Don't read this if you have high blood pressure as it will make you very angry.
Residents at the block were so concerned about fire safety after the recent refurbishment works in March that they requested an independent fire safety assessor to come in to review the safety of the building, but their request was rejected, the Labour councillor responsible for the block said.
She said tenants were concerned about the fire risk during and after recent refurbishment works and repeatedly raised their concerns with her.
Judith Blackman, Labour housing spokeswoman and who is on the board of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which runs the council’s homes, said:
We were constantly being fobbed off. All our concerns were being ignored. Our request for an independent safety adjudicator was turned down. We were told it was unnecessary.
Blackman said she raised the concerns of the residents with colleagues on the board so frequently that the board tried to have her removed from her position. The board said there was no need to employ an independent assessor, told her that their own checks were adequate, and said it “was not necessary to fund or instruct an independent adjudicator at this time”.
Blackman said:
I was treated like I was a nuisance. I raised 19 complaints on behalf of individual residents. Every single time we were told that the board had satisfied itself that the fire safety was fine. We were told that the go inside and wait policy was absolutely right.
In a letter to KCTMO, Blackman shared the residents’ concerns with the group. “I can’t think in all my 34 years on the council of anything that has gone on for so long in such an irresponsible manner and caused such concern to residents,” she wrote.
Updated at 4.42pm BST Facebook Twitter Google plus
16h ago 16:22 Management company 'aware of previous concerns'
In a statement, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which runs the council’s homes and has been a target for criticism by some residents, acknowledged concerns had previously been raised. It said:
It is too early to speculate what caused the fire and contributed to its spread. We will cooperate fully with all the relevant authorities in order to ascertain the cause of this tragedy.
We are aware that concerns have been raised historically by residents. We always take all concerns seriously and these will form part of our forthcoming investigations. While these investigations continue with our cooperation, our core priority at the moment is our residents
A few years ago I have stayed in the Shangri La hotel in the Shard - probably one of the best experiences of my life, having a room looking over tower bridge and the tower of London from very, very high. Swimming in the pool looking down of St Paul's cathedral. Oppulance and luxury in the extreme. That building had state of the art sprinklers and in fact it has been reported that those sprinklers contained a fire in August 2015 which could have been a disaster. If you can afford to stay in the Shard, and I reccomend it - you are very safe.
It has become clear that there is a report that has been sitting on the government's desk since 2013 which reccomends sprinklers are installed in all high rise properties. We have to ask ourselves why this hasn't happened? Are some people's lives worth more than others in this country? This shouldn't be political, but we do need to ask ourselves when we know something that needs to happen to potentially save lives, why it doesn't happen. I don't have to point out why I think that is because we all we all know why. Out of respect for the victims and to prevent any more wasted lives we should demand sprinklers are installed as quickly as humanly possible in all high rise buildings - and the clock has to start ticking now, not after some long convoluted enquiry.
as others have said not the time or the place but the constant bringing of politics into everything that happens is ridiculous, there should be a full investigation into this as councils scrimp and save on everything - would still be the same under the labpur party, corbyn yesterday taking an opportunity to attack tories whilst people are still missing in a burning building i thought was bad, may at the match on tuesday - criticised for doing the mexican wave, corbyn rocks up at a libertines gig and is seen as some sort of hero, he didnt win the election he didnt get the most seats there for he isnt the prime minister.
Let us put sprinklers in all high rise buildings now so people can sleep safely. The point I was making is there is already a report reccomending that. It could just as easily have been a Labour government sitting on it - but let's not get defensive and do something instead.
But this is what the LFB site says regarding responsibilites: london-fire.gov.uk/landlords-or-housing-providers-know-the-plan.asp Why spend your time talking to the landlord/management company or writing blogs? Just go straight to the LFB. The LFB runs a Fire safety Regulation Team. if asked, they'd do an assessment and, if appropriate issue an enforcement notice. Or even a prohibition/restriction notice.
So the primary question, surely, was did the LFB sign off the building and when? If so, were the council/management company relying on this professional input to say the premises were safe?
I am sickened at how those who died have been failed along with all those who have lost homes and possessions. Firemen have had their lives put at risk by these failings and changes need to be made going forward. We need a far more aggressive policy towards safety in housing and I hope politicians ( I don't care what party they're from) stop being so f***ing negligent.
These policies start from the top and people deserve better. If you keep trying to cut costs and go for inadequate solutions then eventually you will suffer the consequences.
This event reminds me of the terrible fire at Kings Cross in 1987 when safety had been completely ignored and so many died unnecessarily - sadly the death toll here will probably be even higher.
My point was and is, there is a report with safety reccomendatons already in existance - let us impliment the recomendations of that now without delay and any further ones as they become apparent. But we shouldn't delay. People living in high rise blocks accross the country need to feel safe and of course, be safe.
Have been really impressed by the way she has conducted herself and particularly the way she has spoken about her staff. We expect a hell of a lot from our firefighters and forget about the mental and physical toll the job can take on them. Some of the things they have to witness don't bear thinking about.
I am sickened at how those who died have been failed along with all those who have lost homes and possessions. Firemen have had their lives put at risk by these failings and changes need to be made going forward. We need a far more aggressive policy towards safety in housing and I hope politicians ( I don't care what party they're from) stop being so f***ing negligent.
These policies start from the top and people deserve better. If you keep trying to cut costs and go for inadequate solutions then eventually you will suffer the consequences.
This event reminds me of the terrible fire at Kings Cross in 1987 when safety had been completely ignored and so many died unnecessarily - sadly the death toll here will probably be even higher.
Here's a random thought. Any of us who have worked in an office building will know your appliances have a little sticker that tells you when the item was tested for safety. (Is that an annual test?)
Anyway would it make sense for testing of electrical appliances to be mandatory for multi-occupancy residential properties? In other words, look at not just reducing the risk of fire spread but also what is likely to start it in the first place. The concept of 100+ high rise flats with deep-fat fryers, christmas lights and Whirlpool's unsafe white goods doesn't sound like a good combination after all. Smoking should also probably be banned in such premises.
I lived in a tower block on the Ferrier as a child. I remember the floor below catching fire (walk through) that had vinyl tiles that accelerated the fire and fumes. The thing is, this was a walkway that was open to an extent (rather than a fire rated flat). it is quite apparent to me that the reason this fire spread in the fashion it did was due to the external cladding. Even the cladding (Celotex) only provided a certain amount of fire resistance. They would do well taking a leaf out of London Undergrounds fire (materials compliance) standards.
There are a huge number of blocks that have been wrapped, and I see a lot of money being spent on verification as fit for purpose coming.
As for sprinklers, I think the logistics of vandalism and constant flooding being problematic.
Cannot believe a block that dense only had one means of escape. the money would have been better spent adding another set of stairs (at the very least).
My cousin works the LFB and is good friends with her. Nobody has a bad word to say about her.
Please tell your cousin to tell her she's a ledge. What area is she from locally?
What I like about her more is that when she is speaking, she's not some polished smooth operator. She speaks as she is. I hope they don't try to change her.
I used to work in a high building and actually was a fire officer in the building. We took fire drills seriously when a lot of the staff didn't in all honesty. The worst were the senior managers - some of whom refused to leave meetings during alarms. There were stringent tests though. People complained about it, but any device with a plug you brought in, like a phone charger or a fan or even Christmas lights had to be tested and a sticker applied before it could be used.
I did have an issue with one aspect and got a bit of a telling off for it. We had safe areas on each floor for people who could not evacuate the building due to a disability. It was basically a space between two fire doors and had a telephone there so contact could be made with the fire service so they knew somebody was there. This was deemed better than Evacchairs which require training to use them (legal reasons). Whilst it did make sense, I did raise the point that with thick smoke or a raging fire, I and colleagues would not be leaving somebody there whilst we evacuated. We would carry them down if we had to. The rules felt a bit too firm and not nuanced enough.
The stay in your appartment rule will sometimes be the best option and sometimes not be. There has to be a means of assessing and giving that advice clearly to all residents.
I'm sure there's loads of us on here that work in office blocks. It's a completely different kettle of fish from the Shard to housing association tower blocks when money is no object.
Fire training and health and safety are all standard in any large offices. Everyone knows the rules.
Also hearing that some displaced families are in hotels and haven't been told if they can stay there. They have to be told they can stay there until there situation is reviewed with them and resolved. They have lost everything and will be traumatised - we have to ensure they are looked after.
Let us put sprinklers in all high rise buildings now so people can sleep safely. The point I was making is there is already a report reccomending that. It could just as easily have been a Labour government sitting on it - but let's not get defensive and do something instead.
There has to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis with any spending decision - no amount of money can reduce life's risks to zero.
It seems fairly likely to my untrained eye that a sprinkler system would have been useless given the ferocity of this fire and thus the problem lay elsewhere (seemingly in the building design).
Also hearing that some displaced families are in hotels and haven't been told if they can stay there. They have to be told they can stay there until there situation is reviewed with them and resolved. They have lost everything and will be traumatised - we have to ensure they are looked after.
The building insurers will be responsible for the alternative accommodation (cost) assuming the council take that level of insurance. They are insured by a Norwegian company Protector, I expect they will if they haven't already appoint someone local to deal with that. There may be a blanket contents cover but more likely that was left to each individual so they may well need additional assistance.
As an aside, the management company seems to be owned by the residents/tenants themselves with the majority of the board made up by them (obviously funding is from the council).
Don't read this if you have high blood pressure as it will make you very angry.
Residents at the block were so concerned about fire safety after the recent refurbishment works in March that they requested an independent fire safety assessor to come in to review the safety of the building, but their request was rejected, the Labour councillor responsible for the block said.
She said tenants were concerned about the fire risk during and after recent refurbishment works and repeatedly raised their concerns with her.
Judith Blackman, Labour housing spokeswoman and who is on the board of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which runs the council’s homes, said:
We were constantly being fobbed off. All our concerns were being ignored. Our request for an independent safety adjudicator was turned down. We were told it was unnecessary.
Blackman said she raised the concerns of the residents with colleagues on the board so frequently that the board tried to have her removed from her position. The board said there was no need to employ an independent assessor, told her that their own checks were adequate, and said it “was not necessary to fund or instruct an independent adjudicator at this time”.
Blackman said:
I was treated like I was a nuisance. I raised 19 complaints on behalf of individual residents. Every single time we were told that the board had satisfied itself that the fire safety was fine. We were told that the go inside and wait policy was absolutely right.
In a letter to KCTMO, Blackman shared the residents’ concerns with the group. “I can’t think in all my 34 years on the council of anything that has gone on for so long in such an irresponsible manner and caused such concern to residents,” she wrote.
Updated at 4.42pm BST Facebook Twitter Google plus
16h ago 16:22 Management company 'aware of previous concerns'
In a statement, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which runs the council’s homes and has been a target for criticism by some residents, acknowledged concerns had previously been raised. It said:
It is too early to speculate what caused the fire and contributed to its spread. We will cooperate fully with all the relevant authorities in order to ascertain the cause of this tragedy.
We are aware that concerns have been raised historically by residents. We always take all concerns seriously and these will form part of our forthcoming investigations. While these investigations continue with our cooperation, our core priority at the moment is our residents
There should be d be a program in place to demolish these old tower blocks as Bexley have done with the Larner Road Estate. The problem being, finding homes for the families that are displaced, so councils go gone the refurbishment route. I would like to add that I spent a good deal deal of my working life in the sprinkler industry (37years) and believe you me retrofitting sprinkler systems into existing tower blocks would be a logistical nightmare with location of the water tanks and pumping equipment etc. The best way would be demolish them and rebuild to modern standards, after all they will probably be demolished in the next 25years anyway.
Let us put sprinklers in all high rise buildings now so people can sleep safely. The point I was making is there is already a report reccomending that. It could just as easily have been a Labour government sitting on it - but let's not get defensive and do something instead.
There has to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis with any spending decision - no amount of money can reduce life's risks to zero.
It seems fairly likely to my untrained eye that a sprinkler system would have been useless given the ferocity of this fire and thus the problem lay elsewhere (seemingly in the building design).
Perhaps the sprinklers could be designed to come on *before* the block turns into an inferno?
There should be d be a program in place to demolish these old tower blocks as Bexley have done with the Larner Road Estate. The problem being, finding homes for the families that are displaced, so councils go gone the refurbishment route. I would like to add that I spent a good deal deal of my working life in the sprinkler industry (37years) and believe you me retrofitting sprinkler systems into existing tower blocks would be a logistical nightmare with location of the water tanks and pumping equipment etc. The best way would be demolish them and rebuild to modern standards, after all they will probably be demolished in the next 25years anyway.
Far too sensible comment Dansk......you have to remember politics is highly involved in social housing. You are 100% correct......but it will never happen.
Comments
Residents at the block were so concerned about fire safety after the recent refurbishment works in March that they requested an independent fire safety assessor to come in to review the safety of the building, but their request was rejected, the Labour councillor responsible for the block said.
She said tenants were concerned about the fire risk during and after recent refurbishment works and repeatedly raised their concerns with her.
Judith Blackman, Labour housing spokeswoman and who is on the board of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which runs the council’s homes, said:
We were constantly being fobbed off. All our concerns were being ignored. Our request for an independent safety adjudicator was turned down. We were told it was unnecessary.
Blackman said she raised the concerns of the residents with colleagues on the board so frequently that the board tried to have her removed from her position. The board said there was no need to employ an independent assessor, told her that their own checks were adequate, and said it “was not necessary to fund or instruct an independent adjudicator at this time”.
Blackman said:
I was treated like I was a nuisance. I raised 19 complaints on behalf of individual residents. Every single time we were told that the board had satisfied itself that the fire safety was fine. We were told that the go inside and wait policy was absolutely right.
In a letter to KCTMO, Blackman shared the residents’ concerns with the group. “I can’t think in all my 34 years on the council of anything that has gone on for so long in such an irresponsible manner and caused such concern to residents,” she wrote.
Updated at 4.42pm BST
Facebook
Twitter
Google plus
16h ago 16:22
Management company 'aware of previous concerns'
In a statement, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which runs the council’s homes and has been a target for criticism by some residents, acknowledged concerns had previously been raised. It said:
It is too early to speculate what caused the fire and contributed to its spread. We will cooperate fully with all the relevant authorities in order to ascertain the cause of this tragedy.
We are aware that concerns have been raised historically by residents. We always take all concerns seriously and these will form part of our forthcoming investigations. While these investigations continue with our cooperation, our core priority at the moment is our residents
It has become clear that there is a report that has been sitting on the government's desk since 2013 which reccomends sprinklers are installed in all high rise properties. We have to ask ourselves why this hasn't happened? Are some people's lives worth more than others in this country? This shouldn't be political, but we do need to ask ourselves when we know something that needs to happen to potentially save lives, why it doesn't happen. I don't have to point out why I think that is because we all we all know why. Out of respect for the victims and to prevent any more wasted lives we should demand sprinklers are installed as quickly as humanly possible in all high rise buildings - and the clock has to start ticking now, not after some long convoluted enquiry.
But this is what the LFB site says regarding responsibilites: london-fire.gov.uk/landlords-or-housing-providers-know-the-plan.asp
Why spend your time talking to the landlord/management company or writing blogs? Just go straight to the LFB. The LFB runs a Fire safety Regulation Team. if asked, they'd do an assessment and, if appropriate issue an enforcement notice. Or even a prohibition/restriction notice.
Here's a random example from Kensington & Chelsea: london-fire.gov.uk/notice_detail.asp?id=289198
So the primary question, surely, was did the LFB sign off the building and when? If so, were the council/management company relying on this professional input to say the premises were safe?
We will find out in due course.
We need a far more aggressive policy towards safety in housing and I hope politicians ( I don't care what party they're from) stop being so f***ing negligent.
These policies start from the top and people deserve better. If you keep trying to cut costs and go for inadequate solutions then eventually you will suffer the consequences.
This event reminds me of the terrible fire at Kings Cross in 1987 when safety had been completely ignored and so many died unnecessarily - sadly the death toll here will probably be even higher.
Anyway would it make sense for testing of electrical appliances to be mandatory for multi-occupancy residential properties? In other words, look at not just reducing the risk of fire spread but also what is likely to start it in the first place. The concept of 100+ high rise flats with deep-fat fryers, christmas lights and Whirlpool's unsafe white goods doesn't sound like a good combination after all. Smoking should also probably be banned in such premises.
I remember the floor below catching fire (walk through) that had vinyl tiles that accelerated the fire and fumes.
The thing is, this was a walkway that was open to an extent (rather than a fire rated flat).
it is quite apparent to me that the reason this fire spread in the fashion it did was due to the external cladding.
Even the cladding (Celotex) only provided a certain amount of fire resistance.
They would do well taking a leaf out of London Undergrounds fire (materials compliance) standards.
There are a huge number of blocks that have been wrapped, and I see a lot of money being spent on verification as fit for purpose coming.
As for sprinklers, I think the logistics of vandalism and constant flooding being problematic.
Cannot believe a block that dense only had one means of escape. the money would have been better spent adding another set of stairs (at the very least).
What I like about her more is that when she is speaking, she's not some polished smooth operator. She speaks as she is. I hope they don't try to change her.
I did have an issue with one aspect and got a bit of a telling off for it. We had safe areas on each floor for people who could not evacuate the building due to a disability. It was basically a space between two fire doors and had a telephone there so contact could be made with the fire service so they knew somebody was there. This was deemed better than Evacchairs which require training to use them (legal reasons). Whilst it did make sense, I did raise the point that with thick smoke or a raging fire, I and colleagues would not be leaving somebody there whilst we evacuated. We would carry them down if we had to. The rules felt a bit too firm and not nuanced enough.
The stay in your appartment rule will sometimes be the best option and sometimes not be. There has to be a means of assessing and giving that advice clearly to all residents.
Fire training and health and safety are all standard in any large offices. Everyone knows the rules.
It seems fairly likely to my untrained eye that a sprinkler system would have been useless given the ferocity of this fire and thus the problem lay elsewhere (seemingly in the building design).
As an aside, the management company seems to be owned by the residents/tenants themselves with the majority of the board made up by them (obviously funding is from the council).
Google say their HQ is in East Sussex.......they do have offices in Dartford.
You are 100% correct......but it will never happen.