Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[Burwood]

Mr GrimNasty said:

BlackLabel said:

Grenfell Tower fire: Man arrested for falsely claiming his relatives had died in fatal blaze to get housing and money

article said:

“He was assigned family liaison officers after he claimed that he lost his wife and son in the fire,” a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said.

“He attempted to claim financial support stating he had lost all his property.

article said:

Investigators said the suspect lived in Bromley, 17 miles away from the site of the disaster, and does not have a wife or child.

Bound to be some chancers, it's London, a city where people run to get on a bus after it has crashed.

Yep and it's disgusting. I genuinely feel quite sad about stories like that. What a

[BlackLabel]

Europa1 said:

I see certain sections of the media are already agitating over the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick to lead the public inquiry. One wonders if we will see the sort of revolving door that the historic child abuse inquiry has had.

Been in the job 5 mins and there is already a witch-hunt. Whatever the verdict he'll be attacked. It's a thankless task. Some people just want a judge who will tell them what they want to hear - perhaps Lily Allen should give it a go.

Edited by BlackLabel on Thursday 29th June 22:43

[b0rk]

Vipers said:

You mention BS8414, wouldn't that now be BSEN8414,

The CEN working group for fire safety haven't yet co-opted BS 8414 as a Euro Norm, so it remains a British Standard currently. There are various national standard across the EU which are all slightly different so I wouldn't expect it to become harmonised any time soon.
Much like building regulations will likely never be harmonised across the EU.

Blue Oval84 said:

Richard North has explained why this has become such a problem, and the EU has their fingerprints on it...

Class 0 is a British thing that doesn't exist in the harmonised standards, if anything withdrawing the old BS 476 standards family would have been helpful not a hindrance. As assessing to this method allowed for the concept of class 0 to be applied to a product than burned vigorously and should never have been possible to describe as such.
A class 0 product should not contribute towards fire spread, Reynobond PE quite obviously did as the test criteria isn't able to accurately assess composite products where the core is more combustible than the facings, but where the facing takes a while to fail.

Under the EN standard the product would have be class A2 to be claimed as limited combustibility, it's actually class B...

Building regulations are something DCLG have control over, they could for example have stated class A2 as a requirement to the EN standard and removed references to the BS standard. They could still have provided BS8414 as an alternative route to compliance for the total system, it wouldn't have passed anyway. Either of which would have prevented the product in question and all the other failed panels from having been specified in the first place.

The reason that BS standards are still referenced in the document B1/B2 of the building regulations where EN standard's exist is sadly because industry in many cases has lobbied for the "easier" standards to remain valid.

In most cases where there is a British Standard and a European (EN) standard the EN standard is the more onerous not the less.

ALawson said:

You would have thought that the test centres themselves where the mock ups are constructed and tested would know the BS well enough to advise if the test meets the design intent, i.e. insulation or cladding or whatever the change in interpretation now is.

Only BRE can do a 8414 test as it needs a very big rig. Booking such a test requires the submitter to fill out a metric ton of paperwork and documentation to clearly list out everything in the proposed construction, it's combustibility and any gasses likely to be omitted. Needless to say BRE are quite anal about this to make certain what you want test isn't going to run out of control and burn down the burn hall, or injure the employees overseeing the test. Should the materials be too combustible or pose to great a risk to the testers your booking would be cancelled and potentially without a refund.

The change in question is to move from testing the surface to testing the whole cladding product, testing the combined system at full scale as per above would be a step further.

In terms of how we've ended up here the test centres will perform the booked test without commenting on the fitness for purpose for any application of the material tested as they are testing against an arbitrary standard which is used for many, many different applications.

Put simply when developing a composite construction product or system you would first test the surface, then each of the materials individually and then finally the complete combined system. Surface testing can be done for a few hundred pounds in a few weeks, material testing a few thousand pounds in a few months and system testing can be year+ wait with costs in the tens of thousands of pounds.

It appears that only the first step has been done previously for reasons that are not truly clear, even when the combined construction system should have required full system testing to satisfy building control.

[gooner1]

The Spruce goose said:

Vipers said:

Low life scum.

unfortunately tradigies like this bring out the cockroaches of society, happened at 9/11 as well.

probably best his name isn't mentioned due to high tensions.

His name has been mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40449956

[E24man]

I'm not sure of the relevance as the previously specified cladding might have reacted in the same way given the conditions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

[Elysium]

Blue Oval84 said:

WatchfulEye said:

The thing is that when it happened in places like Dubai and Australia - they decided to take parts of the UK legislation.

For example, UAE incorporated the BS8414 cladding test into their legislation; as did Australia. Essentially bringing their code for use of combustible cladding into line with the UK. Presumably, they wouldn't have done that, if they hadn't believed it to be an appropriate model.

https://www.bre.co.uk/news/Australia-adopts-Britis...

Didn't know that!

Richard North has explained why this has become such a problem, and the EU has their fingerprints on it...

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86522

In a nutshell and as I understand it, we have BS8414 which is quite robust, but we aren't allowed to set rules that are more stringent than EU rules in areas defined as an EU competency. So in this case, UK developers have a choice, they can choose the BS8414 if they want, but the law can't force them to...

ETA - I bet the council could have specified BS8414 if they'd wanted, but they probably didn't know, and probably specified something like "compliant", which the EU test is (total guessing on my part)

I think he is clutching at straws in his attempt to blame the EU for this.

Firstly, fire regulations vary dramatically across Europe. Interestingly, the U.K. is pretty much the only EU state where the standard approach is to focus on getting everyone quickly instead of property protection. To that end, you could argue that we have some of the most relaxed legislation on fire in Europe. That certainly accords with my experience, where for example, sprinklers are dramatically more widespread in countries like France and Germany than the U.K.

The standard (EN or BS) is not the issue here. The Celotex was sold as compliant based on BR135 a U.K. test established by the BRE (who are now being paid to test the cladding) as an alternative to the standards. The problem is that the materials used had met the 135 test through the use of other components, but not in the combination used at Grenfell.

Regardless of the standards, the regs state that rainscreen systems need to resist spread of flame. They did not, so they cannot be compliant. They are also not of limited combustibility when tested to the BS (i am pretty sure this is what the BRE have been doing)

In summary, it is a UK loophole that has allowed materials like this to be used, not a Euro Norm. They don't comply with the standards in the way that they were used.

Standing behind all this, I am becoming increasingly cynical about the Govt focus on the cladding, when very little has been said about other aspects of the Grenfell fire.everyone should have got out of that building safely regardless of the cladding.

[anonymous-user]

The vile scumbag is Anh Nhu Nguyen.
Expect Corbyn to blame the Tories for this man's actions.

[Speed 3]

Clickbait alert:

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'
By Tom Symonds and Daniel De Simone
BBC News

"Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than zinc, thereby saving nearly £300,000."

and right at the bottom:

"Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."

So you're trying to save public money as you're mandated to do, what choice do you make ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

[p1stonhead]

Speed 3 said:

Clickbait alert:

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'
By Tom Symonds and Daniel De Simone
BBC News

"Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than zinc, thereby saving nearly £300,000."

and right at the bottom:

"Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."

So you're trying to save public money as you're mandated to do, what choice do you make ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

If both rated the same and accepted by the designer/client, the cheaper option would always be installed. Only a fool wouldnt.

Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 30th June 07:35

[CrutyRammers]

Speed 3 said:

Clickbait alert:

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'
By Tom Symonds and Daniel De Simone
BBC News

"Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than zinc, thereby saving nearly £300,000."

and right at the bottom:

"Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."

So you're trying to save public money as you're mandated to do, what choice do you make ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

The BBC are right out of order in the way they are reporting this, this morning. Balanced reporting, my arse.

[p1stonhead]

CrutyRammers said:

Speed 3 said:

Clickbait alert:

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'
By Tom Symonds and Daniel De Simone
BBC News

"Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than zinc, thereby saving nearly £300,000."

and right at the bottom:

"Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."

So you're trying to save public money as you're mandated to do, what choice do you make ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

The BBC are right out of order in the way they are reporting this, this morning. Balanced reporting, my arse.

"There is no suggestion a deliberate decision was made to cut fire safety."

Well fking DUH!

[Vipers]

p1stonhead said:

CrutyRammers said:

Speed 3 said:

Clickbait alert:

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'
By Tom Symonds and Daniel De Simone
BBC News

"Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than zinc, thereby saving nearly £300,000."

and right at the bottom:

"Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."

So you're trying to save public money as you're mandated to do, what choice do you make ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

The BBC are right out of order in the way they are reporting this, this morning. Balanced reporting, my arse.

"There is no suggestion a deliberate decision was made to cut fire safety."

Well fking DUH!

All clear as mud.

[speedking31]

They're hoping to find an e-mail from the leader of the council saying "I don't give a s*@!* about fire safety, its only poor people that live in that block. Fit the cheapest cladding you can get away with and tell me how much I've saved." Of course no such e-mail or meeting minute will have been written. Conversely there will be fire plans, risk assessments, ITPs, fire regulations compliance etc., but they don't help the witchhunters.

[Byker28i]

speedking31 said:

They're hoping to find an e-mail from the leader of the council saying "I don't give a s*@!* about fire safety, its only poor people that live in that block. Fit the cheapest cladding you can get away with and tell me how much I've saved." Of course no such e-mail or meeting minute will have been written. Conversely there will be fire plans, risk assessments, ITPs, fire regulations compliance etc., but they don't help the witchhunters.

Nor satisfy Labour councillor Robert Atkinson who's been all over different media saying the council are to blame, sack the tory leader, despite the fact he's been on the council for years?

[WatchfulEye]

The contractor that did the refurbishment is now threatening the council with libel over allegations that the cladding was non-compliant with the regulations.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/fi...

Elysium said:

Regardless of the standards, the regs state that rainscreen systems need to resist spread of flame. They did not, so they cannot be compliant. They are also not of limited combustibility when tested to the BS (i am pretty sure this is what the BRE have been doing)

In summary, it is a UK loophole that has allowed materials like this to be used, not a Euro Norm. They don't comply with the standards in the way that they were used.

It's more subtle than that.

AD B 12.6 and associated diagram specifies that the "external surface" must resist surface spread of flame across the surface. The ACM cladding used meets this, by virtue of having an aluminium surface. The requirements in 12.6 for "class 0" performance do not apply to the combustibility of the material.

The problem is in the interpretation of B 12.7 which applies to tall buildings and places combustibility requirements on "insulation, filler, etc.". The DCLG has stated in guidance to buildings controllers that their interpretation of "insulation, filler, etc." applies to all materials used in the cladding system, with the exceptions of the "sealants, gaskets and similar" also specified in 12.7.

In a letter to councils following the disaster, the DCLG spelled this out, that "filler" in this context includes the "core" of composite materials.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

It is tempting to think that this is clearly a reactionary interpretation. However, a guidance note to buildings control dated 2014, clearly shows the interpretation intended by the DCLG. https://www.labc.co.uk/sites/default/files/BCA%20G...

It's not so much a loophole, as it appears to be widespread misunderstanding of ambiguous legislation, combined with an abject failure of enforcement.

[FiF]

Elysium said:

I think he is clutching at straws in his attempt to blame the EU for this.

Yet in that linked article he says the European Union is arguably off the hook for this.

Maybe you missed that.

[beko1987]

I drove past it with my dad on wednesday night as we went to camden for a gig. TBH up until then I had been "Bloody hell that's bad" etc as I've read about it and read this thread since pretty much the start as someone who doesn't live in london, doesn't really do politics etc

But as we drove past it on the A40 a feeling of "fk me" spread over, goosebumps as we looked through the shell of the building, was a feeling I've not had before. My dad obviously did the same as he drifted from L1 to L2 without realising...

We both said we reckon they will try to cover it over with hoarding as soon as they can, probably for many reasons. There will be huge public backlash over it of course, but if everyone who drives past for the first time rubbernecks in a jaw dropping way it won't be good.

It was dark when we drove back past, you couldn't help but notice the dark spot inbetween the two other towers though

[anonymous-user]

Building regulations are of limited relevance. The fundamental issues are around,

• Did someone specify an unsuitable solution, and/or
• Did someone supply materials which did not meet specification, and/or
• Did someone supply materials which, although within specification, were so unsuitable for the known purpose that it was obviously unsafe.

If you drive negligently and hit a pedestrian you can't get off the hook just by saying,

• My car had a valid MOT, and
• I was obeying the speed limit.

[kev1974]

WatchfulEye said:

The contractor that did the refurbishment is now threatening the council with libel over allegations that the cladding was non-compliant with the regulations.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/fi...

To be clear, it's Camden that they're threatening, not RBK&C.

RBK&C coming in for some heat from No. 10 for the state of that meeting last night though!

[gooner1]

kev1974 said:

To be clear, it's Camden that they're threatening, not RBK&C.

RBK&C coming in for some heat from No. 10 for the state of that meeting last night though!

Indeed they do.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-404553...