Grenfell-ex-residents-should-get-a-3-bed-house-with-a-garden-if-thats-what-they-want? - thread 2

[cathf]

Don't know how to do links
But this is to continue discussing the Grenfall-ex-residents-should-get-a-3-bed-house-with-a-garden-if-thats-what-they-want? thread

There is a real them and us and it's not fair. I told you Cath some of the reasons homes were turned down but you would rather believe the papers.
We are talking about very vulnerable people here who have not only lost family but had their community split up . Now more than ever they need their neighbours who are going through the same as them. W14 flats were totally unsuitable for many reasons including trying to bring their kids into school . It's important that kids stay in their schools , any mental health practitioner will tell you that.
I'm listening to their stories of that night and I can tell you the trauma is not worth having for the sake of a house.
One elderly resident won't sleep until her friend comes to stay with her for a few hours to watch over her. I don't think you or I are in a position to talk about them quite frankly!

I think if they can't find a sloution soon then yes it may mean they have to move out of the borough, when we moved it was outside of our original borough to the next borough over so my other sister had to change primary school but I stayed at my secondary school I just had to make a longer commute to get there. I believe they should still be housed within west London even though it maybe a borough or two away from where they originally were.

I think the amnesty means they all get a permanent residence doesn’t it?

For the benefit of those who have not read the previous thread, it can be summarised thus:
Every one from Grenfell Tower should be rehomed as they wish in K&C. The fact there are no homes they want in K&C is irrelevant. The council should build them.
Every one who has been on the waiting list for council accommodation before Grenfell Tower thinks it's fine that the list is now closed to them. The fact that Grenfell families are turning down new-build flats but others in the list can not bid for them is fine also. If you don't think it's fine you are not normal or decent.
People who should have not been in Grenfell as they were subletting should go to the front of the waiting list
This is fine. If you don't think it's fine, you are clearly racist.
The people of Grenfell suffered terribly so this entitled them to everything they want. If you don't think this, you have no compassion.
You're welcome!

Cath, you forgot that even though some people were illegally sub-letting and hadn't lived there very long, they are an intrinsic part of the local community and therefore can't even contemplate living anywhere else, even a neighbouring estate or borough

Yes, I posted a link to the council policy on the other thread, confirming that illegal subletters are still in the replacement housing queue.

I understand why they did it, but it should also have shone a massive spotlight on the extent of subletting social tenancies. People found to be doing that should have the book thrown at them. Hard.

Yes, I posted a link to the council policy on the other thread, confirming that illegal subletters are still in the replacement housing queue.

I understand why they did it, but it should also have shone a massive spotlight on the extent of subletting social tenancies. People found to be doing that should have the book thrown at them. Hard.

Speaking of illegal subletting, I seem to remember asking on thread 1 whether it was likely that some actually want gardens so they can build further housing units in them ... be that "beds in sheds" or something else

Do any of the more rational posters think that's realistic, or am I being unfair?

It sounds unrealistic to me - I hadn't heard anything of the sort. But maybe I'm naive!

Never heard anything about that Puzzled (assuming I am one of the more rational poster's ...)

Posters! Damned autocorrect

So do you think that people who were renting illegally from a subletter should be put in front of people who have been waiting for years, Gardengeek?
Because if they had tried to rent through legal means, they would probably be at the back of the queue and face a very long wait.
Would you be happy with this situation if you had been in the K&C housing list for 5 or 6 years?

Fair enough - perhaps I'm BU. But "beds in sheds" is definitely a thing and it just occurred to me to wonder if some less scrupulous subletters might be keen to create more:

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/beds-in-sheds-crackdown-on-rogue-landlords-8685130.html

I have to agree Rebecca. pay the market rent like everyone else has to and the original tenant sub-letter should have no means to social housing again and seeing as they are quids in after illegally letting their property they won't require a council tenancy. A strong message should be sent out.

It is a terrible tragedy but what about the people who were flooded out of their homes and can't get insurance or soldiers who have been terribly injured.

Is that true? The people who illegally sublet council houses are also being given houses even though they were never there

The tenants who let out their flats hv total amnesty and hv not lost place in the queue. As regards the illegal renter, I think the same applies - though I would prefer that they were assessed on eligibility for council housing and if found eligible to join the queue, not jump it.

Subletting is absolutely rife; people can always squeeze in with relatives elsewhere and the money to be made is tempting.

There's been a series on TV about this. All it needs is more people to alert councils to what is going on, and councils to hire more investigators.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07d2rq8/episodes/guide

This is RBK&C bending over backwards and pacifying as much as possible. If you recall the scenes soon after the fire, a large number of Grenfellers mobbed council offices and forced their way in en masse. That kind of action had never been seen by RBK&C before and they got scared.

Those subletting their properties will probably sue the council for loss of income.

seeing as they are quids in after illegally letting their property (the subletters) won't require a council tenancy

It seems to me they won't need compensation either - though I've no doubt they'll demand it. If they've broken the contract with the council by subletting in the first place, surely that should make a difference to the council's responsibility

I also worry that all these "amnesties" are going a bit too far, and that they're sending out completely the wrong message

They seem to be above the law

A vast amount of the homeless population are ex military with PTSD. No one gives a fuck about them.

Posters like Apple - who I suspect we will not see again on this thread - are very reactive. They see something they think is unfair and they want to jump straight in and make it better, without thinking of the consequences. It's a very simplistic way of looking at things.

I think the real point is - when speaking of consequences - that there has been a terrible failure in social housing. And specific to this case, public safety.

The racism we have seen here is just awful as well.

Can you point to an example of racism please make?