One year on from the tragedy of the Grenfell fire a public inquiry is underway to ascertain how such a thing could have happened in a modern building in the middle of London.
What has struck me about this whole event is the frustration and powerlessness that tenants and leaseholders express over the ability to control their own lives and safety.
Property tenure has changed greatly in recent decades. Right to buy has changed the composition of public housing developments. They will frequently include a mix of leasehold apartments, shared ownership and traditional council house tenancies.
Fourteen of the 129 properties in Grenfell Tower were owned by leaseholders, as well as an additional three in Grenfell Walk, all of whom have lost their homes.
Block management at Grenfell was undertaken by an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) that was responsible for 10,000 properties across Kensington and Chelsea Borough http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-truth-about-tmos/.
The tenants at the Grenfell estate had no real say or power to control Health and Safety issues on their estate. As the LSE blog notes The Tenant management organization was “not community-based, not cooperatively run, not representative. It was set up to cover the whole borough and simply took on the existing council housing department and stock.”
Libdem Housing Policy should be based around a property-owning democracy. In the private rented sector, Libdem Policy aims to help people who cannot afford a deposit by introducing a new Rent to Own model where rent payments give tenants an increasing stake in the property, owning it outright after 30 years.
This could be extended to public housing stock with the use of a Commonhold tenure. Introduced in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
It involves the indefinite freehold tenure of part of a multi-occupancy building (typically a flat) with shared ownership of and responsibility for common areas and services.
Public Housing tenants would pay a ground rent and building only mortgage payment to the local authority equivalent to the Local Area Housing Allowance that would be covered by housing benefit for many. Additionally, a homeowner maintenance fee would be payable to the estate TMO. These fees would be paid by the local authority for recipients eligible for housing benefit.
The benefit is that public housing tenants own their own property. They can sell their commonhold share realizing any equity in excess of the building only mortgage debt, and crucially it is homeowners who will make the decisions on the level of maintenance fees required to meet health and safety standards and the maintenance requirements of the common areas.
Existing blocks can be converted to commonhold and this would replace the current right to buy scheme for council flats.
New council flat developments would adopt this form of tenure from the outset.
* Joe is a member of Hounslow Liberal Democrats and Chair of ALTER.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
Geoffrey Payne
Gwyn Williams
Alex Macfie
Toby Keynes
Peter Davies
16 Comments
“One year on from the tragedy of the Grenfell fire a public inquiry is underway to ascertain how such a thing could have happened in a modern building in the middle of London.”
The cause was obvious the following day and remains obvious. This was not a disaster with multiple, complex causes. If the flammable cladding and insulation hadn’t been fixed to the outside of the building then the fire would have been contained and put out in the single flat in the manner that the building had been designed for. Nobody would have died. Nobody would have been injured. One tenant would have been left with a charred flat, but nobody else would have been left homeless or bereft.
Giving tenants increased powers over health and safety issues would almost certainly have been pointless, unless they happened to possess knowledge about construction standards, materials science and how fires spread. Market solutions fail when the consumer isn’t informed – it’s not just a question of them being powerless. We can’t all be experts on everything – that’s why we need clear regulations on things like building standards. This was a disaster that was caused by a lack of national regulation by a competent authority.
Steve,
the public inquiry will make the determination. However, as to saying “Giving tenants increased powers over health and safety issues would almost certainly have been pointless” that is not what the actual tenants say, in fact quite the opposite as reported in this Guardian piece:
“Residents of Grenfell Tower have said they raised multiple concerns about the risk of fire in the months before the fatal blaze at the building, but were “brushed away” by the council’s tenant management organisation.
Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk.
Investigations have begun into the cause of the fire and how it swept so rapidly up the tower’s 24 storeys, apparently spreading across a new thermal cladding system installed last year as part of a £10m refurbishment.
Only last November, the Grenfell Action Group warned of “dangerous living conditions” and said: “It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO.”
Local councillors have no specific knowledge about construction standards, materials science and how fires spread. That is why they engage experts – something that can be done just as well by the occupants of an estate.
A governing board comprised on commonhold homeowners with the power to hire and fire the block management company makes all the difference in the world to the incentives placed on the TMO to respond appropriately and in a timely manner to the directions they are given.
“Local councillors have no specific knowledge about construction standards, materials science and how fires spread. That is why they engage experts – something that can be done just as well by the occupants of an estate.”
“Survivors of the disaster said on Wednesday they had raised fears about the fact that there was only one escape route. They also told the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (KCTMO) of their concerns over the placement of boilers and gas pipes, the absence of a building-wide fire alarm or sprinkler system, and piles of rubbish being dumped and causing a fire risk.”
You prove my point – the occupants of Grenfell Tower never raised the issue of the flammability of the cladding and insulation prior to the fire, unless you have information to the contrary? Safety cannot be left to the consumer in the manner you suggest. The treatment of the residents’ concerns prior to the event and the neglect they have sustained post-event are a disgrace, but none of that had any bearing on the disastrous installation of the cladding and insulation.
Steve is correct. We need proper regulations enforced by competent professionals, backed up by democratically elected Councillors. By all means consult tenants but no amount of liberal, theory can replace good legislation enforced by proper authority.
Entirely agree with David Raw (as usual). I gather that the decision to add cladding and new unsuitable windows was taken largely to make the view of the tower block more ‘pleasing’ to residents nearby (the ones presumably living in more expensive properties). It was this that made a previously safe structure a disaster waiting to happen. Perhaps we do need to adopt the Govian view of ‘experts’ after this.
However, you have to question the ‘stay put’ advice given to residents, presumably by the Fire Brigade. Surely this needs to be revisited. Can this ever again be viewed as ‘best practice’?
Steve,
National safety standards affect all buildings across the country. The Grenfell Action group had been warning for years about fire safety risks in their Tower block https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/grenfell-tower-the-kctmo-culture-of-negligence/. There appears to have been a close call in 2013 due to faulty wiring.
As the Group’s blog immediately following the fire notes “the cladding in question was not installed for the benefit of the residents of Grenfell Tower but because Kensington and Chelsea Council had redeveloped the surounding area, building another of their flagship academy schools right next to Grenfell Tower, and a new sports and leisure centre next to that. The cladding on Grenfell Tower was intended to pimp it up so that it wouldn’t spoil the image of creeping gentrification that the Council are intent on creating, here and throughout the rest of North Kensington.”
The residents should have had the final say on the safety of the installation.
The Sun carried a report that victims of the fire had been ‘threatened with legal action by housing bosses’ after raising concerns over fire safety and encouraging those living in the doomed block to prevent builders from carrying out a now-notorious refurbishment https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3825791/women-feared-dead-in-grenfell-tower-disaster-were-threatened-with-legal-action-by-housing-bosses-after-raising-concerns-over-fire-safety-years-ago/
While the classing may have been the proximate cause of the fire spreading as rapidly as it did. there were numerous factors that led to the loss of so many lives, including inadequate fire evacuation plans, inadequate fire doors and lack of alarm systems.
What I think is clear is that if tenants had control over fire safety it would have been given a much higher priority vis-a-vis cost considerations.
John Marriott 14th Jun ’18 – 5:47pm……………..However, you have to question the ‘stay put’ advice given to residents, presumably by the Fire Brigade. Surely this needs to be revisited. Can this ever again be viewed as ‘best practice’?…………….
I consider such criticism mainly driven by ’20-20 hindsight’. I seriously doubt the emergency services were aware of the cladding issue and, without such knowledge, would consider that the fire would be largely contained within the affected 4th floor.
Unaccompanied, probably panicky, evacuation from floors above, through dense smoke, would have been hazardous.
Before I spread the blame, and dilute it, I’ll wait for the final evidence.
David Raw,
competent authority were advised of the risks well in advance, not just councillors but four ministers according to the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40330789
Ronnie King, a former chief fire officer who sits on the APPG on Fire Safety, says the government has ignored repeated warnings about tower block safety.
“We have spent four years saying ‘Listen, we have got the evidence, we’ve provided you with the evidence, there is clear public opinion towards this, you ought to move on this’,”
After six people were killed at Lakanal House in 2009, the coroner made a series of safety recommendations for the government to consider. The government department promised a review in 2013, but it was soon delayed.
In March 2014, the parliamentary group wrote: “Surely… when you already have credible evidence to justify updating… the guidance… which will lead to saving of lives, you don’t need to wait another three years in addition to the two already spent since the research findings were updated, in order to take action?
“As there are estimated to be another 4,000 older tower blocks in the UK, without automatic sprinkler protection, can we really afford to wait for another tragedy to occur before we amend this weakness?”
After further correspondence, MP Stephen Williams – who was then a minister in the department – replied: “I have neither seen nor heard anything that would suggest that consideration of these specific potential changes is urgent and I am not willing to disrupt the work of this department by asking that these matters are brought forward.”
The group replied to say they “were at a loss to understand, how you had concluded that credible and independent evidence, which had life safety implications, was NOT considered to be urgent”.
“As a consequence the group wishes to point out to you that should a major fire tragedy, with loss of life, occur between now and 2017 in, for example, a residential care facility or a purpose built block of flats, where the matters which had been raised here, were found to be contributory to the outcome, then the group would be bound to bring this to others’ attention.”
The letters were written before the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. So even having Libdem ministers running a department does not guarantee good legislation enforced by proper authority.
@ Joe “The letters were written before the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. So even having Libdem ministers running a department does not guarantee good legislation enforced by proper authority.” Don’t tempt me on that one.
The point is to ensure that proper accountable authority is indeed accountable and performs its duties (subject to criminal legal penalty). No amount of amateur tenant participation can be a substitute for this.
David,
People living in private apartment blocks collectively manage their community affairs perfectly well without having to rely on the council to do it for them. There is no reason to suppose that people living in public apartment blocks cannot do the same given the opportunity and freedom to do so.
That doesn’t mean we don’t need national fire safety standards and regulations, but these apply to all buildings – private or public- and are a proper function of national government. Resident associations on public housing estates can call on people every bit as competent as private housing associations, who are perfectly capable of managing their communities affairs.
Expats,
“Before I spread the blame, and dilute it, I’ll wait for the final evidence.” I think this is good advice and this is not the place or time to start apportioning blame.
The Kensington and Chelsea TMO has handed back responsibility for management of public housing to the council, so there is no tenant organization in place at present.
I think it is worth recalling the comments of the former Chair of the Grenfell residents association in which he describes the lack of accountability for the TMO and the lack of power for the residents as a contributing factor in this disaster. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/former-grenfell-tower-resident-demands-independent-inquiry-into-fire
“previous incidents in the block led residents to worry about the functioning of the building’s safety systems in an emergency. There had been small fires before, and tenants had reported to the TMO that emergency lighting in the escape stairwell did not work on every floor…the TMO was “incompetent and inept”, rather than acting with malice in its dealing with Grenfell Tower residents, and that the lack of accountability and concern for tenants’ views and experiences was the biggest problem. [The TMO] weren’t bad people, but the organization wasn’t true to their values: they said they were resident-led, but did not listen to the residents at all. The lack of accountability for the TMO, the lack of power for the residents, it was a contributing factor in this disaster.”
Collins and other residents spoken to by the Guardian called for the independent inquiry they had asked for previously to be held now, to acknowledge the concerns they had raised for years and explain why they were not listened to and acted upon. “I just want people to know that if they had listened to the residents, and acted upon what was told to them, it could have been different,” Collins said. “It’s impossible to know if this could have been avoided. But people lost their lives, and some jumped to their death and will have done so knowing the TMO didn’t listen.
@expats
Asking valid questions is hardly ‘spreading the blame’. You have partially validated this particular question in your second paragraph. If more questions had been asked AND addressed before the ‘beautification’ of the tower block had been sanctioned we just might not have had to cope with the tragedy that ultimately occurred. Who will ever know for certain? Glad you are prepared to wait ‘for the final evidence’. Please consider that some of us might just not be as comfortable as you are with how things are or how they just might turn out.
I can only suggest a reading of this remarkable article (you will need some time).
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n11/andrew-ohagan/the-tower
Food for thought – for everyone.
ohn Marriott 14th Jun ’18 – 9:21pm……………..@expats? Glad you are prepared to wait ‘for the final evidence’. Please consider that some of us might just not be as comfortable as you are with how things are or how they just might turn out……………
Would you make the same points in, say, a murder trial? Without hearing all the evidence any conclusions are unjustifiable and pointless.
I certainly don’t feel comfortable about anything to do with this tragedy but if, as it seems, you are implying that the enquiry will not reach an evidence based decision what is your justification for such remarks?
Little Jackie Paper,
the Ohagan book has been criticised by the Grenfell residents. What has, I believe, been endorsed is the report completed by Architects for Social Housing “The Truth about Grenfell Tower”. https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/the-truth-about-grenfell-tower-a-report-by-architects-for-social-housing/In concluding their report they write as follows:
Once the charred skeleton of Grenfell Tower is buried and the land cleared for redevelopment, it will still be in the hands of Kensington and Chelsea council. Worse still, the fire has brought about precisely that demolition of the ‘blight’ that Grenfell Tower, in the eyes of the council and the TMO, represented, freeing up the land it stands on for the potential residual values the original masterplan for the Lancaster West estate envisaged activating through its redevelopment as ‘high end’ properties for home ownership and capital investment. Were this to come about – and under existing ownership and policy there is nothing to stop it happening – it would be the greatest betrayal of both the dead and the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire.
To oppose this, therefore, ASH proposes that a portion of the £20 million donated by the general public – and which the government should be invited to match – be used to purchase the land on which Grenfell Tower stands and place it in Trust for the survivors and the surrounding community; and that in its place housing is built that is neither owned by the council nor run by the KCTMO, but owned and managed as a Community Land Trust or Housing Co-operative by the residents themselves. From the ashes of Grenfell Tower, and the forces of private greed and public corruption that burnt it to the ground, a new Community estate could rise – as a home for the homeless of Grenfell Tower, and as a model of communal housing for the hundreds of thousands of Londoners currently threatened by the programme of estate regeneration.”
This is what my article is about. The local authtority may retain the land titlel and collect ground rents , but the housing should be neither owned by the council nor run by a council ALMO, but owned and managed as a Housing Co-operative by the residents themselves – not just for former Grenfell residents but for social housing tenants across the country.
@expats
My ‘justification’ is that I am entitled to have an opinion, even if you may consider it to be premature. I’m not quite sure how you work a murder trial into your argument. Could the fact that you added the word ‘murder’ imply that you see a connection with Grenfell? In any trial surely all possibilities need to be considered, which is what I am putting forward.
Let’s return to my linking the Fire Brigade with ‘staying put’ and your assertion that perhaps the emergency services were not aware of the cladding issue. Perhaps, in future, all such services should have an accurate blueprint of the kind of structures they are potentially dealing with and a professional knowledge of the risks involved. Or are you saying that the advice to tenants, given what was clearly happening, was the correct advice?