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

Grenfell Tower Enquiry

2456712

Comments

  • edited May 2018

    Addickted said:

    This is another thing that needs looking at - there was a report recently saying many fridges are dangerous. Was there a design fault with that fridge? There are so many questions here. They need asking though.

    It was a Hotpoint Fridge Freezer. The model was low risk and did not require any modifications - like, for instance, the recent issue with tumble driers. There will be more information coming out about the resident of this flat and his actions at the inquiry

    I also think it's probably best to leave the inquiry to come to it's conclusions rather make suppositions and posting nothing more than rumour and hearsay.
    which is why I don't think thr Panarama programme should have been aired. There is a public enquiry going on & any relevant info pertaining to the tragedy should be processed through it - not exposed in a 30 min programme.....no matter how "sensational" it is.
    I thought the programme was a bit rubbish, to be honest, but you can’t shut down public discussion of such a major disaster because there is a public inquiry. These things can go on for years.

    It’s a different matter if criminal charges have been laid, and the law recognises the difference.
  • edited May 2018
    Addickted said:

    Addickted said:

    Yes, but councils of all colours go for the lowest prices due to austerity forcing them to do so and they don't do the necessary checks or have the desire to ask the right questions. It is right the companies that play on this are punished but the blame goes beyond that. Having said that Kensington and Chelsea seemed to be much richer than most!

    Grenfell Tower wasn't managed by Kensington & Chelsea Council and they did not commission, specify, procure or fund the project.


    I don’t think that’s true. Like many councils they had put an arm’s length management company in place, but senior councillors were all over the budget - as indeed they should have been.

    This wasn’t a housing association set-up, it was local authority housing managed by someone else on the council’s behalf. In my experience that means the council maintains a housing revenue account, legally distinct from its general fund, which is used to maintain the property. The council remains the owner of the buildings.

    This is what Wiki says:

    “The original contractor, Leadbitter, had been dropped by KCTMO because their price of £11.278 million was £1.6 million higher than the proposed budget for the refurbishment. The contract was put out to competitive tender. Rydon's bid was £2.5 million less than Leadbitter's.[36] An alternative cladding with better fire resistance was refused due to cost.[45] If the Leadbitter cladding had been used, fire experts maintain the fire would not have spread as it did and lives may not have been lost. The Conservative council rejected the bid for non combustible materials on cost grounds. The authority was in “robust” financial health, accounts for 2014 show. There were £235m in usable reserves and the budget for services was underspent by £23m.[46]
    OK - I accept that to an extent.

    Funding was controlled through K&C, but the majority of it was provided though additional funding from the CLG for the K&CTMO to achieve Decent Home Standards Plus. The financial health or otherwise of K&C Council is a red herring as the cost wasn't coming from their Capital budget directly.

    The proposed works were valued higher than that funding available and the TMO looked for alternatives to the Leadbitter bid.

    The Council were told that an alternative to the zinc composite cladding was available with similar characteristics, that complied with all the requirements of the Building Regulations and passed all relevant British Standards, but was it was £300k less.

    I'm not sure there would be a Council in the land of whatever colour who wouldn't chose that alternative at the time.
    Conventionally you are right that the state of the council’s general fund would not be relevant, but morally if people are being burnt to death because of cost-cutting the fact this is a very wealthy council is bound to be commented upon.

    Regardless the council will maintain a separate capital programme specifically for social housing as part of its HRA and this is where the Grenfell costs would sit. The fact the money comes in as grants which are likely to be ringfenced is ultimately neither here nor there - a lot of council funding, historically at least, has been central grants - it still becomes part of the council’s HRA budget. So the overall financial health of the council’s HRA is part of the picture. That said, the HRA can be exceptionally complex and is rarely understood by most elected members.

    It happened that this was a Tory council but it would be a big and unreasonable leap to say that it happened because it was a Tory council - nevertheless in my experience Tory councillors have less interest in social housing than Labour councillors, for reasons that may be obvious. On a basic level they are simply less likely to have significant levels of social housing in their own wards - hence the K&C leader who had never been in a tower block.

    The whole issue of social housing and the way it is managed is deeply political but not in the facile sense that all Tory councils make bad decisions or all Labour councils make good decisions about it, which would be nonsense, but rather where it sits in different individuals’ priorities and experience.
  • Some excellent points there @Airman Brown.

    So do you believe 'Social' Housing is best managed by Housing Associations, whose raison d'etre is to provide and manage good quality homes for their residents?

    They are accountable to their residents rather than political parties, majorly self funded, highly regulated, have become significant developers of new homes and are governed by independent Board members.

    Not saying they are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but surely better than Local Authorities who have to juggle the management of Housing, alongside other major portfolios such as Social Care, Education, Transport etc, etc
  • edited May 2018
    Carter said:

    Addickted said:

    Yes, but councils of all colours go for the lowest prices due to austerity forcing them to do so and they don't do the necessary checks or have the desire to ask the right questions. It is right the companies that play on this are punished but the blame goes beyond that. Having said that Kensington and Chelsea seemed to be much richer than most!

    Grenfell Tower wasn't managed by Kensington & Chelsea Council and they did not commission, specify, procure or fund the project.


    I don’t think that’s true. Like many councils they had put an arm’s length management company in place, but senior councillors were all over the budget - as indeed they should have been.

    This wasn’t a housing association set-up, it was local authority housing managed by someone else on the council’s behalf. In my experience that means the council maintains a housing revenue account, legally distinct from its general fund, which is used to maintain the property. The council remains the owner of the buildings.

    This is what Wiki says:

    “The original contractor, Leadbitter, had been dropped by KCTMO because their price of £11.278 million was £1.6 million higher than the proposed budget for the refurbishment. The contract was put out to competitive tender. Rydon's bid was £2.5 million less than Leadbitter's.[36] An alternative cladding with better fire resistance was refused due to cost.[45] If the Leadbitter cladding had been used, fire experts maintain the fire would not have spread as it did and lives may not have been lost. The Conservative council rejected the bid for non combustible materials on cost grounds. The authority was in “robust” financial health, accounts for 2014 show. There were £235m in usable reserves and the budget for services was underspent by £23m.[46]
    I've liked this not because it's nice but infuriatingly it is what I see happening daily. I've already said my piece on the Grenfell thread about how the sub it sub it approach and times that we live in, something horrible like this is always a gnats dick away.

    The fact that it seems the manufacturers and contractors seem likely to shoulder the blame is a whitewash. Those people didn't make the decisions, they are propelled by them and those decisions are made by elected councillors which is where the fucking buck has to stop. I guarantee it won't.

    Rich people with soft hands covered in a lot of poor people's blood. Again
    Which is what I am saying has to be looked at based on some experience from what people have told me and the usual suspects come and try and knock it down. It isn't political point scoring at all. We, the public should be posing all sorts of questions en mass. Why did successive housing ministers sit on recommendations that may have prevented the tragedy? Why were building regs softened rather than tightened? Why were resident's fears ignored? Why were the families not fully supported in the aftermath? These are some of the questions in my mind. It isn't unhelpful to air them and discuss them - not shut up somebody is looking at that!
  • edited May 2018

    Carter said:

    Addickted said:

    Yes, but councils of all colours go for the lowest prices due to austerity forcing them to do so and they don't do the necessary checks or have the desire to ask the right questions. It is right the companies that play on this are punished but the blame goes beyond that. Having said that Kensington and Chelsea seemed to be much richer than most!

    Grenfell Tower wasn't managed by Kensington & Chelsea Council and they did not commission, specify, procure or fund the project.


    I don’t think that’s true. Like many councils they had put an arm’s length management company in place, but senior councillors were all over the budget - as indeed they should have been.

    This wasn’t a housing association set-up, it was local authority housing managed by someone else on the council’s behalf. In my experience that means the council maintains a housing revenue account, legally distinct from its general fund, which is used to maintain the property. The council remains the owner of the buildings.

    This is what Wiki says:

    “The original contractor, Leadbitter, had been dropped by KCTMO because their price of £11.278 million was £1.6 million higher than the proposed budget for the refurbishment. The contract was put out to competitive tender. Rydon's bid was £2.5 million less than Leadbitter's.[36] An alternative cladding with better fire resistance was refused due to cost.[45] If the Leadbitter cladding had been used, fire experts maintain the fire would not have spread as it did and lives may not have been lost. The Conservative council rejected the bid for non combustible materials on cost grounds. The authority was in “robust” financial health, accounts for 2014 show. There were £235m in usable reserves and the budget for services was underspent by £23m.[46]
    I've liked this not because it's nice but infuriatingly it is what I see happening daily. I've already said my piece on the Grenfell thread about how the sub it sub it approach and times that we live in, something horrible like this is always a gnats dick away.

    The fact that it seems the manufacturers and contractors seem likely to shoulder the blame is a whitewash. Those people didn't make the decisions, they are propelled by them and those decisions are made by elected councillors which is where the fucking buck has to stop. I guarantee it won't.

    Rich people with soft hands covered in a lot of poor people's blood. Again
    Which is what I am saying has to be looked at based on some experience from what people have told me and the usual suspects come and try and knock it down. It isn't political point scoring at all. We, the public should be posing all sorts of questions en mass. Why did successive housing ministers sit on recommendations that may have prevented the tragedy? Why were building regs softened rather than tightened? Why were resident's fears ignored? Why were the families not fully supported in the aftermath? These are some of the questions in my mind. It isn't unhelpful to air them and discuss them - not shut up somebody is looking at that!
    Working in construction where i have to deal with building control on a regular basis i have not seen any evidence of any regulations being softened, not on my jobs anyway. The bigger question for me is - were the building regulations met regarding fire prevention and containment?

    Since Grenfell I have noticed that building control are even more stringent on anything fire and life safety related.
  • edited May 2018
    Asking the questions doesn't mean the answers will be damning in all cases - but they need to be asked. It is true that we learn from disasters. Air travel is a brilliant example.

    As Airman says, you can't shut down public discussion. It is important.
  • Addickted said:

    Some excellent points there @Airman Brown.

    So do you believe 'Social' Housing is best managed by Housing Associations, whose raison d'etre is to provide and manage good quality homes for their residents?

    They are accountable to their residents rather than political parties, majorly self funded, highly regulated, have become significant developers of new homes and are governed by independent Board members.

    Not saying they are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but surely better than Local Authorities who have to juggle the management of Housing, alongside other major portfolios such as Social Care, Education, Transport etc, etc

    That’s a very complex issue. Having worked with both models I’m not particularly keen on either because in my experience they each undermine accountability. I didn’t find large housing associations accountable to their residents - in practice they appeared to be accountable to no one and it was very difficult to get them to do things, bearing in mind that residents contacting councillors was already a sign the housing association hadn’t performed as wanted. The development aspect goes back to councils not being allowed to borrow to build, or even spend their own receipts, which is a wider issue.

    In East Kent, the management company was set up to share back office function - and therefore make savings - across several smaller district authorities. The effect was also to distance management from any political accountability, although where you had good housing officers on the ground it was still possible to get results.

    No doubt lots of people would say that many local services would be better run away from politics - up to the point when they realise they now have much less control or influence over them when they fail to deliver. Education is going the same way, although the evidence to support academies and the case for “free schools” is thin. The difference with public housing is that a large part of the population doesn’t use the service and doesn’t expect that it ever will. That is bound to skew attitudes. It was probably less true when there was more public rented housing, before the 1980s.
  • having worked at RBKC (Tri Borough partnership) and at Westminster City Council i do try to follow the "mechanical" aspects of this rather than the horrific human cost and the political.

    It has been stated (i think) a week ago that The Building Regs will have to be rewritten etc---well for those who are familiar with the regs that task is mammoth -- i think the last review of a SECTION took several years to publish and role out. How long would the whole thing or a larger piece of it take ? a guess is 6 years.
    These new regs" are unlikely to be retrospective.
    Although a "cheaper" cladding" may have been installed if it was to Building Regs then its a Reg failure not a failure by the LA.

    The LFB have found that Fire Rated doors ( thats off the shelf) rated at 30 mins protection actually failed much faster ! How is that happening ?? We who are involved in projects/ building facilities would only checked the spec . There would be no way of actually checking the build of the door. Has science moved on but the manufacturing/build havnt ?

    At Westminster i held a copy of The Blue Book (it wasnt blue!) it showed the responsibilities between Landlord and Tenant at WCC. I received many queries a week re these issues. They mainly covered Schools , Libraries etc not housing although some fundamentals did apply.
    Re Grenfell without seeing the lease between RBKC and their "managing agent" its impossible to say where responsibility lies. If RBKC had a current Fire Risk Assessment and all time locked remedial actions had been completed then thats one avenue thats been closed.

    Fire Risk Assessment. It would have only looked at the means of escape, emergency lighting, fire alarm records and servicing. Smoke ventilation (if any). It may have noted blocked fire escape route s ( push chairs,cycles,sofas etc etc)It would NOT have looked at the type of cladding.
    The issue then is where would this document have gone and where would have actioned and outstanding issues? Its common for the FRA to be done but then sit on someones shelf for months and months.
    Lets say they found fire escape routes blocked , fire doors wedged open etc. This was a mixed tenancy identifying who was to blame for the doors / blockage etc and getting a response is not straight forward.

    Fire doors: RBKC vis their agent should be auditing the state of the building. If new front doors have been fitted then these have to be to spec ( rated). There may well be a language issue and a bigger issue is the fact that some ofthe apartments were private ownership--- "my flat feck off my door".

    As this is a mixed tenancy building the LA or its agent would have to get total buy in to undertake work to the building. I have sat at meeting where issues like this have been ongoing for yonks where not all tenants agree or understand or even respond. Where LA employees have visited at all times of the day and night to try to get some sort of buy in.

    Politics is already stamping all over this and my feeling is this will take years and that will cause anger not even seeing the the "political" is one major reason for the length of time.


    My simple mind says all buildings of a certain height should have a caretaker--they know their tenants--they deal with complaints--they know where to escalate---they feed up and down the food chain.





    I was thinking down the same lines. In a large office, you would have someone nominated and given some training as a fire officer, a role considered essential to ensure safety. Our homes are probably less safe than where we work and in a block of flats it seems crazy that there is not a resident with a similar role to the old fashioned caretaker. On the Springfield estate where i grew up, like all other council estates you had a resident caretaker who would be the person who stepped in when lifts broke down and rubbish shutes got blocked and when they frequently caught fire as people threw hot ashes down them after clearing out the fire in the morning.

    The management companies are a poor replacement service, they are too removed and don't have the tenants interest at heart, only a conflicted financial interest in doing the minimum to keep the contract and make a profit. The tenants associations ought to have a formal role that Councils must recognise as overseeing the management agents rather than the Council seeing the management agent role as keeping the tenants out of their hair, and a volunteer caretaker paid a retainer and trusted by the residents would probably be a decent addition.
  • having worked at RBKC (Tri Borough partnership) and at Westminster City Council i do try to follow the "mechanical" aspects of this rather than the horrific human cost and the political.

    It has been stated (i think) a week ago that The Building Regs will have to be rewritten etc---well for those who are familiar with the regs that task is mammoth -- i think the last review of a SECTION took several years to publish and role out. How long would the whole thing or a larger piece of it take ? a guess is 6 years.
    These new regs" are unlikely to be retrospective.
    Although a "cheaper" cladding" may have been installed if it was to Building Regs then its a Reg failure not a failure by the LA.

    The LFB have found that Fire Rated doors ( thats off the shelf) rated at 30 mins protection actually failed much faster ! How is that happening ?? We who are involved in projects/ building facilities would only checked the spec . There would be no way of actually checking the build of the door. Has science moved on but the manufacturing/build havnt ?

    At Westminster i held a copy of The Blue Book (it wasnt blue!) it showed the responsibilities between Landlord and Tenant at WCC. I received many queries a week re these issues. They mainly covered Schools , Libraries etc not housing although some fundamentals did apply.
    Re Grenfell without seeing the lease between RBKC and their "managing agent" its impossible to say where responsibility lies. If RBKC had a current Fire Risk Assessment and all time locked remedial actions had been completed then thats one avenue thats been closed.

    Fire Risk Assessment. It would have only looked at the means of escape, emergency lighting, fire alarm records and servicing. Smoke ventilation (if any). It may have noted blocked fire escape route s ( push chairs,cycles,sofas etc etc)It would NOT have looked at the type of cladding.
    The issue then is where would this document have gone and where would have actioned and outstanding issues? Its common for the FRA to be done but then sit on someones shelf for months and months.
    Lets say they found fire escape routes blocked , fire doors wedged open etc. This was a mixed tenancy identifying who was to blame for the doors / blockage etc and getting a response is not straight forward.

    Fire doors: RBKC vis their agent should be auditing the state of the building. If new front doors have been fitted then these have to be to spec ( rated). There may well be a language issue and a bigger issue is the fact that some ofthe apartments were private ownership--- "my flat feck off my door".

    As this is a mixed tenancy building the LA or its agent would have to get total buy in to undertake work to the building. I have sat at meeting where issues like this have been ongoing for yonks where not all tenants agree or understand or even respond. Where LA employees have visited at all times of the day and night to try to get some sort of buy in.

    Politics is already stamping all over this and my feeling is this will take years and that will cause anger not even seeing the the "political" is one major reason for the length of time.


    My simple mind says all buildings of a certain height should have a caretaker--they know their tenants--they deal with complaints--they know where to escalate---they feed up and down the food chain.





    I was thinking down the same lines. In a large office, you would have someone nominated and given some training as a fire officer, a role considered essential to ensure safety. Our homes are probably less safe than where we work and in a block of flats it seems crazy that there is not a resident with a similar role to the old fashioned caretaker. On the Springfield estate where i grew up, like all other council estates you had a resident caretaker who would be the person who stepped in when lifts broke down and rubbish shutes got blocked and when they frequently caught fire as people threw hot ashes down them after clearing out the fire in the morning.

    The management companies are a poor replacement service, they are too removed and don't have the tenants interest at heart, only a conflicted financial interest in doing the minimum to keep the contract and make a profit. The tenants associations ought to have a formal role that Councils must recognise as overseeing the management agents rather than the Council seeing the management agent role as keeping the tenants out of their hair, and a volunteer caretaker paid a retainer and trusted by the residents would probably be a decent addition.
    Yup agreed. We had the same in Cherry Orchard.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Had the same on the Ferrier
  • Nice idea, but a block like Grenfell would require at least three caretakers to provide a 24/7 service. And even at a nominal cost of £15k each, how many residents would be keen to pay that additional service charge?
  • Addickted said:

    Nice idea, but a block like Grenfell would require at least three caretakers to provide a 24/7 service. And even at a nominal cost of £15k each, how many residents would be keen to pay that additional service charge?

    That 15k in wages would equate to roughly 20k by the time employers contributions are taken into account.
  • not if they are live in and its rent free. Not talking about a concierge service its "caretaker"
  • Carter said:

    Addickted said:

    Yes, but councils of all colours go for the lowest prices due to austerity forcing them to do so and they don't do the necessary checks or have the desire to ask the right questions. It is right the companies that play on this are punished but the blame goes beyond that. Having said that Kensington and Chelsea seemed to be much richer than most!

    Grenfell Tower wasn't managed by Kensington & Chelsea Council and they did not commission, specify, procure or fund the project.


    I don’t think that’s true. Like many councils they had put an arm’s length management company in place, but senior councillors were all over the budget - as indeed they should have been.

    This wasn’t a housing association set-up, it was local authority housing managed by someone else on the council’s behalf. In my experience that means the council maintains a housing revenue account, legally distinct from its general fund, which is used to maintain the property. The council remains the owner of the buildings.

    This is what Wiki says:

    “The original contractor, Leadbitter, had been dropped by KCTMO because their price of £11.278 million was £1.6 million higher than the proposed budget for the refurbishment. The contract was put out to competitive tender. Rydon's bid was £2.5 million less than Leadbitter's.[36] An alternative cladding with better fire resistance was refused due to cost.[45] If the Leadbitter cladding had been used, fire experts maintain the fire would not have spread as it did and lives may not have been lost. The Conservative council rejected the bid for non combustible materials on cost grounds. The authority was in “robust” financial health, accounts for 2014 show. There were £235m in usable reserves and the budget for services was underspent by £23m.[46]
    I've liked this not because it's nice but infuriatingly it is what I see happening daily. I've already said my piece on the Grenfell thread about how the sub it sub it approach and times that we live in, something horrible like this is always a gnats dick away.

    The fact that it seems the manufacturers and contractors seem likely to shoulder the blame is a whitewash. Those people didn't make the decisions, they are propelled by them and those decisions are made by elected councillors which is where the fucking buck has to stop. I guarantee it won't.

    Rich people with soft hands covered in a lot of poor people's blood. Again
    Which is what I am saying has to be looked at based on some experience from what people have told me and the usual suspects come and try and knock it down. It isn't political point scoring at all. We, the public should be posing all sorts of questions en mass. Why did successive housing ministers sit on recommendations that may have prevented the tragedy? Why were building regs softened rather than tightened? Why were resident's fears ignored? Why were the families not fully supported in the aftermath? These are some of the questions in my mind. It isn't unhelpful to air them and discuss them - not shut up somebody is looking at that!
    No need to get precious over this @MuttleyCAFC, no one is trying to knock you down - least of all me. Just trying to be informative, without resorting to supposition, hearsay and rumour.

    You based you experience on 'what some people have told me'. Who are these people and what are there expertise in fire safety and the management of it within high rise blocks?

    The public are posing all sorts of questions about the tragedy - the hint is in the words 'Public Inquiry'

    I'm not sure what recommendations successive Housing Ministers 'sit on'.

    All the recommendations of the Coroner's Inquiries following on from the last two high rise serious fires at Lakanal House and Shirley Towers were implemented across the industry - with the exception of retrofitting sprinkler system to all buildings over 30m in height

    The Building Regulations were changed in 2007 to ensure all buildings over 30m had sprinkler systems or fire suppression system installed. It's really very difficult to make this retrospective - though it would have been straightforward to ensure all blocks that were having major refurbishments (like Grenfell) came up to those 2007 standards. I suspect the forthcoming review of the Regs will include this element at the very least.

    You also need to bear in mind a sprinkler system would not have prevented the rapid spread of this fire externally.

    Building Regulations have not been softened - though I would agree that the policing of them has got very haphazard since they were no longer exclusively managed by the Local Authorities.

    I agree about what appears to be lack of taking residents fears seriously and the post fire reaction of the TMO and K&C Council. I think your political arguments are clearly right here!

    I'm also not saying it's unhelpful to air and discuss issues, but you are coming up with the same ones and not accepting some of your points that have been answered for you.


  • It looks to me like Corporate manslaughter charges will be coming for the manufacturer Celotex, (if Panorama claims are true).

    They sold the cladding & insulation knowing it wasn't safe and lied in their marketing material.

    How could they ? I mean seriously how could they ?

    BBC1 tonight 8pm.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44200041


    Celotex is insulation it’s not and never been fire retardant not sure they lied and sold it knowing it’s unsafe.

    It’s was used because of thermal value
  • Gumbo said:

    It looks to me like Corporate manslaughter charges will be coming for the manufacturer Celotex, (if Panorama claims are true).

    They sold the cladding & insulation knowing it wasn't safe and lied in their marketing material.

    How could they ? I mean seriously how could they ?

    BBC1 tonight 8pm.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44200041


    Celotex is insulation it’s not and never been fire retardant not sure they lied and sold it knowing it’s unsafe.

    It’s was used because of thermal value
    Correct. Celotex was specified to comply with Part L of the Building Regs, not Part B.

    Though they have withdrawn their RS5000 cladding as a result of Grenfell, they have recently carried out new testing to BR 135 - (Fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings) which met the performance criteria.

  • edited May 2018
    I dealt with managing agents for a housebuilder for 5 years where we employed them and most were the scum of the earth who tried to do f-all for as much as they could con out of residents. When a development was completed our contractual link finished but residents had to get 51% on board to kick them out. When you have mixed developments with druggies on housing benefit that was unlikely to happen unless you had a legally switched on individual. Grenfell was neglect on all involved.
  • But Grenfell was run by a TMO, not a ' managing agent '. So your point in this context is irrelevant.
  • edited May 2018
    I don't accept they have been answered until they have been fully investigated. They are not political points at all, other than I suspect that if these people were richer this disaster wouldn't have happened and that makes me angry. But I am happy to be corrected, but not by posters on here without any intention to be disrespectful. For instance, I appreciate that sprinklers would have little effect on the external spread of the fire but I still think they may have given residents more of a chance and more time. So I disagree with an expert on here, and so I should until somebody convinces me I am wrong.

    Nobody should die needlessly, but nobody should die the death these people died. And we watched it on TV! Children, an unborn baby, beloved family members knowing they were about to die and saying goodbye on their mobiles. The answers may have political implications, and implicate the previous Labour government too, but we need to learn from them and all of us being angry and demanding them quickly is a good way to get them. Not just me but all of us.

    This enquiry has taken too long to set up. The resident's families have had to fight it all the way. I take my cue from them rather than some on here. From the beginning we got promises about how they families would be supported whatever the cost, which clearly hasn't happened. We got the inquiry judge initially coming in and making statements so out of touch with what the residents wanted it was unreal. I believe I honestly could have done the whole thing much better and I shouldn't think that whether it is true or not.

    Civil servants from Whitehall departments could have been mobilised in teams to support families in the immediate aftermath. With budgets and authority to use the money there and then to temporarally house and meet immediate needs. As many as was needed. I was saying this at the time- not with the benefit of hindsight! It is common sense and doable. Different experts could set up seperate enquiries and then these enquires could have been brought together by an over-arching one. We should have been well into it now not just bloody starting it!

    What I have heard - and it may not be the same everywhere - but what I have heard and this was before Grenfall, was that corners were being cut, services to leaseholders and tenants. Now I have had no dealings with Grenfall but I suspect this may have played a role here. I may be wrong but I want to be shown I am wrong as it makes sense to me as it fits what I was told. I want to know why successive housing ministers, not just Tory ones, sat on a report from a similar fire when surely introducing the findings should have been a priority. I find it hard to understand why anybody could not want to know the answer to that quickly! I accept that nobody wanted this to happen, but was the care that was needed shown and if it was, could this have been avoided. And I want to be convinced, and we should all want this, that money was not a big issue.

    Yes, some of the criticism may land at the government. It is not being political, it is wanting justice for the victims. I can look people in the eye and say that is my only motivation. It would be callous and crass to seek to use this terrible tragedy for political advantage. To me, genuinely, those accusing me of being political are the ones being political. If that is unfair, it is no more unfair than them accusing me. I want those that have suffered and those that have died to get justice. And to feel they have got justice. And we - the public - have a role in keeping this live.
  • Sponsored links:


  • But I am happy to be corrected, but not by posters on here without any intention to be disrespectful.

    Righto..



  • edited May 2018
    I meant I am happy to be corrected by the facts from a full enquiry. Not just accepting that people who may know a lot about a subject and certainly know more than me know everything and are necessarily right. You have been saying Sprinklers wouldn't make any difference, but the bloke responsible for safety features of The Shard has said they would. I don't know whether he is right but he knows the subject too.

    Experts probably knew a lot more than residents about the risks, thinking they were not great, which might have meant their concerns were brushed aside and ignored.
  • That's your problem. I didn't say sprinklers wouldn't have made a difference. I said sprinklers would not have prevented the rapid spread of the fire externally.

    If the block was fitted with sprinklers, the fire in the kitchen on the fourth floor flat would have been doused - but the block didn't have sprinklers and there was no requirement for them have sprinklers.

    Indeed I suggested that when the Building Regulations changed in 2007, they were too limited in saying sprinklers were now a requirement on all new buildings over 30m. They should have included the requirement to fit them if a block over 30m was having major improvement works carried out on it as well.

    "The bloke responsible for the safety features of The Shard" lol. Perhaps you could ask him to respond to your questions?

    I think your last sentence is accurate however, though residents concerns are never ignored. However, this fire was unprecedented and happened because of multiple failures in products, systems and management, which 'experts' have been investigating and working on since the day after the fire to ensure aren't repeated.
  • Addickted said:

    That's your problem. I didn't say sprinklers wouldn't have made a difference. I said sprinklers would not have prevented the rapid spread of the fire externally.

    If the block was fitted with sprinklers, the fire in the kitchen on the fourth floor flat would have been doused - but the block didn't have sprinklers and there was no requirement for them have sprinklers.

    Indeed I suggested that when the Building Regulations changed in 2007, they were too limited in saying sprinklers were now a requirement on all new buildings over 30m. They should have included the requirement to fit them if a block over 30m was having major improvement works carried out on it as well.


    "The bloke responsible for the safety features of The Shard" lol. Perhaps you could ask him to respond to your questions?

    I think your last sentence is accurate however, though residents concerns are never ignored. However, this fire was unprecedented and happened because of multiple failures in products, systems and management, which 'experts' have been investigating and working on since the day after the fire to ensure aren't repeated.

    My guess is that would have led to fewer “major improvement works” on the basis they had become less affordable because of that requirement.
  • Is there no a British Standard for exterior cladding, like there is for practically every other (if not all) building material in the UK?

    Also, when I was still on building sites, the last time of which was over 10 years ago, the site builders were always going round behind us, sealing risers with fireproofing. We also had to instal intumescent putty in all our electrical back boxes on certain walls. If they were so hot of these thing back then, how can this cladding have got passed fit for installation, especially on a public building?
  • Addickted said:

    That's your problem. I didn't say sprinklers wouldn't have made a difference. I said sprinklers would not have prevented the rapid spread of the fire externally.

    If the block was fitted with sprinklers, the fire in the kitchen on the fourth floor flat would have been doused - but the block didn't have sprinklers and there was no requirement for them have sprinklers.

    Indeed I suggested that when the Building Regulations changed in 2007, they were too limited in saying sprinklers were now a requirement on all new buildings over 30m. They should have included the requirement to fit them if a block over 30m was having major improvement works carried out on it as well.

    "The bloke responsible for the safety features of The Shard" lol. Perhaps you could ask him to respond to your questions?

    I think your last sentence is accurate however, though residents concerns are never ignored. However, this fire was unprecedented and happened because of multiple failures in products, systems and management, which 'experts' have been investigating and working on since the day after the fire to ensure aren't repeated.

    As regards Grenfell Tower we need to await the findings of the enquiry before speculating further in my view.

    However a general observation if I may.

    My late father finished his career as a very senior officer in the London Fire Brigade and as a specialist in fire prevention throughout much of his time valiantly tried to persuade obfuscating politicians, both blue and red, to implement and improve fire safety in buildings throughout what was then the GLC area.

    He hated Tower Blocks, firstly in general because of the difficulties of safe alternative means of escape and secondly having seen the devastation of Ronan Point at first hand, but tried nevertheless to make the best of what was inherently a hazardous situation. He tried long and hard to get fitted sprinkler systems as a compulsory requirement in every high rise flat in order to contain fire spread but was thwarted by politicians at every turn.

    My father retired from the London Fire Brigade in 1982. Whether his successors have tried as hard and as often as he did regarding the sprinkler issue I cannot comment but what I can say is that politicians of all colours within the GLC and equivalent later incarnations have been obfuscating regarding fire safety since at least the sixties when these accursed blocks first started to appear in London.

  • @LenGlover - sprinklers are compulsory in buildings over 30m since 2007.

    When your father retired in 1981/82, there were 755 fire deaths in England. In 2016/17, (pre Grenfell) there were 261.

    A lot of progress has been made in the intervening years in reducing fire fatalities, not least better construction practices and the widespread use of smoke detection.
  • edited May 2018
    Addickted said:

    @LenGlover - sprinklers are compulsory in buildings over 30m since 2007.

    When your father retired in 1981/82, there were 755 fire deaths in England. In 2016/17, (pre Grenfell) there were 261.

    A lot of progress has been made in the intervening years in reducing fire fatalities, not least better construction practices and the widespread use of smoke detection.

    Can't do the quote within quote bit from other posts but you posted above:

    ......"If the block was fitted with sprinklers, the fire in the kitchen on the fourth floor flat would have been doused - but the block didn't have sprinklers and there was no requirement for them have sprinklers."........

    I assume, because Grenfell Tower was more than 30 metres high, that the change in 2007 was (is) applicable to NEW blocks only rather than EXISTING ones?

    However I'm pleased that at least part of what he tried so hard to achieve finally happened and he was still alive in 2007 so would undoubtedly have known about it as he continued to do bits and pieces of consultancy after he retired almost until he died.
  • Correct Len. The legislation is not retrospective.

    To be honest, I think the height limit should also be lowered to 18m. 30m was only used as the fire service's aerial platform has a max height of 32m.
  • edited May 2018
    This door is at a site i work at. It has a key pad to open. Surely this is not legal???
    I should add it needs a 3 number code to open.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!