Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Slaav

4,240 posts

209 months

Thursday 14th June 2018
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
kev1974 said:
The council having a clue who legitmately lived there would have put a lid on the ridiculous fraud claims that have been going on, for one thing ... not by Grenfell residents, but utter scum chancers who have run up hundreds of days hotel bills each and been handed hundreds of thousands in cash, each, just by saying they lived there. Must be heading for 20 cases of that scale by now.
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.

As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
Sorry but I’m not buying this also!

If the freeholder doesn’t know who it’s tenants are, that isn’t acceptable. If there are legitimate leaseholders, we know who they are!

If HA are letting/managing any flats, do they know to whom?

It’s a total cluster f..k and unacceptable.

Remove all the PC bks and delicacies and we may get somewhere??!

Finding the absolute truth must be the primary goal surely?? Or not...... ?

rover 623gsi

5,230 posts

160 months

Thursday 14th June 2018
quotequote all
two flats in Grenfell were owned by a housing association, 12 were owned privately, all the others were owned by the local council.


Laurel Green

30,770 posts

231 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
A friend of mine who lives in an Enfield council flat was saying that they were photographed when taking the tenancy and that periodically checks were made.

The Surveyor

7,576 posts

236 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
rover 623gsi said:
two flats in Grenfell were owned by a housing association, 12 were owned privately, all the others were owned by the local council.
In the article linked above about Kate Davies, it says there that at least 3 flats were in the hands of Notting Hill Genesis Housing Association, I'd read that 14 had been sold off under the 'right to buy' and other flats were under separate housing association control, such as Notting Hill Genesis as above. All under the Tenant Management Organisation's Control.

The Council retained the freehold of all the properties.

Regardless I maintain that record keeping of who was in the building during the fire, with sufficient accuracy to be beneficial would be impossible.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
V8 Fettler said:
CDM requires that designers identify and eliminate (as is reasonably practicable) foreseeable risks to the health or safety of any person using the building i.e. following completion of the construction works, when the building is in use.
Now I thought I knew the CDM Regs quite well, but that's a new one on me! Where in the CDM Regs are the designers duties extended to future residents, and require designers to exceed the accepted technical legislation to mitigate risks for people living in a residential tower?
CDM Regulation 9 said:
When preparing or modifying a design the designer must take into account the general principles of prevention and any pre-construction information to eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable, foreseeable risks to the health or safety of any person—
(a) carrying out or liable to be affected by construction work;
(b) maintaining or cleaning a structure; or
(c) using a structure designed as a workplace.
Communal areas = workplace.

The residual risk assessment should have stated the design failings identified by Lane.

Good luck to anyone trying to argue in court that the principles of risk management as per CDM don't apply to residential buildings.


98elise

26,371 posts

160 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
kev1974 said:
The council having a clue who legitmately lived there would have put a lid on the ridiculous fraud claims that have been going on, for one thing ... not by Grenfell residents, but utter scum chancers who have run up hundreds of days hotel bills each and been handed hundreds of thousands in cash, each, just by saying they lived there. Must be heading for 20 cases of that scale by now.
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.

As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
Surely a landlord has to know who was a tenant in their flat do to the "right to rent" requirements?

In addition a landlord would have the tenants listed on their tenancy agreement, otherwise they are not tenants.

kev1974

4,029 posts

128 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
kev1974 said:
The council having a clue who legitmately lived there would have put a lid on the ridiculous fraud claims that have been going on, for one thing ... not by Grenfell residents, but utter scum chancers who have run up hundreds of days hotel bills each and been handed hundreds of thousands in cash, each, just by saying they lived there. Must be heading for 20 cases of that scale by now.
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.

As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
Why not? Camden manages to make all its private landlords inform them of their tenant names (I'm one) on an annual basis and has done for years. Don't see why RBKC wasn't doing the same?


PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
kev1974 said:
The Surveyor said:
kev1974 said:
The council having a clue who legitmately lived there would have put a lid on the ridiculous fraud claims that have been going on, for one thing ... not by Grenfell residents, but utter scum chancers who have run up hundreds of days hotel bills each and been handed hundreds of thousands in cash, each, just by saying they lived there. Must be heading for 20 cases of that scale by now.
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.

As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
Why not? Camden manages to make all its private landlords inform them of their tenant names (I'm one) on an annual basis and has done for years. Don't see why RBKC wasn't doing the same?
I think they probably were, but in the aftermath probably thought it would have been seen as heartless with so many deaths.

kev1974

4,029 posts

128 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
I think they probably were, but in the aftermath probably thought it would have been seen as heartless with so many deaths.
It should have taken a matter of days to figure out who had been a resident and who hadn't, even including referring to third party landlord organisations if necessary; and that's how long the compassion / benefit of the doubt should have lasted; not hundreds of days as many of the fraudster chancers reported so far managed to keep raking in the cash for.

The Surveyor

7,576 posts

236 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
kev1974 said:
The Surveyor said:
kev1974 said:
The council having a clue who legitmately lived there would have put a lid on the ridiculous fraud claims that have been going on, for one thing ... not by Grenfell residents, but utter scum chancers who have run up hundreds of days hotel bills each and been handed hundreds of thousands in cash, each, just by saying they lived there. Must be heading for 20 cases of that scale by now.
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.

As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
Why not? Camden manages to make all its private landlords inform them of their tenant names (I'm one) on an annual basis and has done for years. Don't see why RBKC wasn't doing the same?
OK, i'll concede that maybe they did have a list of those known tenants, and maybe there was a lot of people staying in the tower without their knowledge or agreement, but as before in the context of the fire it's not relevant.

No attending fire crews would rely on a tenant list to know who was in the building at the time of the fire. It's not like an office or hotel where there are responsibilities to know who's in the building and take a roll-call on evacuation, this is a residential tower where people come and go at will, people leave flats empty when visiting, or are over-full when people visit. According to the article above, those Notting Hill Genesis properties were used as a homeless refuge for example.

The Police used entrance door CCTV records to see who was in and out of the building when trying to determine the final death toll, so whilst there may be records showing who held a tenancy in the building, that wouldn't be conclusive of who was in the building when the fire started.

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
kev1974 said:
PRTVR said:
I think they probably were, but in the aftermath probably thought it would have been seen as heartless with so many deaths.
It should have taken a matter of days to figure out who had been a resident and who hadn't, even including referring to third party landlord organisations if necessary; and that's how long the compassion / benefit of the doubt should have lasted; not hundreds of days as many of the fraudster chancers reported so far managed to keep raking in the cash for.
Why is everyone getting so hung up about who was or wasnt a resident? At any one time there could be many people who werent listed under 'residents' See who turns out when you have a fire drill at a university accomodation block

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
kev1974 said:
PRTVR said:
I think they probably were, but in the aftermath probably thought it would have been seen as heartless with so many deaths.
It should have taken a matter of days to figure out who had been a resident and who hadn't, even including referring to third party landlord organisations if necessary; and that's how long the compassion / benefit of the doubt should have lasted; not hundreds of days as many of the fraudster chancers reported so far managed to keep raking in the cash for.
I agree, but if I had been responsible for anything to do with it from the council ,it would not have been a path I would have gone down, emotions were running high, not the time to make it worse.

Biker 1

7,690 posts

118 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Why is everyone getting so hung up about who was or wasnt a resident? At any one time there could be many people who werent listed under 'residents' See who turns out when you have a fire drill at a university accomodation block
Also, how many people would have had guests, or relatives staying over?

kev1974

4,029 posts

128 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
Biker 1 said:
saaby93 said:
Why is everyone getting so hung up about who was or wasnt a resident? At any one time there could be many people who werent listed under 'residents' See who turns out when you have a fire drill at a university accomodation block
Also, how many people would have had guests, or relatives staying over?
Because if they were visiting guests, or visiting relatives, or pizza boys, or amazon delivery men - they would have had an unburnt home of their own elsewhere to return to, and while they might have needed some PTSD treatment afterwards, should not have needed hundreds of nights in hotels and bottomless credit cards showered on them?


austinsmirk

5,597 posts

122 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
I don't think as a landlord you'd ever work out exactly who lived where- for instance I reckon 90,000 people are tnts at "my" hsg assoc.

most women pretend to be single parents- but its blindingly obvious they've a bloke staying over.

On the other hand, certainly many Asian households are very overcrowded, but determining who actually should be here is another thing, because you've folk here on long holiday visa's, people here illegally (especially more so from the Eastern European community too)- you'd never get a true picture.

I find some residents are very transient- especially amongst some big, multi household families- they can be living all over the place depending on who is sleeping with who, who is falling out with who


tower blocks have one advantage of having CCTV to watch comings/goings- also the door fobs are registered to people so you know (ish) who is in/out of a building.

Wings

5,808 posts

214 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
The Surveyor said:
As noted elsewhere, most of the flats were in private or housing association landlord hands, other entities who may control 5, 10, 15 or more individual flats. The council wouldn't be responsible for knowing who is a tenant of each and every landlord, and certainly not who was staying in privately owned flats.

As I said, in the context of the fire itself it doesn't matter, but you are right when it comes to compensating those claiming from the fund.
As i recently stated in reply to a HMG Leasehold survey, all leasehold flats within all tower blocks, ownership, management control should be under the authority of the local council.

There should be no private ownership of any leasehold flat, no subletting allowed, with stringent vetting of both the number of occupants and their identity, together with regular fire, health and safety inspection of each flat and the stairwell, communal areas etc. etc.


Slaav

4,240 posts

209 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
kev1974 said:
PRTVR said:
I think they probably were, but in the aftermath probably thought it would have been seen as heartless with so many deaths.
It should have taken a matter of days to figure out who had been a resident and who hadn't, even including referring to third party landlord organisations if necessary; and that's how long the compassion / benefit of the doubt should have lasted; not hundreds of days as many of the fraudster chancers reported so far managed to keep raking in the cash for.
Why is everyone getting so hung up about who was or wasnt a resident? At any one time there could be many people who werent listed under 'residents' See who turns out when you have a fire drill at a university accomodation block
I think many people (myself included) are quite focussed on who was and who wasn't resident for many different reasons.

A simple example is our London flat. We own the Freehold/Building and there are five flats. I personally know who the leaseholders are in each flat. Mrs A doesn't live in flat E (I happen to know) but if I needed to know who was as there had been a fire and the place gutted, I would call Mrs A on her mobile and ask her who her tenant is? How many did she believe were living there etc. I would then call her tenant and try and ascertain all is well? (I happen to have the tenant's mobile but that isn't the point...)

Now in a situation such as this, it would be a lot of calls etc but some 9 months later people are being 'found out'? Really???? WTF!

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that the Council or LFB would have any idea of the EXACT numbers in the building at that exact time but.....



saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Friday 15th June 2018
quotequote all
Wings said:
There should be ...... no subletting allowed,
that must be so easy to enforce

Mark300zx

1,351 posts

251 months

Wednesday 20th June 2018
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Mark300zx said:
saaby93 said:
Also it looking like a firework shouldnt have been a problem - other clad buildings have caught fire but the fire didnt get inside
Just wondering if you have any fire-related qualifications?
Does this help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM
What's the point you are trying to make?

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Wednesday 20th June 2018
quotequote all
Mark300zx said:
saaby93 said:
Mark300zx said:
saaby93 said:
Also it looking like a firework shouldnt have been a problem - other clad buildings have caught fire but the fire didnt get inside
Just wondering if you have any fire-related qualifications?
Does this help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM
What's the point you are trying to make?
I could ask you the same spin

Here is a list of fires by the sprinkler network but includes a discussion of cladding
http://eurosprinkler.org/dubai-hotel-fire-could-ha...
That's not to say sprinklers would be appropriate in this tower but see the last paragraph for UK cladding requirements
The (in)aptly named Dubai torch caught fire twice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marina_Torch
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40822...






TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED