fire in London tower block

[Legend]

Having worked on the odd project for LUL I agree and would go further. They have the same degree of control in their procurement programme. When I was involved in the supply of items to be used on escalators the detail and tests required on the paint finish, just to quote an example, took some hard work to tender an acceptable specification. If the people behind the subject of this thread had been as rigorous, even if the cladding did comply with all regulations, we almost certainly would not be having this exchange. So sad and so avoidable.

Bernard

I think that's exactly the point Bernard. I had assumed that we had these protections in place , it was a shock to find out we hadn't . It really has shaken my faith in the procedures in this country which I thought were among the best in the world. Clearly not , and the appalling result a week on is still really so shocking.

[rockershovel]

I think that's exactly the point Bernard. I had assumed that we had these protections in place , it was a shock to find out we hadn't . It really has shaken my faith in the procedures in this country which I thought were among the best in the world. Clearly not , and the appalling result a week on is still really so shocking.

Retention of control is so important.

 

I would confidently bet folding money, that there will be a protracted legal wrangle, during which the various parties involved in the events at Grenfell Tower seek to demonstrate that whatsoever liability might exist, and wherever any liability might lie, it isn't with THEM...

Edited June 22, 2017 by rockershovel

[The Stationmaster]

I think that's exactly the point Bernard. I had assumed that we had these protections in place , it was a shock to find out we hadn't . It really has shaken my faith in the procedures in this country which I thought were among the best in the world. Clearly not , and the appalling result a week on is still really so shocking.

 

I think we probably all need to understand that the UK building industry (separating domestic from other construction matters) has been behind the curve for a long time.  Site safety took a long time to penetrate to the building industry although it has progressed considerably in recent years but it was still decades behind some other industries.

 

One is left wondering whether this too applies to materials and building methods although while I'm aware certain parts of the industry have good training programmes with standards subject to assessment an examination I do wonder just how universal that approach might be (or not be)?  For example when we built our we had to submit the bricks and roofing cover for 'approval', which simply meant seeing if they would 'look right' because the approval came from the planners and not Building Control.  Some of the Building Regulations give room for either a spot of wriggle or 'local decision'.  Another example - when we built the house the gas meter was placed at the front but the gas pipe enters the building at the rear, so where do you put the earth on the gas pipe?  As it happened our electricians asked if they could use our build for their professional competence etc re-assessment (who'd refuse that?) and a discussion ensued between the electrical company and the assessor about how that Regulation could be interpreted as the earth is at the meter - a sensible outcome was reached.  But I think that shows that in some cases the Regulations are not absolutely comprehensive and of course it assumes that they will in any case be applied.

 

All no doubt to be examined long & hard at the Inquiry into this fire.

[rockershovel]

Ah, I know this one!

 

Our house wasn't fitted with mains gas, and we fitted it when we moved in. The foundations include rafts front and rear, supporting bay windows, so the gas pipe runs to the meter on the front wall (where it is earthed), up the front wall, through the wall, from front to back through the floor/ceiling structure, down through the kitchen ceiling to the stove (where it is earthed again). There is a branch to the combi boiler in the extension, and THAT in included in an earth strap from the water pipes to the rear wall of the extension.

 

The various installers all had their own views, so the Building Inspector ruled that if all were covered, no harm could result, all liabilities were met (that word again....), the cost would be minimal and Building Regs could be deemed to be met without actually defining the correct specific solution.

[Bernard Lamb]

David Lammy did a very good interview on TV this morning. He talked about a crime and the lack of any further reports from the police. Particularly apt in the light of comments about cyanide poisoning. As others have pointed out crime as most people would see it or crime in the strict current legal sense would seem to be rather different.

The only tower block I have worked on was office rather than residential and that was Millbank Tower during a refurbishment. I will not name the client to avoid embarrassment and for security reasons. You can get a good shot at finding out the name if you search for past occupants. Or at least you will narrow down the choice. They insisted on top of the range products. On a job like that you do not just fit 30 minute fire doors. You check the suitability of the frame and fixings and how the whole caboodle fits into the wall. There were several tests carried out on samples of the products at BRE Garston and some of the manufactures claims were found to be rather dubious. No problem once you know and are able to take the appropriate action. Given a very large amount of cash I have even seen fire doors with vision panels fitted on other prestige projects. It can be done if the will is there.From the published information we do seem to have a two tier system based on hard cash in the UK. The mood of the people in London might just start to trigger a change. That would be a fitting memorial if it saves the lives of others and improves the living conditions of many. OK, I am getting on a political hobby horse but change has to come. Both as regards how we do things and how the legal situation can provide protection to prevent people becoming victims.

Bernard

[jjb1970]

I’m not sure how you can arrest anybody until you know what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. As more information comes out it is apparent that there are plenty of questions to answer but I’m not sure we have any answers.
There is another important reason why arrests should not be made at this point. Once you do that it becomes a criminal case and information dissemination becomes much more difficult because of the implications for criminal proceedings. If people are genuinely concerned about safety (and I hope we are) then the last thing we need is anything which could inhibit the release of information and a thorough analysis of what improvement actions are needed ASAP.
To be honest the political rhetoric we’re seeing, throwing words like “murder” around (this might be a manslaughter case, it definitely isn’t a murder case) is just that, rhetoric. And it is not helping anything.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I get the impression that David Lammy doesn't quite understand how the legal system works, and thinks that if he shouts loudly enough people will be prosecuted. He needs to be careful - it's not the first time a defendant has been let off because the Judge ruled they wouldn't get a fair trial due to comments made in the press by politicians. 

[Horsetan]

......Millbank Tower during a refurbishment. I will not name the client to avoid embarrassment and for security reasons. You can get a good shot at finding out the name if you search for past occupants. Or at least you will narrow down the choice. They insisted on top of the range products. .....

 

That sounds like ZANU-Labour.

 

I get the impression that David Lammy doesn't quite understand how the legal system works, and thinks that if he shouts loudly enough people will be prosecuted. He needs to be careful - it's not the first time a defendant has been let off because the Judge ruled they wouldn't get a fair trial due to comments made in the press by politicians.

 

Many people don't, so Mr. Lammy isn't the only one. Ever wondered how mob justice gains ascendancy? Don't forget he's also protecting his constituency vote by appearing to do something, however useless it actually is.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Horsetan

[rockershovel]

I suspect that between them, David Lammy and Owen Jones are well aware of this, being an MP and a Guardian columnist respectively.

 

There is an increasing agenda of granting amnesty of some sort, to illegal immigrants living in the Tower. Sadiq Khan, a shrewd sort of chap and Mayor of London, is quoted at length about this in today's Evening Standard. What the legal basis for this is, I couldn't say. However there DO seem to be some quite interesting questions about who the "tenants" might actually prove to be, and who will, or won't get rehoused as a result.

Edited June 22, 2017 by rockershovel

[Horsetan]

.....an increasing agenda of granting amnesty of some sort, to illegal immigrants living in the Tower. .....

There has long been such an agenda since ZANU-Labour's two amnesty exercises conferred leave to remain or settlement on quite a lot of people who otherwise had no right to be here. All I can say is "be careful what you wish for".

[gismorail]

The whole story begins to unravel the truth about the public sector in this country and things that many people have suspected for many years. The multi layers of sheer bureaucracy  just seem to add to the total confusion at all levels when the simple truth is that somewhere along the process the system is just not fit for purpose. The costs involved in this broken system would more than likely equal the price of making such a tower block safe for people to live in with the correct buildings materials used in the first place. If this building had been a government or council establishment where the over paid executives work their bureaucracy then it would have met all correct fire standards. 

The other disgraceful fact is that whatever the outcome to this tragicepisode  there is one thing for certain is that the legal profession is going to be the big winner yet again and they will be raking in more money than the poor victims of this fire could be begin to image existed. 

[Nearholmer]

Anyone here given any thought to what the terms of reference of the public inquiry might contain?

 

Given that, to steal Rocker's words, this is "a tale of our time", the number of possible directions that an inquiry might travel in is enormous.

 

Even if it emerges that a fairly simple contravention of the law was the immediate cause (and that may not be the case), the incident and the way that the aftermath has been handled raises zillions of questions ........ pursuing the "why, why, why" of root-cause analysis on any one of the strands could take this to some pretty fundamental questions about the way our society operates ....... in short, it's an entire sackful of political hot potatoes.

 

Kevin

 

PS: Rocker - I completely recognise your point about people trying to dodge or delegate accountability, they often do, but when they do they are deluding themselves, because the law defines who holds what duties pretty clearly ...... in front of the person in the curly wig, all the chickens come home to roost.

[Guius]

The usual routine is to delay a public enquiry as long as possible and once started continue to hear evidence for a couple more years until those responsible have had time to cover their tracks or retire. The shredding machines in Kensington Town Hall will require their own sprinkler system to cool them down after constant use over the last week I suspect. A very similar incident happened in Barrow-in-Furness some years ago, on that that occasion it was an outbreak of Legionnaires Disease in a civic amenity centre caused by neglect regarding the maintenance of the air con system (failure to dose the coolant). Tracks, once suitably covered, the main focus of the local executive was to selecting a suitable scape goat. While the death toll was less than Grenfell Tower I fear the same 'survival instinct' will protect those who's decisions lead to this catastrophe.

 

Guy

[rockershovel]

Re #335 and subsequent, Nick Clegg also advocated a general amnesty for a range of categories. The ECHR ruled that non-EU relatives of EU passport holders, cannot be excluded on such grounds.

 

One thing for sure; if I were an elected public official, I would be extremely reluctant to give hostages to fortune along the lines of "single mother who lost everything in illegal sublet at Grenfell Tower, refused housing and deported on grounds of having no right of residence".

[jjb1970]

Anyone here given any thought to what the terms of reference of the public inquiry might contain?

 

Given that, to steal Rocker's words, this is "a tale of our time", the number of possible directions that an inquiry might travel in is enormous.

 

Even if it emerges that a fairly simple contravention of the law was the immediate cause (and that may not be the case), the incident and the way that the aftermath has been handled raises zillions of questions ........ pursuing the "why, why, why" of root-cause analysis on any one of the strands could take this to some pretty fundamental questions about the way our society operates ....... in short, it's an entire sackful of political hot potatoes.

 

Kevin

 

PS: Rocker - I completely recognise your point about people trying to dodge or delegate accountability, they often do, but when they do they are deluding themselves, because the law defines who holds what duties pretty clearly ...... in front of the person in the curly wig, all the chickens come home to roost.

I think in terms of the ToR for the inquiry it should be based on:

• What happened? This would include the initial triggering event (some failure of a refrigerator?) and the mechanism by which a localised fire very quickly resulted in a building wide conflagration. That would include consideration of the building structure, cladding, fire procedures etc.
• Why did it happen? We can’t really talk about this without speculating but it would need to consider building regulations, materials selection and approvals, the refurbishment contract, fire inspections, interfaces between various public bodies and tiers of government etc. This needs to consider factors related to building occupancy, possible illegal sub-letting etc.
• What measures would have prevented the fire, including the initial trigger event and each stage of the escalation, and what measures might have reduced the death toll and injuries such as sprinklers (noting that despite a lot of talk in the media, nobody yet knows how many lives a sprinkler system would have saved in this incident).
• Evaluate the response and how government and non-government agencies responded, inter-agency communication, information management, co-ordination between different bodies, health service reactions etc.
• Responsibilities for safety, this is where it gets more political as it will have to include central government, the mayor of London and GLA, the local authority, the fire brigade, building inspectors, the contractors who did the refurbishment, building managers, flat occupiers responsibilities and sub-letting, materials approval bodies etc. This needs to examine everything and not try and scape goat anybody as the objective should be to identify what worked and what didn’t work.
• Recommendations to make buildings safer, improve incident response and enhance government co-ordination.

Edited June 22, 2017 by jjb1970

[Oldddudders]

I get the impression that David Lammy doesn't quite understand how the legal system works, and thinks that if he shouts loudly enough people will be prosecuted. He needs to be careful - it's not the first time a defendant has been let off because the Judge ruled they wouldn't get a fair trial due to comments made in the press by politicians. 

 

That's odd, if true. As he used to be a practising barrister. 

[Poggy1165]

By the same logic, I think we should be careful about what we say on here. The whole matter is clearly going to become a judicial exercise at some point.

 

As an aside, this thread is an excellent example of how it is impossible to discuss some subjects without being "political". I'm a little surprised, given the nature of some of the posts that it hasn't been locked. Unless some politics is now OK.

[Titan]

•  and what measures might have reduced the death toll and injuries such as sprinklers (noting that despite a lot of talk in the media, nobody yet knows how many lives a sprinkler system would have saved in this incident

 

 

I understand that no one has ever died in a fire with a building fitted throughout with sprinklers.  I would expect in this case the fridge fire would have been doused before the cladding caught, so the answer would be that all lives would have been saved.

[Horsetan]

That's odd, if true. As he used to be a practising barrister. 

 

The operative phrase is "used to be". And that was a very long time ago.

[62613]

Re #316, nearholmer is missing an important point - liability mitigation or deflection.

 

In our increasingly sub-divided society, there is an increasing tendency to disregard the wider effects of a decision or policy. If a contracting party can off-load, mitigate or deflect a liability, perceived or real, they will do so; even if that mitigation probably won't bear actual scrutiny in court, or might never arise under normal circumstances.

 

I've just had a frustrating example of this, a contract job which finally appears to be GO after a (to me) irrelevant wrangle between Client and original recruiter over terms of contract, the appointment of a different recruiter and various correspondence establishing that I had no previous connection with the original recruiter, and hadn't signed their contract (I never do this until I've actually started..... ). I've lost a week's money, for reasons which amount to differing perceptions of risk and liability between the various parties involved.

 

This, as it happens, isn't an HSE issue, but the principle remains. I regularly encounter situations where contract labour arrive on site without required certificates, without PPE and other necessities, and some poor devil is faced with the contradictory requirements to put them to work, without expenditure, without issuing PPE, and without being stopped by the HSE Inspector, while the various managements exchange self-serving emails ... and the Site Manager may be quite certain that the company will not support him in any subsequent problems.

 

As another contractor, I was taught that you turned up with the correct certification, i.e certificate or facsimile on day 1, or you were sent away; one company I worked for paid for me to attend the course required on day two (I was in their office on day one) just so that after the weekend, I would be ready to go on site. Likewise with PPE; I always carried my own boots, hat and glasses, also a high-vis tabard; any further PPE required was usually provided by the company in their site office.

[62613]

ZANU-Labour

Pardon? As opposed to?

[pete_mcfarlane]

That's odd, if true. As he used to be a practising barrister. 

 

He does seem to be the UK's answer to Donald Trump, when it comes to trying to do politics by Tweeting first and engaging brain second. He made some 'interesting' comments about the last Papal election for starters. 

 

His Twitter feed suggests that he's fully bought in to some of the conspiracy theories about the Government covering up a gigantic death toll in last week's disaster.

[Glorious NSE]

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.

 

Okay....further info on that....

 

http://www.devonlive.com/three-devon-blocks-are-clad-with-same-material-as-grenfell-tower/story-30404898-detail/story.html

 

"The cladding installed in 2000 met with all the fire and building regulations at the time and the action being taken now are precautions in response to the new information and guidance being issued by central government."

Read more at http://www.devonlive.com/three-devon-blocks-are-clad-with-same-material-as-grenfell-tower/story-30404898-detail/story.html#cMDaQsQtgtmbpYLM.99

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40366646

 

 

Rivers Apartments - which is shared ownership, so classed as social housing - was built just two years ago, with the cladding incorporated as part of the design.

It is understood the block is clad in Reynobond PE, the same brand of cladding believed to have been used on Grenfell Tower.

The programme was told the tower passed all building regulation checks by Haringey Council.

 

Still trying to see where the discrepancies come in...

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

Re #345 above, that varies a great deal from project to project, contractor to contractor. Labour contractors based outside UK can be a problem, especially if they are labour agents with no direct representation on site. The worst situation is to be a subcontractor, with a main contractor pushing you and a procurement office making cost-based decisions.

 

I was in UK a while ago, and a batch of "welders" appeared from such a supplier - not one was able to produce any certification, or a satisfactory test piece.

 

 

Re David Lammy, there have always been an awful lot of people in Westminster who have been "called to the Bar" but never practiced, or never established themselves .... one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair comes to mind...

 

 

Politics is life, manifested in the public domain. The English often don't appear to understand this, for some reason. For example, it's much safer to call for an "amnesty" than answer awkward questions about who is, or isn't a tenant, legally resident or any other such thing...

[APOLLO]

There is a very informative thread on this website. Lots of photos, technical plans etc.

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=2007285

 

And post 103 is worth consideration.

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=140657316&postcount=103

 

Flexible floor plate - Not heard that mentioned anywhere before.

 

Brit15.