HanoiVillan Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I don't know what the proportions are in terms of flats, still less in terms of victims, but some of the flats were privately rented or owner occupied, they weren't all social housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: I don't know what the proportions are in terms of flats, still less in terms of victims, but some of the flats were privately rented or owner occupied, they weren't all social housing. Sub-let's as well so nobody knows who was living there anyway and they can't request help because they are not registered as living there at any point in time. That's a double blow for anyone in that category. They are truly ****. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: Sub-let's as well so nobody knows who was living there anyway and they can't request help because they are not registered as living there at any point in time. That's a double blow for anyone in that category. They are truly ****. And of course the reason sub-letting happens is because of the great shortage of social housing. So councils are made to sell housing on the pretence that the current occupants just want to carry on living there, when in fact often companies or rich individuals are putting up the money in order to take control of the property, so after a little while they buy it on a prearranged deal and become landlords, screwing the sub-tenants, and the rest of us. It's a giant scam. It would be instructive to follow the money trail for places like Grenfell. The cost of construction for most social housing was repaid some time ago, and rents cover the cost of management and maintenance. And yet the properties have been pushed out of our control, to provide a profit stream to companies and individuals who were able to buy them, depriving us of housing options, pushing up the housing benefit bill, inflating the rent level generally. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 46 minutes ago, peterms said: often companies or rich individuals are putting up the money in order to take control of the property, so after a little while they buy it on a prearranged deal and become landlords, screwing the sub-tenants, and the rest of us. Could you quantify "often"? How widespread is this problem? Is it more prevalent in (say) Kensington than (say) Burnley? At face value the thing you describe doesn't seem likely at all to be widespread. Because if someone is placed in social housing by a council and become resident, paying social rents and stay there for x years - where does this external rich person or company come into it and "put up the money" to buy the house - why wouldn't the tenant just stay there, paying their low rent to the council? I can believe it does happen, but "often" seems to imply it's, well, pretty much the norm. ANd if that is the case, and you know it, then surely councils know it, and would (as it causes them problems, be specifically raising it into public knowledge as "rich people and private companies are often buying out our council houses". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 Cladding AND insulation both failed safety checks, police considering manslaughter charges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour ago, blandy said: Could you quantify "often"? How widespread is this problem? Is it more prevalent in (say) Kensington than (say) Burnley? At face value the thing you describe doesn't seem likely at all to be widespread. Because if someone is placed in social housing by a council and become resident, paying social rents and stay there for x years - where does this external rich person or company come into it and "put up the money" to buy the house - why wouldn't the tenant just stay there, paying their low rent to the council? I can believe it does happen, but "often" seems to imply it's, well, pretty much the norm. ANd if that is the case, and you know it, then surely councils know it, and would (as it causes them problems, be specifically raising it into public knowledge as "rich people and private companies are often buying out our council houses". No, I can't quantify often, not least because it is hard to get firm information on something which the perpetrators are not going to want to publicise, because it's illegal. It will be more prevalent where the profit to be made is greatest, clearly. The way it works is that the people doing this leaflet estates, offering a deal whereby they front the money needed to RTB, and agree to buy the property from the person at a set date in the future, giving them a capital gain. Sometimes they go door-knocking. The more professional ones attempt to get their people recruited as housing officers, to get access to lots of info about tenants and their circumstances, to target people better. Yes, councils know about it, and have done since the 1980s. They have been calling for tougher action on it since then, as well. It is very obviously not the stated aim of RTB, and is also a form of appropriation of assets for private profit which we, the public, have paid for. If you google "rtb scam", for example, you will find that MIchael Gove is an idiot lots of links. This one from Gravesham is one at random: Quote Right to buy fraud happens when you might apply for a discount to purchase your council home and you: Give us false information Have unlawfully applied for the discount where the property has been subject to tenancy fraud such as sub-letting Have entered into an agreement with a third party to buy the property on your behalf for a cash incentive There are companies and individuals that offer tenants money to apply to buy the home on your behalf. You must not enter into this type of deal. Some tenants have ended up homeless through this. If you enter into this type of agreement, you will have to repay the discount. Any money that you make is unlikely to be enough to buy another home, and we will not provide you with another tenancy. The money to be made is great enough that it is very attractive both for the tenant, and for the companies concerned. The price is paid by the rest of us, through inflated rents and an inflating HB bill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 53 minutes ago, bickster said: Cladding AND insulation both failed safety checks, police considering manslaughter charges They cant consider, they have to charge these people or they risk riots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 23, 2017 Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2017 Just now, Demitri_C said: They cant consider, they have to charge these people or they risk riots I think that more a technical term for putting the case together before going to the CPS. At this stage they probably have to work out who is responsible, they know the cause but have to go through contractors/landlords/council etc to see who actually made the fateful decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: This has been developed in more depth, in a long thread starting here: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) This is unraveling at a quicker rate than I thought it would. Well done to all involved who have finally realised that fire safety isn't just red tape but extremely important. Will we see any meaningful convictions? I'm still not sure. There's too much cynicism and cronyism involved when it comes to housing and this sort of grand scale "redevelopment". Can you blame an American producer for making cladding that is illegal in the UK? Probably not. Can you blame a company for installing cladding that is illegal in the UK? Probably. Will the blame be substantial enough when it's done in hundreds of tower blocks around the UK by a whole range of companies? Probably not. Will the rules change? Yes. But it doesn't bring back the dead. Edited June 23, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) Camden are emptying their blocks for three to four weeks whilst work is done. People in >800 flats (edited). Quote More than 800 homes in tower blocks on a council estate in Camden, north London, are be evacuated because of safety concerns over cladding in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. Camden Council says residents in flats in five towers on the Chalcots estate will be moved for "urgent fire safety works". Similar cladding was used on the building to that on the Grenfell Tower. A total of 79 people are feared dead after the Grenfell fire. Camden Council had said it will remove external thermal cladding from five tower blocks on the estate. ...more on link Edited June 23, 2017 by snowychap Changed to >800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, snowychap said: Camden are emptying their blocks for three to four weeks whilst work is done. People in 800 flats (edited). I don't see how they can do it, or why it is necessary. Sounds like a panic reaction. In their place, I would offer alternative accommodation to anyone with mobility problems, employ teams of waking fire security guards, review all instructions about fire response, ensure fire doors were working and things like extinguishers and dry risers were in place, working and safe from tampering, and then offer residents the option of staying or moving. Almost all would stay. I would. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, peterms said: I don't see how they can do it, or why it is necessary. Sounds like a panic reaction. It may be. They're doing it now, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 56 minutes ago, snowychap said: It may be. They're doing it now, I think. Hmmm. Sounds like a political decision. I would be surprised if a board comprised of engineers, fire service, fire safety specialists etc would make that recommendation. It poses enormous rehousing challenges for the council, and creates very big practical problems for the families. Some may be reassured by it, and so I suppose it serves a purpose, but really it looks like wanting to be seen to react, rather than a rational and calm response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villarocker Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 This is going to open up a big can of worms. After the Grenfell Tower fire, one of the surviving residents gave an interview saying that he and other residents had complained about smelling what appeared to be a gas leak in the central stairway. He filmed the fire and even highlighted where he could see flickering blue Flames up the stairs. There appeared to be a burning trail straight up the stairs that this resident attributed to gas. Tonight, residents coming out of Taplow Tower in Camden have been saying that there is a problem with gas pipes in their tower. I think this is going to back up the concerns of the Grenfell Tower residents and I fear the final analysis will reveal a gas leak in that premises that caught fire and that will be more to blame than the cladding. After all, the cladding was on the outside of the building! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 To take the alternative view on Camden's plan...can you imagine the reaction if one person in one block was to die in a vaguely relatable incident when a council knew there was a risk and had a week or two to do something about it. I wouldn't want to be that spokes fall guy: 'yeah we'd watched the news but didn't want to over react to 79 deaths'. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, villarocker said: This is going to open up a big can of worms. After the Grenfell Tower fire, one of the surviving residents gave an interview saying that he and other residents had complained about smelling what appeared to be a gas leak in the central stairway. He filmed the fire and even highlighted where he could see flickering blue Flames up the stairs. There appeared to be a burning trail straight up the stairs that this resident attributed to gas. Tonight, residents coming out of Taplow Tower in Camden have been saying that there is a problem with gas pipes in their tower. I think this is going to back up the concerns of the Grenfell Tower residents and I fear the final analysis will reveal a gas leak in that premises that caught fire and that will be more to blame than the cladding. After all, the cladding was on the outside of the building! The cladding definitely played a part. I guess it became an uncontrollable fire on the outside, making it easier to spread and he gas contributed once the fire got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, villarocker said: Tonight, residents coming out of Taplow Tower in Camden have been saying that there is a problem with gas pipes in their tower. I think this is going to back up the concerns of the Grenfell Tower residents and I fear the final analysis will reveal a gas leak in that premises that caught fire and that will be more to blame than the cladding. After all, the cladding was on the outside of the building! The cladding wasn't the cause of the fire, but it made it worse - much worse. It caused a tunnel of oxygen for the flames, by all accounts. It's like saying after a forest fire started by a cigarette - "all that dry wood wasn't anywhere near the cigarette!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 55 minutes ago, peterms said: Hmmm. Sounds like a political decision. I would be surprised if a board comprised of engineers, fire service, fire safety specialists etc would make that recommendation. It poses enormous rehousing challenges for the council, and creates very big practical problems for the families. Some may be reassured by it, and so I suppose it serves a purpose, but really it looks like wanting to be seen to react, rather than a rational and calm response. For me that isn't important what's more important is people's safety and this horror does not happen again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts