fire in London tower block

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

. I would think the liability lies with the owners of the property.

 

 

And there lies a big problem. Who are the owners? Under right-to-buy, many of the flats were owned leasehold by their occupiers.

[Horsetan]

 

. I would think the liability lies with the owners of the property.

 

 

And there lies a big problem. Who are the owners? Under right-to-buy, many of the flats were owned leasehold by their occupiers.

 

 

But freehold remains with the Council.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Also, the BUILDER should be complying with any relevant standard. Even if the management suggested a non-compliant method/material be used, the builder ought to have enough guts to say 'I can't build it like that, its AGAINST THE LAW'.

The builder must be regretting not bailing out of the contract/using unsuitable materials.

 

As I see it, any politicians level of guilt, stops at not supplying sufficient funds, if the builder was forced to take short cuts. But as I just said, the builder ought to have jumped ship, rather than do a dodgy job.

 

I fear that we are going to find that the Builder and Architect did comply with the Regulations: i.e. that the Regulations are hopelessly inadequate.

 

Whether, under Civil Law, there may be a claim against them on the basis that they should have used their common sense and used a genuinely suitable material rather than just slavishly follow the Regulations is another matter for m'learned friends.

 

My late father often commented on the human propensity for overlooking the obvious. You would think that any five-year-old would use a totally fireproof product on a 24-storey building.

[APOLLO]

Flats seem to have many legal complications. What exactly do you own when you buy a flat, especially one in a tower block ?. Also who is responsible for what ?. In the Grenfell Tower case who would own / be responsible for the cladding, basic infrastructure (the building shell), lifts etc ?. I know flat owners pay maintenance fees etc - the whole area seems to be a legal minefield.

 

I suspect the above isn't easy to answer as many variations in tenure, legalities etc will no doubt exist.

 

Brit15

[Zomboid]

You would think that any five-year-old would use a totally fireproof product on a 24-storey building.

Easy to say that now, and don't be surprised if the regulations are changed as a result.

 

But if other mitigations are in place it's possible that a non fireproof material could be safely used - I'm not saying that is the case here as I have no facts or knowledge to go on, but in my experience there are multiple solutions to many problems, and it is not necessary to use all of them in a given situation.

[peanuts]

There were certainly lots more people in many of the flats in that tower than they were designed for... This level of overcrowding is scandalous in the 21C! Certainly a long way from the standards expected from public housing in years past.

 

I digress. It is impossible to know for certain who was in the block that dreadful night. Strands of evidence is all the emergency services have. Perhaps enough to be sure or perhaps not. It will be a hard job for them to complete.

 

Griff

no supprise to me at all we currently live in a two bedroom council flat on taking the tenancy some 8 years ago we were informed that the flat was fit to hold 7 adults ! we have one smakk double bedroom and a single where all these people are supposed to sleep etc nobody knows . we currently have two froends staying in the single and the house already feels over crowded another three adults wtf ?

[Joseph_Pestell]

no supprise to me at all we currently live in a two bedroom council flat on taking the tenancy some 8 years ago we were informed that the flat was fit to hold 7 adults ! we have one smakk double bedroom and a single where all these people are supposed to sleep etc nobody knows . we currently have two froends staying in the single and the house already feels over crowded another three adults wtf ?

Not much space for a train set then?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Easy to say that now, and don't be surprised if the regulations are changed as a result.

 

But if other mitigations are in place it's possible that a non fireproof material could be safely used - I'm not saying that is the case here as I have no facts or knowledge to go on, but in my experience there are multiple solutions to many problems, and it is not necessary to use all of them in a given situation.

No, honestly, this is not hindsight. The whole basis of fire safety in tall buildings is containing fire within each individual unit. You can't do that if you put a flammable product up the outside of the building. Anybody with an IQ of more than 60 should realise that.

[Joseph_Pestell]

But freehold remains with the Council.

 

Yes but a freeholder does not, under current law, have carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

 

And in this case, I think that the freehold is actually held by a company owned by the Council. That will throw up its own set of legal issues about directors' liability, etc.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[meil]

I fear that we are going to find that the Builder and Architect did comply with the Regulations: i.e. that the Regulations are hopelessly inadequate.

 

Conversely you may find that the cladding did not comply. Certainty if the material that people are saying was used for the cladding was used (and not some similarly named products) then you might find that it does not carry the appropriate fire rating for buildings over 18m in height.

 

I suspect that as well as the builder and Architect there are a few very worried building inspectors around at the moment.

[Glorious NSE]

Conversely you may find that the cladding did not comply. Certainty if the material that people are saying was used for the cladding was used (and not some similarly named products) then you might find that it does not carry the appropriate fire rating for buildings over 18m in height.

 

I suspect that as well as the builder and Architect there are a few very worried building inspectors around at the moment.

We do seem to have a situation where the supplier of the materials (allowing for the caveats you state) says it's unsuitable for the application, but the company involved says it meets building regs - is it possible for both to be true?

 

 

 

[Metr0Land]

Croydon Council (and probably others will follow suit) have declared they will retrofit council-owned towers above a certain height with sprinklers.  This sounds all well and good but I wonder if the headlines will ever be matched with action?

 

In the immediate aftermath of Grenfell various experts were claimg £200k-£350k to retrofit a tower block with sprinklers.

 

Now suppose some of those flats are now owner-occupied under right-to-buy.  Their share is going to be not inconsiderable if they're asked to pay (and bear in mind a non-clad building should be safe already).  It seems to me they will object, with legal action being threatened if not activted.  However, if the council decides to install them anyway and not charge the owner occupiers, aren't we also likely to have threatened action by eg Taxpayers Alliance and socialists claiming the council shouldn't be using taxpayer funds on owner-occupiers.

 

I can see a stalemate coming.......

[Zomboid]

No, honestly, this is not hindsight. The whole basis of fire safety in tall buildings is containing fire within each individual unit. You can't do that if you put a flammable product up the outside of the building. Anybody with an IQ of more than 60 should realise that.

I'm not claiming that flammable cladding is a brilliant idea, just that the risk it presents might be mitigated in other ways. I don't know, maybe it can't. Maybe use of a non flammable cladding would introduce a different risk. None of this is stuff I know about specifically, I'm just saying that when a risk is identified then there are often several mitigations available, and it's not always necessary to do all of them. Edited June 20, 2017 by Zomboid

[meil]

We do seem to have a situation where the supplier of the materials (allowing for the caveats you state) says it's unsuitable for the application, but the company involved says it meets building regs - is it possible for both to be true?

 

 

 

No.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm not claiming that flammable cladding is a brilliant idea, just that the risk it presents might be mitigated in other ways. I don't know, maybe it can't. Maybe use of a non flammable cladding would introduce a different risk. None of this is stuff I know about specifically, I'm just saying that when a risk is identified then there are often several mitigations available, and it's not always necessary to do all of them.

I rather doubt that you do. And I don't think that you would clad a tower block with a flammable material.

[pete_mcfarlane]

Now suppose some of those flats are now owner-occupied under right-to-buy.  

But they don't own the flats, they merely own a lease that says they can occupy the flat for X number of years.

 

The freeholder stills owns the building, and is responsible for the overall maintenance of it (with the leaseholders paying via various service charges) and will be able to install a sprinkler system if they chose to. Their only requirement is to consult with leaseholders before spending their money on major upgrades.

 

So there won't be a situation where every flat in a block has a sprinkler except for number 45, because Mrs Bloggs refused to have one fitted. 

 

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/leaseholders_rights/responsibility_for_repairs

[Glorious NSE]

So there won't be a situation where every flat in a block has a sprinkler except for number 45, because Mrs Bloggs refused to have one fitted. 

Yes - but equally the leaseholder would presumably still get billed for their proportion of it, and (regardless of rights and wrongs) may not be happy about that news....

[Metr0Land]

But they don't own the flats, they merely own a lease that says they can occupy the flat for X number of years.

 

The freeholder stills owns the building, and is responsible for the overall maintenance of it (with the leaseholders paying via various service charges) and will be able to install a sprinkler system if they chose to. Their only requirement is to consult with leaseholders before spending their money on major upgrades.

 

So there won't be a situation where every flat in a block has a sprinkler except for number 45, because Mrs Bloggs refused to have one fitted. 

 

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/leaseholders_rights/responsibility_for_repairs

 

Yes but in the document you quote there's that age old phrase The amount you pay should be reasonable.

 

This all always centre around what a reasonable man considers to be reasonable.  Is it reasonable to hit a householder with a bill of £000's for something that's a knee-jerk reaction where a building was safe in the first place?

 

It's all down to interpretation and is not a given that the Council can charge whatever it deems fit.

[EddieB]

Fortunately the 'rent a mob' crowd seem to be absent so far. They now might turn up as its been suggested by certain 'newspapers'.

 

Rentamob were out in London on Friday evening with their standard style of printed placards.  At least one major tv channel decided not to give them the oxygen of too much publicity - another channel was not so restrained and sensible but there was no damage, simply a lot of vocal 'protestors'

There were live reports on LBC radio of a TV cameraman being badly assaulted during the "peaceful protests" last week.  That the "responsible media" have rightly (IMHO) played down the excesses of those protests, doesn't mean to say that they were without incident.

[rockershovel]

... another issue which is arising, is the steadily increasing "estimated" toll as it becomes clear that due to unauthorised subletting, and the questionable residency status of some tenants, there was no real idea of the number of actual persons in the building.

 

This is going to run, and run, and run...

[Horsetan]

 

Yes but in the document you quote there's that age old phrase The amount you pay should be reasonable.

 

This all always centre around what a reasonable man considers to be reasonable.  ....

 

Just as well they don't ask railway modellers what a reasonable price is.

[pete_mcfarlane]

 

Yes but in the document you quote there's that age old phrase The amount you pay should be reasonable.

 

This all always centre around what a reasonable man considers to be reasonable.  Is it reasonable to hit a householder with a bill of £000's for something that's a knee-jerk reaction where a building was safe in the first place?

 

It's all down to interpretation and is not a given that the Council can charge whatever it deems fit.

 

In this case 'Reasonable' is going to mean 'a fair price for the work done', so the leaseholder can't add a 50% mark-up for their own benefit, rather than 'a small amount'. There are various stories down the years of leaseholders getting nasty surprises when work was done and the freeholder billed them for it. 

 

This probably course explains why the Government haven't retrofitted a lot of safety measures to older blocks of flats. In many cases the costs would fall on the residents, who wouldn't be best pleased. 

[Metr0Land]

Even if the costs are judged by most people to be reasonable (diffficult I know but lets's assume consensus) I don't doubt that at least some owner-occupiers would challenge on the basis that they sought advice before buying as to the structural integrity of the building/fire risks etc, so although the cost of a retrofit might be reasonable within the scale of the work, the raison d'etre simply isn't there.

 

Now take it a stage further to a situation where some owners simply don't have the funds.  Are we to see a situation where the Council forces them to sell up to pay for work that 'wasn't needed' but was just a knee-jerk reaction to a media frenzy?

Edited June 20, 2017 by Metr0Land

[PhilJ W]

The London borough I was employed by for 37.5 years had a policy of not selling high rise flats under 'Right to buy'. They found a loophole in the RTB legislation, something to do with the buyer not being able to obtain freehold possession IIRC. As far as I know this was not challenged in court so as to whether that was correct I don't know. Many of the tenants applied for a transfer to a conventional house anyway and as the council had sufficient stock at that time it was not a problem. I might add that several blocks became a dumping ground for 'bad' tenants who had rent arrears or were otherwise troublesome, people who either didn't want to or didn't have the wherewithal to purchase their homes anyway.

[APOLLO]

I visited a friend a couple of years ago down in Romford. They are buying a flat, it's a top floor one in a block of four, purpose built as flats. Looks like a pair of semis, 2 floor level & 2 first floor flats, quite nice actually. They said they could not store / use the roof space (loft) as it did not belong to them. Also they were looking to (expensively) extend the lease, which has around 70 years remaining. When I asked them "what happens if you don't extend it & the lease runs out" - answer was "hand the keys back and walk away"

 

SO - what exactly do you own when buying a flat ? - (and not exactly cheap down there either).

 

I did notice that as well as the internal private stairs they had an outside steel staircase down to a (quite large) back garden, which was individually portioned & fenced for each flat.

 

Brit15