Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Latimer Road fire

1235737

Comments

  • Tragic and I cannot begin to imagine what the people living there have been through.

    The cladding was probably fire resistant but could possibly laid on breather membrane that would ignite fairly quick.

    The problem with a building like this is that council decide they want the building revamped, this is relayed to the housing association (supposedly not for profit) looking after said property and a budget is given by the council. The HA then go to tender for a building contractor immediately putting the emphasis on cheapest gets the job.

    Cheapest building contractor then gets the job(more often than not) and realises there allowance and cost are spiralling then goes to the sub contractor and screws them down thus the job you get is not what should be.

    Having worked on many refurbs you would be surprised at how many of the sites top management would care or know if it was installed correctly as long as programme was met.

  • Tragic and I cannot begin to imagine what the people living there have been through.

    The cladding was probably fire resistant but could possibly laid on breather membrane that would ignite fairly quick.

    The problem with a building like this is that council decide they want the building revamped, this is relayed to the housing association (supposedly not for profit) looking after said property and a budget is given by the council. The HA then go to tender for a building contractor immediately putting the emphasis on cheapest gets the job.

    Cheapest building contractor then gets the job(more often than not) and realises there allowance and cost are spiralling then goes to the sub contractor and screws them down thus the job you get is not what should be.

    Having worked on many refurbs you would be surprised at how many of the sites top management would care or know if it was installed correctly as long as programme was met.

    So many of these jobs are bodged - who signs them off? Expectations are so low that contractors are allowed sometimes to get away with 'murder'.
  • edited June 2017
    A thought provoking point. One of the problems that MAY come out of this is how councils use private companies to do these works. The standards are generally poor and sometimes the work isn't done at all - the companies just tell the council they have done them. Council officals seldom do checks and the tenants don't always know the work was scheduled. The whole market becomes a cost cutting sham. The council should treat the companies who do works on their behalf in the same way as a house owner would do if they made alterations to their property, but when they agree contracts the biggest factor seems to be price. This affects council tenants but also owners who live in leasehold properties, where they have to pay the council fees to maintain the communal areas of that property.

    In most cases this will not affect safety, but there are clearly cases where this will not be the case. I can think of a recent one from my experience linked to a balcony that fell into disrepair and neglect due to half hearted maintenance. I think it is the responsibility of the council to ensure the companies that do works on their behalf, do them properly. At this early stage, I think we need to get all the facts, but this is one area we need to look at closely. Every complaint from tenants and how the complaints were dealt with requires the closest scrutiny.
  • athought provoking point. One of the problems that MAY come out of this is how councils use private companies to do these works. The standards are generally poor and sometimes the work isn't done at all - the companies just tell the council they have done them. Council officals seldom do checks and the tenants don't always know the work was scheduled. The whole market becomes a cost cutting sham. The council should treat the companies who do works on their behalf in the same way as a house owner would do if they made alterations to their property, but when they agree contracts the biggest factor seems to be price. This affects council tenants but also owners who live in leasehold properties, where they have to pay the council fees to maintain the communal areas of that property.

    In most cases this will not affect safety, but there are clearly cases where this will not be the case. I can think of a recent one from my experience linked to a balcony that fell into disrepair and neglect due to half hearted maintenance. I think it is the responsibility of the council to ensure the companies that do works on their behalf, do them properly. At this early stage, I think we need to get all the facts, but this is one area we need to look at closely. Every complaint from tenants and how the complaints were dealt with requires the closest scrutiny.

    Things are far too easily signed off - nobody wants to take responsibility. There needs to be an independent body that signs off major refurbs.

    I used to work in this area of London and there are a lot of blocks with a similar design.
  • Truly the stuff of nightmares.
    RIP to the victims. I fear the exact number might never be known.
  • athought provoking point. One of the problems that MAY come out of this is how councils use private companies to do these works. The standards are generally poor and sometimes the work isn't done at all - the companies just tell the council they have done them. Council officals seldom do checks and the tenants don't always know the work was scheduled. The whole market becomes a cost cutting sham. The council should treat the companies who do works on their behalf in the same way as a house owner would do if they made alterations to their property, but when they agree contracts the biggest factor seems to be price. This affects council tenants but also owners who live in leasehold properties, where they have to pay the council fees to maintain the communal areas of that property.

    In most cases this will not affect safety, but there are clearly cases where this will not be the case. I can think of a recent one from my experience linked to a balcony that fell into disrepair and neglect due to half hearted maintenance. I think it is the responsibility of the council to ensure the companies that do works on their behalf, do them properly. At this early stage, I think we need to get all the facts, but this is one area we need to look at closely. Every complaint from tenants and how the complaints were dealt with requires the closest scrutiny.

    I think the whole question of standards, design and sign off has to be strengthened.
    There is no excuse for external fires like this that can jump and spread so quickly.
  • edited June 2017

    Tragic and I cannot begin to imagine what the people living there have been through.

    The cladding was probably fire resistant but could possibly laid on breather membrane that would ignite fairly quick.

    The problem with a building like this is that council decide they want the building revamped, this is relayed to the housing association (supposedly not for profit) looking after said property and a budget is given by the council. The HA then go to tender for a building contractor immediately putting the emphasis on cheapest gets the job.

    Cheapest building contractor then gets the job(more often than not) and realises there allowance and cost are spiralling then goes to the sub contractor and screws them down thus the job you get is not what should be.

    Having worked on many refurbs you would be surprised at how many of the sites top management would care or know if it was installed correctly as long as programme was met.

    This is exactly what happened when a number of schools were refurbished in Scotland. It was regarding wall ties I seem to recall (R5L...several months ago).
  • Sponsored links:


  • I know there are companies that do work for the council that a privite house holder would not touch with a barge pole. They go cheap but cut corners. Do you blame them or the people who give them the contracts - or is it a mixture of both.
  • It's all over the TV news here in China. So tragic..... R.I.P to the people that lost their lives in this tragedy.....


  • I guess there will be many heartbreaking stories to come out of this tragedy. We probably all know people who have lived in high-rise apartment blocks. It's such a terrible and sad thing for anyone affected.
  • I know there are companies that do work for the council that a privite house holder would not touch with a barge pole. They go cheap but cut corners. Do you blame them or the people who give them the contracts - or is it a mixture of both.

    Councils and housing associations use some terrible companies who are allowed to get away with shoddy work - this needs to be addressed. Public money is too freely wasted.
  • I know there are companies that do work for the council that a privite house holder would not touch with a barge pole. They go cheap but cut corners. Do you blame them or the people who give them the contracts - or is it a mixture of both.

    The person who signs off the contract will always go with the cheapest, because that's how the world works for them. On a spreadsheet. The people who then cop the grief are the agents, supervisors and anyone who has to deal with the cheapest contractor. When anyone of those people try to get the person responsible for tendering the work to take some responsibility all they will get is ignored.

    It is firmly the fault of the person who assigns the contract to ensure those undertaking the work are compliant, problem is the housing associations don't think to have the budget to bring their own auditors in, so farm that out too. So you end up with non-compliant contractors being audited by their own people on their payroll! Now they are hardly going to piss in their own bath are they?
  • Carter said:

    I know there are companies that do work for the council that a privite house holder would not touch with a barge pole. They go cheap but cut corners. Do you blame them or the people who give them the contracts - or is it a mixture of both.

    The person who signs off the contract will always go with the cheapest, because that's how the world works for them. On a spreadsheet. The people who then cop the grief are the agents, supervisors and anyone who has to deal with the cheapest contractor. When anyone of those people try to get the person responsible for tendering the work to take some responsibility all they will get is ignored.

    It is firmly the fault of the person who assigns the contract to ensure those undertaking the work are compliant, problem is the housing associations don't think to have the budget to bring their own auditors in, so farm that out too. So you end up with non-compliant contractors being audited by their own people on their payroll! Now they are hardly going to piss in their own bath are they?
    From the BBC:

    Company that carried out cladding work reportedly went into administration

    Posted at 12:22

    According to the industry publication Construction Enquirer, the company that carried out the cladding work on Grenfell Tower went into administration shortly after completing the work.

    Harley Curtain Wall carried out the £3m project in 2015.

  • micks1950 said:

    Carter said:

    I know there are companies that do work for the council that a privite house holder would not touch with a barge pole. They go cheap but cut corners. Do you blame them or the people who give them the contracts - or is it a mixture of both.

    The person who signs off the contract will always go with the cheapest, because that's how the world works for them. On a spreadsheet. The people who then cop the grief are the agents, supervisors and anyone who has to deal with the cheapest contractor. When anyone of those people try to get the person responsible for tendering the work to take some responsibility all they will get is ignored.

    It is firmly the fault of the person who assigns the contract to ensure those undertaking the work are compliant, problem is the housing associations don't think to have the budget to bring their own auditors in, so farm that out too. So you end up with non-compliant contractors being audited by their own people on their payroll! Now they are hardly going to piss in their own bath are they?
    From the BBC:

    Company that carried out cladding work reportedly went into administration

    Posted at 12:22

    According to the industry publication Construction Enquirer, the company that carried out the cladding work on Grenfell Tower went into administration shortly after completing the work.

    Harley Curtain Wall carried out the £3m project in 2015.

    just heard on the radio that the company that did the works said that said works complied with all safety regulations.

  • worked for rbkc in the past and there the most greedy shower of wankers ive ever worked for, all of there work is outsourced to companies heavily reliant on unskilled/foreign labour.
  • Tragic and I cannot begin to imagine what the people living there have been through.

    The cladding was probably fire resistant but could possibly laid on breather membrane that would ignite fairly quick.

    The problem with a building like this is that council decide they want the building revamped, this is relayed to the housing association (supposedly not for profit) looking after said property and a budget is given by the council. The HA then go to tender for a building contractor immediately putting the emphasis on cheapest gets the job.

    Cheapest building contractor then gets the job(more often than not) and realises there allowance and cost are spiralling then goes to the sub contractor and screws them down thus the job you get is not what should be.

    Having worked on many refurbs you would be surprised at how many of the sites top management would care or know if it was installed correctly as long as programme was met.

    Nail on the head, especially the bottom paragraph. You have to sometimes feel for the managers though, being given ridiculous completion targets by directors who've never picked up a hammer in their life let alone know what the building regs are. And when there's an issue said directors throw their toys out of the pram over the thought of not getting their bonus and finish their rant with 'just get it done' brainless no good pricks.
  • micks1950 said:

    Carter said:

    I know there are companies that do work for the council that a privite house holder would not touch with a barge pole. They go cheap but cut corners. Do you blame them or the people who give them the contracts - or is it a mixture of both.

    The person who signs off the contract will always go with the cheapest, because that's how the world works for them. On a spreadsheet. The people who then cop the grief are the agents, supervisors and anyone who has to deal with the cheapest contractor. When anyone of those people try to get the person responsible for tendering the work to take some responsibility all they will get is ignored.

    It is firmly the fault of the person who assigns the contract to ensure those undertaking the work are compliant, problem is the housing associations don't think to have the budget to bring their own auditors in, so farm that out too. So you end up with non-compliant contractors being audited by their own people on their payroll! Now they are hardly going to piss in their own bath are they?
    From the BBC:

    Company that carried out cladding work reportedly went into administration

    Posted at 12:22

    According to the industry publication Construction Enquirer, the company that carried out the cladding work on Grenfell Tower went into administration shortly after completing the work.

    Harley Curtain Wall carried out the £3m project in 2015.

    just heard on the radio that the company that did the works said that said works complied with all safety regulations.

    I think it was the main contractor Rydon who issued that statement - it's Harley Curtain Wall the sub-contractor who fitted the suspect cladding that's apparently gone into liquidation.
  • Sponsored links:


  • More from the BBC:

    One major focus for investigation: The cladding

    David Shukman

    Science editor, BBC News
    Posted at 13:50

    The tower block's cladding looks set to be a major focus of the investigation that will follow this fire. Chunks of it were seen burning and falling to the ground.

    Cladding can be a good solution to improve the insulation and appearance of older tower blocks, and panels are sometimes fitted to the outside. However, various incidents from around the world have seen cladding catch fire and result in considerable destruction and distress.

    One question for the investigators will be: Was this cladding resistant enough to fire?
  • If it proves to be the new cladding that was responsible for the rapid fire spread then this may not be the fault of the procurement of the contractor or the competence of the building control inspections or workmanship.
    It might transpire that the cladding was installed in accordance with the building regs, which would suggest that they aren't fit for purpose.
    There was supposed to be a review of the building regs after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, but nothing as yet. I don't know why it takes so long, but have read that there is conflict between fire resistant materials being employed and satisfying other building requirements designed to reduce CO2 emissions.
    All so painful for those raising safety issues about the building and being ignored.
  • athought provoking point. One of the problems that MAY come out of this is how councils use private companies to do these works. The standards are generally poor and sometimes the work isn't done at all - the companies just tell the council they have done them. Council officals seldom do checks and the tenants don't always know the work was scheduled. The whole market becomes a cost cutting sham. The council should treat the companies who do works on their behalf in the same way as a house owner would do if they made alterations to their property, but when they agree contracts the biggest factor seems to be price. This affects council tenants but also owners who live in leasehold properties, where they have to pay the council fees to maintain the communal areas of that property.

    In most cases this will not affect safety, but there are clearly cases where this will not be the case. I can think of a recent one from my experience linked to a balcony that fell into disrepair and neglect due to half hearted maintenance. I think it is the responsibility of the council to ensure the companies that do works on their behalf, do them properly. At this early stage, I think we need to get all the facts, but this is one area we need to look at closely. Every complaint from tenants and how the complaints were dealt with requires the closest scrutiny.

    Things are far too easily signed off - nobody wants to take responsibility. There needs to be an independent body that signs off major refurbs.

    I used to work in this area of London and there are a lot of blocks with a similar design.
    If say a council rep takes responsibility for shoddy, dangerous work, who pays to put it right when the issue may be neglect or work carried out some time ago? What they say verbally when inspecting, they are not always willing to put in writing subsequently. I know that is true. We have a system where there are too many people to blame.

    If there is blame here, we need to go for everybody who has some, for the sake of these poor souls. And to make sure there are no more needless deaths.
  • hold on RIP to the dead first before attaching blame .

    All Councils when procuring contracts over a certain threshold have to use the EU procurement structure ---its veted ---its scored ---its open to challenge.

    The first thing to be checked wont be who under took the works to this tower block it will be "did it have a current Fire Risk Assessment ?"-----even if the building is run by a housing association on behalf of the council ,the council are the Landlord. The FRA should be actioned yearly and will have a break down of the building structure ,it's means of escape, its emergency lighting,any fire alarm system servicing review. At the end it will have time locked actions ----often this is where it falls down as OWNERSHIP of these actions is often blurred.
  • hold on RIP to the dead first before attaching blame .

    All Councils when procuring contracts over a certain threshold have to use the EU procurement structure ---its veted ---its scored ---its open to challenge.

    The first thing to be checked wont be who under took the works to this tower block it will be "did it have a current Fire Risk Assessment ?"-----even if the building is run by a housing association on behalf of the council ,the council are the Landlord. The FRA should be actioned yearly and will have a break down of the building structure ,it's means of escape, its emergency lighting,any fire alarm system servicing review. At the end it will have time locked actions ----often this is where it falls down as OWNERSHIP of these actions is often blurred.

    Used to work at St Mary's in Paddington and regularly did home visits to a number of blocks in the local area to assess properties for adaptive equipment. There were numerous problems visible to the untrained eye - fire service access to a lot of these estates wasn't great and I still think there should be more caretakers/concierges who could keep an eye on things.

    Everything is invariably done on the cheap and as usual it's only when a tragedy occurs that anyone listens. If you always go for the cheapest and there aren't the right checks and balances in place then you are flirting with danger.

    Until the mindset changes nothing will improve.

  • Some wise and some horrifying comments above, sometimes the same words.

    That life in the developing world is not without its perils, we understand, but how in God's name can a mature and above all wealthy democracy perpetrate such a catastrophic event, no more than a handful of miles from a seat of power that could once extend its reach across half the globe. Across half the A-Z is more difficult, it seems. Utterly shameful, it can surely be said, but right now what words have much meaning ?
  • It is true we are speculating - anger does that because we al feel this is something that shouldn't happen. But whatever the blame is - and there has to be some blame because a fire in one flat should not spread so quickly - but we do not know exactly what the causes are. I would like to see the conclusions, whatever they turn out to be, come quickly as we don't want this to happen again - ever.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!