Grenfell ex-residents should get a 3-bed house with a garden if that's what they want

[pingodolcepo]

Daily mail outrage that some of the residents are asking for a 3-bed house with a garden. But honestly, they have been through a living hell that was caused by someone else's very bad choices.

There are plenty of people in London that have a 3 bed council house, why can't these people that have dealt with horrors get one also?

I know someone that got a council house in Highgate in the 80s, was a cabbie with a good wage, bought it when offered and sold it a few years ago for over a million and now lives in a fab place with loads of land and a pool in the south of France. If plenty of normal people got houses why can't these poor residents get one? They won't ever be able to afford to buy it due to the high cost of london houses now.

I don't think anyone will fe applying for anything . This is a replacement propert after a fire, not a housing application. They still have a live valid tenancy why would they be applying for anything

“Applying” - “Asking for” - not a lot of difference really. “Wanting” may be a better description.

The extra "adult children" households don't have a valid tenancy, so it's a reasonable question.

Usually adult children would face a long wait on a housing list, means testing etc, but then "usually" they'd be considered adequately housed in the family home meanwhile.

There seems to be a huge taboo about discussing one of the massive problems of the Grenfell tower fire and why it's been so damn hard to identify the dead and rehouse tenants.

One word. Subletting.

I work in Fraud. I have worked in various areas of fraud for thirty years. Over that time the issue of subletting has grown and grown as rents in the capital have reached ridiculous heights. Now it's no word of a lie to say that AT LEAST one in seven council/social housing flats in the capital are sublet. This is not a random guess. That's from colleagues who Work in 'corporate fraud ' at the various London Borough Councils.
Their days are filled with this type of prosecution. It is never ending because the maths makes it so understandable. I'm not saying it's not hugely immoral- just understandable.
A 3 bed council flat in Kensington costs about £1000 to rent if you are lucky enough to get one.
A 3 bed flat on the open market costs over £3500 (figures per month).
People who are in the UK both legally and legally do not have the papers or credit to get a place on the Private market. Those who have the fortune to have a council place rent it out to people who don't have formal tenancy agreements. The landlord (in this case Kensington & Chelsea believe the flat is lived in by Mr & Mrs A with their child. In fact it's been sublet to 6 adults for £2000 who most probably have no papers. But can afford the rent between them of just over £300 a month.
Couple A move out to Essex /Herts where the wages are lower but they don't care about that because the rent is also lower and now it's all covered by the extra income coming in from subletting. The big problem is that the new tenants certainly aren't on the tenancy. Impossible to identify following such a tragedy as a fire.

You are then left with a huge dilemma. for all those people at Grenfell who had sublet. They were the tenants. They have lost their flat and their 'income' . Those who escaped but were not there legally (not talking immigration that's a whole other question that's not really relevant in this issue) just that they were not legal tenants.. they weren't entitled to be in the flats as they hadn't been on the housing list and placed there by the council. So who deserves to be housed ? The fraudster who scammed the council or the illegal tenant who bypassed the waiting list. Or is it unfair on everyone who has been on a council housing list and played by the rules and waited to be Housed.

How can you necessarily tell who was ACTUALLY living there at the time and who was living elsewhere- the sub tenant could easily have gone through the trauma but ran off as soon as they had safely got out of the inferno leaving the tenant to 'claim' a new Home...

Before anyone starts I am referring to a percentage of people by no means all. There are obviously a HUGE number of people legally occupying the flats. For them it is obviously more straightforward that they need suitable housing. But I don't think people understand the subletting epidemic and the complications it has added to a horrendous situation.

It's not as though these properties are standing idle waiting for a new owner. They don't exist in the area.

That's very interesting, kittens. There was some indication at the time that there was sub-letting going on, when the authorities were keen for people to come forward, no questions asked about legal status.

Op I agree they should as long as it fits their situation a family and not a single person. For the person who said people suffer horrible things all the time why should the council prioritise. Maybe because the fire and deaths are a direct result of the councils decisions so yes they should have priority. There is land to be built on, supermarkets have land to stop rivals building so forced purchasing and building council properties. Not an immediate solution but something needs to be done all over the country but especially in the more expensive areas.

Maybe because the fire and deaths are a direct result of the councils decisions
The enquiry is not yet complete, so that's a bit premature.

It's the reason it's taken so long. No one wants to say it out loud though. What local authority was a charge of racism or xenophobia levelled against them on top of all this.
So you have a whole bunch of people , hugely traumatised , some badly injured and possibly disabled for life - who had no right to be living in the building. So what does the council do ? House them ? Is that fair on everyone waiting to be housed? Not House them ? After what they've been through? I wouldn't want to make that decision.

Kitten you definitely have a point. To me it seems there is a lot of shouting and very little action. But with data protection and confidentiality we will only ever hear one side of the story.

Dilliga - not as much as they did a few years ago. Then some bright spark realised they could slap restrictive covenants on the title saying that it can't be used as a supermarket - hey presto, land can be sold without the risk that it ends up with a direct competitor!

The competition commission tried to put a stop to that for the "big 7", but it only goes so far.

fitbit so the council didn't have reports from fire safety officers recommending a sprinkler system as a 2nd fire escape couldn't be added to the old building?, they didn't use a cheaper material to save money that was known not to be as safe and again was mentioned in the fire officers report? These are facts in the public domain and due to dh job I know this all to be true as well as other information that I can't put here as it's very outing and not publicly available yet.

Yivamoon you have hit the nail on the head. The resident side can make as much noise as they like. The council cannot turn round and say - sorry- disabled ex resident of Grenfell- we can't re house you as you are not our tenant. Add to that the problem that many of the 'activists ' who were legal tenants won't necessarily know if their neighbors were there legally. The only people who know are the council. And they can't say anything as it would contravene data protection and privacy laws. It's a no win situation.

Very niave op

I'm surprised that the subletting is only 1:7.

It's the logical outcome of this particular economic distortion, i.e. one's flat having a market rental value that's an enormous multiple of their monthly income. Which is why it makes no sense for the state to provide housing in Zone 1.

That is a VERY conservative estimate based on current prosecutions and investigations. Which only come to light if neighbours spill the beans to the council. It's easy to spot though.

If your previous council placed neighbours were a family of two parents and two children- and they have moved out and been replaced by at least 4 but probably 6 (sometimes 8 because sitting room is just wasted uneconomic space) then your neighbours have sublet. You need the bodies in the flat to make the rent a good deal for the subletter and the sub tenant. £2000 between 6 in Kensington is a phenomenal deal and allows you to save commuting costs that cut into the money you have to send home - which is the whole point of living here.

Flats are effectively turned into homes of multiple occupation. Which in itself is illegal without a license.

This same practice cannot be done on the open market because the letting companies won't let to sharers without a credit check that each one could pay the whole rent if one defaulted. Not many people just scraping minimum wage can manage to cover £2-2.5k k in rent- so this is the perfect solution.

Being given social housing in central London is not just being given a home. Because of the massive disparity between social and private rents it is a literal gateway to a whole second income. It's winning the housing lottery.

I know of one case in Pimlico where the tenant had lived in Yorkshire as a SAHM funded ENTIRELY by subletting for 8 yrs. she BOUGHT her home in Yorkshire and still had enough to fund her and her two children without having to go to work. (Her only other income was £200 in CM and 2 x CHB) she didn't claim other benefits as didn't want to be 'hassled'. When asked 'why Yorkshire? ' answer Why live in London when I don't need to work. ? Here is beautiful, kids go to village school, I have a great quality of life and so do they. In London I worried about money constantly, worked hours and hours to pay rent and have someone else look after my children. '
Who wouldn't- given the choice ?

I have to say . I don't think I could put my hand on my heart and say I wouldn't give it serious consideration. I like to think that my moral compass would point me away from that but I have never had to live in a high rise with kids and little money. So who knows.

The only solution is some kind of biometric entry system to social housing where only the legal tenants can open the door. Iris scanning/Finger print entry etc. It is literally the only way if it is to be continued in areas where Private rents massively exceed social housing rents.

Choosing to move to London and want to live in one of the most expensive places in one of the most expensive cities in the world is madness. If you cannot earn enough money to pay the huge rents you need to move somewhere cheaper.

The authorities cannot be expected to use Taxpayers money to buy people 3 bed houses that will cost - £1/2/3 million per house.

London has experienced huge immigration in the past few years and most of it has been of no benefit to the original population who have been forced out. No £3 million council houses for them....

Choosing to move to London and want to live in one of the most expensive places in one of the most expensive cities in the world is madness.

What if you're born there, if your family have been Londoners for generations?

Build more social housing.

Great idea, Makeourfuture. You should suggest it to K&C 🤔

EBearhug, yes if necessary. My family were all brought up in a village but progressive generations have been unable to afford to live there, so have moved further out. It happens all over the country.
And - in all honesty - a lot of the families affected by the tragedy were not third and fourth generation Londoners, were they?

I have to say . I don't think I could put my hand on my heart and say I wouldn't give it serious consideration. I like to think that my moral compass would point me away from that but I have never had to live in a high rise with kids and little money. So who knows.

I don't see it as a moral issue.

The council gives a high-value tenancy to a family for their use; they use it as they see fit. No one is worse off for a council tenant subletting a flat that they would be otherwise occupying.

Mind you, the entire enterprise points towards the system being bonkers, but I see no reason to prosecute the tenants for doing something that's fundamentally sensible.

Choosing to move to London and want to live in one of the most expensive places in one of the most expensive cities in the world is madness. If you cannot earn enough money to pay the huge rents you need to move somewhere cheaper.

So London doesn't need teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, retail workers, childminders, cleaners - only bankers and lawyers should live in Greater London?

So London doesn't need teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, retail workers, childminders, cleaners - only bankers and lawyers should live in Greater London?

I thought we were talking about Zone 1?

I live in Zone 2 and it's not particularly a hardship.

I live in zone 2. Zone 3, 4, 5 even aren't a hardship. The post I was responding to just said if you can't afford the rent don't live in London. It didn't say 'don't live in zone 1'. Not living in zone 1 is entirely reasonable. Saying unless you can afford the rents in London don't live in one of the most expensive cities in the world doesn't seem reasonable.