Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

999 replies

pingodolcepo · 11/12/2017 08:23

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Ylvamoon · 12/12/2017 23:43

Today 20:22 makeourfuture:
^Given these housing conditions, please can one of you people kicking these fire victims tell me what is supposed to happen?
Where the hell are people supposed to live? What do you want to happen to poor and low-waged people?
Tell me what you will do with them?^

In this particular case it is very simple: you categorize the tenants. A: employee in the area with legal tenancy = try and find suitable homes in the area which should include neighbouring borough or reasonable commute. If you are on JSA that's up to 90(!) minutes- so why not the same for these tenants?
B: unemployed with legal tenancy, sorry, but you might have to accept housing in a different area/ city if we find you a suitable home. That is of course if you want to continue to be a social housing tenant - if not you loose all rights to social housing.
C: illegal tenants - a though one as it really depends on weather they knew it was an illegal tenancy - very difficult to prove. So I would say, if they wish to be social housing tenants they would have to place a formal application. The council should give them 6 months to find alternative accommodation before moving them out / stop paying for temporary accommodation.

As we have already discussed, social housing is at a premium and compromise has to be found. If you want/ need help from the government you have to play by by government rules. Life is not easy and people move up and down the country all the time in search for jobs and homes.

HelenaDove · 12/12/2017 23:52

Ylavoon You didnt answer my question upthread. Earlier you said the Grenfell tenants should get like for like?

So do you agree that should also include the same kind of tenancy that they had at Grenfell. Some of them were there for over 20 + years.

bobbyjim · 13/12/2017 00:12

OldPony I feel sorry for you, you are facing old age with fuck all as you so eloquently put it because you didn't get a council flat, why is that my fault?
And why are you so fixated on minimum wage?
Blame the government and the system, and the housing crisis in this country, I only rent my flat I will never own it, it belongs to the council, and if it grates with you that my 75 year old husband with parkinsons and degenerative spinal disease, who is constantly doped up with morphine for the pain, needs a wet room, then you are the sick one, not him

Ylvamoon · 13/12/2017 00:19

HelenaDove- if I remember you quoted some woman on a TV programme... My question to this is: why did the council offer a different tenancy? As per usual, we only get one side of the story....
I'm sure said people will get a decent tenancy, unless they are holding out for a fictitious "better".

HelenaDove · 13/12/2017 00:21

bobbyjim there is a lot of disabilism and petty jealousy out there

ArcheryAnnie · 13/12/2017 00:51

B: unemployed with legal tenancy, sorry, but you might have to accept housing in a different area/ city if we find you a suitable home. That is of course if you want to continue to be a social housing tenant - if not you loose all rights to social housing.

That's nice, Ylavoon. You get burned out of your own home through no fault of your own, and you get thrown out of London as a result. Your kids get torn from their community, from people who understand what they've been through, and from their schools who by now are well-versed in managing traumatised children, and sent god knows where. Yes, well, that certainly seems fair...

Battleax · 13/12/2017 01:12

Yvla;?I'm only really worried about D, legal tenants who profited from subletting but might now also try to claim survivor status, along with new house, cash compensation, immigration amnesty and anything else going. That would be quite wrong.

HelenEas63 · 13/12/2017 02:39

Lol, if only it worked like that now.
I am a normal person with an ok wage, but paying rent, council tax and everything else I can’t save for a deposit nor have the proof of credit reliability due to often dipping back in to overdraft world!
20 years ago I might have got social housing & by now have bought it. One friends have managed it, but they have no career as they had babies instead, then got a social property & now qualify to buy. So is doing so. Will live there 5 years and will sell with a huge profit!
Where as I got the door slammed in my face when seeking a property (literally told to have a baby, with no father, cancel my studies etc) , so instead I’m 32 & paying loads on rent, married but no children because guess what we don’t think we can afford it. As my 9 months off I would get diddly squat & expected to live off husbands £20,000 a year as we would literally get no benefits at all. If we got social housing our rent bill would be 1/2 what we pay now! Literally half. Makes me sick!
So back to the victims, 20 years ago yes maybe it was possible to give these people what they ‘want’, but these days there just isn’t enough social housing to go round. So everyone particularly around London isn’t going to get what they ‘want’.

HelenaDove · 13/12/2017 02:52

But according to MN when you marry its family money.

makeourfuture · 13/12/2017 06:16

Life is not easy and people move up and down the country all the time in search for jobs and homes.

You are suggesting, now let's get this clear, that people moving around is the problem? And the solution is to move people around more?

The inanity of "get on your push-bike" has always been that there are poor people where you are riding to. That and who can afford a bicycle these days?

makeourfuture · 13/12/2017 06:27

Would the person who is next in line to be housed and who has waited 9 yrs, be pissed off and angry because she's a racist or because it's simply not sodding fair that her long awaited Home has gone to someone who has never even been on the waiting list

On a very basic level, a number of units have been removed from the stock of social housing. Governments have chosen to not build more units.

We need more social housing. We need more housing. Supply is being artificially restricted.

cathf · 13/12/2017 06:55

I think we can all agree on that, Makeourfuture. In fact, in over 20 pages, I don't think one single person has disagreed. This thread is about the Immediate problem of the displaced of Grenfell Tower and where they are going to be housed NOW

TDHManchester · 13/12/2017 07:05

They should be re-housed according to the relevant legislation and in accordance with housing need.

These decisions should NOT include any compensatory element be it monetary or emotional.

Any legitimate claims for compensation for material loss, personal loss, pain,suffering,trauma etc need to be directed via a legal representative to the relevant insurers,,simples

So no,losing your flat doesnt equal a 3 bed house with garden.

MrsDilber · 13/12/2017 07:56

I can understand them not wanting to live in a high rise again, nor should they be made to. Should they be given 3 beds/garden in central London? no, I don't think it should be a given.

KathArtic · 13/12/2017 08:29

What the fire has done is given the council the opportunity to re-assess each tenant and their needs.

So a tenant who had a flat based on 2 adults and three children 15 years ago, but now is a widower, unemployed, with no dependent children - should they still get a 3 bed property? In K&C? Should they enjoy the benefits of continuous occupancy for the right to buy? A 3 bed with garden for the rent of a two bed flat?

cathf · 13/12/2017 09:13

No Kath, they shouldn't. And anyone who thinks they should is still reacting emotionally, not sensibly.
Always have to add the rider that the Grenfell tenants suffered terribly, but that does not entitle them to the moon on a stick. I think the LEGAL tenants should be suitably rehoused for their current circumstances, but the illegal subletters should not. Harsh, but fair I am afraid. And as for the illegal landlords, they should obviously be prosecuted if they can be traced.
I think allowing the tragedy to divert people from the housing waiting list is unfair. If you had a legal tenancy, you would be entitled to be rehoused, that's fair.
But allowing people who managed to play the system to get housing they should have waited years for to leap frog over people who HAVE been waiting years for it is fundamentally unfair.
Those still in temporary accommodation who are entitled to housing should be told that if they refuse anything else, they will be placed back on the housing list.
Those who are not entitled should be allowed to stay in temp accomodation for the next six weeks, then they are in their own.
Sympathy is one thing, but I think people's sympathy is starting to wane now as it seems most are rehoused and it's just a hard core left.

whiskyowl · 13/12/2017 09:16

Your compassion and sympathy have always been in short supply cath, but don't speak for the rest of us on that.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/12/2017 09:22

What the fire has done is given the council the opportunity to re-assess each tenant and their needs

Given some of the cheating and chiselling mentioned on here, that's probably no bad thing ...

Ylvamoon · 13/12/2017 09:23

makeourfuture- I'm suggesting moving is an answer to the housing shortage in London. Especially if there is housing available elsewhere. Being poor does not make you somehow immune to all the shit one gets served up in life! It does not give you a special status and a choice of where you want to live regardless of costs. That included the Granfall victims.

Battleax I hope they are busy prosecuting all of group "D"!

ArcheryAnnie it's called real life! The reality is that there IS not enough social housing in the area... people want to continue to be housed by the state, they have to accept that they can't stay in the area. I'm sure other parts of the country are just as well equipped to deal with PTSD. School, GP and social workers are able to offer continued support. It's not a unique condition, sadly may people (adults and children) suffer from this. A new start is not the bad black cloud that everyone seems to believe it is. It's an opportunity.

Timefortea99 · 13/12/2017 09:23

One person turned down a home in Pimlico (nice area) because they wanted to stay in K & C. Pimilico is not far from K & C. I would love to live in Pimlico but I had to buy in the suburbs and commute in. People have to make compromises in life. They have gone through tragic events and should be treated well, but being treated well is not the same as letting them push their luck. Those who have lost family should be the priority, the others have lost things. And those that were sub-letting or illegal immigrants should be grateful for anything at all.

woodhill · 13/12/2017 09:29

Totally agree Cath. I think the subletters should be excluded from any social housing as they obviously don't need it if they are renting it out and profiting.

HateSummer · 13/12/2017 09:29

The council should look up all the empty houses in that area belonging to rich oligarchs, that haven’t been used in years and years and take them back. Turn them into apartments and give them out. No house should be purchased and allowed to remain empty.

cathf · 13/12/2017 09:34

I'm not and never have claimed to be speaking for anyone else, Whisky
As I said, sympathy and compassion is all very lovely, but you can't run a country on that.
Can I ask, if you had been on a housing list for 10 years, had just got to the top, then were moved right back down the list to make way for families who should have been WAY behind you, would you think that was ok? To be honest, if you were fine with that, I am not sure I would believe you.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/12/2017 09:36

Exactly, Cath. Quite rightly, nobody's suggesting actual tenants should be treated anything but fairly (though that does mean fairly, not given whatever they want) but inappropriate demands from folk who may not be entitled to help is hardly welcome - especially if the real intention is a money making racket

Franklin77 · 13/12/2017 09:42

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

HelenaDove
No you didnt Bubble.

Let me help you both out. What's this then that you wrote?

Bubblebubblepop
Grenfell was full of owners (leaseholders)