Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

That's exactly what the 'ambulance chaser' lawyers are giving the victims: false hope.
And of course it's not right what has been happening with property in London. But it's still their property.

"Right now, this government is doing its best to ensure the public inquiry focuses on cladding and fire safety, because ministers know what happened last month is linked to a far bigger injustice that they are desperate to escape scrutiny on. At its core, the tragedy in Kensington cannot be understood except in the context of the continuing Tory attack on social housing.

If this government is allowed to turn the Grenfell Tower tragedy into a debate over only cladding and fire regulations, it will have escaped justice following years in which it has demonised those who do not own their own homes. What we have seen since 2010 is a full-scale attack on the values behind social housing and the quality of the socially rented homes the government is prepared to back."

Whose property petra the rich oligarchs and sheiks who see it as a way of making money? When did it become right for someone to use what has always been housing, not for its proper purpose i.e as a place for people to live but purely to make money. In my opinion it constitutes change of usage and if I did that with a commercial property the council would certainly have something to say.
Annie- read your own posts- you said the words I simply followed what they logically meant.

Which ambulance chasing lawyers are you on about, petra?
There are no abulances to chase any more.
People are either dead, in hospital or in hotels.

The lawyers are giving their time free for the Grenfell residents. It's quite nasty of you to imply otherwise.
But not unexpected.

Good idea, this. Licence agreements for all those empty houses in Kensington, to allow tenants to live in them until something more permanent is found.

"Licence agreements could put tenants in empty properties until they find a home of their own.

The idea is going to CIH next week.

Property management specialist Ad Hoc is pitching an occupation model that means individuals under a license agreement can be placed in empty properties where they can live at an affordable rate until something more permanent is secured.

Grenfell threw a harsh immediate focus on the use of empty property as sanctuary for survivors.

Against a wider background, the number of first-time home buyers nationally has dropped by 50% since the 90s and millennials now need to borrow upwards of 40x their salary to purchase a home.

Alongside this is an upsurge in proposals to build on the green belt, rising from 81,000 proposed houses in 2012 to 275,000 in 2016 to 360,000 in 2017.

With thousands of buildings sitting vacant across the UK, the model incorporates a wide range of properties that span from unoccupied flats and care homes to vacant schools and hospitals.

To Ad Hoc, the idea is for all parties involved, as it provides property owners with someone to maintain their property as well as acting as a security measure, whilst the guardians benefit from affordable living in a non-traditional space."

From 24housing website.

millennials now need to borrow upwards of 40x their salary to purchase a home.
40X upwards? Forty?
Only in the London area surely but is that where they mean?

Unfortunately, trisher I think property has been regarded as a way to make money for quite some time now; even further down the scale from 'oligarchs' and sheiks people have been encouraged to put money into housing as an alternative to pensions which were not doing so well.
Programmes such as 'Homes under the Hammer' always refer to houses as a good investment opportunity and not as a home. Some seemingly quite ordinary people have acquired very large property portfolios apparently.

One would presume, though, that they were occupied by tenants and not left empty.

A mile from school is supposedly well within walking distance and does not even qualify for free school transport. The criteria are:

2 miles from the school if they’re under 8
3 miles from the school if they’re 8 or older

durhamjen
I'm certain that you are very aware of the term 'ambulance chasers'
One such excuse for these low life: Leigh Day have suspended 2 paralegals for putting up posters at the site.
All with the ' best intentions' I'm sure. But if I remember correctly you defended this company to the hilt in the way they tried to destroy one of our brave soldiers.

Jalima, it wasn't turned down because it was a mile from school. It was because it was too small.
That's the DMs take on it.

The family said they turned down an offer of accommodation because it was too small and too far away from school.

Her father said: "I want this to finish, that's what I want. I want my dignity".

The Telegraph. No mention of distance.

Unfortunately, trisher I think property has been regarded as a way to make money for quite some time now; even further down the scale from 'oligarchs' and sheiks people have been encouraged to put money into housing as an alternative to pensions which were not doing so well.

Exactly Jalima1108. We Londoners are being encouraged to move from our large homes and downsize to smaller properties to provide more housing stock for families. So, the answer is that several people I know have bought 2 or 3 flats with the proceeds with the intention of quickly releasing the capital for their care should they require. People can't be blamed for investing for their future because that could be bleak too without something to fall back on.

Lillie But presumably the people that you know were not leaving the flats empty. They are not depriving anybody else of a home, they were making a sensible decision and nobody would blame them.

That's different to just using them as an investment and leaving them empty.

True.

Tell me about it Jallima our LEA say that 5 or 6 miles for a 7 year old ( taking 3 buses and a long walk) is perfectly acceptable .

Having said that you could probably get a 3 bedroom detached house here for the equivalent cost of one of those Grenfell flats but that's London for you .

There are two issues here...one: housing the survivors of Grenfell Tower and two:
Asking why they can't use empty flats and homes owned by other people.
As regards the first issue, the survivors have been told they will be housed in Kensington if they really wish it.A block of flats is nearing completion and the Council are buying them for this express use.Others will be rehomed as near as is possible or, if they prefer out of London altogether.So it seems as if they will all be rehomed ( not in Tower blocks either) a certain amount of patience will be needed while the places are found.
On the empty homes question, which most of us see as a waste, they do belong to somebody and I imagine the legal proceedings around this scenario are
complicated.It would be a good idea for some sort of legislation surrounding the purchasing of houses in London, that states they must be lived in for at least six months a year.This would put off buyers who don't want to live there and are using the houses as either investments, or very wealthy clients who may choose to never live there.

Or charge them astronomical council tax levels? That should discourage empty mansions.

Just changing the planning laws and saying leaving a property empty constitutes a change of use would be easier, add the ability to compulsorily purchase empty properties and things would soon change.
People buying property to let isn't such a problem although I would like to see some legislation about rents and some increased tax levels for people with large property portfolios.

Anniebach your post at 10.20 was absolutely brilliant. It was factual with excellent and genuine comparisons between Aberfan and Grenville Tower tragedies. How anyone could dismiss your post as being callous or unfeeling is risible.

Have you seen the programmes - the week the Landlords come to stay? BBC1. Wed or Thurs. interesting programme - also interesting is the number of properties some of these landlords have.

What difference does it make how many properties a landlord owns, as long as they're being rented out in good condition and at reasonable rents? Are you suggesting that their should be some sort of cap on the number of properties one should own?

I think K&C borough has one if the lowest council taxes in the U.K.

Yes, it's one of the lowest. And despite being filled with empty houses, it's one of the most highly populated in the UK. That's one reason why it's low - 13,000 people per sq km. That's nearly 10 times the density of Leeds, so I suppose you get a better deal from the binmen.

No - the attitude of some of them - a couple had a rude awakening when staying in one of their own properties!