In the shadow of Grenfell Tower- thread four

[RhythmAndStealth]

Rest in Peace

Isaac Shawo, 5
Khadija Saye, 24
Mohammed Alhalaji, 23

At least thirty people confirmed to have died

Six further deceased victims provisionally identified

Many more people feared to have died. They have yet to be reunited with their names

Nineteen people still in hospital, with ten in critical care

Many people homeless and dispossessed

Many bereaved

Many traumatised

“…it is difficult to escape a very sombre national mood.” The Queen.

Three investigations launched- Fire, Police and Public Inquiry
£5m Government Emergency Fund created
£3m donated by public
Peaceful protesters demand justice and answers.

Thread three (includes links to threads one and two)

Council have apparently told residents that if they don't accept what / where they're offered, they will be considered to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

Kirinim I could well believe this. I watch a documentary about a year ago and a family were sent from a north London borough up to Wolverhampton. They didn't want to go but were told that they had to if they wanted to be housed. It was a single mum and her two kids. She had no choice.

Council have apparently told residents that if they don't accept what / where they're offered, they will be considered to have made themselves intentionally homeless.

This is possibly true, but people are going to have to realise that the council really are not in the position to offer every household in Grenfell Tower several options of different housing, though I would expect them not to rehome GT residents in another tower block. They have said people will be housed in the borough or in some of the neighbouring boroughs - surely this is the most important aspect of being rehomed? Continuity of care for health services and education would be provided, and there would be some continuity of community for the residents.

Or if they have family elsewhere and choose that area then that council has to house them?

Read the block. Amazing firefighters. Heroes.

Saucery I think if that's what the residents wanted then that would be fair - however - they would then lose the sense of continuity. I am unsure how other council's are with the housing situation at the moment; I know a few areas where there are empty council flats / houses (Fife has several - there was a documentary on it last year), but I don't know if these are all habitable at present.

Monkey but in London even moving into a neighbouring borough could mean it takes you 1.5 hrs to take your child to school in the morning. And they aren't just saying that, they are telling families they might have to accept accommodation all across the UK.

It's completely unreasonable. If as a private tenant your house burns down, your landlord is legally obligated to offer you an alternative, equivalent property. Just because some of these people are social tenants it doesn't mean they don't have equivalent rights.

I used to live in Kensington, and the rich bits of it are like a ghost town in places. Hundreds of properties standing empty. I fully support their requisition.

K&C Have £210million in the bank. They have increased their coffers during a time of austerity. They can afford to find housing in their borough

"they are telling families they might have to accept accommodation all across the UK. "

Firstly, I have not seen anyone in the council say this - I have heard it being saying in a "my friend of an uncle" type of way, but not anyone from the council; they have said K&C or a neighbouring borough and this is what TM has also said. I hope they honour what they have been saying within the three-week timeframe. They have said they will ensure residents are rehomed so that continuity with schools, GPs, and mental health care are maintained.

I know this area very well - I used to live there (until recently), I now live in one of the neighbouring boroughs - Camden. Previously I lived in Westminster. I also used to live in Kensington - I did not see the rich bits as "ghost towns". There were some quieter parts of the borough but there are not rows upon rows of empty houses as you seem to be suggesting?

"Just because some of these people are social tenants it doesn't mean they don't have equivalent rights. '

I am not saying this; I am saying that the council cannot offer every household a range of housing to chose from in the local area; there is an epic housing crisis going on.

You cannot go and take a privately-owned property off someone, and you cannot force people to rent a privately-owned property if they don't want to. Many properties in the Borough that are usually empty throughout the year are currently being occupied as it is Ramadan.

everthibkyouvebeenconned

They may be able to find housing in their borough; it may just be the owners of those homes don't want to rent them out - the council cannot force people to rent out the homes they own.

Monkey but in London even moving into a neighbouring borough could mean it takes you 1.5 hrs to take your child to school in the morning. And they aren't just saying that, they are telling families they might have to accept accommodation all across the UK

Not Necessarily there are quite a few LA estates in White City , Hammersmith , Harlesden which are all a 30 minute journey away . Ever estate has at least 2 flats where the windows are boarded up . That's a tough call re high rise though. Not sure how they handle that one

stopfuckingshoutingatme

Exactly - and they have said they will maintain those links to the community, GP, mental health services, and schools - so I don't think they are planning to rehome people for the long-term in places on the far reaches of other boroughs.

And apologies - just realised Camden is not a neighbouring borough - however, it's a very quick and easy to commute to the area.

Surprised to see equipment that can reach so high .
I guess only possible to use when flames have died down and access possible .

This is Surreys aerial platform I believe; they have very kindly lent it to London Fire Brigade.

Oh definitely, Monkey, only if the residents volunteer that info and want to go there.

And re private rents, I think the council should make up the difference, with additional funds from central government

"And re private rents, I think the council should make up the difference, with additional funds from central government"

Long term or short term?

Does anyone know what happened to the residents in Lakanal House?

Long term. I think we owe them that at the very least.

Surely the 5 mill from government and 5 mill in charity funds could be used to buy the survivors a home? Although, i'm not sure how many households there actually are or london property prices but couldn't we just do that?

I did the maths on this; for 25 years it would come to 72 000 000; if we gave 120 households (figure used in calculation; unsure of total number of households in the tower block), 2,000 pounds per month for rent (I plucked this figure out of thin air, but went above what a two-bedroom flat in GT was being rented out for).

I think someone said the council had 345 000 000 in funds, but I don't know if they are cleared funds, or whether some of that, or most of that is spent. It's really hard to know without seeing the finances properly.

However, I did think it would set precedent, and the council may find themselves having to do this for all LHA residents in the future - I know people are being very kind and generous now, but the reality (sadly) I think this may not last in the long term. I hope I am wrong about this though.

monicabling You couldn't buy everyone household that was in GT a new home for 10 million in K&C.

This is Surreys aerial platform I believe; they have very kindly lent it to London Fire Brigade.

Indeed it is, but during the fire itself, one of London's own 11 aerial appliances was parked in that same place pouring water onto the tower to a lower level. There was at least another 1 or 2 aerial appliances parked nearby that couldn't be used due to being unable to get access to the other sides of the tower.

I think we need to ask why London Fire Brigade had 11 shorter aerial appliances, 7 apparently identical. Surely it would have been better to have 1 or 2 longer appliance included in that 11? Why did Surrey have a longer one, when London had 11 shorter ones???

Can't be lack of money. They had the money to buy 11 shorter aerial appliances? Why did Surrey realise the need for a longer one when London didn't???

Is it me or is £5500 for every family affected by the fire a bit of a piss take? Most will not be able to access the bank accounts because their ID and bank cards etc will have been destroyed.

The access issues were due to illegally-parked cars weren't they? Makes me wonder if those people will be getting a very stern talking too.

I wondered if we had taller appliances whether they were restricted to certain areas - for instance airports?

I've also wondered what the heck would happen with a building like the Shard?

OnionKnight My understanding is that money is to be seen as "immediate cash in hand" type money - there will be more money made available as and when needed (and I guess now after the comments last night, only after discussion with the Resident's Association).

Partly poorly parked cars but also the fact they've built a massive school on what originally would have been a car park. And something to do with poorly planned trees which now mature are blocking access too.

Monkey it's £500 cash with £5000 coming as a lump sum via DWP to bank accounts. So yes potential issues with accessing the money.