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.

Well Applebee, it sounds very disablist. So perhaps you should.

And the point wasn't that the council ARE buying apartments in blocks like mine. It was YOUR point that they should just buy whatever the grenfell residents want. I was saying, then what would happen?

There you go again Apple.
Normal and decent people would not mind waiting longer ... I put it to you that normal and decent people WOULD mind, as the Grenfell Tower displaced have now had six months of priority for housing and are refusing offers.
Meanwhile normal and decent people (one assumes) have been unable to move, as there is a blanket ban on bidding for homes unless you are from Grenfell, I believe.
I will ask you again - do you think it is fair that someone who has only just moved into this country and has been illegally renting a flat from a landlord should be prioritised over someone who has been waiting on the K&C list for years?
It's a straight question, but all I get back is woolly responses about decency, empathy and what a traumatic experience the Grenfell Tower victims had.
Two scenarios (both hypothetical)
Scenario 1: K&C born single mum escaping domestic violence, in temporary bedsit accomodation with three young children
Scenario 2: Family from Malta entered the UK in March last year, were told by the council they could go on the list but the likely wait was 10 years. They decide to rent illegally from a subletting landlord.
Who do you think is most deserving?

But als cath, in Applebee lalaland, the illegal subletters should have a blank cheque to live somewhere fancy wherever they fancy, whereas the mum in temporary accommodation will have to make do with whatever they don't want.

And everyone should be happy to subsidise all these newly acquired luxury homes indefinitely, presumably?

Precisely, Rebecca, because units purchased by the council in luxury blocks would normally carry a much higher rent - but in the Grenfell case RBKC has agreed to take care of the difference between the rent they could have set and the benefits cap. If this is true, then the occupants will indeed be in receipt of an extra benefit that currently has no name. We are talking about money that RBKC has no right to be so extravagant with.

And the answer is not the council should build more homes or the Grenfell Tower victims have been very traumatised!
Straight question - can you give me a straight answer?
Who should get the one flat available?

Rebeccaslicker - ahhh I understand you now! your fuming because you may have to share your block of flats with commoners.

”disablist” you really are scraping the barrel now!
You know exactly what I meant,
Normal as in not a complete & utter ignorant ill informed uncaring ARSEHOLE

I’m off, hopefully someone will post a thread when the two inquiries are over & we know the facts .

Precisely. And yet some people seem to see it as an absolute blank cheque!

Hardly. there are no flats for sale in my actual block anyway.

But if you had two brain cells to rub together, you'd realise that it would be grossly unfair either to let some people not pay a service charge and use the facilities - or to not let them pay it and see facilities they can't use.

This is why you should think a bit before you bleat on and on about what the council should do. You clearly don't understand any of it.

Least of all those famous accounts and FOIs that never ever materialised

I don’t think Kensington & Chelsea council provided those flats

But they bought flats in Kensington Row. There are a number of links about this, try these.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-families-to-be-given-68-flats-in-luxury-apartment-complex

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-victims-kensington-row-rehoused-lbc-luxury-flats-a7806026.html

Can you answer my question Apple?

ChakraLines - the government purchased those flats

Yes, you are right Apple - but for whom?

And government money comes from........

A) tax payers
B) social housing rents (which has been your big justification all along, saying that the houses are to be bought from social housing rent surpluses)
C) a magical sky fairy who farts it out in big pink perfume scented clouds

Grenfell residents were paying service charges Rebeccaslicker

For fuck sake, please do some research before posting

Apple - are you going to answer my question, or are you going to ignore me until this thread closes in nine posts time?

Oh for fuck's sake, it's like talking to a sponge.

SOME of them were on benefits. The same ones who now don't want to move for fear of losing benefits/not maximising what they see as a rent free. So no. They probably weren't.

As for the rest. Are you seriously comparing a grenfell tower service charge with the kind of charges in the kind of blocks YOU seem to think should be bought? Seriously??!

Hahaha.

Rebeccaslicker - you have proved my point K&C should of spent the surplus and service charge keeping the Grenfell residents safe!

Then it wouldn’t of cost the tax payer!

Nobody's allowed to post until Apple answers my question!

Sorry cathf, what question ?

Sorry just seen it,

To put it simply both, K&C should of been spending the money where it is intended to be spent

More affordable housing !

K&C were too busy given wealthy tenants council tax refunds & subsidising operas with it

God "should of" sets my teeth on edge. It's "should have" for crying out loud.

Based on your own (guardian maths) figures, there was a £15m surplus. Sure. That would go a really long way to buying over 200 homes.

And no. Service charge surplus can't just be spent like that. For a start, you'd have to see what the arrangements were to see who even owns the surplus. Often it's held on trust for the tenants, for example. But mostly it is there to pay for SERVICES. Cleaning, insurance, that sort of thing.

Rebeccaslicker - you are assuming things again!

I hope the company that look after your block spend your service charge keeping the tenants safe rather than spend it elsewhere as K&C council did