Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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
5
Viviennemary · 11/12/2017 12:38

Public housing is subsidised in that it doesn't rent at the commercial value for that area.

C8H10N4O2 · 11/12/2017 12:39

Public housing is subsidised in that it doesn't rent at the commercial value for that area

That is not a subsidy. That is declining to squeeze the maximum short term profit out of a business.

C8H10N4O2 · 11/12/2017 12:41

Incidentally - not all the Grenfell residents were public housing tenants. Many were private tenants.

However K&C as the leaseholders, collecting all the communal charges were responsible for the fabric of the building and its safety.

KathArtic · 11/12/2017 12:50

cathf You are absolutely right.

I could see straight away all the little charities and support groups popping up 'speaking for the residents'. Sadly they just speak for their own cause - making it political, glossing over facts that don't support their claims (immigrants/subletting) and claiming hundreds will have died.

The residents have an absolute right to turn down any housing they feel is unsuitable, but they can't then sit in B&B's claiming to have been forgotten.

Ylvamoon · 11/12/2017 12:52

Why don't the Grenfall residents get "like for like"? They were happy to live in a flat - why the sudden change? Why the need to move up? (Yes, a fire is traumatic, but I am a firm believer that sometimes anything is better than nothing.)
According to my home insurance policy that is what I would get if my house was to burn down. Actually they would re- build it...
I know there is the additional problems with a shortage of homes and people should be more realistic about what is available and affordable.

expatinscotland · 11/12/2017 12:52

I guess no one in Grenfell worked hard all their lives or worked hard Hmm.

coconuttella · 11/12/2017 12:55

I wish people who post nonsense like this could grasp that people in council houses pay rent, ffs.

But given that for many these rents will be largely be paid by housing benefit means they are publicly funded and provided housing.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be housing benefit, I’m just pointing out that this housing is very heavily, if not fully, subsidised. The issue is there are too many people and not enough houses... this drives the burgeoning housing benefit bill and the lack of affordable housing in London, esp in K&C

BubblesBuddy · 11/12/2017 12:59

There are problems in that Grenfell tenants want to stay in the same area but want larger houses. There are virtually no properties available but no doubt there may be in other areas, but they don’t want that and will not move. There is no solution is there? Building plots are like hens teeth in K and C.

Obviously a number were sub letting to friends and this has not helped the situation. Some made money from their position of having housing.

I think Council tenants should have to relinquish bigger properties when they don’t need them any more. It is a social thing to do to help others. Instead people cling on to what they have. Of course this is dependent on there being a suitable property to move to. As councils have not been allowed to build and housing associations have struggled to build, the suits or properties are difficult to find.

There has always been a private rental market in this country but Council houses were much nicer so worth going for when you could. Selling them off has been a dusastrous policy but tenants don’t pay for new heating, new windows and all the other upgrading of houses that takes place. They are very much subsidised!

mirime · 11/12/2017 13:13

Ylvamoon@

Yes, a fire is traumatic, but I am a firm believer that sometimes anything is better than nothing.

In that case a B&B is 'better than nothing' and they could just stay where they are.

You think that choosing not to live somewhere that is likely to increase stress levels and trauma symptoms is unreasonable? Maybe to them that's not better than nothing, I imagine for some it would be worse.

ArcheryAnnie · 11/12/2017 13:14

I’m just pointing out that this housing is very heavily, if not fully, subsidised.

Then you are pointing out something that is incorrect, coconutella Yes, some people were on housing benefit. Other people worked and paid their own rent. Just like in private rental housing.

Franklin77 · 11/12/2017 13:18

But ArcheryAnnie, coconutella is completely correct. Those on housing benefit are subsidised by other taxpayers. Those paying their rent without housing benefit were either paying subsidised rent as social housing tenants or were illegal subletters paying fully private rent to illegal subletting social housing tenants.

bobbyjim · 11/12/2017 13:21

OldPony
maybe because I worked in minimum wage jobs all my life with no private pension so could never afford to plan for my old age, and my children lived with us a well, does that answer your question?

BubblesBuddy · 11/12/2017 13:23

The rents do not take into account the cost of repairs and maintenance and upgrading. They are subsidised. The rents do not take all costs into account. My DDis has had substantial upgrading of her flat and didn’t pay for anything. They wait for a maintenance man to put the loo seat back on. Her and her DP both have professional jobs and have inherited money. A lot of money. They keep others out of a 2 bed flat that need it more. It’s in a cheap to buy area of the country. It is purely sponging when so many people don’t have housing and have no large sums of money behind them. They can afford to buy. Lots of people will not move. It is not acceptable and letting contracts should be means tested and terminated where tenants are well off.

cathf · 11/12/2017 13:24

I must admit, I did read in the immediate aftermath of the fire about a Maltese mum and her children (Maltese) who were living in poor conditions in temporary accommodation, and I did wonder for a moment how did the UK manage to get into a situation where we were responsible for housing a family from Malta in subsidised housing in one of the most desirable boroughs in the country?
Then I realised I would be accused of being racist and did not post my thoughts on here.

Annorlunda5 · 11/12/2017 13:27

I didn't think tenants ever had to pay for repairs and maintenance, even in private sector, as long as it wasn't caused by the tenant? Bubbles

woodhill · 11/12/2017 13:29

Yes I agree Katherine, it's absolutely ridiculous and all this about building more affordable housing, what's the point if the people already here are pushed aside

woodhill · 11/12/2017 13:30

Cath silly autocorrect

OldPony · 11/12/2017 13:38

Bobbyjim,

I don't understand why the tax payer should have to pay for your wet room and house move because you didn't progress your earning potential and had several children.

I decided to only have one child, so I could buy my own house and save for when I'm old and frail. It never occurred to me to expect the state to pay for me. I don't want to pay for you and your family. I would rather have had another child tbh.

cathf · 11/12/2017 13:40

Also aghast at the lack of empathy for Bobbyjim and her situation. My opinion of people who turn down scarce housing offers is castigated, yet people like Bobbyjim are rounded on because they haven't saved to enable them to move out of social housing.
Double standards or what?

Ylvamoon · 11/12/2017 13:45

mirime- yes a B&B is adequate if you have nothing.
And most residents have been offered permanent housing, it just was not what/ where they expected. And than, the circle is complete... anything is better than nothing (if you don't want to be permanently in a B&B).

OldPony · 11/12/2017 13:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

LondonGirls · 11/12/2017 13:54

I think C8H10N4O2 has hit the nail on the head
K&C council should be forced to spend the huge amounts of money they made & are still making on council property,
These poor people were paying £200 per week plus service charges
The council will have to start building or buying houses

specialsubject · 11/12/2017 13:56

Correct, private tenants also don't pay for maintenance, it is included in the rent.

Much as mn doesn't like it, private landlords try to make a profit. I doubt all the anti landlord squealers go to work for free, and they also seem happy that food and other essentials aren't sold at cost. Let alone stupid shoes, pointless handbags and all the other clutter.

Rebeccaslicker · 11/12/2017 13:56

Where do you propose they build them? Over Holland Park, maybe?!

LondonGirls · 11/12/2017 13:58

As for the intentionally ignorant posters on here.... this inquiry will prove that it’s the council tenants who have been subsidising K&C council to the tune of millions