Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

regeneration or social cleansing?!

103 replies

HelenaDove · 31/01/2018 17:40

morningstaronline.co.uk/article/ex-miners-face-eviction-to-make-way-for-luxury-flats

OP posts:
Originalfoogirl · 31/01/2018 20:01

mt there is no such thing as job security any more so your post is ridiculous.

Indeed, and if people weren’t hogging HA properties when they can afford to pay market rent, more properties would be available for others who happen to need them at that point. I would happily see a tax rise to pay for more social housing to help those who need it but I’m not keen to pay for houses for people who can afford to go it alone.

bluebells1 · 31/01/2018 20:14

"But why should home owners have a greater right to the stability of their housing than a tenant?"

Because home owners own the house/have an equity? It is simple. If you don't own your house outright (without a mortgage), you are at a risk of losing your house. If you are renting, eventually you have to return the property to its actual owner when they require it or when you are meant to as per the contract. Endless lets are simply stupid.

Cherrycokewinning · 31/01/2018 20:16

If your HA are going to regenerate your estate snap their bloody hand off. I’ve never seen tenants worse off

TheHungryDonkey · 31/01/2018 20:59

I don’t know if it’s social cleansing if they are moved back in. But I can empathise with a lady whose home has been there for 34 years. It must be a distressing time. Even being moved out temporarily is no fun and being miles away from a disabled family member you Support is a nightmare.

Unless one has had the emotional turbulence of losing a home and being displaced with no idea what the future holds it’s too easy to overlook the impact it can have on people in place of logistiscs and solutions.

Or as one pp suggested, they could just buy a house because that’s really fucking simple.

Original poster
HelenaDove · 01/02/2018 01:10

its the attitude of the HA "oh they can just go to a b and b or Colchester or Chelmsford.

What about disabled tenants What are they supposed to do?

Are they still having to pay rent while living in this b and b.

OP posts:
foieGras · 01/02/2018 05:21

This reply has been deleted

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

makeourfuture · 01/02/2018 05:53

It is a terrible Social cleansing.

I thought we had moved past these things. Apparently not.

Angrybird345 · 01/02/2018 06:39

There’s no such thing as a home for life unless you buy, so it is YABU

TheHungryDonkey · 01/02/2018 07:03

Yes I agree with the Colchester or Chelmsford comment. It really stood out and was very telling. I was wondering who was going to pay for things like storage for peoples belongings if they were in B&Bs or couldn’t take everything with them for some reason.

Being made homeless with children took me to a very dark place, literally and figuratively. Unless people have been in that situation they won’t understand the helplessness and frustration of the situation. You are at the total mercy and control of others and have no say at all. It’s just awful. I feel for these people. It’s not as simple as buy or private rent. Landlords or agents wouldn’t take me on despite working full time because I was a single mum.

Last month when the housing association nearly blew up our new home and we were evacuated, it was the most frustrating thing too. Literally stuck outside on the street with the staff all arguing with each other about whose responsibility it was to deal with certain things and not actually talking to the tenants. They went home that evening without making sure there was somewhere for us to go. Which there wasn’t. Bunch of wankers.

charlestonchaplin · 01/02/2018 08:01

Near me it is the homeowners and private renters that are disadvantaged. The social tenants will move back into the new homes. The homeowners are facing compulsory purchase, but with what they are being offered they will struggle to buy anything in the new development, or anywhere else locally or in the surrounding area.

Rebeccaslicker · 01/02/2018 09:03

It's also the balance between building all these new homes and the infrastructure/what's there already.

My local council is committed to adding a few thousand houses to what was a small country town not so long ago over the next few years. Bang will go all the nice green spaces and small town atmosphere that are why we moved here. It took me over 2 hours to drive 10 miles home last night, and I was only in the car in the first place because the trains are so badly overcrowded and I'm sick of fighting for standing room at 8 months pregnant.

How are we going to juggle providing the 200,000 or so homes a YEAR that are needed AND making sure people can actually get around and live without ruining the environment and countryside that makes England such a "green and pleasant land"? I haven't seen any convincing plans from any party as yet, but I see lots from developers that don't look great.

makeourfuture · 01/02/2018 09:13

I was only in the car in the first place because the trains are so badly overcrowded

Quality public transport is important. There is a school of thought in planning that puts transport as the foundation for development. There have been successful applications.

Original poster
HelenaDove · 01/02/2018 13:15

Hungry Donkey that is appalling But unfortunately im not surprised.

Is everything ok now?

This is something i saw recently which proves they can get away with anything.

www.property118.com/social-landlord-not-prosecuted-despite-mass-gas-safety-breaches/

OP posts:
RolyRocks · 01/02/2018 13:35

Obviously I don't know the full situation in this case bar the articles posted but I must admit to being very happy when the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke, London was demolished, with new homes and open spaces built.

It was an awful estate and many of the residents hated living there and it was an extremely volatile place to be. Words cannot genuinely describe what a bleak area this was with a haven for criminals, mixed in with vulnerable residents scared to come home every day (I knew of a boy who would come home from school and sit on the stairs in the block for a couple of hours, waiting for gangs to move from his landing. Even then, there were residents who refused to move, even though they were being offered new bigger homes not next to crack dens.
The area is still be re-built but is now a safe area to live in, work in and visit for all ages/residents including much needed facilities.

Therefore, by not knowing both sides of this story including hearing from residents happy to move, I'm open to the fact that regeneration may also be needed in this situation.

TheHungryDonkey · 01/02/2018 13:52

Yes it isn’t thanks but lawks don’t get me started on gas safety! Our gas pipes weren’t fitted to building regulations which nearly caused a huge explosion. The HA tried to convince me that it was just my flat with illegally fitted gas pipes. I suspect the other 22 flats probably have illegally fitted gas pipes too but the HA won’t have it. I just live in hope that nobody in the building hammers their carpet down or boom.

TheHungryDonkey · 01/02/2018 13:52

Is not isn’t!

Original poster
HelenaDove · 01/02/2018 13:55

Donkey Shock it shows that Grenfell has changed fuck all.

Seems breaches in safety only count when its a tenant doing it.

OP posts:
Cath2907 · 01/02/2018 13:56

A council house shouldn't be guaranteed for life. They should be for those that meet a "need" threshold. I think council tenants should be re-evaluated every 5 years and required to move to private accomodation if they no longer meet the "need" criteria for a council house.

Original poster
HelenaDove · 01/02/2018 13:59

Donkey have you logged any calls you have made to the HA just in case (God forbid) something does happen. Have you sought help from anyone outside the HA.

OP posts:
Original poster
HelenaDove · 01/02/2018 14:01

Cath and what if the private landlord then decides to sell up

If ppl like you enjoy a game of chess may i respectfully suggest you use an actual chess board and pieces not social housing tenants

OP posts:
TheHungryDonkey · 02/02/2018 14:57

Helena, I made sure there’s plenty of paper trail. It took me a long time to feel safe in the flat again.

It’s pointless moving social housing tenants out. Incomes rise and fall, landlords buy and sell. It’s just taking a family and putting them back in an unstable environment again. Then the great circle of shit starts all over again.

Rebeccaslicker · 02/02/2018 15:01

But then you end up with people like Bob Crow - great big salary and keeping a cheap secure tenancy. That can't be right.

I agree with reassessing periodically. Yeah, a private landlord may sell. That's what private renting is like. Similarly interest rates may rise or the property market may plunge and homeowners may have a real problem.

That's life!!

Andrewofgg · 02/02/2018 15:04

But why should home owners have a greater right to the stability of their housing than a tenant?

Because they have paid for the right to live there as long as they see fit?

Rebeccaslicker · 02/02/2018 15:13

This suggests there's about 21,000 households on a high income in social housing - ok it's not a huge number but 21,000 homes being freed up would be a start. Certainly cheaper than Corbyn's idea of buying 8,000 homes!! - and that the average social renter is subsidised by the tax payer to the tune of about £3,500 pa:

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-council-house-tenants-earn-60000

RadioGaGoo · 02/02/2018 15:33

Regeneration.

Swipe left for the next trending thread