hello, it's thursday, it's 10 o'clock, i'm victoria derbyshire. good morning. theresa may refuses to rule out that the uk could leave the eu without a deal, as she's grilled by some of the most senior mps in parliament this morning. we will be better off in the future, the question is about the relative rates of growth in the different models identified. being inside the european union is not an option. what we have to look at is the best option outside the european union because people have voted to leave the eu. we'll bring you the highlights of that session. our exclusive story today: we expose the letting agent demanding £300 upfront to simply view a property and sometimes not refunding the cash. it's recording. it's recording? we've been undercover

to expose their practices. we were trying to reason with these people... they dont want to be reasoned with. £300 is half my rent gone. £300 is with them. and we'll talk live to this woman who along with two friends, paid £900 to the same letting agent — and they still haven't got their money back. and, after we spoke to a mum whose rapist had been offered a role in their son's life, we were contacted by a woman who's husband raped her. we were contacted by a woman who's she tells us she's spent thousands we were contacted by a woman who's fighting his attempts to get access to their children. i basically had to fight him in the courts over a long period of time even after his conviction. he's a convicted six offender, paedophile, a rapist, he should not be having any parental rights. we'll bring you the full story in half an hour. hello,

welcome to the programme. it is thursday already. we're live until 11 this morning. today's question for you — have you lost money after handing over cash to a letting agentjst to view a flat or house? that's our excluisve story and we'll bring you our secret filming at about 20 past 10 — in the meantime, let me know if it's happened to you? do you know of it happening to others? send me an email victoria@bbc.co.uk or use the hashtag victoria live. here's annita mcveigh with a summary of the days news. thank you, victoria. good morning. the prime minister has told mps to "focus on the choice that lies in front of them" ahead of next month's crucial commons vote on her brexit deal. theresa may is appearing before a committee of senior mps this morning. she's been pressed on what contingencies are being planned should the deal be rejected by mps on december 11th. meanwhile the security minister, ben wallace, is warning that a no deal brexit would be a step backwards and have a "real impact" on protecting the public. this programme can exclusively

reveal that a letting agency in east london is asking for non—refundable deposits of £300 from prospective tenants, before they have even viewed a property. the practice, by flintons, breaches guidelines and could be unlawful. the company has denied any wrongdoing and says it does not charge any fees for viewings. you can see the full report of this story in the next half hour. a hospital trust at the centre of a widening review into poor maternity care has been rated inadequate by inspectors. the care quality commission has deemed the a&e and maternity units at shrewsbury and telford nhs trust as unsafe, and raised questions about the leadership of the organisation. the trust said the report made "uncomfortable reading" and has vowed to improve. a day after footage of a 15 year old syrian refugee being allegedly assaulted was shared on social media, a video's emerged appearing to show his sister being attacked at the same school. a teenager will be charged with assault after the incident at almondbury community school in

huddersfield. an online fundraising page set up to help the 15—year—old boy and his family has so far raised more than £100,000. one in three 18—year—olds in england, wales and northern ireland, who applied to university this year, received some form of unconditional offer. the figures, from the university admissions service, ucas, have prompted concern about the impact of increased competition between universities. the education secretary damian hinds says the figures are "disturbing". one of the uk's biggest tour operators, thomas cook, has made an annual loss of £163 million. last year it made a nine million pound profit. the company's ceo, peter fankhauser, says the business was hit hard by hot weather in the uk during the summer. kellogg's is to adopt traffic light labelling for most of its cereal packaging from early next year. the food giant

has announced the labels will appear on its products in the uk — after the firm surveyed thousands of customers. the majority said the colour—coded scheme helped them make healthier food choices. traffic light labelling was adopted by the government in 2013 — but the system remains voluntary. that's the latest news — back to you, victoria. thank you. and thank you to all of those people who has got in touch about being forced to hand over of the to letting agents before even viewing a flat. 0r letting agents before even viewing a flat. or a home. john says...

i was one of these people that was scammed by flintons. the funny thing is that they look like a real business. the have offices, they have well dressed people and they advertise on respected websites sites which are complicit. emmy on twitter they did the same to me and they haven't paid my deposit back and they're ignoring me. the estate agency mentioned, the lettings agency mentioned has denied any wrongdoing. in the last hour, theresa may has refused to rule out that the uk could leave the eu without a deal. she's being grilled by some of the most senior mps in parliament this morning after a tumultuous few days, weeks, months.. a tumultuos year by any measure since she called that snap general election. let's talk now to norman smith, our political guru, who has been watching mrs may this morning. how is she doing? i will be delighted if i could say i

have some hot, breaking news from westminster this morning but i happen. mrs may has done her usual, taking a defensive stance, like geoffrey boycott, she says she admires. she's been asked again and again have you got a plan b, really, we didn't get anywhere. just listen. what i am focused on under the government is focused on is the vote that will take place on december the 11th. you want to look at all sorts of options and ideas and so on and so of options and ideas and so on and so forth. i think it's important that members of parliament focus on the nature of this vote. this is an important point in our history. it isa important point in our history. it is a vote on which we will be deciding whether to deliver on the will of the british people. so no plan b, it seems from mrs may, even though everyone else at westminster, thatis though everyone else at westminster, that is absolutely for paper talking about, many mps have taken the view the deal is going down so they need

to start thinking about a plan b. also more on the key issue of what happens if we do not get a deal, we heard from the governor of the bank of england yesterday, with those dire warnings about a million more unemployed, house prices crashing by 30%. and it was put to mrs may, look, let's be realistic, you are not going to allow this country to leave the eu without a deal. surely you're not going to do that? but again in response to labour's rachel reeves, really, have a look. comments vote down the deal on the 11th of december would you really, prime minister, given what we now know from the analysis, contemplate taking britain out of the european union on the 29th of march without a d, without your deal, immediate?“ parliament votes down the deal on the 11th of december, there is then a process, as you know, that is in the legislation or the length of

time given for government to come back and make a statement about next steps, but the timetable is such that actually, some people would need to take some practical steps in relation to no deal if the government, the parliament were to vote down the deal on the 11th of december. and ijust sensed a sort of element of incredulity among the committee that mrs may could seriously be thinking about leaving without a deal. listen to labour's yvette cooper. you care immensely and all about the security risks and the economic risks to the country if there is no deal, knowing you for 20 years, ijust don't leave that if your deal goes down you are the kind of person who would contemplate taking this country into a know the situation? am i wrong? it will be a decision for parliament as to whether they accept the deal that i

and the government have negotiated oi'i and the government have negotiated on behalf of the united kingdom with the european union. i believe that's a good ill. i understand and i don't wa nt a good ill. i understand and i don't want to go over those previous answers, my issue is i don't believe you are the kind of person who could contemplate no deal, even if you don't get this deal, i don't think you will do it, i think you will ta ke you will do it, i think you will take action to avert it, am i wrong in my judgment about take action to avert it, am i wrong in myjudgment about you? well i've had a numberof in myjudgment about you? well i've had a number of questions now about what happens if western or what i am saying is very simple, my focus is oi'i saying is very simple, my focus is on the vote takes place on december the 11th. 0k, on the vote takes place on december the 11th. ok, that's fine. ijust sensed as the session went on and it's been going on for about an hour, mps were becoming increasingly frustrated and her style of responding are not responding to the questions was really beginning to grate with them, even with the tory mps on the committee and it was noticeable that they too, you know, we re noticeable that they too, you know, were getting a bit fed up with the apparent non—answers and why this matters, is because, if you accept

the name of the game for mrs may is dry to win over her mps, then it seems to me actually her style is really beginning to work against. you know, she needs to somehow get mps on board, create a sense of sympathy for her or whatever, but the weight she responds to them, i think actually almost antagonises them a bit. you know, here we are, just over a week or so out from the big vote and there's no real sense, certainly based on the committee hearing today, that she is getting anywhere and the other thing worth saying, she is going to be away for what, three days in argentina and the 620. what, three days in argentina and the g20. and a lot of her mps are saying, really, you need to be at westminster, you need to be working the tea rooms, the bars, that's not what she does but that's what she needs to do if she is to have any

chance, instead you will be on the other side of the world, her mind com pletely other side of the world, her mind completely elsewhere and no doubt when she comes back, she will be pretty tired and exhausted but you'll have to pick herself up and start all over again, dry to win over mps with time really short. we are going to dip into what she's talking about at the moment, i think its transport but norman, quickly, the reason she won't answer some of those questions from people in her own party, cabinet ministers on the radio, mps in that committee is because she wants everybody to think there is one vote and one vote only on december the 11th, is that it? she wants to maintain the thread if you vote down my deal then bluntly, chaos follows. the trouble is mps think the idea we are going to fall out that a deal so catastrophic many of them no longer believe that. 0k, norman, thank you so much. let's dip into the committee hearing stop the prime minister. the challenge that will face the nhs and patience in

the event we crash out without a deal and transition in 120 days. you know, german, iam presenting a deal and transition in 120 days. you know, german, i am presenting a good deal to parliament which i hope parliament will recognise. —— chair man. sorry... ijust want to come back to my opening comments, given parliamentary arithmetic it looks increasingly likely that we could crash out with no deal and given the scale of the consequences for patients, we are looking at supplies of critical medicine, medical products and devices, many areas where they cannot be stockpiled, for example, because they have a short sheu example, because they have a short shelf life, complex —— conflicts chronological is, so many patients will face very serious disruption to essential supplies and medicines. is that keeping you awake at night?|j am that keeping you awake at night?” am ensuring, the department of health and social care is obviously

doing a lot of work in this area but i will come back, they are looking at what is necessary work the circumstances of eight no deal. but, of course, the way to ensure we get a good deal and we are able to see that smooth and orderly exit from the european union finally leave on the european union finally leave on the 29th of march next year is to ratify the deal government has negotiated. can i just take you ratify the deal government has negotiated. can ijust take you back toa negotiated. can ijust take you back to a point yvette cooper made earlier, could any responsible government and allow the scale of chaos that would ensue if we had no deal and no transition? could any responsible government allowed that, could you allow that to happen, prime minister? i think the role of a responsible government in these circumstances is to ensure government is prepared for any scenario, all scenarios, that it developed. and to ensure that work

there are potential difficulties, those are mitigated to the greatest extent possible. that is the work being done by departments across government in relation to this.” except contingency planning is happening to try and mitigate it but do you accept there would still be serious consequences for patients if we we re serious consequences for patients if we were to leave with no deal and could you allow that to happen? the department of health and social care is putting place arrangements to ensure that in those circumstances it would still be possible for people to access the medicines that are required. but you accept that would not happen for everybody? sorry... do you accept that would not happen for everybody, even with good contingency planning which is happening rather belatedly, that there will be patients that will be seriously impacted by shortages of essential supplies of medicines and devices? the whole point of the work that the department is doing is to

ensure those medicines and devices are available in all circumstances. if they advise you they will not be that you receive advice that there will be disruption in spite of careful planning, would you give us your assurance that you would not allow us to crash out with no deal, if that would cause serious disruption to patients? the decision which is going to be taken on december the 11th by members of the house of commons is pertinent in relation to this, that decision will be about whether to accept the deal it isa be about whether to accept the deal it is a good deal to the united kingdom, which enables that smooth and orderly transition, a point that is little focused on, but is releva nt, is little focused on, but is relevant, particularly relevant in relation to these matters, the withdrawal agreement sets up the limitation period and it is that period that allows that orderly exit from the european union. right, but i'm afraid the parliamentary

arithmetic is such that it looks as if that will not pass the commons. cani if that will not pass the commons. can i ask in your letter to the nation you referred to the 394 million a week to the nhs. could you confirm for me that that 394 million a week would happen whatever happens on the 11th? that if we have no brexit or indeed we have your future arrangements, would we still have that 394 million a week? the government has made a commitment to the national health service and the funding of the national health service. we set that out in the budget, in october. what i am working for and i think if anyone is concerned about these matters, this is another reason for focusing on the deal that is being negotiated. could i just stop you the deal that is being negotiated. could ijust stop you there, i question is would it happen irrespective of the deal, is that promise still in place? we have made

that commitment to the national health service. but i think in relation to this, all of the other matters, chair man, you are talking about, is a point of focus on the december the 11th, for members of parliament will be... or you saying to me, is this a threat to members of parliament? it will happen irrespective? that was just my question. it is not, i have said, we have made commitment to the national health service, we made that the cause we believe it is right that the national health service, you have raised a number of other issues in your questions and i come back to the point that those are exactly the sort of issues that members may be thinking about when they are looking at... we have a decision on december the 11th, whether to deliver on the board put people in a way that detects jobs and the economy and livelihoods and allows a free and smooth transition or not. you have written to the nation, you are now

travelling around the country, why don't you ask them if this is the bra kes don't you ask them if this is the brakes that they voted for, if this is what they meant by brexit?” think you are aware, chairman, in relation to my position on the question of a second referendum. if i may, there are several aspects to this, parliament overwhelmingly gave the vote to the british people as to whether or not to leave the european union. i believe it is a matter of theissue union. i believe it is a matter of the issue of the integrity of politicians and peoples trust in them that we deliver on that vote. and there are many people who came to democracy, who voted in that election and had unfolded before, i think whose views about democracy will be severely damaged if they felt politicians just said, we did not like the answer he gave so why did you have another look? that is the first point i make, i think it's important or democracy we deliver on the boat people took in 2016. but

actually, if you look at the practicalities of this issue, it is clear that any second referendum that will be held, if that were the case, would not be able to be held by the 29th of march next year. we will be leaving the 29th of march next year. and so, you know, what will be the circumstance in that... you would have to extend article 50 and allow for a referendum. there is and allow for a referendum. there is a paradox, a paradox here. extend article 50 you aren't then in the business of free negotiating the deal. this is the point, the deal is the deal. —— you are then in the business. setting aside concerns i have about extending article 50, not delivering on the vote of the

british people, that is why fundamental concern about all the suggestions about a second referendum, going back to the people for a vote. people voted to leave the european union, it is our duty to deliver that for people. right. studio: theresa may and string questions to a parliamentary committee of senior mps.” questions to a parliamentary committee of senior mps. i was glad we did in there, you got a real sense of her style, it's really beginning to wind up mps. they are in mind sarah wollaston is a conservative mp, part of it is a stylistic thing, mrs may, we know, how she responds, it is fairly dead bat response, part of it, i think, is that she is in the bunker. she knows she is fighting for her political life, she is fighting for the steel and she is not willing to

give an inch. and part of it is, i guess, a strategic decision that the best way to push this through is just not to accept there is any other alternative whatsoever. and not to engage in any of the other possibilities, even though again and again, we heard it from sarah wollaston, of what happens to the supply of medicines if there is no deal? mrs may will simply not engage with the idea that could happen. basically, the message is, it is my deal or nothing. cheers, norman, thank you so much, norman will continue to watch mrs may and her a nswe rs continue to watch mrs may and her answers questions put to her. still to come. and, after we spoke to a woman whose rapist has been offered a role in his son's life, another viewer contacted us about her attemps to stop her ex—husband, who raped her, having access to their children. and a video appearing to show the sister of a syrian refugee being attacked at the same school where her brother was allegedly w'll talk live to the family's

huddersfield mp. good morning. this programme can exclusively reveal that a letting agency in london is asking for non—refundable deposits of £300 from prospective tenants, before they have even viewed a property. we've spoken to several people who went to flintons lettings agency. some say they were assured they could get full refunds if they didn't like the properties after viewing them, but that never happened. we've been told the practice is likely to be unlawful. how did we find out about flintons? because one of our team — esme ash — tried to rent a flat from them, and soon became suspicious. she's been undercover to get the full story. searching for a room to rent, especially in central

london, can be tough, as anyone who has tried it will know. there's a wild west feel to it. there are many honest landlords and letting agents, but this programme has found one particular letting agency has been demanding hundreds of pounds in payment before prospective tenants are even allowed to view properties for rent. we have been told this practice breaches guidelines and could be unlawful, and we have gone undercover to expose them. we were trying to reason with her and i think there's no reasoning with people because they don't want to be reasoned with. i'mjust praying, like, "oh, my god, please let it work, let it work out, let us get our money back." we have been told the same story time and time again. prospective tenants respond to adverts for plush looking flats online.

they are given an address to go to, but instead of a flat it turns out to be the office of lettings agent called flintons. after a consultation, the flat hunter is told that, before they can even see a property, they must pay an upfront £300 deposit, and worse still, some clients have even been told that if they don't like the place after viewing, they shouldn't worry because money is refundable — but then it turns out it's not refundable after all. this is £135 a week, that is an absolute bargain for london. you think, ok... and it is something that very nearly happened to me, so after my near miss, a colleaguejohn and i started to investigate. we lost £300, and that's the thing, i think. israel and his friend harry responded to one

of flintons' adverts. he says they went to see an agent who told them they needed to pay a deposit to see a room, but that it would be refundable. so she explained the whole offer of, if you pay a holding fee, you can change your room. i'm like, "we can get our money back as well, can't we?" she's like, "oh, yeah, you can do that." not even like a proper affirmation, just, "yeah we can do it, that's fine." after paying £300 each to see the property, israel says it wasn't long before he realised something was wrong and his suspicions worsened after looking at online reviews of fli nto ns. in the end they chose not to see the flats and decided instead to see and decided instead to seek an immediate refund. they returned to flintons to confront the agent in person. the first thing we said, "so, why can't we get our money back?" we didn't say hello, just, "why can't we get our money back," just wanted to get it done with. she literally got to the point where we were talking to her saying, "you basically told us we could get our money back, you told us this and that." £300 is half my rent gone. i feel annoyed about it, i always get really riled up when i talk about flintons, just knowing that my £300 is with them. what can i do? there's nothing i can do.

i don't have the money to sue them. i don't have legal expertise to deal with it. just powerless. these people responded to an advert they'd seen and went to flintons with their friend, where they say they were shown pictures of the flat by one of the agents. when they agreed to a viewing, they say they were told they would have to pay £300 each, a total of £900 before they even saw the property. they went, "so you have to pay £300 because that's what we charge for the viewing." then we were like, "no, no, no." like, who does that? yes, who does that? we were laughing, like, who does that? that's not going to happen. she's like, "then we cannot show you the property." we got to a point where we was like, "ok, i understand, but what if we do pay and we don't like the place? do we get our money back?" and she's like, "yes, yes, you get your money back." she was laughing, this was a joke. she was like, "of course you get your money back, or else we would have been in prison. " she said, "we would have been in jail! " so we go to pay. we paid and we went to the place.

we were there, we see everything. horrible, horrible, horrible. not satisfied with the state of the property, they turned to the agent who had organised the viewing and the payment. they asked for the refund they said they were promised. and she was like, "money back? i don't know anything about money." and we were like, "what do you mean? no, no, no, ijust show you the place." they steal from you and they laugh in your face. they lie in yourface. i'm like...no! it was a complete joke for them. flintons told us they issue receipts specifying that the sums involved were non—refundable, but, whilst this is true, israel and others said they only received the receipts after they had paid. they also say they'd been assured verbally that they could get their money back and that they felt under pressure to pay the money immediately. yes, it's recording.

it's recording? yes. after hearing the stories, we decided to go back to flintons with hidden cameras. i went in leaving colleagues stationed outside. i had responded to an online ad and, as expected, i was given the address of the flintons estate agency. i was eventually able to speak to one of the agents. what is it, sorry? a reservation fee? unlike some cases we've been told about, the agent did explain that this payment was non—refundable, but was clear that if i wanted to see any of the available properties, i would have to pay this money upfront. so, is it legal to demand upfront deposits before you can view a room to rent?

we showed david smith, a property lawyer, ourfindings. asking someone for money without being able to see what that contract is about, to do a viewing, would be quite likely to be seen by professional people in the property sector as unreasonable and unfair behaviour, and therefore is very likely to be an offence under the consumer protection from unfair trading regulations. david also pointed to guidance saying that, to require a deposit from a prospective tenant before they have been given the opportunity to inspect the property or the tenancy agreements, could constitute an aggressive practice and therefore be unlawful. and what's more, the property ombudsman, a regulatory body, told us that: no monies should be charged to allow a tenant to view a property so our view is that the agent is not treating the tenant fairly and we would not expect them to ask for any monies to allow a viewing to proceed.

in response to our film, labour said they are calling for tighter regulation. the example that you have brought forward is really dreadful. i can't help but think that is the tip of the iceberg. we'll never really know how many people are exploited in this way because so few people will be aware that they could go to their local authority to register a complaint. we know that the rental market, because it is so highly pressurised, that people are ripe for exploitation so that's why we've been calling on the government to take much tougher action and give greater protection to those people who are renting and seeking to rent. flintons deny any wrongdoing. they have told us that they do not charge any fees for viewings, and payment is only taken when a person confirms that they wish to take the property. they say that their holding deposits are always non—refundable and that they don't believe there would be any purpose in taking deposits if you could get your money back. flintons also told us that all the people in our reports

were made aware that their deposits were not refundable and that they don't agree with the alleged version of events. we asked flintons for an interview but they haven't responded to this offer. let's speak now to mariely mejia, who you saw in the film; she says she fell victim to flintons and lost hundreds of pounds as a result. martin shankleman from the citizens advice bureau. and greg beales who is the director of communications, policy and campaigns at the homelessness charity, shelter. is there any chance of you getting your money back? i don't think so, no. flintons said you are made aware ?we no. flintons said you are made aware ? we were not aware at all. we would not have paid. it does not make sense. have people come to you about

flintons? we have been inundated by complaints from people who feel they have been let down by letting agents and flintons figure very prominently amongst the people who have come to see us. amongst the people who have come to see us. so many messages about this. this is from all over the country, an this is from all over the country, c this is from all over the country, an agency in my town because they are 200 quite upfront as an end administration fee that's how we get round it, and you don't get it back, thanks for covering this. a letting agency in london took £450 from me before viewing a property and never returned it. i cried my eyes out but they said i had failed the reference so the money was gone just like that. i had to stay another six months at my friends before i could save up for another place. on facebook, letting agents need to be regulated especially those dealing with the lucrative student market charging adminfees with the lucrative student market charging admin fees for an extension

ofa charging admin fees for an extension of a tenancy agreement is just one example of how they are abusing their power. do you get wider complaints like that? we have had a lot of complaints about flintons and when it comes to not getting money back, watching that i thought you got off quite lightly, there is one case we are investigating where a postgraduate student at a local couege postgraduate student at a local college paid £1300 to flintons in advance fees, holding deposit, and a months rent, the room she saw was not the room that she was shown, thatis not the room that she was shown, that is what she claims, a different i’ooiti. that is what she claims, a different room. she says it's not the right room, room. she says it's not the right i’ooiti , you room. she says it's not the right room, you have 24 hours to put it right, they didn't, i am giving you back the keys but they did not give her back a penny of the money and as a result she said she was left homeless and had to sleep in an office. flintons deny wrongdoing, they say they don't charge any fees, payment is only taken when someone confirms they want to rent a property. greg, iwonder

confirms they want to rent a property. greg, i wonder if there is a regulatory hole, we heard the shadow housing minister say there is a voluntary code, half of the 8000 letting agents in this country have signed up but the other half have not. it's a really good piece of journalism, vest. the practice which has been uncovered is certainly unlawful. there is an act which prevents the sort of thing. i think the possibility of taking action against flintons in this place. who will take action, it's not going to be you is it? i am afraid not, i have already have peace of mind that i'm not getting it back. this is the thing, what we are uncovering is letting agents and others who take advantage of people you not knowing their rights are in some cases the rights for tenants have been far too weak for them to be able to stand up and look after themselves. there is and look after themselves. there is a bill coming down the road from the government which is supposed to stop this, cut out this kind of aggressive practice is one of our

experts said in the film. the tenant fees bill will come on the statute books later this year which will limit some of these fees and charges letting agents can make against seemingly innocuous costs, £100 for a new light bulb, but that's the beginning of the process. you have to have a situation where tenants know their rights and can take action and we are going to need more rights for tenants to be able to protect themselves in what is quite a brittle market. on e-mail, david saidi a brittle market. on e-mail, david said i gave £100 to see the property, i was told the property would be held until i got a guarantor, i let him no less than five hours later when he told me i could not have my money back. a letting agent in london gave me a form saying we had to pay a deposit of two weeks rent for them to even put in an offer to the landlord and that would only be refunded if the offer was not accepted. i thought that was dodgy but according to a friend who is a letting agent it's common. no money should change hands

untilan common. no money should change hands until an agreement is made and every single fee should be regulated. suzanne says i've paid £230 to a letting agent for my daughter are looking for accommodation, they never repaid that the despite not getting her a flat. who are supposed to regulate letting agents? there is no regulation at the moment and this isa no regulation at the moment and this is a problem. if you are slightly disreputable you can set up in the sector. we have had examples of a letting agent which appears to have illegally evicted someone, sees their possessions and then says they wa nt their possessions and then says they want £400 to get the stuff back, that person went to the police claiming extortion and illegal eviction and the police said go to citizens advice stop our experts said its legally questionable. you said its legally questionable. you said it's breaking the law. what are people supposed to do? people at home watching this, let's be clear,

these kind of practices can push people to the brink and into homelessness. if they are in that situation please come to the shelter website, we exist to help people understand their rights and help them fight against these actions but in the long run we will need to law to make sure tenants are in a stronger position. compared to other countries tenants in england are in a weak position when it comes to these matters. thank you all very much for coming on the programme. i am glad you have peace of mind even though you have not got your money back which does seem an outrage. a teenager's to be charged with assault, after footage showing a 15 year old syrian refugee at school in huddersfield allegedly being assaulted, was shared on social media — and now a video appearing to show the boy's sister being attacked at the same school has emerged. the footage shows the girl being pushed towards a grass verge.

her family told the bbc her friends beat her up then took her pink hijab. the first video, showing the boy being dragged to the ground before water is poured onto his face, was filmed last month according to west yorkshire police. the boy's father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, says the attack had left his son "very tired psychologically". both incidents happened at almondbury community school in huddersfield. in a letter sent to parents, headteacher trevor bowen said: "the safety and welfare of students is our number one priority and i can assure you that this situation is being taken extremely seriously." let's talk to the syrian family's mp, labourmp for huddersfield barry sheerman. thank you for talking to us. when you first saw these videos how did they make you feel? totally shocked,

like everyone else. i have been dealing with this horrible bullying for a month, ifirst saw dealing with this horrible bullying for a month, i first saw the video on tuesday and like everybody else it shocked and appalled but i knew, i had been fully engaged because this young man, he is only 15, his pa rents a re this young man, he is only 15, his parents are not very competent in the english language but he e—mailed me and told me about the bullying and of course we immediately got in touch with the head teacher. we got in touch with the leader of the council and children services and we got in touch with the police. did they put a stop to it? they did. and then the video emerged? yes, only on tuesday most of us saw that video.” am asking if you know if the video was recorded, did the incident which

was recorded, did the incident which was recorded, did the incident which was recorded happen after you had got in touch with the school? that isa got in touch with the school? that is a bit murky i am afraid. i think it is prior as i understand it, it is prior to the comanche when it first came to me. the dates on what happened and when are quite, the really worrying one is that the bullying of his sister occurred very recently and that's the most disturbing piece of news i've heard this week. tuesday morning according to west yorkshire police. and it's not just the alleged to west yorkshire police. and it's notjust the alleged assaults but the fact they are being filmed. absolutely, it's awful. but we live in an age of social media and young people using their cameras, the camera in the phone all the time. but ina camera in the phone all the time. but in a sense there is an upside in

the sense that we now know about it and how awful it was, that's an important piece of documentary evidence that the police have used and the school have used. but the other upside of course is the enormous generosity locally, local people are shocked, people are coming to the home and offering food and presents and asking the family to visit them. we have had wonderful, notjust money, but the generosity of local people in huddersfield who are reeling at this shocking bullying. what does that tell you about most people in huddersfield? it's a very warm—hearted time, we have more volu nta ry warm—hearted time, we have more voluntary groups and charities than almost any other, certainly other town in yorkshire. it's totally alien. this is a nice village, i live in this village, i live around the corner from the school so i know extremely well. it's a lovely

village. this is not some urban ghetto, it's a beautiful yorkshire village, the oldest village in our pa rt village, the oldest village in our part of the world. an iron age fort around the corner. it's a splendid community. and this has come out in terms of the reaction to this bullying, of course i was chair of the children's schools and families committee for years and started the parliamentary group on bullying so i'm a bit familiar with the territory. every school will have bullying but you've got to have, you've got to have rules, you've got to have a culture and you've got to make sure you stamp it out as soon as you see it. and a lot of money has been raised for the family, how has been raised for the family, how has the family reacted to the response you've just described?” think they are stunned. it's all about second hand because of language difficulty but i'm stunned and hoping to be seeing them tomorrow to get a face—to—face discussion about it all. it's

wonderful people are donating but how you translate that through to the family and make sure they have good advice out of this bad fortune and good fortune. thank you for talking to us. there you are welcome. yesterday we brought you an interview with sammy woodhouse, a survivor of the rotherham grooming scandal. she called for a change in the law to "ensure rapists can't gain access to children conceived through rape and abuse". this came after sammy woodhouse was told that a man who raped her and was in jail was contacted by rotherham council in relation to her son. they asked him to apply for custody so he could make parental decisions, how that would work, he was in prison for 35 years, he would decide where my son would live and make all

the decisions and then my son would go and visit him in prison which is just absolutely outrageous and not only the person that is going through this, there are women all over the country who have to share access with their children to the men that right them. we have to see them, they are cross examined by them, they are cross examined by them, they are cross examined by them, they have to ask their permission for things. i try to apply for a passport for my son to go on holiday and they said i needed to ask his permission. not only is this man, he's not on the part certificate, i was never married to him, but he is a danger to me and my son. we also spoke to thejustice minister, lucy frazer who told us ministers were looking into the case. i feel very sorry for sammy, she has been through a terrible time. the ministry ofjustice is looking into this particular case to see what

happens in relation to the process. it isa happens in relation to the process. it is a question of whether rotherham council have made a mistake, they say they are going by the guidelines, or whether this is permissible under the current legislation? the council does have the power to apply to court not to contact the power to apply to court not to co nta ct a the power to apply to court not to contact a father or a parent with responsibility if it does not think it's appropriate. but we are looking at the facts of this particular case. in a moment we'll hear from a family law expert about what exactly led to that contact, why it happened and what should've happened. but first we're going to hear from another survivor of rape who wants the law changed to protect her children. here's our reporter jim reed to tell us more. we heard sammy woodhouse say that she is sure other people will be going through the same situation. yesterday we were contacted by other women who said the same thing and we

will talk about one of those cases, some of the details are sensitive and disturbing and some of the language we will use is quite adult. this case is different from sammy woodhouse in a number of ways, this woman we are going to talk about was ona woman we are going to talk about was on a long—term relationship with her husband for more than ten years and had children with him. it was towards the end of the relationship that she said it became increasingly abusive to the extent whereby the end she was repeatedly and violently right by her husband. she said later on there was a police raid on her family home, police came out of the blue and took the family computer and found very serious images of child sexual abuse on the computer which started a whole process, we will hear from which started a whole process, we will hearfrom her which started a whole process, we will hear from her now, which started a whole process, we will hearfrom her now, we have changed her name and her words are being spoken by an actress in this case. did you know the full extent of what

had gone on at the time or did you only learn it much later on? and then the following year, or quite soon afterwards he was convicted also of raping you? what happened next? after that she went to the police, her ex—husband was arrested and then eventually convicted both for offences for the child abuse images and also for

raping his wife. he was sentenced to a long, long time injail, ten years and is currently still in jail. when he was injail, he and is currently still in jail. when he was in jail, he then attempted to contact and access his children, against his ex—wife's wishes and she talks again in this next section about her fight to stop that happening. what you are saying is that social services knew more than you? did they give you a reason why they felt it was so important he should have a ccess ? explain the actions you took? what was the end resolution?

do you mind me asking how much this cost you in legal fees? absolutely astonishing, one of our viewers who got in touch with us yesterday after the programme. there are differences as you mentioned briefly earlier between that case and the sonny woodhouse case. the key difference is that sammy woodhouse conceived a child with her rapist whereas the in this case the person involved had children with

her husband and then went on to be abusive and was convicted of these offences of looking at child abuse images. the women involved did manage to stop her then husband gaining access to the children but the point she is making is that it was very, very difficult, it took five years and £50,000 in legal fees. she is saying it would be a com pletely fees. she is saying it would be a completely big difference to what we've got at the moment if somebody is convicted of a serious sexual offence she thinks they should automatically lose these parental rights. which is what sammy woodhouse as saying. yes but it would be very different to the situation as it is at the moment. thank you. let's speak now to lucy reed, she's a leading family barrister and heads up the transparency project — a charity that campaigns to make family law clearer thank you so much for talking to us, first of all what is your response to that story from one of our viewers? my first response is to say

in relation to both sammy woodhouse and the women you have just run that piece on, very obviously those women have been through traumatic experiences and the subsequent experiences and the subsequent experiences of having to deal with thoseissues experiences of having to deal with those issues around contact between the children and the fathers of those children has undoubtedly been stressful a nd those children has undoubtedly been stressful and difficult. you are right to say there are significant differences between sammy's case and the most recent example you've just shown, partly the circumstances of conception, partly the fact that the father in this case will have had pa rental father in this case will have had parental responsibility by virtue of being married to the mother of the child and partly because he will have had a pre—existing relationship with the children. in both cases surely there is a safeguarding issue when it comes to the children? should that not immediately mean

those fathers should not have access to the children? certainly there is an obvious safeguarding issue in both scenarios. in relation to your clip just shown, both scenarios. in relation to your clipjust shown, i both scenarios. in relation to your clip just shown, i would have to say the suggestion that social services have encouraged contact prior to trial or a full investigation of what the risks are and what husband has done sounds unusual to me, i would not say that's typical. i'm not saying it's not happened but it would not be the usual response from either social services or the court when allegations of that type of gravity are outstanding against a father. would there be anything wrong with automatically taking away pa rental wrong with automatically taking away parental responsibilities for anyone convicted of rape? there would be potential knock—on effects and consequences which would need real thought before you could change the

current position to some form of automatic loss of parental rights if certain boxes were ticked. for example, i don't want to talk specifically about the case you have just shown but it illustrates there isa just shown but it illustrates there is a spectrum of children who will have been directly abused or directly witnessed abuse orjust have been directly abused or directly witnessed abuse or just to have parents who are in a broader sense risky, a risk to their mothers. some children will have a pre—existing relationship, they may wa nt to pre—existing relationship, they may want to continue seeing their father who they love very much even though he may present some significant risks to them if that's not managed or even if it is managed. so there is lots of different scenarios and at the moment what the law says is the family courts has to look at the individual circumstances and all of the factors that apply to that particular child with all of the background and context of their life to date. there are good reasons for

that, there are also understandable arguments for saying that when women have been the victims of this type of abuse and when fathers have committed these types of crimes, there needs to be real thought given to what the risks are, what degree the father should be able to continue to cause distress to the mother when through the court process a re mother when through the court process are seeking contact. at the moment the law is clear and it's derived from our obligations and human rights legislation that a child rather than a parent has a right to family life and particularly for a child who has an established family life with her father there are complex considerations in each case as to whether or not contact should happen, what rights the father should be able to exercise and how that should be dealt with in practical terms. thank you so much.

the victims commissioner for london said on twitter that definitely agreed to restrict those convicted of serious crime but there are many who are not convicted and to use family court proceedings is another platform to continue their control and abuse and this needs recognising in the law as well. samantha says on twitter, survivors will support sammy woodhouse because we understand the cycle and the power and the control of abusers and rapists. thank you for watching, we are back tomorrow at 10am, have a lovely day. it's been a very stormy morning across england and wales, deep area of low pressure bringing severe gales particularly to south—western parts of england and towards wales and currently across the midlands and currently across the midlands and northern england then reaching

southern scotland, disruption likely to continue, could see minor damage as well, strong winds and heavy rain across northern england into scotla nd across northern england into scotland could lead to significant surface spray and standing water but into the afternoon severe gales should clear away but it remains windy, we should see blustery showers, michael in the south, cooler friday another deep area of low pressure sweeping the north of the uk, severe gales particularly across scotland, longer spells of rain, for england and wales a better day, drier and brighter with sunshine, one or two showers around but temperatures falling a little into ten or 11. unsettled into the weekend, further spells of wet and windy weather but staying mild in the south. you're watching bbc newsroom live, it's11am

and these are the main stories this morning: the family of a woman and daughter shot and killed by their abusive father call for a national campaign to focus on the impact of controlling behaviour in domestic violence situations. we can all play our part, by looking out for the signs in our colleagues, friends and family members. and doing something about it, having the courage to ask what is seen as personal questions. courage to ask what is seen as personal questions. the prime ministerfaces senior mps' questions about her brexit deal, and warns mps against trying to frustrate brexit saying they have a clear choice. it's important that we honour the

vote, it's important that we deliver on brexit. this