Grenfell - Who pays
Discussion
I have often wondered when a council/government tender goes wrong or over runs, who pays the additional or for mistakes on the build etc - NHS IT scandal etc....
With Grenfell, the temporary accommodation and the stripping/replacement of similar cladding from other blocks accross the country will cost £millions. Not to mention the demolition and one would assume the re-building of the tower itself.
If the contractors used sub-standard materials and/or bad practice, will they, or their insurers be held liable for the full costs or will the Great British tax payer be paying for this again?
If the later, isn't that just an open cheque book for anyone working on Government contracts to work to sub standard levels with the hope of getting more work from them when their original work is scrutinised.
With Grenfell, the temporary accommodation and the stripping/replacement of similar cladding from other blocks accross the country will cost £millions. Not to mention the demolition and one would assume the re-building of the tower itself.
If the contractors used sub-standard materials and/or bad practice, will they, or their insurers be held liable for the full costs or will the Great British tax payer be paying for this again?
If the later, isn't that just an open cheque book for anyone working on Government contracts to work to sub standard levels with the hope of getting more work from them when their original work is scrutinised.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Would the insurance even pay out if investigations find the wrong cladding was fitted therefore invalidatiting the insurance.Even if they do pay out all that means is premiums go up next year to keep share holders happy and we pay again through a different route.
I read here http://m.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking... That the norwegian insurers protector expect to pay out £25 million which is covered by their reinsurance program, but I doubt this is the whole story
These types of insurance protection are based on legal liability, which is usually negligence based. Usually the main contractor will be in the front line for any legal action and the Employer, presumably the Council, would need to show that there has been negligence on the part of the Contractor.
A defence could be that the panels were fitted in accordance with building regulations and/or to the specification provided by the employer or his professional consultants.
If the panels have been fitted correctly that would appear to be the main contractor off the hook.
If the consultants or architects did not specify the correct materials for the cladding, correct meaning as was commonly used at the time on other buildingsand to Building Regs (and they would would have to be an idiot not to do so) then they would in the frame for damages.
If it is true that the damages and costs will exceed £50m including the £25m for the rebuilding, then most larger practices will have insurance protection for this amount, assuming there is negligence, but once it is exhausted then the Employer or their fire insurers would be looking at the personal liability of the partners, no idea of the size of that asset bank, you might get £10m perhaps but still small beer.
The Council itself may have signed off on the panels again all assuming that they were defective and not to specification so any award made against the contractor or the consultants would be reduced. this would not have an effect on whether their fire insurance paid out or not however.
A defence could be that the panels were fitted in accordance with building regulations and/or to the specification provided by the employer or his professional consultants.
If the panels have been fitted correctly that would appear to be the main contractor off the hook.
If the consultants or architects did not specify the correct materials for the cladding, correct meaning as was commonly used at the time on other buildingsand to Building Regs (and they would would have to be an idiot not to do so) then they would in the frame for damages.
If it is true that the damages and costs will exceed £50m including the £25m for the rebuilding, then most larger practices will have insurance protection for this amount, assuming there is negligence, but once it is exhausted then the Employer or their fire insurers would be looking at the personal liability of the partners, no idea of the size of that asset bank, you might get £10m perhaps but still small beer.
The Council itself may have signed off on the panels again all assuming that they were defective and not to specification so any award made against the contractor or the consultants would be reduced. this would not have an effect on whether their fire insurance paid out or not however.
Edited by Robbo 27 on Sunday 25th June 12:31
Sylvaforever said:
Where did the policy of cladding the buildings originate from in the first place?
This has been happening for many years, at least 50 and globally. Often done to hide the ugly face of poured concrete buildings. Cladding in itself should not be an issue, it is the material that is used in the 'sandwich' that is a concern.The type of cladding at Grenfell Tower was installed during 2016 and is banned in America and Germany because it is ‘flammable’.The panels are Reynobond aluminium coated panels and have a flammable plastic core which is to British safety standards.I am sure that this will be an expensive matter for the consultants and the contractors to defend what they have done but confirmation to Building Regs should be enough to avoid liability, I would have thought.
My father was involved in the building of a clad public property 20 or 30 years ago. He and colleagues apparently spent some time trying to set the cladding alight to test the claims it wouldn't burn.
Who pays in this case will depend on who is found to be liable, in the event no one is liable then the building owner/insurer will be paying, along with the residents.
Who pays in this case will depend on who is found to be liable, in the event no one is liable then the building owner/insurer will be paying, along with the residents.
The buildings insurers would have been consulted during the planning / design stage to ensure they would insure the building, therefore would need to sign off the proposals.
I have a feeling that the building complied with building regs but the regulations need to be updated to cover this sort of refurbishment of old buildings.
I have a feeling that the building complied with building regs but the regulations need to be updated to cover this sort of refurbishment of old buildings.
tax payers.
council sue builders
builders go bust or change name etc without paying or make a deal because the owner is a Freemason.
council pay out again, government gives council money from taxes.
happens all the time, NHS spent 10 billion on a IT system that never used, who paid for it tax payers, but we always pay more than once. Accountability only really happens in films.
council sue builders
builders go bust or change name etc without paying or make a deal because the owner is a Freemason.
council pay out again, government gives council money from taxes.
happens all the time, NHS spent 10 billion on a IT system that never used, who paid for it tax payers, but we always pay more than once. Accountability only really happens in films.
cahami said:
I read here http://m.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking... That the norwegian insurers protector expect to pay out £25 million which is covered by their reinsurance program, but I doubt this is the whole story
A small fraction of the potential overall insurance bill.Sounds like desperate stuff from Hotpoint.
"The makers of the fridge-freezer suspected of causing the Grenfell Tower fire have been accused of a “desperate” attempt to save face by suggesting a cigarette may have started the inferno.
A closing statement to the public inquiry from Whirlpool Corporation, the owner of the Hotpoint brand, is said to argue that its appliance may not have been responsible.
Instead, it reportedly speculates whether the blaze may have begun "by someone throwing something - perhaps a burning cigarette - into the kitchen through the open window"."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/11/hotpoi...
Posting in here after the main Grenfell thread appears to have been locked after posters went off-topic.
"The makers of the fridge-freezer suspected of causing the Grenfell Tower fire have been accused of a “desperate” attempt to save face by suggesting a cigarette may have started the inferno.
A closing statement to the public inquiry from Whirlpool Corporation, the owner of the Hotpoint brand, is said to argue that its appliance may not have been responsible.
Instead, it reportedly speculates whether the blaze may have begun "by someone throwing something - perhaps a burning cigarette - into the kitchen through the open window"."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/11/hotpoi...
Posting in here after the main Grenfell thread appears to have been locked after posters went off-topic.
BlackLabel said:
I guess it’s easier than working to pass legislation to force owners to do it. As said, it’s only taxpayers’ money.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff