Urban Dandy makes no claim to give legal representation of any kind and has no intention of giving advice in the field of law. All opinions are the author’s personal opinion and to be considered as just that, a personal opinion. No reference to anything written is to be deemed actual evidence and should be seen as a guideline to further investigate the nature and the result of the policy upon acceptance. We suggest that support or representation ,if any, should be supplied by accredited law experts.
This document was recently published on the Home Connections website under the Royal Borough Of Kensington section. It attempts to clarify the councils intended mode of operation regarding rehousing the victims of the Grenfell disaster.
As odd as it seems, I fail to find a lack of integrity here. However, we feel that it’s the duty of everyone under social housing, surrounding the Lancaster West Estate in the w10/w11 area and beyond, to check this document for compliance.
I suggest reading this very carefully, especially first, second, and third band tenants of the Lancaster West Estate as there is much at stake with a housing obligation that may be full and final. Especially when the interested party is carrying such emotional, physical, and psychological grief sound decisions are only made with an informed and sound mind. This isn’t to say that we, the peripheral community, aren’t sharing these feelings but the direct burdensome displacement and trauma that has been suffered by those in, what the council describe as, bands 1-3 should be carefully weighed and compared. Hopefully, they can then be sufficiently compensated with full consideration. This is a historical time and an epoch in the Ladbroke Grove/Notting Hill area and its community and council relationships. (7.3. Rehousing)
‘… the Minister of State for Immigration made a written statement in Parliament concerning the introduction of a policy on leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules for former residents of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk’. (3. Eligibility)
This is good in theory. It would imply that this was the case but those with immigration issues, regarding their legal right to remain in the UK, should probe further into this and enquire as to the current status of this ‘gesture’ because until it is legally agreed upon this is just a really, really nice thought.
So it looks like the tenancy will be like for like. Good. (4. Type of accommodation to be offered)
I would also enquire about the rent charges remaining affordable because the word ‘Affordable’ has a different meaning to different brackets of earning. Not that we’re critiquing the actual word – which was not actually used – but bringing attention to the dangers of ambiguity, which is often the theme and tool that shafts those less aware of legal semantics. (4.2. Rent charges and service charges)
It’s also stated that the succession will be pre-Localism: also good. The Localism Act of 2011 gave the landlord the right to convert the succession tenancy into a lesser shorter term agreement, as we are witnessing all over the Country. The victims and affected families will be given a property with a long term agreement, which is what we were hoping for. (4.3. Succession)
Stage 2 Temporary accommodation on occasion can be turned into Long Term Housing. It appears, in some cases, that if a temporary, stage 2 (transient) accommodation is favourable to a tenant there is a provision to, at their request, convert it into their permanent residence. Stage 2 is post stage 1 (hotel accommodation). (Page 7. Converting Stage 2 temporary accommodation into long-term accommodation)
‘The Council will continue to monitor the effect of this policy on the above needs and in particular will review this policy after it has been in force for a period of three months. Further reviews will be carried out as necessary and appropriate.
The Council will continually monitor, review and improve the delivery of this policy with the aim of ensuring that it meets the community’s needs in the best way that it possibly can’. (10. Equality and diversity)
This is something to think about as there may be issues regarding favouritism that arise. If these issues had not been considered previously, there is room for them to improve their policy. Know that policies are not enforceable and are guidelines for the employees. The thing to consider is who the tenant is in regards to the policy they wish to employ to accommodate you, the injured customer.
These are just a few points from a very interesting and critical read. Although with such organisations I will always remain suspicious, it looks to me as though the council are trying to introduce a level of honour here which has in the past contradicted their mission.
I refer to the tenant as a ‘customer’ because I try to view this as if I bought a product that was defective and, due to no fault of my own, has caused me to lose my abode, members of my family and a level of physical and psychological damage. Will a great replacement product or service satisfy the coming years of painful reflection, the absence of my family and peers and the reoccurring nightmare of 14/6? I think not. The company that supplied the product/service must have a major insurance policy that compensates for the massive personal loss outside of the very physical material loss, especially when dealing with structures that pose such a great potential for danger. Although human life can never be replaced, I should expect an honourable attempt to match the cost of human life by a massive financial outlay. This policy is a good gesture as far as the rehousing obligation but there’s so much more than the stated ‘intention’.
We would be happy to receive and share comments regarding various views on the true equitability of this offer and any details we may have missed. As a community, it’s important that we serve each other in the capacity and area of our best abilities. Please share your thoughts.
Please be caring enough to view the full policy by clicking below
Love to our great community