disabled and poor people for creating their own predicaments...

"Birds of a feather flock together..", and one only has to watch who nicko repeatedly supports and who he attacks in his posts..

Nicko asked a perfectly reasonable question.

It's a bit of an issue these days because apparently a lot of private landlords won't rent to anyone on HB.

All this couple has to do is sort out the issue with the pension and the bank, and then go and rent somewhere else.

All the couple had to do was ask for a basic post office account and then visit the post office for cash once a week like they did before.

If they do not trust banks or want anything to do with banks they can stick with the post office.

sphinx wrote:So we are still stuck at the fact they somehow cannot do with a bank exactly what they used to do with the post office.

Here is a thought - when the government all those years ago started changing all benefits to bank payment because it is more secure that way (no more "lost" giros - and no more benefits claimants having to wait 3 days past their due payment day before they can report the money missing) they introduced a basic post office bank account - very very basic.  You go to the post office with a card instead of a giro and get the money in cash over the counter exactly like you did with a giro.

So when the pensions were changed over this couple would have been told about a post office account - about how they would instead of having a pension book of giros have a card - and how they would take that card and hand it to the cashier who would give them their money.  Instead of signing they would enter 4 numbers.  (or they could apply to have it kept as signing if a pin number was problematic)

So visit same place with same frequency to get same amount of cash.

Now either the couple are so confused they could not cope with even that small change - and like the woman who had her door kicked in to be forcibly taken to hospital for a caesarian there has been a massive failure long before the headline story and the couple should never have been living in a private rented flat in the first place because they should have been in the care system - or they are being stubborn jackasses.

If they are totally confused the care services should have put their foot down long ago and taken them into supervised care whether they agreed or not because they were incapable of self care.

If they are being stubborn jackasses they have made their choice let them live with it.  Being elderly, or disabled does make a person helpless and the elderly and disabled have as much right to make poor decisions and suffer the consequences as the rest of us.  If they have had mental competency tests which show they understand the choices they are making then let them make them.  They should not have one off exceptions made for them just so other people do not have to come face to face with the nasty consequences of bad decisions.

How would anyone know they had problems though? I just don't see that there's been failure here - they paid their rent, and then they didn't. Social Services aren't mind readers, so why would they have got involved earlier?

To be fair to this couple, they don't seem to have actually complained about being homeless. They haven't posed for those pictures either. Presumably, they were minding their own business and someone decided to be outraged on their behalf and now their photos are all over the press. I don't know if they're blocking the path or something, but if they want to live like that, it's their business.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:
 

Well for goodness sake. This pair say they don't use debit cards, so clearly they'd rather be homeless. People can't be nannied all the time - it's pathetic.

  I have to largely agree with Raggamuffin's position on this situation...

DON'T they also have "direct debit" or "BPay" type systems available in your banks as well ? Automatically paying their rent into the landlord/property managers account every couple of weeks, if the old couple can't trust themselves to pay on time..

(Dementia ? The only signs of premature senility that I see in relation to this story would be among the forum's "usual suspects" ~ i.e. sassy, BAndy, nicko..).

Even a private landlord cannot evict just like because rent has not been paid. The landlord would have to go to court and even though it would be a county court not the criminal system it would still result in social services being informed.

The first thing a social worker would do would be to assess the couples mental capability (at least I would hope that is the first thing they would do) and if that mental capability was found to be lacking then it should result in further steps. If it was found to be not lacking then the couple would be told about a post office account - which sees next to no change from how they got their pension before (after all that was the point of the basic post office account - to cause minimal change for the people accessing their money)

I mean it seems the couple have been offered solutions and turned them down - so what is more important, their right to make their own decisions or the publics right not to see them suffering because of those decisions? It seems at the moment their right to make decisions is in the ascendency (which although unpleasant is how it should be) but others want to see the public protected from seeing people suffering gain the ascendency which means forcing the couple to live where they do not want to.

I mean for those like Sassy who are outraged at the pensioners living rough what would you do to help them? In practical steps - you are facing them, you have a statement of the funds available to them - how are you going to sort out them accessing those funds? How are you going to find them somewhere to live? What if they do not want to live where you suggest? What if they refuse to access the funds?

sphinx wrote:Even a private landlord cannot evict just like because rent has not been paid.  The landlord would have to go to court and even though it would be a county court not the criminal system it would still result in social services being informed.

The first thing a social worker would do would be to assess the couples mental capability (at least I would hope that is the first thing they would do) and if that mental capability was found to be lacking then it should result in further steps.  If it was found to be not lacking then the couple would be told about a post office account - which sees next to no change from how they got their pension before (after all that was the point of the basic post office account - to cause minimal change for the people accessing their money)

I mean it seems the couple have been offered solutions and turned them down - so what is more important, their right to make their own decisions or the publics right not to see them suffering because of those decisions?  It seems at the moment their right to make decisions is in the ascendency (which although unpleasant is how it should be) but others want to see the public protected from seeing people suffering gain the ascendency which means forcing the couple to live where they do not want to.

I mean for those like Sassy who are outraged at the pensioners living rough what would you do to help them?  In practical steps - you are facing them, you have a statement of the funds available to them - how are you going to sort out them accessing those funds?  How are you going to find them somewhere to live?  What if they do not want to live where you suggest?  What if they refuse to access the funds?

A landlord can evict if they agreed to go, and maybe they did. It didn't necessarily have to involve a court. There's no reason why anyone else was involved in any of this. They didn't pay their rent, and maybe the landlord said they had to leave, so they left.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well for goodness sake. This pair say they don't use debit cards, so clearly they'd rather be homeless. People can't be nannied all the time - it's pathetic.

   I have to largely agree with Raggamuffin's position on this situation...

DON'T they also have "direct debit" or "BPay" type systems available in your banks as well ?  Automatically paying their rent into the landlord/property managers account every couple of weeks, if the old couple can't trust themselves to pay on time..

(Dementia ?  The only signs of premature senility that I see in relation to this story would be among the forum's "usual suspects" ~ i.e. sassy, BAndy, nicko..).

Whenever I've rented anywhere, a direct debit or standing order has been set up - I don't know any landlords who don't want that. We don't know the landlord's side of the story though, and I guess there's no reason why he or she should give it. It's not their problem.

Yet it is clear that social services are involved - because the story talks about emergency accommodation being offered and various charitable organizations being up in arms.

So the point they got involved is moot - they are involved and the couple are still on the streets so the couple have been considered mentally competent otherwise they would have been put into care accommodation and passed onto the court of protection.

To be honest they are probably better off on the streets than being looked after by the court of protection.

However I say again - people are demanding they are helped - well what sort of help and how? Its easy to say help them its more difficult to be detailed - so start being detailed folks and lets see how easy it is.

sphinx wrote:Yet it is clear that social services are involved - because the story talks about emergency accommodation being offered and various charitable organizations being up in arms.

So the point they got involved is moot - they are involved and the couple are still on the streets so the couple have been considered mentally competent otherwise they would have been put into care accommodation and passed onto the court of protection.

To be honest they are probably better off on the streets than being looked after by the court of protection.

However I say again - people are demanding they are helped - well what sort of help and how?  Its easy to say help them its more difficult to be detailed - so start being detailed folks and lets see how easy it is.

It's not clear if that accommodation was offered before the story was in the press or afterwards though.

As you say, now the council are involved and the couple have refused help, which is their right, so I really don't see why some people are so outraged.