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.

Bubble From the Guardian;

"Kensington and Chelsea, the borough at the centre of the row over the Grenfell Tower fire, has built no new council houses since 2014 but has sold 46, netting the council more than £14.3m."

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/28/council-homes-sold-off-almost-three-times-as-fast-as-new-ones-are-built

Obviously you are wrong with your statistics. Social housing in K&C is being sold with "Right to Buy" and if you can afford to buy a £900k property there you are not only not poor but are not in need of social housing.

I haven't seen more than a handful in larger area (not just K&C) in many years so no, I don't believe those articles are referring to RTB. Think what you like though.... obviously your drug dealer neighbour is a great source of information

I havent reported anyone. Just to be clear

I haven't reported anyone. I think that's a really low thing to do just because you can't handle a healthy debate

MNHQ preps to browse (patrol) the boards and this thread has been active most of the day.

There's not necessarily a snitch to hunt down and lynch

MNHQ peeps do browse....

Bubblebubblepop I haven't seen more than a handful in larger area (not just K&C) in many years so no, I don't believe those articles are referring to RTB. Yikes, what is your problem? I give real life examples of actual social housing purchases, 3 in my road and 1 a few roads away, and you say none of it happened. I highlight how I was even shown round the bragging woman's flat and the one at the end of the road was the talk of our road since they were drug dealers (so no, they weren't the source of the information as you well know, their actual PURCHASE OF SOCIAL HOUSING STOCK which you deny has EVER happened in K&C over the last few decades* was the source of information), and you still claim you know best and I must be making it all up.

Then mothertruck3r provides actual statistics from RBKC themselves and The Guardian which would have also used these statistics, and you say you don't believe they're referring to RBKC.

WTF???????

Just like your lie about Grenfell residents being all private leaseholders (when I have to point out to you the truth is there were only 14 flats in the entire block which were privately owned, I notice you didn't concede you were wrong there either btw), you're coming on these threads and spreading a load of lies under your cover of someone who pretends they are informed about social housing.

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about and are coming on here lying through your teeth!

(In other words, get a grip Kath)

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/callers-in-epic-row-over-money-for-grenfell-nick/

Franklin you sound bonkers. I can't be specific for obvious reasons but I have first hand knowledge regarding the reporting of RTB sales. I can't see how that's happened, but there you go. Somehow I also missed the application in which a couple of drug dealers managed to get a mortgage close to a million quid so stranger things have happened eh?

I didn't say at any point the Grenfell residents were all leaseholders.

No you didnt Bubble.

We're talking about the most vulnerable in society. The poorest, the oldest the sickest. You know what is overwhelmingly the largest group in social housing, particularly in London? Pensioners.

I am sorry but that is just not the case. 30 years ago but not anymore. Those in social housing (with the very very small exception of those placed by social services intervention) are almost exclusively made up of subletters (a minimum of 1;7 but now thought to be as much as 1:4 . - looked that up today at work so that's really up to date intel) OR far from vulnerable, very savvy operators who have mostly studied the loopholes hard in order to get themselves to the top of the housing lists.
I cannot express strongly enough how much of a golden ticket a council house in central London is. It is worth putting the effort in. The rewards are stunning.

I have been out on 14 home visits today with a South London boroughs tenancy Fraud Unit. 8 of 14 were not in - despite being 'families with disabilities ' (the reason for the placement) This was disproportionately unusual. The forms all stated the severity and the 'virtually' housebound nature of the disability. That's why they were chosen for the visits.
So unusual that everyone is out on such a cold day. No matter, we will visit again . Of the other 6 five properties were occupied by people who did not match the copies of passports held on file. None could (or would) speak English to us not would they cooperate with 'language line' . The sixth one claimed to be babysitting whilst her sister was in hospital having another baby. For some reason I believed her.
That's Zone 2 - it is literally epidemic.

So between those scamming the system as sub let's and those manipulating the housing lists by paying GPS to write sob stories about fictitious illnesses Social housing , which I believe in, / is simply not fit for business .

Why does it appear that SH is going to people from abroad? We keep being told it isn't?

But London (and other high value areas) is a specific subletting area- you don't see subletting to the same extent in other areas.

Franklin didn't want social housing tenants to get anything- but how else would the disabled, elderly, vulnerable be housed? A private landlord often won't take them on. That was my point about the most vulnerable in society.

It keeps getting twisted into ALL social housing tenants are vulnerable. Clearly they're not.

But fair enough, occupancy statistics are obviously compiled from the demograph of the official tenant, not the unknown living there.

kittens my husband is nearly 68 with COPD and ischemic heart disease and uses a disability scooter If hes not in hes either at the GP surgery or at his day centre.

Where is the housing stock? There is none!

But London (and other high value areas) is a specific subletting area- you don't see subletting to the same extent in other areas.

Well, that's pretty much the point. We're discussing not only London, but uber-central London.

there are actually a lot of low-rise, long blocks, usually 3 storey without cladding, they are 70s blocks of flats in K&C (north) and also a lot in Battersea/Clapham which is neighbouring just over he river.

They should get priority for low-rise, and also priority in the queue regarding the speed of it, but not priority above everyone else for the size/garden (i.e. can still get it but maybe not in K&C).

Dec 2007 Recieve letter from HA saying all items in communal hallways must be removed or they will remove and dispose of them including DHs mobility scooter. Phone housing officer and explain. Get granted permission letter to keep it.

Dec 2011 same thing happens again ....get granted permission letter again.

November 2017.....three weeks ago our new housing officer decided to introduce himself by pinning a tort notice to the wall downstairs saying that unless the mobility scooter is gone by 21 December they will take it and sell it to cover the cost of taking it.

It is kept under the stairs completely out of the way and we have prior permission.........TWICE. I phoned the HA and spoke to someone who first asked us to send a copy of a prior permission letter to prove we have permission.

I explained that putting us through all this was in breach of section 149 of the Equality Act and he did get it after a couple of times.........this wasnt the HO i spoke to it was someone else.

He said he would send us a copy of a prior permission letter which he has done. He sent us the one from Dec 2007. We also hunted for our original letters from 2007 and 2011 We found the original 2007 one but also have the new copy he sent us. We cant find the 2011 one. But i did find an old thread of mine from 2011 talking about this on another site so was able to quote dates from when they tried this in 2011.

Now we have the stress and worry of them taking it....... at Christmas for the THIRD time completing the hat trick!

This is the third time they have done this in the run up to Christmas

Museum- in the post kitten quoted, I was referring to social housing generally, which was the discussion at the time.

thats shocking!!

DH and i arent in London............small market town in North Essex.

They should get what their circumstances dictate! Why should a couple with no children get a 3 bed roomed house when the housing shortage is so dire in the London area?

My brothers house set on fire and nobody gave him anything. My 4 year old nephew lost all of his toys clothes etch He lost everything too. His wife was pregnant with second child and they had to stop her from going into labour. They also lost there cat! There dog nearly died plus was out of there house for two years. No one helped them. They wasn't housed for free.

Somewhere between the opinion that all social housing tenants are scrounging freeloaders and the opinion that all social housing landlords are money-grabbing and heartless lies the truth, I imagine.
The problem is, both sides of the divide are quick to accuse the other, without really considering the situation properly.
However, to get back to the point, I think that the ex-Grenfell Tower residents who are still not rehoused should take their fair place in the queue now - enough is enough.