Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 25 26 27 ··· 39 40

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

MuseumOfCurry · 14/12/2017 13:52

I gather you're not concerned about diluting the terms of the private tenants' service agreement?

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 14:07

In what sense would that dilute those terms ?
As I understand it the private tenants would of been paying 3 x what the council tenants were paying in charges,
which is even more outrageous considering the shoddy service they received.

MuseumOfCurry · 14/12/2017 14:14

I got the wrong end of the stick, I thought you were referring to the post-Grenfell flats, not the Grenfell ones.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/12/2017 14:36

IF there really was a problem with newcomers scamming the system ... Then hopefully Kensington & Chelsea council will be held accountable for that

I totally agree

Good luck with getting a local authority to take responsibility for anything () but when housing's in such short supply there should be no excuse for it to be handed out inappropriately

kittensinmydinner1 · 14/12/2017 15:19

F there really was a problem with newcomers scamming the system to get housing /education/ /services etc
in Grenfell tower (which we don’t know yet)
Then hopefully Kensington & Chelsea council will be held accountable for that, they should of been doing the job they are paid to do.

So if I came along and stole an item that was due to be given to you by a charity - then the person to be blamed would be the charity ? Not the person who did the stealing ? Where is the morality in that ?

I don't think anyone has an issue with rehousing and compensating those who were in legally tenanted flats allocated through honest truthful and fair waiting list system where the criteria for rising to the top of the list has been adhered to.

I am very cynical about this. Before you can even apply to go on the housing list you have to have been resident in the borough for a minimum of 3 years. It then takes between 6-8 yrs to be allocated a studio or one bed and 12 yrs or more for 2+ beds.
So that's 15 yrs minimum just to get through the door. How many residents had been in the uk for a minimum 15 yrs illegal OR legal?

cathf · 14/12/2017 15:44

Agreed again Kitten.

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 15:45

No I wouldn’t blame the charity but I would expect them to have procedures in place to stop that happening.

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 15:52

kittensinmydinner1 - your right but many of the council tenants did jump through those hoops to get their homes,
There were teachers , hairdressers , chefs, cleaners lots of normal hardworking people it’s not fair to tar them all with the same brush

kittensinmydinner1 · 14/12/2017 17:30

I am not aware that I have 'tarred everyone with the same brush' in fact if you can point to any post where I have said that no one was there legally or honestly then I will put my hands up and apologise. In reality I think you will find it's those who were there legally and could easily prove it, that were the first to be rehoused.

The ostrich head in the sand attitude that anyone caught up in a tragedy cannot in anyway act fraudulently just by the very fact that they are foreign/poor/vulnerable is completely ridiculous. Those characteristics do not automatically make people 'good and honest' any more than it makes them 'bad and crooked'

My original point was that many people don't seem to realise just how many people were NOT there legally. I then went on to explain that whilst it was guessed at 1:7 council flats being sublet - local authorities now believe that to be closer to 1:4/5 . Which means roughly 20/25 % subletting. Even those very poor at maths must realise that is not tarring the 'majority' !!

ChakraLines · 14/12/2017 17:34

I think that most of the posters on here come across as very nice people, but I also detect a significant amount of naivety. The recorded weekly council rent for a one bed flat may well be £126, as someone upthread has said. But between two people that is a bargain.

This probably comes down to that old chestnut of how much of a Net contributor are people in low-paid work. I would hazard a guess that the majority of Grenfell people's takehome pay was subsidised as thousands of others are. In-work benefits such as: discounted CTax, Housing allowance, tax credits, pension credits, CB, etc.

I think our country's employment figures are a MIRAGE actually. Many are paid to stay in work. People subsidised to this degree pay tax & NI, but the total of their deductions is less than what they receive in various benefits & credits.

ChakraLines · 14/12/2017 17:37

Sorry, it was £195 rent that was mentioned, not £126.

mothertruck3r · 14/12/2017 17:39

No, not sure what the private tenants were paying , that’s what the council tenants were paying - Some of them may have been claiming housing benefit so not paying anything but £195 per week is very very cheap for a secure tenancy in central London.

ChakraLines · 14/12/2017 17:43

Spot on. You in your enforcement role know this, but too many people on MN have no idea of the scale of fraud. When a friend of mine was looking for a private rental for his sister, he responded to an ad in the White City. He went along and saw that it was a large, spacious council flat and the immigrant tenant was trying to rent it out.

He didn't take it and unfortunately my friend did not report it, because I suppose it's the reticence of the British which contributes to housing fraud to continue.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/12/2017 17:44

You're right, of course, that it's the cheaters who are actually at fault ... it's just that I'd have hoped a properly run council would have more checks in place to weed such people out

ChakraLines · 14/12/2017 18:03

"There were teachers , hairdressers , chefs, cleaners lots of normal hardworking people it’s not fair to tar them all with the same brush"

Do you by any chance know many people from overseas in social housing, Applebee? I do .... I know lots, and I know quite a bit about their financial arrangements. The ones who are working are being heavily subsidised to be able to live in this country. Without taxpayer subsidence they couldn't do it.

ChakraLines · 14/12/2017 18:05

subsidy!

mothertruck3r · 14/12/2017 18:06

Kitten, don't the councils housing units have access to things like the land registry, Home Office records, HMRC records, utility company info, council tax data etc to cross reference for identify fraud? I would have thought with all the modern technology it would be quite easy to detect fraud these days as most people leave a digital fingerprints somewhere.

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 18:08

I understand what yous are saying but £195 weather it’s from housing benifit or from the tenants is still going into the councils coffers,
The service charge pays for the upkeep that money should of been going back into social housing or as the poster above says into tackling the fraudulent tenants,
As the money wasn’t spent on more social housing I don’t see why it shouldn’t be spent giving the tenants decent housing.

Rebeccaslicker · 14/12/2017 18:09

Mother - a tenancy will only be registered if it's for more than 7 years. And if the social housing tenant landlord pays the bills and charges the subtenants an inclusive rent, his name will still be on the accounts.

Basically it would need a regular team on it and carrying out physical inspections - most councils simply don't have the man power.

Rebeccaslicker · 14/12/2017 18:10

Applebee - we elect councils to decide how to spend the money. That's their job. Not yours.

Don't like it? Stand as a councillor!

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 18:14

ChakraLines - I do but I know more that are living In subsidised private housing,
That’s not a social housing issue it’s across the board

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 18:19

Rebeccaslicker - The law decides how that money should be spent NOT the councils.

Kensington & Chelsea haven’t been doing that!

That’s why there is a political inquiry AND a criminal one

mothertruck3r · 14/12/2017 18:21

Rebecca So are all utilities (gas, electric, water) normally included in social housing rent? So even less to pay out in comparison to private renters. Council tax isn't normally though is it? They could still check all these things to see if the named tenant is registered as living elsewhere or owns a property.

Battleax · 14/12/2017 18:25

So are all utilities (gas, electric, water) normally included in social housing rent? So even less to pay out in comparison to private renters.

No. How would that work?

Applebee7 · 14/12/2017 18:27

mothertruck3r - I know your question wasn’t for me but utilities are not included in council rent,
Some boroughs include water but these councils are now having to pay the tenants some of these charges back because they were not passing on the fees the water company’s were paying them.

Flip

1 2 ··· 25 26 27 ··· 39 40