Grenfell - Who pays
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
If the government were complicit then maybe (ditto local planners/councils etc).But if not, this is wrong.
Murph7355 said:
BlackLabel said:
If the government were complicit then maybe (ditto local planners/councils etc).But if not, this is wrong.
Secondly, the government is very much responsible for the protection of its own citizens, and delaying this cladding update any further might be seen as not offering such protection.
And finally, it might just be politically prudent to do so.
Pretty disgusting that the system yet again has chosen to spend our money vs forcing the companies who own these private properties to cover the short fall. How is this any different to any other unforeseen circumstance? Everyday businesses and individuals have to pay for situations which pop up. The fact the cladding was seen to be safe at the time has nothing to do with the fact that the current owners should be made to pay. Nobody will be paying to fix my roof or repair my car if it breaks down. These are businesses earning a profit from their tenants if they're too stupid to understand the concept of saving for a rainy day they they deserve to face the consequences. Are we to live in a society where whenever a business makes a bad decision or faces unforeseen but perfectly resonable consequences the state has to pay?!
MDMetal said:
Pretty disgusting that the system yet again has chosen to spend our money vs forcing the companies who own these private properties to cover the short fall. How is this any different to any other unforeseen circumstance? Everyday businesses and individuals have to pay for situations which pop up. The fact the cladding was seen to be safe at the time has nothing to do with the fact that the current owners should be made to pay. Nobody will be paying to fix my roof or repair my car if it breaks down. These are businesses earning a profit from their tenants if they're too stupid to understand the concept of saving for a rainy day they they deserve to face the consequences. Are we to live in a society where whenever a business makes a bad decision or faces unforeseen but perfectly resonable consequences the state has to pay?!
That's our version of infallible capitalism. State bail out, state buy out's, state safety net the bigger the company...biggbn said:
MDMetal said:
Pretty disgusting that the system yet again has chosen to spend our money vs forcing the companies who own these private properties to cover the short fall. How is this any different to any other unforeseen circumstance? Everyday businesses and individuals have to pay for situations which pop up. The fact the cladding was seen to be safe at the time has nothing to do with the fact that the current owners should be made to pay. Nobody will be paying to fix my roof or repair my car if it breaks down. These are businesses earning a profit from their tenants if they're too stupid to understand the concept of saving for a rainy day they they deserve to face the consequences. Are we to live in a society where whenever a business makes a bad decision or faces unforeseen but perfectly resonable consequences the state has to pay?!
That's our version of infallible capitalism. State bail out, state buy out's, state safety net the bigger the company...MDMetal said:
Pretty disgusting that the system yet again has chosen to spend our money vs forcing the companies who own these private properties to cover the short fall. How is this any different to any other unforeseen circumstance? Everyday businesses and individuals have to pay for situations which pop up. The fact the cladding was seen to be safe at the time has nothing to do with the fact that the current owners should be made to pay. Nobody will be paying to fix my roof or repair my car if it breaks down. These are businesses earning a profit from their tenants if they're too stupid to understand the concept of saving for a rainy day they they deserve to face the consequences. Are we to live in a society where whenever a business makes a bad decision or faces unforeseen but perfectly resonable consequences the state has to pay?!
I get that - but what would it take to force the companies to do it? Realistically, are they just going to put up without any fight, the cost of doing so? My guess would be no, and it would go along a more complex and expensive version of this:
"You said it was up to code at the time. Therefore I don't need to do anything"
"Yes but actually it is now not up to code. Change it"
"No, I don't think I have to, based on this legal point/precedent"
"We say you have to based on this law"
etc
etc
etc.. for how long? And at what cost?
MDMetal said:
Pretty disgusting that the system yet again has chosen to spend our money vs forcing the companies who own these private properties to cover the short fall. How is this any different to any other unforeseen circumstance? Everyday businesses and individuals have to pay for situations which pop up. The fact the cladding was seen to be safe at the time has nothing to do with the fact that the current owners should be made to pay. Nobody will be paying to fix my roof or repair my car if it breaks down. These are businesses earning a profit from their tenants if they're too stupid to understand the concept of saving for a rainy day they they deserve to face the consequences. Are we to live in a society where whenever a business makes a bad decision or faces unforeseen but perfectly resonable consequences the state has to pay?!
But hang on, we're always told here by PH landlords that additional costs they face invariably find their way into tenants rental fees?In the grand scheme of things, for a situation that cost 72 lives, that government (whether local, national or related agencies) failed to prevent happening - £200m is a pretty small sum.
MDMetal said:
Pretty disgusting that the system yet again has chosen to spend our money vs forcing the companies who own these private properties to cover the short fall. How is this any different to any other unforeseen circumstance? Everyday businesses and individuals have to pay for situations which pop up. The fact the cladding was seen to be safe at the time has nothing to do with the fact that the current owners should be made to pay. Nobody will be paying to fix my roof or repair my car if it breaks down. These are businesses earning a profit from their tenants if they're too stupid to understand the concept of saving for a rainy day they they deserve to face the consequences. Are we to live in a society where whenever a business makes a bad decision or faces unforeseen but perfectly resonable consequences the state has to pay?!
The problem is, it isn't companies that own these properties, it is largely individual leaseholders without the means to pay. oyster said:
....
And finally, it might just be politically prudent to do so.
I think that's the first and only consideration of any government decision in recent history. The rights, wrongs, affordability, value for money, legal obligations and moral hazard created by decisions these days seem to be ignored every time for political expediency. And finally, it might just be politically prudent to do so.
Perhaps it would have been better for the Government to CPO them, and become a property owner/landlord on a bigger scale.
The problem with this way is I'm pretty sure the "cladding" companies will be finding great ways to take the money, perhaps with a brown envelope to the landlords too. It shouldn't be a risk free win/win for them. And if passing on the cost to the tenant was the only way, why don't the government remedy it by at least owning the property.
The problem with this way is I'm pretty sure the "cladding" companies will be finding great ways to take the money, perhaps with a brown envelope to the landlords too. It shouldn't be a risk free win/win for them. And if passing on the cost to the tenant was the only way, why don't the government remedy it by at least owning the property.
I would imagine that replacement costs are handled entirely separate to any claims from the builders or manufacturers but yes of course this should not see the taxpayer out of pocket.
Our block required new compliant doors, and vents sealed up after Grenfell which we had to pay for, and even neighbouring social housing blocks have a fire warden but assume that's from the taxpayer.
Our block required new compliant doors, and vents sealed up after Grenfell which we had to pay for, and even neighbouring social housing blocks have a fire warden but assume that's from the taxpayer.
Thankyou4calling said:
No
Grenfell is still standing and will for a long while yet. Currently clad in plastic sheeting with a symbolic message.
There’s an inquest going on at present and any firm plans for the future of the building and area won’t be decided until that ends.
It’s years off.
I thought they were supposed to have started demolishing it ages ago, as the police and fire service have finished their investigations. I didn't think the public inquiry would affect demolition.Grenfell is still standing and will for a long while yet. Currently clad in plastic sheeting with a symbolic message.
There’s an inquest going on at present and any firm plans for the future of the building and area won’t be decided until that ends.
It’s years off.
The future of the building seems clear - it needs demolishing; there's nothing else that can be done with it. What they then do with the area is another kettle of fish, granted.
They’ve not started demolishing it.
It’s no longer a crime scene but stands as a reminder of the tragedy which it will do for a good while yet.
If it’s decided to bring it down many local people will object.
If it’s decided to leave it up many local people will object.
So it’ll become a political hot potato for years.
Next month it’s 2 years since the fire, we are still at the enquiry stage, that gives a fair indication of how long it’ll be before we see a decision.
It’s no longer a crime scene but stands as a reminder of the tragedy which it will do for a good while yet.
If it’s decided to bring it down many local people will object.
If it’s decided to leave it up many local people will object.
So it’ll become a political hot potato for years.
Next month it’s 2 years since the fire, we are still at the enquiry stage, that gives a fair indication of how long it’ll be before we see a decision.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff