Tower block fire. Why did it happen?

[Fosse69]

Regrettably I suspect it will turn out that all regulations/laws were adhered to but that there are flaws in the regulations/laws that need addressing so no individuals will be held to account criminally. That does not mean that individuals could not have done more but that they can't be held criminally responsible for not doing more. Maybe civil options will be available if criminal options are not.

There appears to be a lot of evidence of tenant protest against the work carried out in the building regarding fireproofing between floors and of gas/electrical services. Doors to flats seemed to have worked for a couple of hours, but could not be opened since were too hot, until the firemen arrived. They may well have followed building regs etc, but was the cladding checked as being suitable? There are concerns in some Aussie states that cheap Chinese cladding being used there is similar.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

There appears to be a lot of evidence of tenant protest against the work carried out in the building regarding fireproofing between floors and of gas/electrical services. Doors to flats seemed to have worked for a couple of hours, but could not be opened since were too hot, until the firemen arrived. They may well have followed building regs etc, but was the cladding checked as being suitable? There are concerns in some Aussie states that cheap Chinese cladding being used there is similar.

 

That's exactly what I mean, Regs were met but maybe people could have done more...in this case maybe those that inspected it or signed off the design/materials could have said "Yes these meet the regs but I'm not happy so use this instead". They're not obliged to according to the law/regs but sometimes you have to do more than the minimum required.

[Fosse69]

That's exactly what I mean, Regs were met but maybe people could have done more...in this case maybe those that inspected it or signed off the design/materials could have said "Yes these meet the regs but I'm not happy so use this instead". They're not obliged to according to the law/regs but sometimes you have to do more than the minimum required.

Surely the specification for the cladding installation was not met. The materials used can depend how and where it is used. There are reports of sub-standard cladding being used elsewhere. I do think heads will roll, and things will move quicker than the usual snails pace.

[Wrex]

That's exactly what I mean, Regs were met but maybe people could have done more...in this case maybe those that inspected it or signed off the design/materials could have said "Yes these meet the regs but I'm not happy so use this instead". They're not obliged to according to the law/regs but sometimes you have to do more than the minimum required.

 

Yes exactly as you said, nobody will he held responsible. Regulations will be tightened... "lessons learned"... then some years will pass and regulations will be slackened again.

 

What is most sickening is that this has occurred in the wealthiest part of the country. A small percentage has been shaved off the cost on keeping the very poor safe so as to save the millionaires a few quid.

[geosname]

In the bit I could bear to watch it seemed the fire spread up the outside of the building without burning the windows out below... I could be totally wrong but I cant bring myself to view it again.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Surely the specification for the cladding installation was not met..

 

I don't know, I'm speculating. But I honestly don't think the company Rydon would issue a statement that they'd met all the regs if they hadn't. if they hadn't they would surely just say nothing about that and just issue a bland "We're sorry and will cooperate with any investigation".

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Surely the specification for the cladding installation was not met. The materials used can depend how and where it is used. There are reports of sub-standard cladding being used elsewhere. I do think heads will roll, and things will move quicker than the usual snails pace.

 

I hope that you are right that blame is apportioned where it should be and that it moves quickly

[Fosse69]

I don't know, I'm speculating. But I honestly don't think the company Rydon would issue a statement that they'd met all the regs if they hadn't. if they hadn't they would surely just say nothing about that and just issue a bland "We're sorry and will cooperate with any investigation".

Maybe so, we will have to wait and see, but in these days of sub-contracting etc, who knows?

[TheSage]

Javid got it, rightly, in the neck on the Today programme this morning.

What was done after 2013? Doesn't sound like much to me. His embarrassment can be heard clearly.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0562c7c

[Fosse69]

Maybe so, we will have to wait and see, but in these days of sub-contracting etc, who knows?

Fairly detailed report in the Guardian

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/experts-warned-government-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell

[Fosse69]

A Claim made in the Evening Standard today

 

""It comes amid claims contractors used the cheapest aluminium coated panels, which are reportedly outlawed in the United States over safety fears, as part of an £10m regeneration of the tower block last year.

 

The panels, known as Reynobond, were allegedly the only ones available to contractors that were not fire-resistant.

 

Reynobond sells fire-resistant panels for £24 per square metre, a £2 increase on the standard version.

 

A salesman for the US-based company has since told The Times that the version used on Grenfell, referred to as PE, was banned in American buildings taller than 40ft over fire safety reasons.

 

He said: “It's because of the fire and smoke spread. The FR (variant) is fire-resistant. The PE is just plastic.”"

 

Total saving if the article is correct would have been £5000 in a £10M or so project.

[For Us All]

Javid got it, rightly, in the neck on the Today programme this morning.

What was done after 2013? Doesn't sound like much to me. His embarrassment can be heard clearly.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0562c7c

 

What happened after Ronan Point in 1968?

[Fosse69]

What happened after Ronan Point in 1968?

Core structure specification increased, hence Grenfell did not collapse, would need a structural engineer to confirm.

[SuperValiant1876]

A Claim made in the Evening Standard today

 

""It comes amid claims contractors used the cheapest aluminium coated panels, which are reportedly outlawed in the United States over safety fears, as part of an £10m regeneration of the tower block last year.

 

The panels, known as Reynobond, were allegedly the only ones available to contractors that were not fire-resistant.

 

Reynobond sells fire-resistant panels for £24 per square metre, a £2 increase on the standard version.

 

A salesman for the US-based company has since told The Times that the version used on Grenfell, referred to as PE, was banned in American buildings taller than 40ft over fire safety reasons.

 

He said: “It's because of the fire and smoke spread. The FR (variant) is fire-resistant. The PE is just plastic.”"

 

Total saving if the article is correct would have been £5000 in a £10M or so project.

 

That is shocking! Someone should hang for this.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Yeah, it's an absolute ******* outrage. In answer to the thread's question, 'why did it happen? `, surely the answer is self evident. Capitalism