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.

Surely those tenants that were illegally subletting a property in Grenfell should bear some legal responsibility towards the deaths of the people they were housing as overcrowding would have been one of the reasons why people could not get out.

If, and almost surely when, it goes to civil litigation, this may be something. Occupier's liability?

More likely just straight landlord and tenant law (breach of quiet enjoyment/non derogation from grant/negligence) - but the problem would be that the individual tenants who were subletting weren't responsible for the cladding or other common parts, I suspect.

Be much better to take their tenancies away, fine the arses off them to deter others, and use the money for more social housing. But it's one thing to fine someone and another to get the money out of them!

www.letlink.co.uk/2016-01-21-12-29-33/disrepair/103-articles/negligence/395-property-hazards-and-the-landlords-duty-of-care

Makeourfuture, do we know they were overcrowded?Not sure on HMO laws on flats to be honest.
If they were not over crowded, the legal tenant would just in breech of the tenancy agreement, wouldn't they? Would this be a criminal matter?
Not sure how that particular element of the Grenfell disaster will pan out

Here you go cath - it can be a bit more complicated for flats, so here's a good summary:

www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/housing_act/docs/all/what_is_an_hmo.shtml

Goodness that's complicated. I knew there was something to do with number of storeys but the law seems to be very wooly.
Based on that, I think most tenants who were illegally subletting their flats out against the tenancy agreement will be able to wriggle out of any trouble.
Still doesn't change the fact they were wrong to do it, and the people they were subletting to were wrong too.

I thought the fire was caused by a faulty fridge igniting and the fire taking hold very quickly? No local or national government department started the fire. It was a cheap faulty fridge exploding.

Makeourfuture, do we know they were overcrowded?

I don't know if I have the legal knowledge or abilities to untangle where this thing is heading.

As far as criminal charges, I have no idea. Articles I have read speak of corporate manslaughter. While individuals seemingly are usually not targeted under this, statutory damages - from what I have read - are uncapped. As far as I am aware, criminal convictions can be used as evidence in civil litigation. That is about the depth of my knowledge.

Now regarding civil litigation - we must assume that there are insurance companies involved who will be looking to settle. A very obvious action would be negligence, specifically breach of duty of care. Multiple defendants? Perhaps, but you always target the deep pockets.

DUTY OF CARE

Leading case law regarding establishment of duty of care is Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990]. It establishes the Caparo test, where the claimant must establish:

1. That harm was reasonably foreseeable
2. That there was a relationship of proximity
3. That it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Number three is pretty much a "get out" clause, but I think it would be a foregone conclusion that whoever was in charge of that building would be found to have a duty of care.

BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE

Was there a breach of this duty of care? The leading case law here is Wagonmound II [1967]. It establishes a "sliding scale" of sorts. The likelihood of this tragedy happening is weighed against the seriousness of possible harm and the cost to prevent it.

I would think it would be easy to argue breach (but never a given).

CAUSATION

Moving on to causation. It gets interesting here. There is a thing called the "but for" scenario - Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1969] and Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982]. "But for this" would the tragedy have happened as it did? Here we have to think about that faulty refrigerator and a host of other things. Management may not have been responsible for that faulty refrigerator but did their (possible) breach of duty cause the real damage (allow a small fire to engulf the whole building)?

A good lawyer (on either side) can do all kinds of things with this.

REMOTENESS

Finally we move to remoteness. Wagonmound I [1961]. Damage must be of a kind which was foreseeable. Once damage is of a kind that is foreseeable the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage no matter whether the extent of the damage is foreseeable.

Now this is important. As I mentioned a few pages ago - if you own a block of flats, or a hotel, is it reasonably foreseeable that a fire may break out? Not a huge blaze, because Wagonmound I establishes that once damage is of a kind that is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage no matter whether the extent of the damage is foreseeable.

Now this is what the powers that be are staring at. If you can show these four things:

• Duty of care
• Breach of duty of care
• Causation
• Not too remote

Then you have a strong argument.

Then you have possible negligently inflicted psychiatric injury.

llang the local authority housing department WERE the ones who had arranged for the entire building to be wrapped in a highly effective "wick".

Otherwise, the main inherent safety feature of high rise cast-concrete blocks is that, by design, fire stays compartmentalised.

the local authority housing department WERE the ones who had arranged for the entire building to be wrapped in a highly effective "wick".

I mean this is a big deal.

And again it is probably reasonably foreseeable that at some point there would be a faulty appliance in one of the units. Or that someone would leave the iron on or what have you. Wrapping the place in a wick turns what would be a compartmentalised situation into a massive tragedy.

Going back to the main post, which has nothing to do with subletting, it was the local council that went for the cheapest option with poor materials that led to this avoidable disaster, causing many lives to be lost and many others to be shattered irreversibly.
Unless you have been through this yourself no one has the right to judge or to decide what they do or don't deserve. These people have been through unimaginable pain and misery, and through absolutely no fault of their own. By the time they've finished suing the local authority I hope they'll be able to afford their own houses, and they deserve that at the very least!
In the meantime - if your house burnt down through no fault of your own [- in fact through someone else's negligence, you would expect to be covered whether you own it or not - and be housed temporarily somewhere suitable, convenient - especially in this case where families still need normality and to go to work, school etc, they don't need further upheaval!
Put yourself in their shoes How would you feel if this happened to you??

If my house burnt down or was flooded as has happened in cumbria I would go anywhere if they could offer me a safe house.

Honestly Emsmum?
I agree with ilovegin, I would be relieved that I was rehoused safely.
And to be honest, if I had been renting illegally, I would be grateful for anything, because I would know that I was actually entitled to nothing

Maybe that last sentence should read that I would be (as an illegal subletters) amazed I was entitled to anything.
As for the cladding, it looks as if this will be the major contributor to the fire spreading so quickly, but nothing is proven yet.
The cladding had passed building regs and is used extensively around the world, both in social and private housing.
I am not sure why some people seem to think the council should have had a crystal ball and foreseen this, to be honest, but I am willing to proved wrong when the report comes out.

EMSMUM16

it was the local council that went for the cheapest option with poor materials
That's not true. They chose materials above basic specs that all met building regs.

Unless you have been through this yourself no one has the right to judge or to decide what they do or don't deserve.
Such a ridiculous thing to say on any matter that occurs to any human being, ever. Everyone has the right to form a judgment and opinion, whoever is being asked to provide anything for them has the right to decide what they deserve.

These people have been through unimaginable pain and misery, and through absolutely no fault of their own.
As millions of others have done for generations.

In the meantime - if your house burnt down through no fault of your own.. you would expect to be covered whether you own it or not
Eh? No. Individuals whose houses they own burn down have to find somewhere else to live. They are not covered by anybody except emergency accommodation in some extreme cases when they cannot afford a hotel for the night.

and be housed temporarily somewhere suitable, convenient
No, that doesn't happen. Individuals are expected to get on with it wherever that may be. If it means moving hundreds of miles away from home now they can't afford to live where they want, we do.

especially in this case where families still need normality and to go to work, school etc, they don't need further upheaval!
If you don't want upheaval and you want to stay somewhere, support yourself and make that choice with your own funds. Don't stamp your feet and expect all of us to pay for you.

Put yourself in their shoes How would you feel if this happened to you??
I will think - right, I need to provide a roof over my own head and that of my family. I need to find work to support ourselves. I will move heaven and earth to look after ourselves and continue with my life. I will not spend a moment more demanding other taxpayers fund my life.

some people seem to think the council should have had a crystal ball and foreseen this, to be honest, but I am willing to proved wrong when the report comes out.

Indeed we cannot foresee every eventuality. And no one can afford to build a cocoon around every person.

Wagon Mound was a ship at dock in a harbour refueling. The fuel pipe was old but usable. The mate in charge of watching over the process was instead loafing about. Fuel goes in the water, a lot of it. Mate then throws his fag end over the side of the boat and the entire harbour, including several ships, goes up in flames.

Who is responsible? Was there negligence? By whom?

The courts decided that there is a sliding risk scale. If an action/situation is very likely to occur, will kill a lot of people, and is cheap to fix (like this old pipe) then there is breach. If it is a rare event, unlikely to happen, doesn't do much harm and is expensive to fix then there is probably no breach.

Only a judge can determine where this tower disaster lies on that scale, but we can argue - make our case.

Was it reasonably foreseeable that a fire might break out in a block? An older block. Frayed wires. A kid with a candle. An old refrigerator.

Knowing the occupancy, is it reasonably foreseeable that if that small fire spread many could die?

It will in all likelihood be settled. What insurance company would go to court facing these circumstances?

Ah - an internet lawyer. Marvellous! You've already said you're not qualified to form a view on the legals. It takes a bit more than googling a few historic cases...

As for the local authority being sued enough for each of these people to buy themselves a home - who exactly do you think will pay for that in the long term? All the other residents of the borough. So you want all these people, many of whom were there illegally, to be greatly enriched at the expense of everyone else? Can't you see that goes far and above compensating them, even for something as awful as what happened?

Totally disagree ems. If the fire hadn't happened some residents were doing fine particularly those with sublet flats.

As I said earlier many were from overseas and I often wonder what the person's standard of living would be in their country of origin. If they have dc they are schooled and they have access to the NHS.

The legal tenants will need rehousing but they should be grateful for what they are given as many of the British are stuck in private rentals

Ah - an internet lawyer. Marvellous! You've already said you're not qualified to form a view on the legals. It takes a bit more than googling a few historic cases...

Well never take legal advice from the internet, it is true. And I prefaced my ramblings like that so that no one will mistake me for a qualified solicitor.

This said, the above outline is the current logic trail and supporting case law (stare decisis) for negligent breach of duty of care.

This thread keeps going round in circles!
Every day or so, someone comes on to state that everyone affected by the fire should get everything they want, no questions asked, with no thought to how this is possible.
Do they not read the thread??

Flowerpot1234 -
Yep, ignorance is bliss....
The Local Council went for the cheapest option! of course they did. Tell me - whose responsibility is it? so a fire breaks out, spreads like forest fire, then you think that those people who were housed in the block should find themselves alternative accommodation?
What about people who lost family members or who are seriously ill (mentally or physically)?
And of course you can form an opinion, but it is limited by your lack of experience in this matter - you cannot judge another unless you have walked in their shoes, to do so is simply ignorant.
And it is not the case that families would be expected to move 'hundreds of miles' away from schools, temporarily, it really is not, do your homework before you write - search temporary accommodation for housing departments.
'Stand on your own two feet' - emm, what? after the trauma of losing people and losing their home, you sound like a reasonable and empathic human being (cough). Also while your at looking up housing departments on the net, go to trauma, PTSD, grief and losing your home, oh and possibly coping with the loss of a loved one, then I dare you to really think about whether someone who has experienced all of these in one go would be in a position to 'stand on their own two feet'.
What people have suffered for generations? really? that's your argument?, back to school with you.
How judgmental of you to suggest that people who suffered this tragedy didn't work to support their family, or are sponging off the state to be rehoused. That's gold, it really is...
And your last comment is exactly what I am talking about, no you really cannot know what your response would be if this happened to you, you really don't, so don't pretend you would pull yourself up by the bootstraps and move on, you can't know because you haven't been there or probably anything like it. If you had you certainly would be likely to learn a bit of compassion, human understanding and empathy.
woodhill - I find your post unusually irritating.
It is not our place to judge other people's lives or where they come from or what their standard of living is or was prior to this. FFs so if you had a car accident that say was not your fault, you would just decide to walk away without holding anyone responsible - oh and what if there were passengers or if someone died? what you'd say - 'well you had a shitty car so well you don't deserve another one, a newer one or a temporary one that meets your needs'.

Some people on here need a new education, perhaps it would be wise instead of banding about these 'I'm only interested in me and mine' opinions and grow a heart.

EMSMUM16

it is limited by your lack of experience... do your homework before you write... you sound like a reasonable and empathic human being (cough)... back to school with you... Some people on here need a new education...

Good grief.

Yep, ignorance is bliss....
Enjoy your bliss. It will be neverending, of that I am sure.

This is an interesting point.

Humans are actually terrible at individual survival. Tossed out in the wilds, the strongest of us last only a week or so. We don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are weak. But exposure gets us the quickest.

Our species has survived in spite of these shortcomings by living in societies. Working together. Picking up the slack sometimes, and being carried sometimes.

I pay for roads I will never travel, and someone else helps pay for me if I need an operation I cannot afford.

This is a cause for celebration, not for hatred.

HEAR ! HEAR ! EMSMUM16

Thank you

I wonder if tenants that had been legally privately renting a property in Grenfell (such as the two men who had only been living there for about a week before the tragedy) will be given the same kind of compensation and rehousing as someone who has either been illegally subletting their council property or was illegally living in a sublet within the tower?