fully paid for by UK taxpayers, all having been offered permanent accommodation which they rejected.
-
-
-
They are UK tax payers and they haven’t all been offered permanent accommodation.
-
but almost no UK taxpayers get accommodation with no rent, certainly they are not NET taxpayers whilst getting free accommodation.
-
So you’re also advocating the end of contract law? B/c they paid council tax that went into the £275m surplus RBKC had at the time of the fire they now can’t have any of that spent on them when RBKC didn’t provide safe housing it was contractual obliged to provide? Ok.
-
No, they absolutely should have replacement accommodation, but it shouldn't be free for months on end paid for by other taxpayers. Most taxpayers can't afford to live in inner London.
-
So while people are still in recovering/have breathing problems/treated for cyanosis, the rest of the family should be turfed out b/c they’ve not moved to a home that doesn’t exist? B/c others would be half as lucky to go through what they did? In light of today’s news? I give up
-
Fwiw I’ve not met a single family that wants to be in a hotel. Not one. Whole families in a room with no cooking/laundry facilities, no certainty, recovering from burns, kids scared to go to sleep unless they check a fire alarm a dozen times. They don’t want to be there either.
-
I don't doubt it, but the implication of the original post was that people were in temporary accommodation and paying something for it. All ought to have been offered permanent accommodation by now though, and be paying some rent.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This unimaginable fact shames U.K. Govt. One of richest boroughs in Europe cannot find suitable housing for its traumatised tenants. Too busy allow developers to build £ million homes for overseas investors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The one thing the government could have done was get these folk housed in their area of choice but instead they allow this
-
Tweet unavailable
-
I’m suggesting the government has resources and authority to assist and they haven’t - stop being a callous foolish person and start acting from a point of humanity not greed and dishonor
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
UK government continues to house them. US citizens ofPuerto Rico should be so lucky
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So. If it were up to the Nyt the USA would be putting them up at the plaza then blame trump for the cost.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
London has a cool mayor...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because Conservatives dont care about the poor.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Which has so far cost 56 million. Why havnt they accepted any new accommodation. Surely it's not The governments choice to pay out this sort of money instead of rehousing them
-
RBKC is paying, using £275m surplace from council tax while cutting corners/threatening to sue residents unless they ceased complaining about fire risks. Landlord has a legal duty to find alternate housing according to tenancies so yes, their responsibility. And it’s £21m not 56.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's more than the people of Puerto Rico are getting. At least they have a gov't. that cares about them instead of ignore and rail against them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.