Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Job done: but not properly
Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion
- Thread starter JTG
- Start date
Cid
Proper break this time
People have been asking for estimates on the number of dead since day one, surely all they're doing is providing that.
Treacle Toes
Time
cupid_stunt
Where's the bloody sun?
Cid
Proper break this time
I don't see why it seems final... They've removed all identifiable remains, it makes sense to provide a clearer estimate at this stage.
Treacle Toes
Time
Another article that i've seen quoting those stats above also had how many people are believed to have jumped/committed suicide listed
. Will see if I can find it.
Last edited:
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Hi all,
The reason I started looking into this was because I was wary of what the authorites may or may not say re: the death toll. However, so far I have no reason to presume that the numbers presented by the police are spectacularly wrong - given that they broadly tally with othe ones we have collated.
There could be some (more) sub-letting going on but the make up of the people living there suggests that in my opinion, there probably wasn't much of it.
0 deaths from Floors 1-9.
4 dead/presumed dead, floors 10-13.
11 dead/presumed dead, floors 10- 16.
65 dead/presumed dead, floors 17-23.
We're missing any information for 12 flats, but 10 of those are from floors 1-9, where we have 0 deaths. The other two are on floors 14 and 15 and whilst it's possible people died in those flats and we simply don't know about it it would seem a little unlikely, at least at the moment.
Those living on the higher floors are (from what we know) largely families, some fairly sizeable (5, 6 and 7 people living in two bedroom flats in some instances), plus people living on their own (some for a long time in the building) or in couples. There would have to be some massive overcrowding and/lying going on for those numbers to jump significantly. And sure, that's possible but in my opinion not incredibly likely.
Edit:
Our list shows:
308 Total Occupants
232 Survivors
76 Dead/Presumed dead
Also 11 people who we are fairly sure live there (and survived), but have no flat or floor details for them. If they were correct it would bring the total occupants to 319 and total survived to 243.
All these figures are from media reports and in some cases reports via occupants of Grenfell.
Edit 2: I did ask a resident we were in contact with whether anyone she knew was aware of large numbers of people living in the same flat, to which she said they were not. Again, not proof, but worth mentioning.
Edit 3: I've found only one reported instance of someone actively staying in a flat when they weren't supposed to be. That was a bicycle delivery driver who'd had an accident and was out of work, and had no money due to loss of job. He was crashing on a friend's couch.
The reason I started looking into this was because I was wary of what the authorites may or may not say re: the death toll. However, so far I have no reason to presume that the numbers presented by the police are spectacularly wrong - given that they broadly tally with othe ones we have collated.
There could be some (more) sub-letting going on but the make up of the people living there suggests that in my opinion, there probably wasn't much of it.
0 deaths from Floors 1-9.
4 dead/presumed dead, floors 10-13.
11 dead/presumed dead, floors 10- 16.
65 dead/presumed dead, floors 17-23.
We're missing any information for 12 flats, but 10 of those are from floors 1-9, where we have 0 deaths. The other two are on floors 14 and 15 and whilst it's possible people died in those flats and we simply don't know about it it would seem a little unlikely, at least at the moment.
Those living on the higher floors are (from what we know) largely families, some fairly sizeable (5, 6 and 7 people living in two bedroom flats in some instances), plus people living on their own (some for a long time in the building) or in couples. There would have to be some massive overcrowding and/lying going on for those numbers to jump significantly. And sure, that's possible but in my opinion not incredibly likely.
Edit:
Our list shows:
308 Total Occupants
232 Survivors
76 Dead/Presumed dead
Also 11 people who we are fairly sure live there (and survived), but have no flat or floor details for them. If they were correct it would bring the total occupants to 319 and total survived to 243.
All these figures are from media reports and in some cases reports via occupants of Grenfell.
Edit 2: I did ask a resident we were in contact with whether anyone she knew was aware of large numbers of people living in the same flat, to which she said they were not. Again, not proof, but worth mentioning.
Edit 3: I've found only one reported instance of someone actively staying in a flat when they weren't supposed to be. That was a bicycle delivery driver who'd had an accident and was out of work, and had no money due to loss of job. He was crashing on a friend's couch.
Last edited:
Cid
Proper break this time
Who's we?
Your numbers seem to tally broadly with the official ones though, which is at least somewhat reassuring.
Lurdan
old wave
The sorts of figures being suggested look credible to me.
Patterns of occupancy can vary enormously between different estates, even between different blocks on the same estate, so I don't think the kind of generalizations about subletting which have been waved about are very useful, even where they are not based on dubious assumptions about social housing and the communities which live in it, which also vary enormously. My own experience, for what little its worth, is that 'overoccupancy' is usually significantly balanced out by 'underoccupancy'.
Not sure what you mean by "when they weren't supposed to be". In itself what you describe wouldn't be a breach of a local authority secure tenancy unless the tenant issued them with a [ETA :rent book tenancy agreement]. [ETA: Unauthorised] Subletting is now a criminal offence, but secure tenants still have the right to take in lodgers without getting prior consent to do so, unless there are then so many occupants that statutory overcrowding rules apply. Although its normally specified in the tenancy agreement that you should notify the landlord or their agent about lodgers, failure to do so is only a minor breach.
Patterns of occupancy can vary enormously between different estates, even between different blocks on the same estate, so I don't think the kind of generalizations about subletting which have been waved about are very useful, even where they are not based on dubious assumptions about social housing and the communities which live in it, which also vary enormously. My own experience, for what little its worth, is that 'overoccupancy' is usually significantly balanced out by 'underoccupancy'.
Not sure what you mean by "when they weren't supposed to be". In itself what you describe wouldn't be a breach of a local authority secure tenancy unless the tenant issued them with a [ETA :
Last edited:
£700+ per month for room rentals is a good incentive for "social housing" tenants to ignore the restrictions. Not saying there were many such examples in Grenfell, but it may explain why some inhabitants haven't been reported as safe...
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
Why the scare quotes around "social housing"?
Why not? It's a catch-all phrase for subsidised housing made affordable for various groups...
Treacle Toes
Time
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
Then it does not need the scare quotes -unless your objective is to somehow cast doubt upon their status as social housing tenants (see, no use of scare quotes there). "Scare quoting" is almost universally used as a de-legitimising tool when attempting to "other" people in "debate" by claiming to air what "you" "perceive" to be the "commonly held viewpoint". Bonus points if you spot the scare quoting for quotations sake as opposed to, you know, "casting doubt"....
editor
hiraethified
It's not subsidised, you idiot.
Economic Myths: Social housing in the UK is subsidised by the taxpayer
Why's everyone so confrontational on here?
Shelter's definition of social housing: Social housing is let at low rents on a secure basis to those who are most in need or struggling with their housing costs. Normally councils and not-for-profit organisations (such as housing associations) are the ones to provide social housing.
Registered providers are financially regulated and funded by the government through the Homes and Communities Agency, which is responsible for the construction of new social homes. The government department currently responsible for overseeing the social housing sector is the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG).
What is social housing? - Shelter England
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Not seeing the s word there chuck
"financially regulated and funded by the government"
If funding building and keeping rents affordable isn't subsidising, what is? Where does the money come from? Nowhere did I claim any money came directly from the taxpayer...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Where does it say the government gives money to keep rents affordable?
editor
hiraethified
In your keenness to look down on people in social housing, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between not for profit and subsidised.
cupid_stunt
Where's the bloody sun?
You're a clown, that needs to be fucked off this thread, just as the 911 loon was the other day.
How about you rein in the personal abuse?
I have to say I don't find your posts terribly classy.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Every year councils overall make a profit on the rents they charge for social housing. A small profit, just a couple of hundred million per year, but a profit nonetheless.
A subsidy involves money being given to a group.
Councils give central government the surplus generated from rents.
council house payments therefore subsidise central government, don't they?
But you are saying it's the other way round?
cupid_stunt
Where's the bloody sun?
Are you a mod? No, well fuck off, you offensive 911 loon.
ETA: Oh, look at the next post, the twat has reported me. This loon is upset because I pulled him up the other day for bringing 911 crap on to this thread, which got deleted, now he's decided to come after me, sad git.
Last edited:
I have reported this post for abuse.
For someone who clearly has no obstacle to giving forthright advice, it's somewhat hypocritical for you to suggest only moderators may give it.
Last edited:
Lurdan
old wave
And that 'profit' is arrived at after some Councils have increased the charges made to the Housing Revenue Account for back office functions - so that
From Raiders of the HRA - Inside Housing 7th July 2016 - Paywalled
Raiders of the HRA
Insight 07/07/16 by Keith Cooper
An Inside Housing analysis has now for the first time discovered the extent of another incursion on council housing budgets, one for which Whitehall is not accountable - not directly, at least.
These cuts to housing resources have been made discreetly by councils and are seldom declared clearly in papers prepared for public consumption.
Our analysis of financial figures from 100 council landlords has found that many appear to be filling big gaps in back-office budgets, opened up by 'general fund' austerity cuts, with housing cash.
These raids are carried out on ringfenced HRAs with a legal accountancy trick.
The trick allows councils to use housing budgets to prop up the shrunken budgets for central functions, like finance and legal. These functions, dubbed 'corporate and democratic core services', are used by a range of council departments, from waste collection to social care. Each department, including housing, is expected to contribute towards these corporate costs.
Each year, however, every department's share can be tailored - cut or increased - based, in part, on its capacity to pay.
According to our analysis, the 100 councils' back-office budgets were cut by almost £90m between 2011/12 and 2014/15 - a reduction of 15%. But over the same period, HRAs' contribution to this cost was hiked by £1.7m - an increase of 4.6%.
More than half of councils (55%) raised the contribution to core services from the HRAs over these four years. Almost a third hiked them by more than 20%. Ten councils doubled their internal charges on the HRA.
Poole hiked the amount paid by its HRA for back-office costs by 1,590%, from £10,000 in 2011/12 to £169,000 last year. South Tyneside quadrupled its charge to the HRA from £222,000 in 2011/12 to £891,000 in 2014/15. Doncaster almost trebled the charge over the same period, from £244,000 to £712,000.
Over the same four years, just under half of authorities (45%) reduced these internal bills, in some cases significantly. Camden, Leeds and Babergh cut their internal charges respectively by £1.7m, £252,000 and £214,000, for instance.
But overall, the 100 council landlords raised the contribution of their HRA by 5% at the same time as slashing their council spending on these back-office costs by 15%.
The net effect of the council-wide cut and increase in HRA contribution leaves housing budgets bearing a bigger burden of councils' central costs. In effect, local authorities are using social rents and housing benefit to keep corporate services ticking over in the aftermath of town hall austerity cuts.
The analysis found that the housing budgets of big city councils, like Newcastle and Stockport, are hardest hit. While 13 metropolitan authorities reduced back-office costs by, on average, 15.9% between 2011/12 and 2014/15, they tapped their HRAs for an additional 20%. This pushed up the housing departments' share of the central cost by 42.6%.
London boroughs, in contrast to other councils, slimmed their HRA contribution by 7.7% on average but slashed central services budgets by 23.3%, more severely than any other council type. This pushed up housing departments' share of the back-office bill by 20.4%.
Smaller district authorities in England's shires increased central costs by 2.9%, boosting their housing share by 9%. Unitary authorities reduced central costs by 16%, increasing the HRAs' share by 27.1%.
The unsurprising result of these cuts and increases is that larger numbers of all kinds of councils now bill their HRAs for a disproportionate share of back-office costs.
District councils paid for the largest proportion of back-office costs from HRAs: 10.8% on average in 2014/15. This relatively larger proportion makes sense, as housing is one of the districts' only main functions. Unitary authorities, which run major departments like social care and education as well as housing, pulled under 4.4% of their back-office costs from their housing budget.
But our analysis found that the number of authorities billing their HRAs for 15% or more of these central costs rose from 17 in 2011/12 to 23 in 2014/15.
The most eye-catching example is the unitary authority, Reading. It billed its HRA for more than half of the £1.2m cost of its central services in 2014/15. The council declined to comment.
The housing budget of Islington, in London - another noteworthy case - was billed for 43.7% of the authority's back-office costs in 2014/15, up from 37.7% in 2011/12. The London average is 6.9%.
(...)
Some in the housing sector suggest it is logical that such a picture has emerged. The data consultancy Housemark has previously suggested that councils should "raid" their housing budgets to prop up council services (Inside Housing, 11 April 2014).
In its paper, Sense of purpose, Housemark argued that housing departments were not a "separate entity from the corporate authority" and that "it can and should support the 'centre' in terms of alleviating pressure on the general fund".
One organisation, which represents public sector finance experts, raises questions about the fairness of using social rents to plug gaps in back-office costs.
Ken Lee, chair of the housing panel at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy, says our research proves once again that ringfences around HRAs are too weak.
"As social tenants tend to be the poorest and are a minority in society, is it right that they should be supporting the majority in the community?" he asks.
"We should be looking at strengthening that ringfence and bringing it up to date."
Increasing internal charges on the HRA for back-office costs is a way councils could keep their council tax rates "artificially low", he adds. "The rules aren't very strong, but they expect fair charging: that those that use the service should pay for the service."
Basing charges on the proportion of social tenants in an area - as Islington appears to have done - seems like an "arbitrary" method, Mr Lee suggests.
The vulnerability of HRA ringfences were previously subject to annual checks by district auditors, employed by the Audit Commission until it was abolished last year.
This role has now passed to private accountancy firms, appointed by each local authority. "District auditors were keen on checking this kind of thing when the Audit Commission was around," Mr Lee adds. "This role has now gone to private auditors. They have some recognition of this issue, but not the same recognition as the Audit Commission."
The general trend towards increasing the burden on HRAs for back-office costs, uncovered by this analysis, is not common to all councils, however.
Just over a quarter of councils (26) cut their housing budget share of central services between 2010/11 and 2014, some significantly so. Five reduced their HRAs' share by more than 10%.
Insight 07/07/16 by Keith Cooper
An Inside Housing analysis has now for the first time discovered the extent of another incursion on council housing budgets, one for which Whitehall is not accountable - not directly, at least.
These cuts to housing resources have been made discreetly by councils and are seldom declared clearly in papers prepared for public consumption.
Our analysis of financial figures from 100 council landlords has found that many appear to be filling big gaps in back-office budgets, opened up by 'general fund' austerity cuts, with housing cash.
These raids are carried out on ringfenced HRAs with a legal accountancy trick.
The trick allows councils to use housing budgets to prop up the shrunken budgets for central functions, like finance and legal. These functions, dubbed 'corporate and democratic core services', are used by a range of council departments, from waste collection to social care. Each department, including housing, is expected to contribute towards these corporate costs.
Each year, however, every department's share can be tailored - cut or increased - based, in part, on its capacity to pay.
According to our analysis, the 100 councils' back-office budgets were cut by almost £90m between 2011/12 and 2014/15 - a reduction of 15%. But over the same period, HRAs' contribution to this cost was hiked by £1.7m - an increase of 4.6%.
More than half of councils (55%) raised the contribution to core services from the HRAs over these four years. Almost a third hiked them by more than 20%. Ten councils doubled their internal charges on the HRA.
Poole hiked the amount paid by its HRA for back-office costs by 1,590%, from £10,000 in 2011/12 to £169,000 last year. South Tyneside quadrupled its charge to the HRA from £222,000 in 2011/12 to £891,000 in 2014/15. Doncaster almost trebled the charge over the same period, from £244,000 to £712,000.
Over the same four years, just under half of authorities (45%) reduced these internal bills, in some cases significantly. Camden, Leeds and Babergh cut their internal charges respectively by £1.7m, £252,000 and £214,000, for instance.
But overall, the 100 council landlords raised the contribution of their HRA by 5% at the same time as slashing their council spending on these back-office costs by 15%.
The net effect of the council-wide cut and increase in HRA contribution leaves housing budgets bearing a bigger burden of councils' central costs. In effect, local authorities are using social rents and housing benefit to keep corporate services ticking over in the aftermath of town hall austerity cuts.
The analysis found that the housing budgets of big city councils, like Newcastle and Stockport, are hardest hit. While 13 metropolitan authorities reduced back-office costs by, on average, 15.9% between 2011/12 and 2014/15, they tapped their HRAs for an additional 20%. This pushed up the housing departments' share of the central cost by 42.6%.
London boroughs, in contrast to other councils, slimmed their HRA contribution by 7.7% on average but slashed central services budgets by 23.3%, more severely than any other council type. This pushed up housing departments' share of the back-office bill by 20.4%.
Smaller district authorities in England's shires increased central costs by 2.9%, boosting their housing share by 9%. Unitary authorities reduced central costs by 16%, increasing the HRAs' share by 27.1%.
The unsurprising result of these cuts and increases is that larger numbers of all kinds of councils now bill their HRAs for a disproportionate share of back-office costs.
District councils paid for the largest proportion of back-office costs from HRAs: 10.8% on average in 2014/15. This relatively larger proportion makes sense, as housing is one of the districts' only main functions. Unitary authorities, which run major departments like social care and education as well as housing, pulled under 4.4% of their back-office costs from their housing budget.
But our analysis found that the number of authorities billing their HRAs for 15% or more of these central costs rose from 17 in 2011/12 to 23 in 2014/15.
The most eye-catching example is the unitary authority, Reading. It billed its HRA for more than half of the £1.2m cost of its central services in 2014/15. The council declined to comment.
The housing budget of Islington, in London - another noteworthy case - was billed for 43.7% of the authority's back-office costs in 2014/15, up from 37.7% in 2011/12. The London average is 6.9%.
(...)
Some in the housing sector suggest it is logical that such a picture has emerged. The data consultancy Housemark has previously suggested that councils should "raid" their housing budgets to prop up council services (Inside Housing, 11 April 2014).
In its paper, Sense of purpose, Housemark argued that housing departments were not a "separate entity from the corporate authority" and that "it can and should support the 'centre' in terms of alleviating pressure on the general fund".
One organisation, which represents public sector finance experts, raises questions about the fairness of using social rents to plug gaps in back-office costs.
Ken Lee, chair of the housing panel at the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy, says our research proves once again that ringfences around HRAs are too weak.
"As social tenants tend to be the poorest and are a minority in society, is it right that they should be supporting the majority in the community?" he asks.
"We should be looking at strengthening that ringfence and bringing it up to date."
Increasing internal charges on the HRA for back-office costs is a way councils could keep their council tax rates "artificially low", he adds. "The rules aren't very strong, but they expect fair charging: that those that use the service should pay for the service."
Basing charges on the proportion of social tenants in an area - as Islington appears to have done - seems like an "arbitrary" method, Mr Lee suggests.
The vulnerability of HRA ringfences were previously subject to annual checks by district auditors, employed by the Audit Commission until it was abolished last year.
This role has now passed to private accountancy firms, appointed by each local authority. "District auditors were keen on checking this kind of thing when the Audit Commission was around," Mr Lee adds. "This role has now gone to private auditors. They have some recognition of this issue, but not the same recognition as the Audit Commission."
The general trend towards increasing the burden on HRAs for back-office costs, uncovered by this analysis, is not common to all councils, however.
Just over a quarter of councils (26) cut their housing budget share of central services between 2010/11 and 2014, some significantly so. Five reduced their HRAs' share by more than 10%.
Again, I suggest you rein in the personal abuse.
I have reported your subsequent editing of your post as a fresh post for personal abuse.
Similar threads
- Poll
