Tower block fire - london

Fishbait said:
Surely the building owners should be paying for this.
Click to expand...

Did you consult a solicitor about that.

Having a leasehold of a flat in a building means you are not in fact king of your castle. Instead there's a landlord with power that trumps yours, exactly how will be set out in the contract.

Surely doesn't come into it. Either it's completely legal or it's not.
 
Caged said:
Better than sprinklers would be ensuring that people making modifications to buildings properly understand the impact of those changes
Click to expand...

In PMQ's this week, it was stated that some councils don't want sprinklers as their installation would reduce the fire compartmentalisation measures built into some of their flats, therefore making them MORE dangerous should a fire occur.
 
^^^ surprised that dozens of new homes can’t be found in one of the most desirable parts of the county to live. I’m sure when the promise of new accommodation was made they thought there would be some flexibility on the part of the residents but they want their million pound council houses back
 
I thought the council (through guilt no doubt) acquired some high end flats for the victims.

It made the news and some people in this thread even made some comments in poor taste out of jealousy.
 
danielanthony said:
^^^ surprised that dozens of new homes can’t be found in one of the most desirable parts of the county to live. I’m sure when the promise of new accommodation was made they thought there would be some flexibility on the part of the residents but they want their million pound council houses back
Click to expand...
If the housing system can't find a couple of dozen suitable houses/flats within 6 months there is a real problem with the housing system.

The flats were not "million pound council houses", but a 70's tower block that happened to be in an area that had gone up in value (the blocks themselves hadn't gone up anything like as much), and the councils attempt to make it look nicer so it didn't affect the property prices in the surrounding area went wrong because it appears they went with a variant of the cladding that was more in the way of pretty than fire proof (from memory it's reckoned if they'd just gone with plain cladding rather than trying for a pretty pattern it would have saved a lot of money).

One of the biggest things in event of a tragedy is to have the support of friends and family, and to minimise the additional changes, I would suspect that forcing the families out of the area would be pretty bad for mental health in the long term, especially for the children who would most likely have to change schools (which in itself is highly disruptive for their education).
It would also utterly mess up the employment of a lot of them.

The fact they haven't been found homes is basically just one indication of how poorly provisioned council/social housing is in large parts of the country, as there are shortages of affordable housing all over as so much of the old council stock has been sold off with no replacements being commissioned.
 
Werewolf said:
If the housing system can't find a couple of dozen suitable houses/flats within 6 months there is a real problem with the housing system.
Click to expand...

There was piece on Newsnight yesterday which said the council had found many of the properties initially required, but some of the former residence who had previously shared (extended family etc), had elected to be rehoused separately, increasing the required housing by 40%.

The amount of money allocated to rehouse each household was £1.7m iirc.
 
Stretch said:
There was piece on Newsnight yesterday which said the council had found many of the properties initially required, but some of the former residence who had previously shared (extended family etc), had elected to be rehoused separately, increasing the required housing by 40%.

The amount of money allocated to rehouse each household was £1.7m iirc.
Click to expand...

That's an insane amount. It would literally buy them mansions up here. Shows how councils couldn't run a ₩¥£€ up in a brewery though...
 
Dis86 said:
That's an insane amount. It would literally buy them mansions up here. Shows how councils couldn't run a ₩¥£€ up in a brewery though...
Click to expand...

Can buy like a 16 bedroom house with nearly 7 acres of land around here :s - though its a bit odd as go much lower and the quality of property you get for the money goes down massively relatively speaking.

EDIT: Quite a nice 8 bedroom with 32 acres of land for 1.2m as well :O
 
Dis86 said:
That's an insane amount. It would literally buy them mansions up here. Shows how councils couldn't run a ₩¥£€ up in a brewery though...
Click to expand...

I an sure I remember reading an article back in the day of the ILEA that its annual budget spend/child was getting on for Eton fees.

Nothing changes.
 
Grenfell Tower management company hands responsibility (temporarily) back to council.

The organisation that managed Grenfell Tower and manages thousands of other properties across the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is temporarily handing back responsibility for them to the council, saying it can no longer guarantee to meet the standards expected by residents.

In a letter sent to residents just before Christmas, Fay Edwards, chair of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), said: “The TMO board has reluctantly decided that it can no longer guarantee to fulfil its obligations with respect to the delivery of services contained in its contract with the council … to a standard that residents should expect.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom