Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
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.
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 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.
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.(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.
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.
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.
In addition a landlord would have the tenants listed on their tenancy agreement, otherwise they are not tenants.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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?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?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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. 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 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?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM
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?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM
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...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff