Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

Sorry, but no one said they should not have priority. I think you have misunderstood. But throw insults at people so quickly based on your assumptions? Becuase I said people on the housing list should not be forgotten?
I don't need a lecture on Grenfell thanks. I see it every day.

The Grenfell survivors have gone through great trauma, have a variety of health issues from the smoke, have seen family members or friends and neighbours die. Several survivors have committed suicide in the last few weeks. Of course they should have priority for housing. Whole families are living in hotel rooms. I can't believe anyone could be so heartless. Of course all homeless families deserve a home but priority must go to the Grenfell survivors.
Perhaps primrose is a spoof poster?

mostlyharmless what do you mean by that?

So how many flats have been found at such short notice for the Grenfell survivors, Leonora?
I am sure you know and can tell us.

Some of these last few posts seem like a sick joke. Surely they can't be serious?

I think that's a really good point and idea Leonora. It would be really sad if all the efforts for the survivors mean that people on the waiting list are effectively forgotten. I doubt very much that a homeless family would be understanding durhamjen and nor should they be. They still deserve their housing!

I think people on the housing list will be quite understanding. At least they were not in Grenfell Tower.

Does anybody have any idea how many people were on the housing waiting lists in Kensington before the Grenfell fire?
Those folk must be so disheartened to see
the properties they have been waiting for being offered to the surviving families.
How, I wonder, were so many flats found, at such short notice, when many families wait for years to reach the top of the waiting lists.

Possibly, the flats rejected by the survivors
should be offered to those who have been
waiting patiently for those flats which l they were repeatedly told were, 'unavailable'

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/30/grenfell-residents-condemn-basing-of-new-taskforce-in-council-office

You'd think they would have learnt by now.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/27/met-says-grenfell-council-may-have-committed-corporate-manslaughter

Could be corporate manslaughter - enough evidence to charge.

This is really good news. I think it's sensible to work with local community groups and they're being totally open about what they're doing with the money donated

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/grenfell-tower-survivors-to-receive-16m-directly-after-evening-standard-fund-hits-over-6m-a3592231.html

Welshwife as I said before, people were encouraged to put their savings into property instead of a pension fund and obviously they do want a return on that. However, there are many property owners who do charge extortionate rents - but that would seem to be the norm for the London area and unfortunately it has had a knock-on effect spreading outwards.

It may have been mentioned before, cannot read all through again, that K&C council were offered money by developers instead of the developers including affordable/social housing - quite substantial sums which they do not appear to have used to provide homes for people in the area. Of course, there could be a problem with availability of land in such a densely populated area but at least they could have made sure the property they did control was fit for people to live in.

This is disgraceful.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/grenfell-council-made-more-on-two-house-sales-than-it-spent-on-cladding

It is digracefjl the way that these disparities between wages and housing costs have been allowed to develop. At one end we have people making a nice bit of money on the rising cost of housing and at the other people who have seen the quality of life decreasing as little left when they have paid their rent.

There is no easy answer to any of this as naturally people who have put money into property to rent do want a profit.

I understand about small businesses not being able to pay more and eventually it would cause consumer prices to rise.

Some businesses would not be viable if they paid more than minimum wage and others, like supermarkets, would have to put their prices up. Unemployment is worse, in my opinion.

How should it work?

What is not 'a disgrace'

It is countrywide with people working full time and needing housing benefit and working tax credits etc - that is what is the disgrace - wages are way out of step at the bottom of the scale to the cost of housing and general living etc.
The minimum wage is just insufficient to enable people to live properly especially if they have a young family. The cost of childcare is prohibitive for many families if there is more than one child and the mother wants to work - lots of times it is just not financially viable.

So what would be OK durhamjen? How should it work for our London cleaner example?

That makes it okay, does it, Primrose, that she works full time and still has to claim benefits?
It doesn't to me.

Social rent, travels.

They are not private rentals in London, that's for sure

Arethese prices for social housing or private renting do you know durhamjen

If private, i would go for the six bed property and take in lodgers!!!! lol

She will get housing benefit on top of her salary.....

These are supposed to be the new affordable rents in London for the year. No wonder that cleaner can't afford to feed her children occasionally.

But they don't seem to work durhamjen. If they worked, I'm sure they would be used.
It's not as though there are councils using them and making them work - they're all failing. That makes me think whatever the legal issues are, these don't address them.