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.

Mothertruck - and how many of those pay-in more in terms of tax, NI than they take out in terms of benefits, education costs, healthcare costs, housing costs etc? There are lots of part-time (16 hour per week) low paid workers in this country who get lots of top-ups in the form of benefits (paid for from taxpayers money). Very few low paid people would be able to live in London on only their wage. What is the point of importing millions of people who take out more than they pay in and put even more stress on an already stressed infrastructure, not to mention the costs to cultural cohesion. That is why immigration should be restricted to skilled workers and benefits should be time limited, just as they are in almost all of Europe, including such terrible fascist places as Germany and Scandinavia

I'm afraid this is sad but true. I work in Social Housing and it's very difficult to make the argument that low paid migrants working here are contributing much to the economy. They might work hard, but are poorly paid and what they are paying in tax is a fraction of what they get back in child benefit, tax credits and housing benefit. We have many who seem to have an old fashioned family model abandoned by most working Britain decades ago: dad goes out to work a poorly paid job, mum stays at home with 3 kids and doesnt work at all. It's the taxpayer supporting that set up regardless of how hard dad is working or how good their intentions are. They need to limit migration, because the strain on housing and public services is far too great.

Rebeccaslicker
Why should amyone provide proof to you?? This is not actually a research piece of work! Your opinion is just as valid as the next persons... & you know, what we read & see are not always going to be 'THE FACTS' . I wouldn't necessarily trust figures from any council. I wouldn't trust media reports about subletters or any other allegation made either.
None of us really know, we are drip fed information about the aftermath.
I saw the fire with my own eyes though, the loss of life, destruction of lives. That I do believe.

But when you claim figures as proof of 'wrongdoing', surely those figures being true is kind of important?

I've just looked at the accounts, and can't see a whalloping surplus. Besides, there should be one in the long term.

In modern society money is normally the thing that is given in exchange for personal disaster that is not your fault, there is nothing unusual about this.

it's not normal.

If a disaster befalls my house, I am covered because I pay for insurance. Even then, some people aren't covered (often, people can't get for example flood insurance if they live in a flood prone place).

The figures are true the council are not denying this,
I feel if people can find the time to post on such emotive threads they should also spend some time doing their own research,
Kensington & Chelsea Council made roughly £15 million this past year & I think about £19 million the year before on council housing.

That money should of been spent on more social housing or at least making current housing safe.

if social housing was a real money maker for councils, wouldn't they all be building tons of social housing?

And these load paid workers are occupying the social housing that I think the indigenous population should have priority to plus there is a pretence that migrants do not get social housing

You would think so wouldn’t you ?

All housing makes a profit, some bigger than others, hopefully the criminal inquiry will at least get to the bottom of who/what contractor or management company was milking the system,

As that’s what it was set up to do

I hope the fire fighters from all over London also put a claim in as many have had their lives ruined by this tragedy.

As a business owner I am obligated to make my premises safe for the fire brigade I would be prosecuted if I didn’t,
I hope the council are treated the same .

woodhill - you are making assumptions about migrants again,

no one knows how many victims were migrants and even if they were ALL migrants they would of been paying a lot more than the £195 per week the council were charging and a damn site more than my mortgage payments !

I was responding to equals post which says it all

And on a wider scale, not necessarily Grenfell

The material used in the cladding was supposed to be used in buildings of no more than 4 storeys. But it would have been sensible not to use it at all.

I get why some would not want to live in a high rise flat. I think if that’s their preference and they want a house instead they will need to accept that they will have to move out the area. Houses in Kensington are basically unaffordable for anyone but the most rich. I certainly would never be able to afford to live there.

Ach, it's because Applebee talks out of her arse. She is no more capable of obtaining and reading and understanding an FOI or a set of substantial accounts than she is of basic punctuation and grammar.

She was asked for proof of what she was saying because she made huge sweeping statements as if they were fact, citing her "local knowledge" as a "local business owner". That she has failed to provide even a single basic link to support her own claims and accusations says it all. She's in cloud cuckoo land and believes her own crap!

"even if they were ALL migrants they would -of- have been paying a lot more than the £195 per week the council were charging and a damn site more than my mortgage payments !"

Not sure I follow. If occupants were NOT the legal tenants they may well have been paying the full whack & more, but not to the council. It was the sleazebag tenant who was pocketing whatever rent he was charging. The £ difference between his subsidised rent (which he continued to pay) and what he was gouging from the sublet may have been x3.

All housing makes a profit, some bigger than others This is not true! Social housing is usually heavily subsidised by central government grants at build stage. The costs of maintaining it and providing a housing management service on an ongoing basis after that are high and rising, given that social housing is becoming more marginalised and residualised. The people we house are more and more likely to have high support needs. Furthermore, it's further subsidised by tax payers via housin benefit/UC. Over 60% of social housing tenants rely on HB.

Grenfell was built in the 1970s

Grenfell was built in the 1970s

the council could rent out the flats for higher than what they rent it to social tenants. it is subsidised.

It’s great that real victims of the fire (those that actually lived in the building) are being offered support in the form of accommodation in hotels, £300 a week towards food, counselling etc. What isn’t so great is the people who had never even been in the building (I’m thinking of relatives of the victims who have managed to come from overseas since the fire) have also managed to secure the same rights and are currently staying in very nice hotels and being given £300 a week to each adult as well as access to many other services. I understand them being able to come for funerals and so on but being able to stay for months on end (and quite possibly a lot longer/forever) makes no sense at all.

Rebecca that is bloody rude

This is a really hateful thread.

Whatever way you look at it, it is blatantly obvious where responsibility lies

Is it though? Though no expert, it appears to me to be a complicated, multi faceted issue, and while we all have our own views I'd rather rely on the results of the enquiry than silly quotes from online beggars such as the Guardian

Not that the enquiry will be accepted by some if it doesn't say exactly what they want to hear ...

Not that the enquiry will be accepted by some if it doesn't say exactly what they want to hear.

Correct It wont!!

... people who had never even been in the building (I’m thinking of relatives of the victims who have managed to come from overseas since the fire) have also managed to secure the same rights and are currently staying in very nice hotels and being given £300 a week to each adult as well as access to many other services

What???!!!!

I confess I hadn't heard about this - do you have any links to the issue please?

birdseye2010 - the council would of had bring the building up to a certain standard to get full market rent for it .

That’s not the definition of subsidy.