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.

Rebeccaslicker - have you read any of the plans??

It doest seem like it

The council have hundreds of millions in the bank last time looked a big chunk of which is the surplus from social housing, it wouldn’t of had to be footed by the tax payer

You may not like it but it’s true

Why one earth do you think two inquiries are being held

Link please.

I keep asking for them, but you just keep giving rumours!

Links to what ??? The fact the Kensington & Chelsea have £300 million in reserves

I’m sure you could look that up yourself

Planning info ?? Like you said it’s all online

Momentum ?????

Are you trying to imply I’m some kind of socialist nutter?

Far from it, I’m a business owner that is pissed off with “foreigners” making profit on what the taxpayers should!

Subletting a council flat is a breach of tenancy. The “tenant” should therefore lose their tenancy and not be rehoused.

I thought in the case of Grenfell Tower, the authorities make a specific cal that they were not going to investigate or punish sub letting because they were worried that people who were scared of this wouldn't engage with the investigation and it might be harder to identify all the bodies/missing people.

I thought the same decision was made about immigration status.

They knock on doors very early in the morning & the tenants have to show photo ID to prove they are the legal tenant

I do hope that they're polite and ask nicely. I wouldn't appreciate being bossed about in my own home at the crack of dawn as a legal occupier, would you?

I do hope that they're polite and ask nicely. I wouldn't appreciate being bossed about in my own home at the crack of dawn as a legal occupier, would you?

If such a large chunk of the Grenfell flats were being illegally sublet, it seems they were being far too nice and polite about it.

It's more likely they weren't investigating at all (and they certainly won't now, post tragedy).

It's not difficult to draw up a policy of periodic random checks conducted politely and respectfully.

Thus far. The Govt gave every family 5/10k ( I can't recall the exact figure its between the two)when the crisis started the council is also giving every family a Max 17.500 to replace household goods regardless of insurance pay outs. At a guess the standards fund raising will disperse around 50k per family. There are also other funds to be dispersed. All told i think about 100k per family or there about's is going be the total giving to survivors.

The 250 million in reserves is all being spent to buy housing, to date the council had purchased over 100 properties they close on two more per day.

I don't care about what I can look up. I am interested in where YOU are getting statements

Also Apple - does that mean you object to "foreigners" being given social housing in the most expensive part of the country?

Thus far. The Govt gave every family 5/10k ( I can't recall the exact figure its between the two)when the crisis started the council is also giving every family a Max 17.500 to replace household goods regardless of insurance pay outs. At a guess the standards fund raising will disperse around 50k per family. There are also other funds to be dispersed. All told i think about 100k per family or there about's is going be the total giving to survivors.

The 250 million in reserves is all being spent to buy housing, to date the council had purchased over 100 properties they close on two more per day.

All in all, it sounds like a bit of a pile in to see who can give them the most money.

The thing I can't get my head around is the idea that people have some kind of 'right' to live in a really expensive or desirable area at massively below the market price, just because I have lived there (have pretended to ) for 3 years or more and my mates live there...oh and it's near my work ... and I don't want to commute.

In the 80s I flatshared in the Fulham Rd. The posh end. I privately rented. There were 5 of us, therefore the rent was quite reasonable. I worked in the Fulham Rd so it was bloody handy.

Then I got a serious boyfriend and we wanted to live together. Couldn't afford Fulham Rd so looked around. Our price range meant Streatham but still needed another couple to share the rent. Plus a small and fairly cheap commute.

A couple of years later we wanted to buy. Couldn't afford Streatham so looked around his home town. Ended up in East Grinstead West Sussex. With a cheaper property we could afford and a 50 minute commute. (Which we increasingly can't) .
We still worked in Fulham Rd. My friends still lived in the Fulham Rd, some had bought flats nearby with their trust funds. Some had moved to the suburbs. Some like us had had to move away.
No one expected the government to House us if we couldn't afford to live there.
In the exact same way that I really really love the Lake District and would LOVE to live in Grasmere. Sadly I can't because I cant afford it and there isn't enough social housing there and nowhere to build more. Therefore I can't live there. It's tough . It's sad. But it's life. I can't live in Bond st either nor Sandbanks on Dorset... all out of my price range.

Why does anyone believe they have a right to live in the most expensive part of the country ? The whole concept is bonkers.

Did you grow up in Fulham kittens? Is that where your family are?

As for tenancy checks. I went out with a London Boroughs 'corporate fraud' team this week. Every officer I was with were unfailingly polite. Our first 'knock' was 7:30 am and our last 5:15 pm. We went to 14 homes. All had been identified through allegations from whistleblowing. As far as I'm aware (I don't work for the council) they don't go out on spot checks. As with most allegations, we need 'reasonable cause.'

No. I didn't. .
However I did live there for over three years which is RBKC requirement.
Where I grew up as a child, I couldn't begin to aspire to living. Average 3 bed over £600k and rent £1750 minimum a month. Out of my league. So I can't live there. (And no social housing available) . No building possible as slap in the middle of green belt)

Battleax - but why does that give anyone an automatic right to stay there when it doesn't apply to everyone? How is that fair? If you have no disabilities, why should you get priority over everyone else?

Battleax - but why does that give anyone an automatic right to stay there when it doesn't apply to everyone? How is that fair? If you have no disabilities, why should you get priority over everyone else?

I didn't say ANY of those things, did I?

I was just asking to get a full picture of her "local connection", (because that's often something that put forward as having greater validity).

In my own view it would be nice of people could stay near wider family if they want, whether they're buying or renting, social or private sector. It would be nice if everyone who wanted one could have a garden, but the problem is cost and supply.

I'm a Londoner who has seen a lot of people leave myself (either cashing in or priced out) so I feel the upset but, no, I don't think councils can't magic endless affordable housing out of thin air to solve the problems caused by endless globalisation and gentrification.

It's difficult and complicated, but interesting. I do wonder what London will look like twenty years from now.

Ah - then we mostly agree!

Where I grew up as a child, I couldn't begin to aspire to living. Average 3 bed over £600k and rent £1750 minimum a month.

Same here.

They may want a three bed house after losing their two bed flat but why do they think they have a right to it?

Every officer I was with were unfailingly polite. Our first 'knock' was 7:30 am and our last 5:15 pm.

That sounds more reasonable than dawn demands.

Also, you know council housing isn't just there to make the lives of the individuals easier. It's to improve the area in general. It's generally considered to not improve a neighbourhood if it's the preserve of the rich - if nothing else, it becomes harder to recruit nurses, teachers, etc.

Social housing is at least partly for the good of the community.

I believe that the Grenfell tenants were being given priority to be found housing in the area because the reason they were homeless was due to the complete failure in duty of care on the part of the local authority, so it was felt the local authority had a responsibility to resolve the situation. Which doesn't actually seem unreasonable to me.

Finally, I get very exasperated with the 'well, why can't they just move. We did' brigade. It isn't that easy for everyone. Look at MN - at the people here who rely on family to provide childcare so they can work, who might have an ex living nearby that they have to provide 3 days per week access to his kids, at people who are reliant on local services for medical treatment (and the NHS is not consistent across the country, and moving can be dangerously disruptive), at people who don't have the room in their budget to add on the train fares from Kent or Sussex, at people who don't have the capacity to manage a long commute plus childcare.

In the Grenfell Tower situation, you're also looking at massively traumatised people with complex mental health needs. It would be massively neglectful of the local authority to put these people's lives in danger, kill huge numbers of their neighbours, friends and family, and then say "eh..not our issue. They can move to Luton and deal".

In the Grenfell Tower situation, you're also looking at massively traumatised people with complex mental health needs.

Well put. Healthcare folk say much the same:

NHS staff and representatives of the bereaved said that because only 45 of the 210 households made homeless have been permanently resettled, victims cannot begin proper psychological treatment to address symptoms. These include often horrific memories and flashbacks from the fire, which killed 71 people, including 18 children.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/14/failure-rehouse-grenfell-tower-survivors-could-worsen-mental-health

Also, you know council housing isn't just there to make the lives of the individuals easier. It's to improve the area in general. It's generally considered to not improve a neighbourhood if it's the preserve of the rich - if nothing else, it becomes harder to recruit nurses, teachers, etc.

I know that that was the ethos of council housing when it began way back a hundred years ago. It was a desperate need for house building combined with slum clearance that started the idea. With utopian visions of generous social mix.
However that was before the stratospheric rise in property prices - especially in areas such as RBKC - where the subsidy is so massive that it lends itself to people being able to obtain a massive financial advantage over the general population. It's this that is the problem. Not council housing in general. I believe in council housing in areas that need stimulation to the population. Not inner London where the subsidy runs at more than twice that of the market rent.

The issue of it becoming harder to recruit teachers etc is one that may be the ONLY way to bring a check on the rising prices. If the place becomes so expensive that mid priced professionals such as teachers and nurses are priced out, - then it will make it less desirable** - but in fact this will happen faster if basic services are priced out.
Once the owners of multi million pound homes cannot get cleaners, drivers, cooks, nannies, tutors, etc then it will become less desirable and prices will fall. At the moment those services are being subsided by the council.