Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[anonymous-user]

There will be no one person or company responsible for Grenfell, or indeed any of the other towers that have failed the tests.

It will be many people at many different levels, confusion over fire test ratings, confusion over regs, arguments between architects, builders, suppliers and so on.

The baying mob want to find the one person or company that committed the evil act of deliberately and knowingly breaking the law plus risking people's lives to save a few quid, but I just don't think it'll be the case.

[Kermit power]

The Surveyor said:

Kermit power said:

....
My understanding, though, was that contractors had been fitting these panels even though they weren't designed for this sort of use.

Your suggestion is that the Contractor is at fault, but don't you think you need to wait for the inquiry before coming to any such conclusion?

Strangely enough (and fortunately!) I don't think the authorities will be taking any actions based on what people write in a PH thread!

To clarify, though, I wasn't suggesting that the contractor is necessarily at fault. I was differentiating between a hypothetical manufacturer selling a product which they claim meets certain regulations when in reality it doesn't, and a hypothetical contractor taking a product which does meet certain regulations in certain environments and then using them in a different environment.

To that, of course, can be added hypothetical testing authorities setting up tests for two different materials which both pass in isolation, yet cause a disaster in union.

[98elise]

gooner1 said:

ikarl said:

Globs said:

Cuts to the fire services never help though do they? Fewer, busier, more tired people seldom do a better job.

I guess the fire itself was the main evidence that cuts made a difference. If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire.

It is clearly a false economy to ignore fire, fire inspections should be a basic part of our domestic security.

Would it?

It certainly would have increased the % of being found with inspections, as to whether it would definitely have found the faults, we'll never actually know.

When did firefighters start opening up the external fabric of a building on inspections? And when did they stop doing it due to cuts?

I've been managing large buildings for decades and I don't recall any inspection ever opening up cladding.

[ALawson]

NinjaPower said:

There will be no one person or company responsible for Grenfell, or indeed any of the other towers that have failed the tests.

It will be many people at many different levels, confusion over fire test ratings, confusion over regs, arguments between architects, builders, suppliers and so on.

The baying mob want to find the one person or company that committed the evil act of deliberately and knowingly breaking the law plus risking people's lives to save a few quid, but I just don't think it'll be the case.

Completely agree, nobody is going to jail for this. Doubt there will be any emails or other correspondence where anyone has categorically stated that if we us produce X at increased cost Y then the building will be safe, or we can use this crap and save a fortune.

As others have said, the BRA certificate doesn't look like it covered the exact configuration of the material(s) being used, it was then likely installed poorly or with qustionable QA assurance.

Building control probably saw the benchmark or got walked around the job being shown everything which was right, and nothing which wasn't.

What I find gauling is the fact that the residents association complained prior to the refit, during the refit and afterwards and out of 600 people nobody could get anyone to help them raise the matter further.

Do 600 people really have that little leverage to get someone to aid them in their concerns? That is probably more shocking than the deficiencies in the British and European Standards.

[The Surveyor]

Kermit power said:

The Surveyor said:

Kermit power said:

....
My understanding, though, was that contractors had been fitting these panels even though they weren't designed for this sort of use.

Your suggestion is that the Contractor is at fault, but don't you think you need to wait for the inquiry before coming to any such conclusion?

Strangely enough (and fortunately!) I don't think the authorities will be taking any actions based on what people write in a PH thread!

To clarify, though, I wasn't suggesting that the contractor is necessarily at fault. I was differentiating between a hypothetical manufacturer selling a product which they claim meets certain regulations when in reality it doesn't, and a hypothetical contractor taking a product which does meet certain regulations in certain environments and then using them in a different environment.

To that, of course, can be added hypothetical testing authorities setting up tests for two different materials which both pass in isolation, yet cause a disaster in union.

Fully understood, the frustration is that people are making their own conclusions on such hypothesis based on very limited information at the moment.

[dickymint]

98elise said:

How is spending 10m on a block of flats savage cost cutting?

Somebody has cocked up badly, but there was no lack of spending. Is it only poor people living in the affected flats?

I've yet to find out where this so say 10m came from! My gut feeling says the insulation and windows was mostly funded (if not fully) via EU or Government via EU grants. Hence my earlier rant on green eco Loonacy! It begs the question if money for a sprinkler system even existed?

I stand to be corrected though.

[Vipers]

ALawson said:

NinjaPower said:

There will be no one person or company responsible for Grenfell, or indeed any of the other towers that have failed the tests.

It will be many people at many different levels, confusion over fire test ratings, confusion over regs, arguments between architects, builders, suppliers and so on.

The baying mob want to find the one person or company that committed the evil act of deliberately and knowingly breaking the law plus risking people's lives to save a few quid, but I just don't think it'll be the case.

Completely agree, nobody is going to jail for this. Doubt there will be any emails or other correspondence where anyone has categorically stated that if we us produce X at increased cost Y then the building will be safe, or we can use this crap and save a fortune.

As others have said, the BRA certificate doesn't look like it covered the exact configuration of the material(s) being used, it was then likely installed poorly or with qustionable QA assurance.

Building control probably saw the benchmark or got walked around the job being shown everything which was right, and nothing which wasn't.

What I find gauling is the fact that the residents association complained prior to the refit, during the refit and afterwards and out of 600 people nobody could get anyone to help them raise the matter further.

Do 600 people really have that little leverage to get someone to aid them in their concerns? That is probably more shocking than the deficiencies in the British and European Standards.

Not so sure, one council have said what they paid for is not what's fitted, so who changed the spec and pocketed the difference, we shall see.

[loafer123]

dickymint said:

I've yet to find out where this so say 10m came from! My gut feeling says the insulation and windows was mostly funded (if not fully) via EU or Government via EU grants. Hence my earlier rant on green eco Loonacy! It begs the question if money for a sprinkler system even existed?

I stand to be corrected though.

Have you any basis for this statement at all?

[andy_s]

Kermit power said:

Strangely enough (and fortunately!) I don't think the authorities will be taking any actions based on what people write in a PH thread!

To clarify, though, I wasn't suggesting that the contractor is necessarily at fault. I was differentiating between a hypothetical manufacturer selling a product which they claim meets certain regulations when in reality it doesn't, and a hypothetical contractor taking a product which does meet certain regulations in certain environments and then using them in a different environment.

To that, of course, can be added hypothetical testing authorities setting up tests for two different materials which both pass in isolation, yet cause a disaster in union.

Manufacturers testing was mentioned early on; there was some criticism of it as it wasn't a holistic test and was a literal application of the regulation; the regulation classes non-flammable and fire retardant to a certain standard as being in the same class.

As said before there is systemic failure here, probably [from a lay pov]:

Lack of proper regulatory revision or oversight following similar incidents.
Inappropriate manufacturer testing.
Poor regulation of materials that passed a test but not in the same circumstances they are used.
Architecturally I suspect a cookie cutter approach to cladding due to previous works completed leading to complacence in safety standard in specific cases:
- an over-riding of the buildings natural fire coping mechanism [containment] by, in essence, installing a flammable sheath which defeated this mechanism.
- Potentially inappropriate advice for occupants given the above.
Lower level local fire detection and fighting appliances not maintained / installed.
Diminishing of authority and involvement of FB replaced by self-certification [in essence].
Conflation of responsibilities between owner and landlord.

[dickymint]

loafer123 said:

dickymint said:

I've yet to find out where this so say 10m came from! My gut feeling says the insulation and windows was mostly funded (if not fully) via EU or Government via EU grants. Hence my earlier rant on green eco Loonacy! It begs the question if money for a sprinkler system even existed?

I stand to be corrected though.

Have you any basis for this statement at all?

If you read my post it's obviously none whatsoever. However it's common knowledge that "free" insulation is everywhere! You may also remember the Envelope Schemes for free new roofs and double glazing back in 80's

[The Surveyor]

Vipers said:

Not so sure, one council have said what they paid for is not what's fitted, so who changed the spec and pocketed the difference, we shall see.

Why would a council make such a statement

Normal procurement for such work would be based on a 'performance specification' from the council, the contractor being given the flexibility for detailed design in order to meet that performance specification. The performance specification would dictate the minimum standards which the cladding would have to achieve. The contractor would need to demonstrate that their solution achieves the performance specification, the contractor installs to that specification, the Council inspects, and Council then signs off the payment.

A Council admitting that they have authorised payment for something that doesn't meet their own specification should be a major embarrassment, not something quoted to deflect liability.

[Globs]

98elise said:

When did firefighters start opening up the external fabric of a building on inspections?
And when did they stop doing it due to cuts?

I've been managing large buildings for decades and I don't recall any inspection ever opening up cladding.

Building inspectors used to have power to inspect stuff that was hidden, since private firms started inspecting they don't do that so much because of the competition: in general private companies don't like pissing their clients off. IME this has reduced standards.

The matter of inspecting the cladding does not of course have to be done immediately the last screw is in, what you'll find when you dig foundations for a build is the inspector will request to be notified BEFORE you pour, so they can verify the depth of the trenches. I don't see why major alterations would differ.

So although the romantic notion of firemen ripping off panels to check is compelling, the reality would be to inspect before or in progress. Quite how potentially 600 buildings managed to get made into giant roman candles in todays H&S society is a big indictment of the failings of UK bureaucracy to protect it's own people.

What does puzzle me is that for the money spent on the renovation I don't see why they didn't just knock it down and build a new, conformant block. If you look at the cost per flat I don't see why they couldn't do it, they seemed to pay through the nose for a shoddy bodge when the obvious: rebuild, was for some reason not done.

[saaby93]

Globs said:

What does puzzle me is that for the money spent on the renovation I don't see why they didn't just knock it down and build a new, conformant block. If you look at the cost per flat I don't see why they couldn't do it, they seemed to pay through the nose for a shoddy bodge when the obvious: rebuild, was for some reason not done.

yeah but given a clean sheet of paper what would they have built it with

[mac96]

98elise said:

zarjaz1991 said:

ph is sadly full of some quite wealthy people who seem quite happy to support the constant battering of the poor in order to protect and further their own already considerable wealth.

This used to extend to merely routine stuff like wages and cuts and job security, but we are now starting to see the ghastly truth....that actually, some such people see the poor as expendable, to the extent that, even when it's clear savage cost cutting and profiteering has cost 79 lives, they are STILL defending such cuts and claiming it's justified.

How is spending 10m on a block of flats savage cost cutting?

Somebody has cocked up badly, but there was no lack of spending. Is it only poor people living in the affected flats?

I'll be very surprised if this turns out only to effect social housing. Many high price private apartment blocks are built with panelled exteriors (and with a lot less concrete behind, in the case of new ones)

In addition- what about recent built/refurbed schools,hospitals and student accommodation?

This is just not about rich versus poor, except in the eyes of those who are simply trying to use it for their own political ends.

[98elise]

Globs said:

98elise said:

When did firefighters start opening up the external fabric of a building on inspections?
And when did they stop doing it due to cuts?

I've been managing large buildings for decades and I don't recall any inspection ever opening up cladding.

Building inspectors used to have power to inspect stuff that was hidden, since private firms started inspecting they don't do that so much because of the competition: in general private companies don't like pissing their clients off. IME this has reduced standards.

The matter of inspecting the cladding does not of course have to be done immediately the last screw is in, what you'll find when you dig foundations for a build is the inspector will request to be notified BEFORE you pour, so they can verify the depth of the trenches. I don't see why major alterations would differ.

So although the romantic notion of firemen ripping off panels to check is compelling, the reality would be to inspect before or in progress. Quite how potentially 600 buildings managed to get made into giant roman candles in todays H&S society is a big indictment of the failings of UK bureaucracy to protect it's own people.

What does puzzle me is that for the money spent on the renovation I don't see why they didn't just knock it down and build a new, conformant block. If you look at the cost per flat I don't see why they couldn't do it, they seemed to pay through the nose for a shoddy bodge when the obvious: rebuild, was for some reason not done.

But you said that cuts were an issue because...

"If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire"

Nobody routinely opens cladding on a fire inspection, regardless of who does it and what their budget is. If it was installed according to the regulations then that would be the end of it. The cladding and insulation would be the same as it was the day it was installed, so why would they?

I don't know the answer categorically so I'm happy to be educated, but as I say I have never seen an inspection include opening cladding.

[loafer123]

The problems in Camden are really around poor quality work, exposed gas pipes, unfilled conduit holes, faulty/propped fire doors.

These all should have been caught by a decent Fire Risk Assessment and so Camden haven't been managing their properties properly.

[Willy Nilly]

Without being a civil engineer or fire expert so not really knowing, but from the outside it looks like clusterfk is the only correct way to describe this

[Globs]

98elise said:

But you said that cuts were an issue because...

"If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire"

This would come under building regs, like you get for extensions and alterations, getting a fireman or fire savvy inspector to browse the plans or drop in on the build while being clad was what I had in mind. I wasn't thinking of a retrospective inspection as it would be a bit too late then. As now.

If there are fewer inspectors and fewer firemen would you not agree that this was less likely to happen?

98elise said:

Nobody routinely opens cladding on a fire inspection

Luckily that appears to be changing. We've had enough serious cladding fires in the world for this to have been addressed years ago.

[saaby93]

Globs said:

98elise said:

But you said that cuts were an issue because...

"If there were routine inspections of tower blocks by firemen this cladding danger would have been caught a long time ago on building #1, not after building #600 and a deadly fire"

This would come under building regs, like you get for extensions and alterations, getting a fireman or fire savvy inspector to browse the plans or drop in on the build while being clad was what I had in mind. I wasn't thinking of a retrospective inspection as it would be a bit too late then. As now.

The question youve got is whether that would have made any difference?
Obviously no-one thought this was going to go up in the way it did,or if it did that the fire was going to get inside
So youd have paid your savvy expert and still come up with the same result?

[stanwan]

98elise said:

How is spending 10m on a block of flats savage cost cutting?

Somebody has cocked up badly, but there was no lack of spending. Is it only poor people living in the affected flats?

Then again how does one justify 88k investment into a flat that won't ever make that kind of saving in its service life.

It begs us to question the motoves and justifications to fit the stuff and maybe to probe a bit further into how these contracts were awarded and anyone who benefitted from it...