***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
==============================================================
This really brought it home for me. Horrendous.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-40301289
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 28 Jun 17 at 10:42
|
Some papers are carrying photos of the missing.
It is truly heart wrenching to see the kids, young families in their prime and old pensioners who wanted a happy retirement and everyone in between.
I know speculation isn't going to add much, but Old Navy commented on speedy evacuation above. If the residents were ordered to leave promptly, there may have been unavoidable loses, but perhaps the number would have been much lower?
|
>>
>>
>> I know speculation isn't going to add much, but Old Navy commented on speedy evacuation
>> above. If the residents were ordered to leave promptly, there may have been unavoidable loses,
>> but perhaps the number would have been much lower?
>>
The danger there would be a stampede down the stairs, with children, adults and the elderly all moving at differing speeds and the possibility of another Ibrox or Hillsborough. Rock and a hard place, really.
But had the building complied to proper safety standards the fire would not have spread and the incident would have been lucky to get a column in the local paper.
|
>> The danger there would be a stampede down the stairs, with children, adults and the
>> elderly all moving at differing speeds and the possibility of another Ibrox or Hillsborough. Rock
>> and a hard place, really.
It's been said several times the conventional wisdom is to stay put, if necessary taking steps to keep smoke out. Looking at Mark's link to the BBC and sequence of pictures there *might* have been a window of opportunity to evacuate before 02:00. OTOH if people open internal doors the fire, fed by draughts, might have gone up the stairwell like a blowtorch.
As with aviation wisdom that a problem late in take off should be dealt with in the air there is always going to be an egregious exception.
|
As things pan out in the coming days it might me interesting to see how many of the displaced residents want to be rehired close to the flats. I am not sure I would want to be reminded of that night every time I looked out of the window of my new home.
The other main problem in the coming weeks, if it turns out the cladding was a problem is whether you immediately evacuate and rehome families in flats with the same cladding.
|
>>The other main problem in the coming weeks, if it turns out the cladding was a problem is whether you immediately evacuate and rehome families in flats with the same cladding.
A programme of removing the cladding ASAP would be sensible and don't care about leaving ugly buildings.
|
|
it does actually perform a purpose other than the cosmetic i.e insulation. These old tower blocks were difficult and costly to keep warm and prone to condensation. whilst you are removing the old cladding with all the costs of access that that involves you might as well install replacement fire resistant cladding.
|
CGN.. I agree. But ripping off all the cladding and not replacing it will be a lot quicker than replacing it. You'd need it manufacturing. It needs fitting. In the meantime the tower is unsafe.
If they do start removing cladding, it probably makes sense to start at the top.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 17 Jun 17 at 21:41
|
Nearby there are probably 8/9 12 storey blocks of flats. Built around 1966/1970 they were ugly when new & gave problems from day 1 - "Bison Wall Frame" concrete panels, they leaked with heavy rain & had condensation problems.
That said they are actually quite nice inside in that all the rooms are of good demensions. Every 8-10 years there seems to be BIG bills as they were repaired & refurbished - the last lot, including cladding was £45K per flat! 90% of them are pensioner occupied.
Another local authority are building small semis, lounge, kitchen/diner, downstair toilet with 3 beds & bathrooms upstairs @ £72,500 each (council own land)........I do not know what small terraces of 2 bed flats might be built for BUT probably not much more than the £45K envelope & re-wire + new lifts & a lot better life span.
|
Theresa May is not responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire.
If you want to blame I suggest you start with the 3 Labour councillors that have represented the ward that Grenfell Tower is in, since the 1980s.
Clearly the councillors have been completely ineffective at representing the views of their residents.
Next, the new Labour MP for Kensington Emma Dent Coad. She sat on the management board of the Housing Association that manages Grenfell Tower.
In 2000 the Labour government were warned that it would take a serious fire to highlight the issues of cladding. They did nothing!!!
It is indefensible that the Labour party is trying to use this disaster to make political gain especially when all the paths keep leading to their front door!!!
|
You really have no clue.
>>
>> Theresa May is not responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire.
Not personally but she was part of the deregulation>cut red tape>self certification thrust from BOTH political stripes post 1979. And her response to tragedy hi-lite's her wooden lack of empathy.
>> If you want to blame I suggest you start with the 3 Labour councillors that
>> have represented the ward that Grenfell Tower is in, since the 1980s.
>>
>> Clearly the councillors have been completely ineffective at representing the views of their residents.
How can representatives of a party which is a minority in a borough dominated by the Tories turn effective representation into action?
>> Next, the new Labour MP for Kensington Emma Dent Coad. She sat on the management
>> board of the Housing Association that manages Grenfell Tower.
>>
See above; she was in a minority
>> In 2000 the Labour government were warned that it would take a serious fire to
>> highlight the issues of cladding. They did nothing!!!
Source/reference fir this assertion.
>> It is indefensible that the Labour party is trying to use this disaster to make
>> political gain especially when all the paths keep leading to their front door!!!
Only they don't; see above
|
|
IMO it's a sign of the unfortunate times we live in that people are trying to pin responsibility to any political party for this fire.
|
Seventy-nine people are either dead or missing presumed dead after the fire at Grenfell Tower, police have said.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40327357
|
Tenants threatened with legal action for complaining about fire safety....
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-london-dead-legal-action-campaign-fire-safety-mariem-elgwahry-nadia-choucair-a7795586.html
Typical of this country.
Whistle blowers in hospitals are threatened with the sack, Barclays Chief Executive tried to uncover a whistle blower etc.
|
>> Typical of this country.
>>
Nothing special about the UK. That is typical the world over.
|
>> Tenants threatened with legal action for complaining about fire safety....
Also seen it reported (though not verified) that displaced residents have been offered places well out of the Royal Borough and as far afield as Preston.
Backed by usual Housing Authority threat that refusers would be deemed "intentionally homeless".
|
>> Also seen it reported (though not verified) that displaced residents have been offered places well
>> out of the Royal Borough and as far afield as Preston.
>>
>> Backed by usual Housing Authority threat that refusers would be deemed "intentionally homeless".
Two points.
1/ There probably isn't enough places locally to rehouse the displaced.
2/ You are a refugee, no-one promised you safety in a particular borough of london.
(as it happens, It wasn't particularly safe)
|
>> Two points.
>>
>> 1/ There probably isn't enough places locally to rehouse the displaced.
>>
>> 2/ You are a refugee, no-one promised you safety in a particular borough of london.
On 1 you may well be right. But sending people to Preston while promising local accommodation looks at best hamfisted.
On 2/ Refugees have right to be housed on par with that of UK citizens:
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/immigration/asylum-and-refugees/after-you-get-refugee-status/
Some of those in Grenfell Tower referred to as Refugees may actually be settled here.
|
>> On 1 you may well be right. But sending people to Preston while promising local
>> accommodation looks at best hamfisted.
>>
>> On 2/ Refugees have right to be housed on par with that of UK citizens:
Uk citizens who are homeless have no right to be housed where they want.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Jun 17 at 01:43
|
>> Uk citizens who are homeless have no right to be housed where they want.
Your shifting your ground, your initial reference was to refugees. Accommodation offered has to be 'suitable'. There's a huge chunk of case law around meaning of suitable. I cannot quote chapter/verse but I can quick refer homeless people to a man who does.
PS: Why do you pick arguments over over subjects in which others are, if not actually expert, much more familiar with than you are?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 19 Jun 17 at 21:58
|
|
Edit missed: Your = You're
|
>> PS: Why do you pick arguments over over subjects in which others are, if not
>> actually expert, much more familiar with than you are?
1/ I said that refugees dont have a right to choose where to be housed.
2/ You responded that they have the same rights as UK citizens
3/ I said that UK citizens dont have a right to choose where to be homed. *
Now, that to me is a perfectly logical progression of discussion, and is in no way shifting ground.
Now given that its perfectly linked is a perfectly accurate précis and you haven't disproved 3, ergo 1 stands
Now what was your beef?
*edit - even more so in an emergency situation. And this is.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 19 Jun 17 at 22:26
|
If you meant 'everybody' why mention refugees?
|
>> If you meant 'everybody' why mention refugees?
I was expanding the point.
|
>> I was expanding the point.
rhubarb {slap! you know why}, you were trolling winding up and showed the troll's characteristic shape shift.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Jun 17 at 01:45
|
Shape shift?
Listen mush you accused me of shifting ground and when that was proved wrong you went all the way back to the start of the exchange to start off on a fresh tack.
Now who is trolling. Give it up, you were caught with your pants down.
|
>> Shape shift?
>>
>> Listen mush you accused me of shifting ground and when that was proved wrong you
>> went all the way back to the start of the exchange to start off on
>> a fresh tack.
Whatever. If your need for last word is that great you can (sort of) have it.
|
>> PS: Why do you pick arguments over over subjects in which others are, if not
>> actually expert, much more familiar with than you are?
Because your rabid, unfailing and irrational defence of all things labour under all circumstances clearly makes you biased and therefore a potentially untrustworthy corespondent with an agenda.
Happy now?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 19 Jun 17 at 22:39
|
>> Because your rabid, unfailing and irrational defence of all things labour under all circumstances clearly
>> makes you biased and therefore a potentially untrustworthy corespondent with an agenda.
If you bother to look/read/think you'd understand I'm a Croslandite on what was traditionally the 'right' of Labour. I'm on record as condemning Corbyn as a leader and *like you* was surprised when he played a blinder in the GE.
|
>> >> Because your rabid, unfailing and irrational defence of all things labour under all circumstances
>> clearly
>> >> makes you biased and therefore a potentially untrustworthy corespondent with an agenda.
>>
>> If you bother to look/read/think you'd understand I'm a Croslandite on what was traditionally the
>> 'right' of Labour. I'm on record as condemning Corbyn as a leader and *like you*
>> was surprised when he played a blinder in the GE.
Doesn't stop you blaming the cause of the fire and everything thats happened since the fire on the Tory party tho does it.
Croslandite? The one who died in 1977? Blimey, maybe I should have added Luddite after rabid.
|
>> Croslandite? The one who died in 1977? Blimey, maybe I should have added Luddite after
>> rabid.
He wrote a book called The Future of Socialism. Worth a read.
But:
Whatever. If your need for last word is that great you can (sort of) have it.
|
>> He wrote a book called The Future of Socialism. Worth a read.
Shortest book on earth?
>>
>and that is my last word, as it's posted from flight zb262
|
>>Doesn't stop you blaming the cause of the fire and everything thats happened since the fire on the Tory party tho does it.
Appears the LibDems get a look in too...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789
|
>
>> 1/ There probably isn't enough places locally to rehouse the displaced.
>>
Corbyn's kneejerk irrational reaction to "occupy" or "requisition" properties was obviously way over the top. We are not in war situation, we live in democratic country where people have bought properties legally and some may have been deliberately left unoccupied on a speculative basis. The facts and myths surrounding empty properties were reported on just this week by LSE for a study commissioned by Sadiq Khan.
To put things in perspective, we have had net migration of the order of 250,000 people a year for some years. Assuming 5 people per unit, that requires at least 50,000 housing units per year, say about 1000 per week. To rehouse the Grenfell Tower families would require 120 units, which is less than demand for one day's net immigration.
Housing in the borough as well as nearby boroughs has been offered by some kind people. However, the bureacrats at RBofK&C have just not been able to deal with it. (It was the same when homes were being offered for Syrian refugees but councils throughout UK were unable to process these offers.)
From the Gouardian:
"Kensington and Chelsea council and the tenant management organisation did not respond to more than 130 offers to put up displaced residents of Grenfell Tower and its neighbouring blocks, a volunteer who came to assist in the relief efforts has said.
Michal Nachmany, told the Guardian that she spent hours on Wednesday compiling a list of people willing to provide a roof for families and individuals – with some even offering entire flats to the dispossessed.
She even offered to put up two families herself at her home in Chiswick. “My kids can fit into a single room,†she said.
Nachmany sent the list to senior workers at KCTMO and the local council. However, as yet she has not received any news that any of the offers have been matched to families or individuals in need."
|
It's very obvious and easy for us armchair experts - we've even sorted out the cause of the fire and the whole remediation exercise in advance of the authorities - but real life often isn't as straightforward.
While it does seem a bit bizarre that they haven't responded, I suspect it isn't quite as simple as bussing displaced people to a new address. They probably have to check the property and the landlord, and also make sure that they are not over-stepping or under-delivering their obligations.
I expect that this is quite unprecedented and a potential legal minefield, in many aspects.
On a slight tangent, I do get sick of the newspapers continually stirring up sentiments which may not otherwise have existed. Not this one in particular but the whole politicisation of the fire, the criticism of Theresa May, some of the stuff which is being said about today's terror attack.
|
>> it does actually perform a purpose other than the cosmetic i.e insulation. These old tower
>> blocks were difficult and costly to keep warm and prone to condensation.
Ironically, when built they were very fire safe. Dicking about with them changed it.
whilst you are
>> removing the old cladding with all the costs of access that that involves you might
>> as well install replacement fire resistant cladding.
Nope an unacceptable position.
Getting to the root cause will take a while, and the root cause may well be building standards, and they may need updating. Any new cladding may not meet the new standards. All suspect cladding has to come off now.
|
>> All suspect cladding has to come off now.
Better of to be uncomfortable than dead!
|
One thing house fires are very rare these days.Chip pan fire was common.Most people have smoke alarms and always make sure you can get out.For a fridge to cause a fire I find strange and cause that amount of damage in such a short time.
Tumble dryers yes but fridges?
|
20 years ago a MAJOR electronic/electrical supplier filled
their fridges with a mixture of butane & other hydrocarbons.
Fires were reasonably common & went with a BIG Bang.
Most of them will have been scrapped but obviously some will still in use somewhere
in the UK - obviously we do not know anything about the make & age of the fridge
that has been talked about.
|
|
Scrapped a 15 yr old Bosch Fridge / freezer at the turn of the year which used iso-butane as the refrigerant. It's replacement, a Miele , uses Pentane....
|
>>One thing house fires are very rare these days.
One thing that frequently makes me realise how unusual it is in the UK, is living elsewhere. The sirens to call in the firemen (all fire fighters are volunteers here) are audible from my office. It is a very rare day that I don't hear them at least twice, and usually more.
And I reckon, without knowing, that the Tercera CompañÃa probably only covers stuff within a radius of 5 miles.
|
>> Tumble dryers yes but fridges?
Tumble dryers are bad yes, but fridges?
www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/05/beko-fridge-freezer-fire-warning
yup. Bad.
|
|
Given the reported payouts of 5k (£500.00) in cash were the people that lost property etc. In Boscastle given a handout?
|
>> Given the reported payouts of 5k (£500.00) in cash were the people that lost property
>> etc. In Boscastle given a handout?
Whilst I've every sympathy with everyone caught up in this disaster and particularly the loss of life, Why doesn't the government pay out cash to everyone who's had a house fire?
|
>>
>>
>> Whilst I've every sympathy with everyone caught up in this disaster and particularly the loss
>> of life, Why doesn't the government pay out cash to everyone who's had a house
>> fire?
>>
Because most house fires are not a result of criminal incompetence by the government / local authority.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 21 Jun 17 at 17:58
|
>> reported payouts of 5k (£500.00) in cash were the people that lost
>> property
>>
That's just the start. The various funds (Justgiving, Government, Simon Cowell record, etc.) are easily likely to exceed £25m (current total around £10m), meaning about £200k per flat destroyed. This is before the ambulance chasing no-win-no-fee lawyers get involved to seek compensation for the victims.
>> Whilst I've every sympathy with everyone caught up in this disaster and particularly the loss
>> of life, Why doesn't the government pay out cash to everyone who's had a house
>> fire?
>>
"In 2015/16, fire services across England attended around 162,000 fires - an increase of 7,000 from the previous year. There were 303 fire related fatalities and 7,661 casualties in fires. For every million people in England, there were 5.5 fire related fatalities in 2015/16. This fatality rate was 11.6 people for those 65 to 79 years old and 19.5 for those 80 years
and over."
Normally supposed to be covered by your insurance. Exceptions such as nuclear incidents on your policy are covered by Government. In this case, it is the GE2017 election result, Theresa May's initial autistic type behaviour, politics of poverty, politics of immigration, and being in the richest Borough that is the deciding factor.
|
|
Interesting / telling passing comment on the news last night, that the first LFB crew on scene entered the source flat and thought they had put the fire out, and were preparing to leave when they realised the outside was on fire....
|
>> For a fridge to cause a fire I find strange and cause that amount of damage in such a short time.
Well it was a Hotpoint fridge freezer that started the fire, which then led to the building insulation / cladding going up.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584
Police said the fire had not been started deliberately and the speed the fire spread was "unexpected".
Preliminary tests on the samples of insulation showed it burned soon after the test started and more quickly than the cladding tiles.
However, they both failed the police's safety tests which are similar to those being carried out by the UK government.
The cladding, insulation, fixings and installation will be examined both individually and how they worked together.
|
> Police said the fire had not been started deliberately and the speed the fire spread
>> was "unexpected".
>>
>>
i think a lot of time is going to be expended on that, cladding or no cladding.
|
>> >> For a fridge to cause a fire I find strange and cause that amount of damage in such a short time.
>>
>> Well it was a Hotpoint fridge freezer that started the fire, which then led to
>> the building insulation / cladding going up.
>>
How many fridges and fridge freezers contain the same refrigerant?
I have not read of previous incidents. Any stats of similar events available ?.
The risks of a repeat explosion seem low but still a worry.
IIRC there are added safety features on gas hobs for use in flats.
All good regulations if they are adhered to and cowboys do not fit things.
i
|
"Well it was a Hotpoint fridge freezer that started the fire, which then led to the building insulation / cladding going up."
That BBC report mentions registering electrical products with the manufacturer after purchase ........ it is very good advice .......... I mentioned it here over 4 years ago www.car4play.com/forum/post/edit/reply.htm?m=538516
and on subsequent occasions. This was in relation to a Bosch dishwasher but the facility to contact owners in case of a recall is vital.
Correct link to earlier post is www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=16031&m=360266. smokie
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 17:54
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280
I wonder if it's the council or Government doing the purchasing?
|
>> I wonder if it's the council or Government doing the purchasing?
>>
From the Guardian and the Daily Mail:
"Around 250 homeless and beleaguered survivors of the devastating Grenfell Tower fire will be rehoused permanently inside a £2billion luxury Kensington development, it was revealed today.
The 68 one, two and three bedroom properties have been bought for just £10million and will provide refuge for families who lost everything in the blaze that killed 79 people a week ago.
Apartments in the Kensington Row development off Kensington High Street lauded as 'one of London's most sought after new addresses', are currently on the market for between £1.5million and £8.5 million.
But developer St Edward has sold the 68 flats at 'cost' price even though they have a market value of around £160million.
The apartments have large rooms and balconies offering panoramic views of London and residents also have access to a swimming pool, sauna, cinema and gym.
The deal is said to have been financed by the City of London Corporation who immediately handed the flats to Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council"
|
Reports today are that these flats were 'affordable' housing required as part of planning consent for a luxury block. Unlikely to be places with inspiring views and in general the 'affordable' homes don't have full access to facilities like pools, gardens and cinema etc. They may even be required to use different entrances.
It's also reported that there was endemic subletting in Grenfell Tower. Work will be needed to prevent the 'head tenants' acquiring more lucrative places to rent out.
|
>> Reports today are that these flats were 'affordable' housing required as part of planning. >> consent
>> for a luxury block. Unlikely to be places with inspiring views and in general the
>> 'affordable' homes don't have full access to facilities like pools, gardens and cinema etc. They
>> may even be required to use different entrances.
>>
They probably won't have to pay the chunky monthly "management fees" which the owners pay for these facilities either.
|
So let's get this right Brompy, are you saying that social housing tenants should get free pools, gyms, concierge and potted plants just because the rich get them?
|
>> So let's get this right Brompy, are you saying that social housing tenants should get
>> free pools, gyms, concierge and potted plants just because the rich get them?
No. I'm making an observation about folks in 'affordable' housing on mixed open market/affordable developments. Whether tenants or owners they don't get all the trappings and may have to use a 'tradesman's entrance'..
Press pictures of the show houses and make reference to gyms etc may mislead.
Nothing more than that.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 22 Jun 17 at 13:02
|
>> Whether tenants or owners they don't get all the trappings and may have to use
>> a 'tradesman's entrance'..
>>
>> Press pictures of the show houses and make reference to gyms etc may mislead.
>>
>> Nothing more than that.
>>
If it's nothing more than that why include the "tradesman's entrance" bit rather than just say a "separate entrance".
|
>> If it's nothing more than that why include the "tradesman's entrance" bit rather than just
>> say a "separate entrance".
The term is consistent with several descriptions I've read of such developments.
Why the sensitivity on your part?
|
|
I doubt that it is referred to as a tradesman's entrance in any official documentation or signage.
|
>> I doubt that it is referred to as a tradesman's entrance in any official documentation
>> or signage.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
|
>> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
>>
You just love that phrase. What do you mean, if what walks like a duck, the social housing tenants??
Very derogatory
I grew up in a council flat, nothing wrong with council tenants, they are in no way second class citizens.
|
It was simply a figurative description of a situation where market price occupiers have one entrance via atrium etc and affordable occupiers via a lesser entry at rear. I've read reports of such scenarios in London's 'smarter' areas.
No reflection whatever on (either) occupant.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 22 Jun 17 at 14:27
|
Again you use the word lesser. These occupiers are not second class citizens, nor are they being treated as such.
The private occupiers will be paying a monthly or annual charge for cleaning / carpeting and decorating "their" entrance and stairway, either the social housing tenants or their provider will be responsible for the social housing entrance. The only reason for the alternative entrance will be to avoid issues with maintenance responsibility and payment. Nothing lesser / tradesman or whatever is involved and such words just show a desire to make some "class" comment.
|
>> is involved and such words just show a desire to make some "class" comment.
No class comment on my part.
My starting point was that the press comparison with sales guff for the open market part of the development was creating a false image.
Whether occupants of mixed developments perceive a first class/second class scenario may be different. I've read of campaigns for greater access to communal areas etc from occupiers in some such places.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 22 Jun 17 at 15:12
|
>
>> Whether occupants of mixed developments perceive a first class/second class scenario may be different. I've
>> read of campaigns for greater access to communal areas etc from occupiers in some such
>> places.
Sure if they pay the maintenance charge for them why not
If that is unpalatable and they still want to moan, they could always be rehomed elsewhere altogether more crummy
|
>> Another take on subject of mixed developments.
>>
>> www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-social-tenants-luxury-flats/
No access to the garden and no off street parking was "shocking". Really? That's the worse he could find? No adverse comment about the actual conditions of the flat itself?
As I said STFU, or move somewhere much much worse
|
>> As I said STFU, or move somewhere much much worse
And you'd have said the same if Grenfell Tower residents pre-fire protests had been in public domain.
|
|
Not sure how you manage to mangle that basket of fruit, wasn't aware Grenville tower had luxury apartments, a private garden, secure underground parking or separate concierge entrance.
|
>> Not sure how you manage to mangle that basket of fruit, wasn't aware Grenville tower
>> had luxury apartments, a private garden, secure underground parking or separate concierge entrance.
>>
Looks more like an attitude that tenants of social housing should either (a) bow low and thank the taxpayers for their munificence or (b) STFU and go somewhere worse.
|
No it's an Attitude that those who paid for the block to be built, and paying more for extra facilities have the right to use them. Those that don't should stop whining and ponder upon who is subsiding their rents
If they are prepared to pay for the luxuries, then fine, but if course that's unfair
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 24 Jun 17 at 22:03
|
|
Are the residents in these peasant flats using the tradesmens entrance actually bothered by it all or is just people being offended on their behalf?
|
The accommodation in the social housing element of the development is likely to be much better than they had before. And they only have the chance of being council tenants there because the London Corporation purchased a lot of these flats.
Maybe they'd prefer to be in a different 1970s 20+ storey tower instead?
|
>> Are the residents in these peasant flats using the tradesmens entrance actually bothered by it
>> all or is just people being offended on their behalf?
Clearly the woman on LBC was bothered.
I have read of similar issues before over parking, entrances and gardens, probably in the Guardian or Standard, but couldn't find a link. I raised it in first place to hi-light the inaccuracy of press reports illustrated with sales guff for the open market side of the development.
Not suggesting for a minute there should be access to gym, cinema pool etc. Failure to provide parking and some sort of access to areas where children can play is more of a concern. Both likely to give rise to conflict between the two groups of tenants.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 25 Jun 17 at 09:19
|
> Clearly the woman on LBC was bothered.
>>
>>
i assume that her comments are in the video on the link further up? Wouldn't play for me, need some sort of download.
|
>> The private occupiers will be paying a monthly or annual charge for cleaning / carpeting
>> and decorating "their" entrance and stairway,
The LBC phone in programme this afternoon had the subject aired.
Yeh! Giveitem for free etc. etc.
A caller responded " I pay £15500 p.a .for building maint, facilities etc. "
"I do not agree!"
That started to melt the switchboard.
>> either the social housing tenants or their provider will be responsible for the social housing entrance.
Fat chance - see above
>> The only reason for the alternative entrance will be to avoid issues with maintenance responsibility and payment.
|
>>A caller responded " I pay £15500 p.a .for building maint, facilities etc. "
£1550 shirley
|
>> >>A caller responded " I pay £15500 p.a .for building maint, facilities etc. "
>>
>> £1550 shirley
>>
In upmarket London, who knows? Service charges on my late mum's retirement flat in Paisley 7 or 8 years ago were around 1500 pa.
|
>> >>A caller responded " I pay £15500 p.a .for building maint, facilities etc. "
>>
>> £1550 shirley
>>
I repeat £ 1. 5 5 0 0. 00
It does IIRC include a swimming pool.
|
>>I repeat £ 1. 5 5 0 0. 00
It does IIRC include a swimming pool
Blimey! .. I'd want a helipad, a mooring AND a boat for that annual charge. Maybe I've lived in Dumbnonia too long.
:o}
|
To avoid any confusion by my typo
£ 1 5, 5 0 0. 00. Yes, Fifteen thousand five hundred British Pounds.
The very words of the lady caller
www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/if-grenfell-residents-move-into-my-flats-ill-move/
|
|
staff cost money, 24*7 concierge/security man needs 4 staff, + part time staff for cleaning / swimming pool & gym maintenance etc etc
|
|
Oh come on, Bromp. You used that term on purpose to try to create an image.
|
>> Oh come on, Bromp. You used that term on purpose to try to create an
>> image.
>>
Perhaps he was suggesting that the back stairs are provided for social tenants to put them at their ease. They would probably be embarrassed by being saluted by the uniformed doorman, having their parcels carried up by staff, and being expected to tip them.
:)
|
I thought the 68 flats were in different blocks to the luxury ones. So definitely different entrances. An isn't it blocks in plural for these social type housing flats? Even the 68 aren't all in one building.
It's not a 24 storey tower.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 00:56
|
|
Still more than likely to be far better than the ones they were in before. I think they should be thanked it's a nice thought that they've made the effort. They could have done nothing and wouldn't have copped any flack for it.
|
>>It's also reported that there was endemic subletting in Grenfell Tower.
>> Work will be needed to prevent the 'head tenants' acquiring more lucrative places to rent out.
>>
At the time of the fire there were at least two adverts for flats to let in the tower @ approx £1600 per month.
|
>>approx £1600 per month.
'kin 'ell.
I'd not get that for a 5-bed detached former hotel in the Central Belt.
|
|
For London, that's kin cheap
|
|
the advantages of the central belt are not appreciated by people down south ;-)
|
|
Is that the same belt you hang your sporran from?
|
|
Sub-letting of social housing is endemic in London as appears to be the case here. I assume it is only legal tenants of RBKC who will be given new tenancies in the Berkeley block? If unauthorised sub-tenants get a place too they will have very neatly jumped several rungs up the lengthy housing list. Bound to disturb others who have been waiting!
|
They knew sub letting was going to be an issue right from the off, along with over occupation and unregistered illegalls - that mixed with cremated remains means that the authorities knew they were probably never going to identify a fair proportion
|
|
Jeez, makes me feel very grateful to be paying my £190 month mortgage.
|
|
I suppose another view is that those who were subletting have got a massive boost in their potential income, or maybe they will look for evidence that the lessors were in residence before allocating a new place.
|
|
If the lessor has not been taking up the provided emergency accommodation then that might be a clue that they were not living in the tower.
|
The whole lot stinks.
We demand, we demand, we demand.. it is peeing me right off the lot of it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 02:05
|
If the occupants of the flats had contents insurance, presumably they will get paid out by the insurer? Then they won't need to be given anything, the insurers will help with an initial payment.
If my house burnt down and I didn't have contents insurance presumably I'd get chuff all, until friends bailed me out or used my own savings to replace stuff
I have no idea how much contents insurance would cost for a flat in that tower block
|
Given the alleged demographic of occupants in that block, I doubt that many had any insurance at all.
Lots of people in this country have no insurances, whether by unaffordability, indolence, or plain stupidity. There often seems to be a cry roughly translated as "someone must pay", when such people are struck by an insurable calamity.
I do feel a certain sympathy for those whose insurance cover is underwritten out, mostly by price, where geographical circumstances, such a liability to flooding, makes covering them an unacceptable risk.
On the other hand, I've always, by choice avoided buying a house in a known flood plain, or close to unpredictable water courses.
Caveat emptor and all that!
|
>> I have no idea how much contents insurance would cost for a flat in that tower block.
I suspect many residents don't know either.
|
As with any of these large scale tragedies, there is unfair distribution.
I remember the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy. The same day those innocents got mown down by the driver there were two other fatal accidents in the near area.
The Glasgow victims got justgiving pages, Council funds, Scottish Govt support, newspaper fundraising etc.
The families of the other two got nothing.
When you look at it on an individual basis, one families grief is no greater than the others.
|
I live in a semi detached. When I do my insurance each year there are questions about what my house is made off, brick facing, timber framed, roof type etc.
I would bet my bottom dollar that in normal circumstances, any ins company would try and nullify the insurance for this claim on the basis that there was non disclosure on the building type. Would any policyholder declare that their flat was surrounded by flammable panels?
But on that point, surely the Council have buildings insurance for the whole block or do they self insure?
|
>> I suspect many residents don't know either.
It's a near central London postcode and a low income area in a very rich borough. I strongly suspect, though I don't know for certain, that insurers will regard social housing with a very mixed group of occupiers, high level of unlawful subletting and in flats with a shared entry as risky. Therefore high premiums and large excesses.
Of those residents who did know a significant proportion will have found it unnaffordable.
|
|
Given that you have no financial investment or residual value in the property, that he landlord has the responsibility to re-home you and the value of your personal possessions are low, where is the financial sense in paying for insurance?
|
>> Given that you have no financial investment or residual value in the property, that he
>> landlord has the responsibility to re-home you and the value of your personal possessions are
>> low, where is the financial sense in paying for insurance?
>>
I seem to remember that at least in some boroughs contents insurance was included in the rent, or at least there was the option to pay a bit extra for it.
|
>> The whole lot stinks.
>>
>> We demand, we demand, we demand.. it is peeing me right off the lot of
>> it.
>>
I guess that if you had lost everything in a fire including your home and in some cases your family you might be making a few demands too
|
>> I guess that if you had lost everything in a fire including your home and
>> in some cases your family you might be making a few demands too
But "Last year (2013/14), 22,200 fires occurred in non-domestic buildings. There were 17 deaths and 1,083 injuries in non-domestic buildings." www.labelbar.co.uk/uk-fire-statistics-i97
None of those people's relatives received 20k. Nor immediate rehoming in a Berkeley Homes Development. etc.
And why should the Grenfell tower people be more deserving than others who have horrible life incidents.
It's a real issue that because you get a lot of column inches, you get a lot of cash! Not fair on the ones who don't. Why should the immigration status of the Grenfell residents be ignored - as the Labour MP for Kensington suggested.
It's inequitable. I have no particular problem with what they're being given; but we don't give it to everybody; and we can't afford to give it to everybody; so why this particular crowd?
|
Its pretty simple surely;
Anyone illegally subletting clearly doesn't need the accommodation. So not only should they not receive compensation, they should lose the flat.
Any illegal immigrant should be deported, as all illegal immigrants should be.
Any legal UK resident renting from an illegal subletter needs investigating to decide if the council should be rehousing them or whether they are simply a renter and should rent elsewhere themselves.
Anyone legally renting from the council should be rehoused and should be compensated for loss. [If I was renting and it burned down at the fault/negligence of the landlord I'd damn well want compensation].
Who did I miss?
|
|
Anyone illegally subletting a council flat is placed on a blacklist and never offered any council, property for say 5 years. And as it is illegal, all rentals are immediately repayable by the illegal landlord in full to the council which owns the property
|
Where are these "up to 250,000" people (added every year) going to stay?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/hundreds-thousands-illegal-immigrants-drop-radar-uk-every-year/
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 15:22
|
Heathrow. Briefly.
Or Dover.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 15:23
|
But that breached their human rights. The ECHR says they deserve better than a brief visit to Heathrow, i.e. something more like a permanent right to stay in the UK with free housing and benefits for life.
growth of "legal" population
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/population-growth-sharpest-70-years-record-migration-levels/
"Britain has experienced a population increase of five million people in just over a decade, between 2005 and 2016.
The previous five million took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.
Figures released on Thursday by the Office of National Statistics, showed that the population increased by 538,000 during the year to June 2016, the largest numerical increase since 1947.
Following years of growth the population of the UK is now 65,648,000, the highest level ever recorded. "
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 15:28
|
I don't think it does.
However, a better approach is not to let people in without either a visa or a right to enter. Anybody who needs to appeal can do it from elsewhere. Though anybody who can support themselves should be given the right to enter.
If an airline brings in someone who is refused access at the border there should be truly massive fines. Ditto a ferry company. Anyone not carrying proper documents should be refused entry.
Everybody should be finger printed coming in.
If a private citizen including truck drivers and holiday makers, tries to smuggle someone in then the fine should be lifechanging.
Illegal immigrants should be deported. Since everybody needs to prove a nationality to get in, then we know where to send them back to.
Moreover, we should introduce ID cards. In Chile or Brazil, for example, you cannot do anything without that ID card. Forged ones exist, but they are generally not very good. You cannot buy a car, rent accommodation, stay in a hotel or hostel, use any Government service, use a credit card, drive, obtain credit, use a bank account in any way, etc. etc and must carry it at all times. If you do not have an ID card, then you must carry your passport which are ALWAYS stamped with a date by which you must leave.
Your personal details and finger print are on the card. Just checking mine it has the following;
Full Name
My picture
My nationality
D.O.D.
Date of arrival
Date I am allowed here until
Fingerprint
ID Number
It doesn't stop the problem, but it does massively limit it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 15:39
|
>> If an airline brings in someone who is refused access at the border there should
>> be truly massive fines. Ditto a ferry company. Anyone not carrying proper documents should be
>> refused entry.
>>
>> If a private citizen including truck drivers and holiday makers, tries to smuggle someone in
>> then the fine should be lifechanging.
>>
Pretty sure those things happen now.
|
>> Pretty sure those things happen now.
If you read the linked article the majority of the 250k are people who enter legally and overstay.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 16:00
|
>> >> Pretty sure those things happen now.
>>
>> If you read the linked article the majority of the 250k are people who enter
>> legally and overstay.
>>
So you mean it doesn't?
|
>> So you mean it doesn't?
No. It does happen, airlines etc can be and are fined.
But it's no help for people who come in legally as students or visitors and don't go home.
|
> No. It does happen, airlines etc can be and are fined.
That's what I was saying, that those powers are in place now.
>> But it's no help for people who come in legally as students or visitors and
>> don't go home.
>>
I know, i never suggested that it was.
|
>If you read the linked article the majority of the 250k are people who enter legally and overstay.
And one of the arguments about deporting them is not knowing where to deport them to.
Well since they entered legally they should have been finger printed and their details recorded. Thus we know where to ship them back to and who brought them in.
I have no sympathy for such people. They should simply be out. They can reapply for another visa from abroad if they wish.
|
>>Pretty sure those things happen now.
I don't know.
However, I do know the enthusiasm airline check in staff put into checking my wife's passport when we are going to the US is massively more than the effort they put into checking it when we're going to the UK.
They said to me it was because of the penalties, restrictions and difficulties the airlines face from US Immigration when carrying someone subsequently refused compared to that from the UK.
I have no other evidence or knowledge.
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty sure airlines are fined and I've seen reports of truck drivers bring fined for illegals in their truck. Not sure about if the US fines are more or less.
|
The truck drivers get fined £2,000 I think?
I think a life changing fine, together with really heavy penalties on the companies, would do more.
|
>> But that breached their human rights. The ECHR says they deserve better than a brief
>> visit to Heathrow, i.e. something more like a permanent right to stay in the UK
>> with free housing and benefits for life.
Another of your fairy stories.
|
>> Where are these "up to 250,000" people (added every year) going to stay?
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/hundreds-thousands-illegal-immigrants-drop-radar-uk-every-year/
As it the Telegraph, it's a lie,the number is fictitious wonder what would happen to the Barclay brothers if we set fire to their fuedal island?
|
>> Its pretty simple surely;
>> Anyone illegally subletting clearly doesn't need the accommodation. So not only should they not receive
>> compensation, they should lose the flat.
>> Any illegal immigrant should be deported, as all illegal immigrants should be.
>> Any legal UK resident renting from an illegal subletter needs investigating to decide if the
>> council should be rehousing them or whether they are simply a renter and should rent
>> elsewhere themselves.
>> Anyone legally renting from the council should be rehoused and should be compensated for loss.
>> [If I was renting and it burned down at the fault/negligence of the landlord I'd
>> damn well want compensation].
>> Who did I miss?
Who did you miss? The manpower required to implement it!
|
Not fair on the ones who don't. Why should the immigration
>> status of the Grenfell residents be ignored - as the Labour MP for Kensington suggested.
>>
The thinking is they may have useful information and would be reluctant to come forward with that if in doing so they are removed from the country.
and we can't afford to give it to everybody; so why
>> this particular crowd?
You answered your own question
It's a real issue that because you get a lot of column inches, you get
>> a lot of cash!
people feel a sympathy to large scale tragedies, hardly unusual.
|
London tower block fire - zippy
