Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
Vipers said:
I disagree that he needs a physcological evaluation or what ever they call it, our fekking government do. 
I think you will find that this is the legal system that he is in.The fact that he is deemed to be illegal means he has broken the rules set by the government now it is the enforcers of those rules, the legal system, which is requesting these tests.
We can't blame the government for this one I'm afraid.
techiedave said:
Now it's gone to some committee I suspect the wreck will linger on for at least 3 or 4 years. It will cast its depressing shadow over the city for quite some time
Yep. The inevitable demolition of Grenfell is likely to be a good few years away.This is the UK where everyone has a say in matters.
If it happened in the Middle East by now there’d be three new towers in situ.
It'll never be demolished. It'l be re-paneled in LGBT rainbow colours, clad in the flags of the former occupiers and turned into a multi-cultural inner city yoof centre to combat knife crime with yogurt weaving classes and the power of interpretative dance and rap.
Or somehow the site will be sold to Qatar and the world's biggest skyscraper built, funded by some sort of urban challenge Labour funded community pot.
With a promise that families from Grenfell can use the private gym on a Wed morning between the hours of 3.23 am and 4.07 am. Booking by on line app only, limited spaces available.
Or somehow the site will be sold to Qatar and the world's biggest skyscraper built, funded by some sort of urban challenge Labour funded community pot.
With a promise that families from Grenfell can use the private gym on a Wed morning between the hours of 3.23 am and 4.07 am. Booking by on line app only, limited spaces available.
austinsmirk said:
It'll never be demolished. It'l be re-paneled in LGBT rainbow colours, clad in the flags of the former occupiers and turned into a multi-cultural inner city yoof centre to combat knife crime with yogurt weaving classes and the power of interpretative dance and rap.
Or somehow the site will be sold to Qatar and the world's biggest skyscraper built, funded by some sort of urban challenge Labour funded community pot.
With a promise that families from Grenfell can use the private gym on a Wed morning between the hours of 3.23 am and 4.07 am. Booking by on line app only, limited spaces available.
Are you feeling OK?Or somehow the site will be sold to Qatar and the world's biggest skyscraper built, funded by some sort of urban challenge Labour funded community pot.
With a promise that families from Grenfell can use the private gym on a Wed morning between the hours of 3.23 am and 4.07 am. Booking by on line app only, limited spaces available.
Randy Winkman said:
austinsmirk said:
It'll never be demolished. It'l be re-paneled in LGBT rainbow colours, clad in the flags of the former occupiers and turned into a multi-cultural inner city yoof centre to combat knife crime with yogurt weaving classes and the power of interpretative dance and rap.
Or somehow the site will be sold to Qatar and the world's biggest skyscraper built, funded by some sort of urban challenge Labour funded community pot.
With a promise that families from Grenfell can use the private gym on a Wed morning between the hours of 3.23 am and 4.07 am. Booking by on line app only, limited spaces available.
Are you feeling OK?Or somehow the site will be sold to Qatar and the world's biggest skyscraper built, funded by some sort of urban challenge Labour funded community pot.
With a promise that families from Grenfell can use the private gym on a Wed morning between the hours of 3.23 am and 4.07 am. Booking by on line app only, limited spaces available.
Grenfell style cladding to be banned and will no longer be allowed under building regulations.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/30/gr...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/30/gr...
BlackLabel said:
Grenfell style cladding to be banned and will no longer be allowed under building regulations.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/30/gr...
Now will begin a legal bunfight, who will pay for the existing buildings to be converted? All those in Flats with leases trapped as no one will buy them as they cannot get a mortgage all wanting to sue someone.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/30/gr...
This will be a legal knightmare
Building regs changes are not retrospective. No-one has to change anything existing legally.
That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
spaximus said:
BlackLabel said:
Grenfell style cladding to be banned and will no longer be allowed under building regulations.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/30/gr...
Now will begin a legal bunfight, who will pay for the existing buildings to be converted? All those in Flats with leases trapped as no one will buy them as they cannot get a mortgage all wanting to sue someone.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/30/gr...
This will be a legal knightmare
Auto spill checquer does piss me off as well.speedking31 said:
Building regs changes are not retrospective. No-one has to change anything existing legally.
That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
Is there not a remedial 'after-market' solution to at least reduce the problem? I guess that's where the money will be...That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
andy_s said:
speedking31 said:
Building regs changes are not retrospective. No-one has to change anything existing legally.
That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
Is there not a remedial 'after-market' solution to at least reduce the problem? I guess that's where the money will be...That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
Had the occupants and attending crews known about the risk of the cladding at Grenfell, they would have evacuated straight away IMHO, there would have been no 'stay put' instruction and the crews who put out the original fire would have been looking for the fire getting into the structure when they put out the burning fridge..
Changes to any fire strategy may not save the building, but would significantly reduce the risk to the occupants IMHO.
The Surveyor said:
andy_s said:
speedking31 said:
Building regs changes are not retrospective. No-one has to change anything existing legally.
That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
Is there not a remedial 'after-market' solution to at least reduce the problem? I guess that's where the money will be...That doesn't help the value of the properties with the cladding in question.
But ... there's only been one of these events in 50 years. Is there some factor that has made them more likely? Then 'even' these properties will have a market value.
Had the occupants and attending crews known about the risk of the cladding at Grenfell, they would have evacuated straight away IMHO, there would have been no 'stay put' instruction and the crews who put out the original fire would have been looking for the fire getting into the structure when they put out the burning fridge..
Changes to any fire strategy may not save the building, but would significantly reduce the risk to the occupants IMHO.
Hotel bills have reached £30m
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gr...
If 150 households (which is confusing in itself given the tower only had 129 flats in it) still haven't been rehoused after this long, are they ever going to be rehoused somewhere they accept? Is it time to draw a line and say sorry we just can't give you a perfect choice. Here are some places in adjoining boroughs, take it or leave it.
I can't help but think if a similar tragedy occurred in an all privately owned tower block, after a while the building insurers would just hand a sum of money to each flat owner and wave them goodbye, leaving it up to them to see where they could afford to live with that money.
But then I can't really follow why it's the council paying out these hotel and other costs anyway, and not the building insurer, of which there definitely was one, so not a case of RBK&C self-insuring.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gr...
If 150 households (which is confusing in itself given the tower only had 129 flats in it) still haven't been rehoused after this long, are they ever going to be rehoused somewhere they accept? Is it time to draw a line and say sorry we just can't give you a perfect choice. Here are some places in adjoining boroughs, take it or leave it.
I can't help but think if a similar tragedy occurred in an all privately owned tower block, after a while the building insurers would just hand a sum of money to each flat owner and wave them goodbye, leaving it up to them to see where they could afford to live with that money.
But then I can't really follow why it's the council paying out these hotel and other costs anyway, and not the building insurer, of which there definitely was one, so not a case of RBK&C self-insuring.
kev1974 said:
Hotel bills have reached £30m
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gr...
If 150 households (which is confusing in itself given the tower only had 129 flats in it) still haven't been rehoused after this long, are they ever going to be rehoused somewhere they accept? Is it time to draw a line and say sorry we just can't give you a perfect choice. Here are some places in adjoining boroughs, take it or leave it.
I can't help but think if a similar tragedy occurred in an all privately owned tower block, after a while the building insurers would just hand a sum of money to each flat owner and wave them goodbye, leaving it up to them to see where they could afford to live with that money.
But then I can't really follow why it's the council paying out these hotel and other costs anyway, and not the building insurer, of which there definitely was one, so not a case of RBK&C self-insuring.
After the floods in Hull the council had people in temporary housing for years afterwards.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gr...
If 150 households (which is confusing in itself given the tower only had 129 flats in it) still haven't been rehoused after this long, are they ever going to be rehoused somewhere they accept? Is it time to draw a line and say sorry we just can't give you a perfect choice. Here are some places in adjoining boroughs, take it or leave it.
I can't help but think if a similar tragedy occurred in an all privately owned tower block, after a while the building insurers would just hand a sum of money to each flat owner and wave them goodbye, leaving it up to them to see where they could afford to live with that money.
But then I can't really follow why it's the council paying out these hotel and other costs anyway, and not the building insurer, of which there definitely was one, so not a case of RBK&C self-insuring.
Also, after flooding in Cambridgeshire I had a colleague who spent 18 months or more in a suite in very nice hotel. Some issue with insurers refusing/unable to rent her a similar property to her flooded one (5 bedroom or more, she was single, no kids) within a commuting distance to work. I'm sure they did a good deal with hotel. Very nice it was!
There was a years wait to hire dehumidifiers at one point after the flooding there back in early 2000s.
kev1974 said:
Hotel bills have reached £30m
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gr...
If 150 households (which is confusing in itself given the tower only had 129 flats in it) still haven't been rehoused after this long, are they ever going to be rehoused somewhere they accept? Is it time to draw a line and say sorry we just can't give you a perfect choice. Here are some places in adjoining boroughs, take it or leave it.
I can't help but think if a similar tragedy occurred in an all privately owned tower block, after a while the building insurers would just hand a sum of money to each flat owner and wave them goodbye, leaving it up to them to see where they could afford to live with that money.
But then I can't really follow why it's the council paying out these hotel and other costs anyway, and not the building insurer, of which there definitely was one, so not a case of RBK&C self-insuring.
From March 2018https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gr...
If 150 households (which is confusing in itself given the tower only had 129 flats in it) still haven't been rehoused after this long, are they ever going to be rehoused somewhere they accept? Is it time to draw a line and say sorry we just can't give you a perfect choice. Here are some places in adjoining boroughs, take it or leave it.
I can't help but think if a similar tragedy occurred in an all privately owned tower block, after a while the building insurers would just hand a sum of money to each flat owner and wave them goodbye, leaving it up to them to see where they could afford to live with that money.
But then I can't really follow why it's the council paying out these hotel and other costs anyway, and not the building insurer, of which there definitely was one, so not a case of RBK&C self-insuring.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/gr...
Out of the 209 households that required new properties in the wake of the fire, 185 have accepted the offer of a temporary or permanent home and 126 have moved in, according to the latest council figures.
This leaves 24 families or individuals who are still in hotels.
T6 vanman said:
From March 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/gr...
Out of the 209 households that required new properties in the wake of the fire, 185 have accepted the offer of a temporary or permanent home and 126 have moved in, according to the latest council figures.
This leaves 24 families or individuals who are still in hotels.
How did 129 flats become 209 surviving households to be rehomed? Are the 80 extra households mostly from the adjoining accomodation, or did they have a very high number of flats that have now split into multiple separate households, or have they still got a lot of fraudsters making the most of it?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/gr...
Out of the 209 households that required new properties in the wake of the fire, 185 have accepted the offer of a temporary or permanent home and 126 have moved in, according to the latest council figures.
This leaves 24 families or individuals who are still in hotels.
Both the articles seem to heavily rely on the claims of Emma Dent Coad MP for the numbers, in the latest Independent article it is "Ms Dent Coad’s office is dealing with the cases of around 100 households, comprising around 300 people, she said.", maybe she needs to make her mind up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff