Kensington and Chelsea (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Kensington and Chelsea Council admits rushing post-Grenfell home purchases, acknowledging many properties are now unsafe for use as social housing.
Following the 2017 fire that forced many Grenfell residents to flee their homes, Kensington and Chelsea Council alleged that residents were moved on whenever concerns were brought up regarding the houses it had hurriedly bought.
According to a council assessment, several were never filled because of safety concerns such odd layouts or difficulty with fire escapes.
The revelation coincides with the council’s plan to sell 14 of the houses because they are in such bad shape that they cannot be improved.
This raises concerns about council procedures and the wasting of taxpayer funds when simple surveys could have identified some of the most serious problems.
Emma O’Connor, who escaped in a lift from the 20th floor with her partner, accused the council of failing to learn from its mistakes.
She told the Local Democracy Reporting Service:
“They don’t investigate before they do something. Rush is the biggest red flag. You cannot rush fire safety.
People’s lives mean more than money. If it takes a long time [to find a suitable property] so be it. It’s a human right to live somewhere safe”.
Survivors group Grenfell Next of Kin said the admission was “the tip of the iceberg”.
They said:
“The decision made by the Tory Government in the immediate aftermath of the fire to leave the same negligent Tory council in charge of the aftermath with a blank cheque, without any oversight or scrutiny, was a grave misstep, harmful for the victims and irresponsible.
The evidence revealed in the Inquiry paints a picture of a council that operated more like property developers than public servants, engaging in dubious dealings that compromised the safety and wellbeing of the community which created the conditions that led up to the disaster.”
The group is requesting that forensic accountants review the council’s finances. “We think the rest of the iceberg would reveal epic failures in the aftermath of a disaster,” they continued.
Additionally, this needs to be studied in order to prepare for any future disasters in our nation.
According to a council report, Kensington and Chelsea Council admitted to taking certain chances while buying the houses “in the necessary interest of speed.” According to them, this indicated that thorough surveys had not been conducted before the purchase.
According to the council, it quickly became clear that some of the houses were inappropriate and would be challenging to upgrade to the high safety standards needed for social housing.
They claimed that if more specific information had been provided and the “necessity of the circumstances” had been different, the acquisitions would not have been undertaken.
The report read:
“The council has now reached the limit of what it can do with a reasonable level of investment to improve properties to the necessary standards of safety, security and comfort to let them for social rent.
Even where it might be possible to undertake works, the assessed scale and cost of those works will never be recovered by rental income.”
Therefore, while the council is reluctant to dispose of any home that could be used for social rent, disposal is recommended as the right course of action.”
Not fully owning the freehold, running into “challenges” with leaseholders and freeholders, and realizing that safety concerns “cannot be reasonably fixed” are other grounds for selling.
The council wants to sell 14 vacant properties, but it does not fully own the freehold to any of them. The local government claimed that clauses in the leaseholds frequently prevented or unjustly hindered it from doing the necessary repairs to make the houses fit for rental use. They claimed that this was particularly true for properties on the street.
In other instances, the intricate ownership structures of a block made construction “very challenging.” The council has pledged to put the money raised from the sales back into the borough’s social housing stock.
The Conveyancing Association’s director of delivery, Beth Rudolf, stated that while the council ought to have done their due diligence, it’s likely that the flaws were overlooked at the time. According to the trade association, property agents’ conduct might have been to blame.
According to her, rules enacted in 2008 mandate that anybody promoting a home disclose any flaws—referred to as Material Information—that would influence the typical buyer’s choice.
She said that while good estate agents already provide Material Information, had these requirements been properly followed, councils like Kensington and Chelsea might have had the necessary insight into the condition of the properties they were purchasing, especially at such a critical time in the aftermath of Grenfell.
They know 80 percent of property listings include basic information but only 10pc go further to disclose the details that truly matter to buyers.
This lack of compliance puts lives at risk and undermines the trust buyers place in the process or, of course, where it is only discovered after an offer is made, it causes transactions to be delayed and fall through.
She added:
“It’s possible that, even with surveys, some of these issues wouldn’t have been identified at the time. But that only reinforces the urgent need for regulation of property agents and greater enforcement of standards.
This is the kind of progress we should be striving for, particularly around building safety improvements, not just in honour of those affected by Grenfell, but to prevent future tragedies.”
The Greater London Authority gave £60,000 to Kensington and Chelsea Council for each house. After the properties are sold, this money needs to be sent back to City Hall.
Using council reserves, loans from the General Fund, and GLA grants, more than 290 properties were acquired.
A Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesperson said:
“Purchasing 290 homes in 2017 was an unprecedented challenge and the council knowingly took some risks to complete sales quickly.
This included conducting only limited surveys and purchasing privately owned properties that we assumed could be made suitable for social housing.
It is inevitable that quality will vary when purchasing this many properties at speed, especially as many had been in private ownership.”
He added that they implemented a work programme to bring properties up to the high standard we expect for our residents in social housing.
In a few cases properties proved unsuitable and works were not possible due to freehold issues, structural issues or prohibitive costs.
They assessed properties shortly after purchase and any that we assessed as unsuitable and that we could not bring up to standard have never been occupied. They are now recommending disposal of 14 properties because they cannot be brought up to the high standards we expect for our residents.
There is greater benefit to our residents in selling them and reinvesting the proceeds in our social housing.
What specific risks were taken when purchasing the Grenfell housing properties?
The council swiftly purchased houses without thoroughly inspecting them or making sure they complied with safety, security, and habitability requirements; as a result, many of the properties are now hazardous and in need of expensive repairs that exceed rental income.
The use of hazardous materials (such flammable cladding), lax enforcement of technical specifications, and insufficient risk management during the procurement and renovation procedures were among the systematic shortcomings in fire safety management that were exposed by the Grenfell Inquiry.
Although this has a direct connection to Grenfell Tower, it also represents a larger trend of safety lapses in council-managed or purchased property.
Due to the haste to place survivors, the standard thorough inspections required for social housing purchases were weakened, which raised the possibility that dwellings would subsequently be determined to be hazardous or inappropriate.