fire in London tower block

[pete_mcfarlane]

The BBC is reporting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40496029) that only nine offers have been taken up, out of 139 made (another nineteen have refused any contact).  I think there needs to be sympathy on both sides and fear that some of the expectations are unrealistic - to have found 139 alternative homes in three weeks is quite remarkable, so small wonder that some/many might be considered unsuitable.

There was a BBC news story about somebody turning down a rehousing offer because it was 'too far away'.

 

It's entirely possible that the people needing rehousing and the people finding houses for them have different ideas about what constitutes 'too far'. People on low incomes, who've lived in the same area all their lives and who have to juggle taking kids to school and going to work might view being moved 5 miles away a lot differently to the people rehousing them. At the same time, the council worker who can't afford to live in London and who has spend several thousand pounds and hundreds of hours a year commuting in might not have an enormous amount of sympathy for a council tenant being fussy over where they're being rehoused. 

[The Stationmaster]

There was a BBC news story about somebody turning down a rehousing offer because it was 'too far away'.

 

It's entirely possible that the people needing rehousing and the people finding houses for them have different ideas about what constitutes 'too far'. People on low incomes, who've lived in the same area all their lives and who have to juggle taking kids to school and going to work might view being moved 5 miles away a lot differently to the people rehousing them. At the same time, the council worker who can't afford to live in London and who has spend several thousand pounds and hundreds of hours a year commuting in might not have an enormous amount of sympathy for a council tenant being fussy over where they're being rehoused. 

 

I think it absolutely right that those who have jobs should be the first to be considered for rehousing and obviously something no further from their place of work should be found for them if at all possible and to at least the same standard as the home they have lost.  Next perhaps considerations of continuity of education for younger children but on the other hand plenty of people have over the years had to move their children from one school to another so it need not necessarily be the be all and end all.  Otherwise one would hope that provided it is to a similar standard as the accommodation the have lost folk should be grateful to at least be offered a new roof over their head - wherever it happens to be (as happened to thousands of people during and after the war and who had no choice but to make new homes, and often find new employment, in somewhere completely different from the place where they had previously lived and had grown up.

[Coryton]

There was a BBC news story about somebody turning down a rehousing offer because it was 'too far away'.

 

It's entirely possible that the people needing rehousing and the people finding houses for them have different ideas about what constitutes 'too far'. People on low incomes, who've lived in the same area all their lives and who have to juggle taking kids to school and going to work might view being moved 5 miles away a lot differently to the people rehousing them. At the same time, the council worker who can't afford to live in London and who has spend several thousand pounds and hundreds of hours a year commuting in might not have an enormous amount of sympathy for a council tenant being fussy over where they're being rehoused. 

 

The council worker with the long commute is likely to have any children in a school near home.

 

If you have two children in primary school with one in nursery and moving 5 miles from home means a 10 mile return bus journey three times a day, it isn't exactly fun.

[Neil]

I wonder if some of the disquiet about being housed at some distance away is to do with the fear that temporary rehousing at a distance will become permanent.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be re-housed in ones neighbourhood ; the question I think we should all ask is what would we want for ourselves if we found ourselves in a similar situation to those made homeless? It's very easy to get a mismatch between what we would think to be reasonable for others and what we would think to be reasonable for ourselves.

[Metr0Land]

Much is being made that the Council has very deep pockets (I've heard a figure of £300 million quoted), so there should be alternatives they can fund in the private sector - if it comes to it.

 

 

Very possibly but given all the knee-jerking since the tragedy I'd lay odds we're about to start another bun fight.

 

My perception is that there isn't a high volume of property on the market in that borough.  If so, in a free market economy won't sellers and landlords be trying to increase their prices if they know the council is desperate for property (irrespective of whether it's rental of bought outright)?

 

Should we collectively encourage the council to REHOUSE THEM NOW, or should we counsel caution and not encourage profligate use of taxpayer funds?

[Horsetan]

Very possibly but given all the knee-jerking since the tragedy I'd lay odds we're about to start another bun fight.

 

My perception is that there isn't a high volume of property on the market in that borough.  If so, in a free market economy won't sellers and landlords be trying to increase their prices if they know the council is desperate for property (irrespective of whether it's rental of bought outright)?

 

Should we collectively encourage the council to REHOUSE THEM NOW, or should we counsel caution and not encourage profligate use of taxpayer funds?

 

Berkeley Homes have sold 68 new-build flats to RBK&C, so there should be some permanent offers in the months ahead.

 

Who gets priority?

[Metr0Land]

 

Berkeley Homes have sold 68 new-build flats to RBK&C, so there should be some permanent offers in the months ahead.

 

Who gets priority?

 

I suspect whatever RBK&C do it'll be wrong, much like being married......

[Metr0Land]

On a less flippant note, I suspect from some of the interviews I've seen that some of those rejecting offers are holding out for 'something better' including these flats, but none of the TV interviewers seem to have the nous to ask the displaced residents how they'd prioritise the allocations.

[hayfield]

The Head of Household had Victoria Derbyshire on this morning and I was sort of having to listen to it from the next room.

 

One point which I may have misheard was the Council doesn't have housing stock any more - it's all devolved to Housing Assocs.  So in this or any other tragedy the Council simply can't rehouse them from empty Council stocks, making immediate action by any council in a similar position quite tricky in future?

 

Certainly where I used to live all council owned housing was transferred to housing associations, so I guess int not only widespread but the council housing department and housing association work hand in hand in this respect. I repeat myself in that with the housing shortage as it is at this moment its highly likely that there are that many properties available at this point in time.

[hayfield]

Much is being made that the Council has very deep pockets (I've heard a figure of £300 million quoted), so there should be alternatives they can fund in the private sector - if it comes to it.

 

The BBC is reporting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40496029) that only nine offers have been taken up, out of 139 made (another nineteen have refused any contact).  I think there needs to be sympathy on both sides and fear that some of the expectations are unrealistic - to have found 139 alternative homes in three weeks is quite remarkable, so small wonder that some/many might be considered unsuitable.

 

 

On point one it was reported the person being housed was offered a property which would be rent free for the first year, I would imagine others will receive similar offers.

 

I can understand those directly affected deserve to be treated as a special case, but if there is no suitable housing spare within the area, how can they offer it ? a bit of a catch 22 situation

[Colin_McLeod]

Social housing applicants turning down reasonable offers of housing is not limited to the former residents of Grenfell Tower.

 

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cork-city-tops-table-for-housing-offers-refused-304154.html

 

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/over-2-000-social-housing-offers-turned-down-last-year-1.2414025%3Fmode%3Damp

[Horsetan]

....I can understand those directly affected deserve to be treated as a special case, but if there is no suitable housing spare within the area, how can they offer it ? a bit of a catch 22 situation

And there you have hit a nail on the head.

 

Whilst RBK&C and the housing association may not have any spare stock themselves immediately, they still have the facility - and, I daresay, the cash reserves - to buy in some from developers; see the Berkeley Homes example. I suppose that would be the expedient solution, so that households have the prospect of new homes that they can move into, knowing it will be a permanent move which is surely what everybody wants.

 

Temporary accommodation is no fun. Back in the day when I used to do Housing law, I visited a number of clients in temporary accommodation and, more often than not, it was clear that they were having a terrible experience. The standard of temporary accommodation was generally execrable and I surmise that it isn't much different today.

[Metr0Land]

On point one it was reported the person being housed was offered a property which would be rent free for the first year, I would imagine others will receive similar offers.

 

 

One lady was interviewed on the tv and asked why she turned down the property which was a year rent/rates free.  I'm guessing that although this offer would seem reasonable to a lot of us, many of the residents are on low(er) incomes, and her point was that although the one year free was good in itself, the rent (as she understood it) would be considerably higher than her old rent once the year's grace had expired.

[Southernman46]

An incredible sobering piece of journalism ........................ the BBC at it's finest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Grenfell_21st_floor

[Neil]

An incredible sobering piece of journalism ........................ the BBC at it's finest

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Grenfell_21st_floor

 

I have to agree, I saw the video presentation of this piece on Newsnight last night. Terrific journalism.

[Oakydoke]

An incredible sobering piece of journalism ........................ the BBC at it's finest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Grenfell_21st_floor

A key point from this article is that rather than Grenfell tower being filled with the poorest and most downtrodden in society, the image that was portrayed in some quarters and being heavily leveraged by one particular political party, Grenfell in fact contained people varying from ordinary working families to young middle class professionals and retired people.

Just yesterday, a certain political party leader's "evangelical speech" played heavily on that distorted image.

Right from the morning after the fire, while the building was still burning, certain people had already set out to make cynical political capital from the tragedy. I have to restrain myself.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Oakydoke

[hayfield]

And there you have hit a nail on the head.

 

Whilst RBK&C and the housing association may not have any spare stock themselves immediately, they still have the facility - and, I daresay, the cash reserves - to buy in some from developers; see the Berkeley Homes example. I suppose that would be the expedient solution, so that households have the prospect of new homes that they can move into, knowing it will be a permanent move which is surely what everybody wants.

 

Temporary accommodation is no fun. Back in the day when I used to do Housing law, I visited a number of clients in temporary accommodation and, more often than not, it was clear that they were having a terrible experience. The standard of temporary accommodation was generally execrable and I surmise that it isn't much different today.

 

 

This is, as all agree a terribly sad affair and our hearts go out to all, I guess like all right minded folk hope those affected get the housing they rightfully deserve

 

There are several points that arise. Firstly those who owned their own property will be insured (via the properties block insurance) for the value of their asset, will the payment allow them to buy a property in the same location? I doubt it and I guess they will have to look further afield and move away. Will anyone care I doubt it

 

In the locality housing is short especially with social housing, is their suitable housing stock within the area available to be brought for social housing ? if not in the short term how can the authorities provide housing within the area other than evicting other tenants

 

Then their has been the almost instant response of political pressure groups, some agreed are concerned truly for those affected, but many seem to grab the opportunity to cause trouble. Looking at the reports of certain Camden tower blocks, 3 of which were so bad the residents had to be evacuated, everyone seems to have forgotten about these and the local socialist councils seemingly contempt for their tenants safety. In my book equally as bad as Kensingtons

 

Yes Kensington's response to this disaster seems far from what we would have expected, too little to slowly, as it seems is the distribution of funds from the millions of £'s given to the survivors and others affected. Hopefully things are now speeding up and beginning to happen

 

Sadly Kensington is not alone in what now seems to be underestimating fire safety in tower blocks, it seems common to all political parties both in local and national government. It is grossly offensive and totally dis-respective of those affected to make political capital out of this sad event. Politicians should be joining together to put right the wrongs that have occurred, as it seems many providing these services have failed their tenants/co-owners. Hopefully the legal system will step in and take action, not just in Kensington but everywhere else where finance has been put before peoples safety.  

[DLT]

There are several points that arise. Firstly those who owned their own property will be insured (via the properties block insurance) for the value of their asset, will the payment allow them to buy a property in the same location? I doubt it and I guess they will have to look further afield and move away. Will anyone care I doubt it

 

Home insurance will restore a property to the condition it was in before the damage occurred.  Although how that will work in this case I have no idea.

Dave.

[hayfield]

Home insurance will restore a property to the condition it was in before the damage occurred.  Although how that will work in this case I have no idea.

Dave.

Dave

 

I was talking about the buildings insurance, as there as several different properties within a block of flats unlike contents insurance it is totally impracticable to have individual buildings insurance policies in the same building. As part of the annual maintance agreement the managing agent arranges for one policy which covers every flat. This protects all owners that the correct policy for all flats remains in place, and insures that no one individual owner jeopardises the others.

 

There are two groups, the owner occupiers plus the housing associations (non Kensington) and Kensington council. The owners will claim a total loss be reimbursed by the insurance company, as for Kensington they will be reimbursed for their loss and I guess will do a deal to buy the land back for re-development  .

 

Anyway what I was trying to comment on was the ability of the owner occupiers to be able to buy a property with the compensation from the insurance company in the same area

 

Firstly generally ex local authority property normally is less valuable than privately owned property, secondly looking at the BBC article the flats were quite generous in size, thirdly with the loss of so many housing units within the area will increase the cost of existing housing stock. Fourthly after the experience of seeing their homes destroyed would they want to live in a high or low rise flat again, houses are dearer 

 

Plenty has been said about tenants being able to remain in the area, heard nothing about the owner occupiers who suffered the same fate, and for the above reasons may be financially forced out of the area. I feel all should be treated equally 

[bertiedog]

At least the experts seem to agree in evidence that fire sprinklers work and would have stopped the fire spreading, but it is sobering to see the council excusing them selves on cost, sometimes mentioning many millions to do the work, when the experts say it would be in the hundreds of thousands....... smacks of the lack of priorities at the council for such accommodation.

Whitehall has questions to answer, as do MP's, in not setting the regulations properly in the first case.

Stephen

[DLT]

Dave

 

I was talking about the buildings insurance, as there as several different properties within a block of flats unlike contents insurance it is totally impracticable to have individual buildings insurance policies in the same building. As part of the annual maintance agreement the managing agent arranges for one policy which covers every flat. This protects all owners that the correct policy for all flats remains in place, and insures that no one individual owner jeopardises the others.

 

There are two groups, the owner occupiers plus the housing associations (non Kensington) and Kensington council. The owners will claim a total loss be reimbursed by the insurance company, as for Kensington they will be reimbursed for their loss and I guess will do a deal to buy the land back for re-development  .

 

Anyway what I was trying to comment on was the ability of the owner occupiers to be able to buy a property with the compensation from the insurance company in the same area

 

Firstly generally ex local authority property normally is less valuable than privately owned property, secondly looking at the BBC article the flats were quite generous in size, thirdly with the loss of so many housing units within the area will increase the cost of existing housing stock. Fourthly after the experience of seeing their homes destroyed would they want to live in a high or low rise flat again, houses are dearer 

 

Plenty has been said about tenants being able to remain in the area, heard nothing about the owner occupiers who suffered the same fate, and for the above reasons may be financially forced out of the area. I feel all should be treated equally 

 

Thanks for clarifying that John, I had no knowledge of that sort of situation.

Cheers, Dave.

[bertiedog]

One of the owners of a flat in the Tower was on the radio, explaining that even with the insurance, the costs will never be covered to stay in the area. She has received some money from the emergency funds, but is now stuck in limbo as the money received could be clawed back by the insurers etc.

She faces moving away from her job, as does her husband, and the balance of what will be received could be as low as 50% of what is needed in London. The main option was to move to the North. also she is faced with large legal bills as a private owner is deemed to be able to afford the lawyers bills.

Fortunately a lawyer is working as a volunteer to a group in the same situation.

Her own opinion was that tenants are getting a better deal at present, but there are still tales of plenty not getting the required support so desperately needed..

Stephen

[pete_mcfarlane]

A key point from this article is that rather than Grendel tower being filled with the poorest and most downtrodden in society, the image that was portrayed in some quarters and being heavily leveraged by one particular political party, Grenfell in fact contained people varying from ordinary working families to young middle class professionals and retired people.

From what's been said in the media, the fire has exacerbated (or is being by political activists to exacerbate) some pre-existing tensions within that particular London borough, caused by 'rich' outsiders moving in, buying properties and forcing prices up so that 'local' people can't afford to buy or rent. I suspect those moderately well off working families and young professionals are the 'rich' outsiders.

Edited September 28, 2017 by pete_mcfarlane

[Horsetan]

A key point from this article is that rather than Grendel tower being filled with the poorest and most downtrodden in society, the image that was portrayed in some quarters and being heavily leveraged by one particular political party, Grenfell in fact contained people varying from ordinary working families to young middle class professionals and retired people.

Just yesterday, a certain political party leader's "evangelical speech" played heavily on that distorted image.....

 

He's not the Messiah.

[Neil]

From what's been said in the media, the fire has exacerbated (or is being by political activists to exacerbate) some pre-existing tensions within that particular London borough, caused by 'rich' outsiders moving in, buying properties and forcing prices up so that 'local' people can't afford to buy or rent. I suspect those moderately well off working families and young professionals are the 'rich' outsiders.

 

I took the time (about a minute and a half) to see what the average price for property in Kensington and Chelsea actually is. According to Rightmove it's 1.4 million pounds for a flat, 4.4 million for a terraced house and 6.1 for a semi detached property (I've rounded down the tens of thousands and lower amounts). You've either got a wildly different view of moderately well off or haven't bothered to do some basic fact finding.