Is the government really going to leave people in these Grenfell-style blocks?

[Eastie77]

Very sad to see a block of flats close to me erupt in flames today. It took 125 firefighters to bring it under control. It is of course fitted with Grenfell style cladding and residents cannot afford the huge bill to remove it.

I don't understand how developers can be let of the hook like this or how any government can leave people in these death traps. Surely it's only a matter of time before there are casualties on the scale we saw at Grenfell?

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-56014825

www.bbc.com/news/uk-56101186

Do the people who write the posts saying stupid individuals made stupid decisions when buying flats not read the news? It's been headline news on internet and TV. And Google exists.

Why would you rush in to say the companies involved had no liability and the individual flat owners should pay without having a little read?

Other problem is if you have 150 flats in a block and everyone needs to pay thousands, many won't be able to afford it, and the block needs to be done as a whole. So even the ones with the emergency money can't be safe until the least well off person can pay.

They also can't sell their flats because of the risk and the need to raise thousands if one is yours.

@MrsTerryPratchett

but now people on this thread are saying the standards weren't high enough even in more modern times?

Countries like Canada had higher standards. The UK didn't. Which I can't see as being anything other than the government's fault. Whether that was laissez-faire bullshit or negligence, who knows. But if other countries knew it was dangerous and didn't allow it, and our government did, how isn't that a government issue to sort out.

This. Our building regulations were not strict enough.

@EvilPea
You expect a level of safety compliance for at least the ten years of your nhb. (new building)

Most new buildings don’t come with a warranty over 5yrs and that is for structural faults usually. When it comes to building code changes, there is no expectation that a home will meet ANY future building code changes.m

The cladding company lied to the standards people though.

The massive lack of will to see any of the people involved in the design build cladding supply etc held to account if they missed something is bizarre. I don't understand this knee jerk reaction to blame individual flat owners rather than the companies who were involved. Even if they lied.

This country has turned awful really with so many people thinking that way.

the building that caught fire this time looks much newer, so I would have thought would have had to conform to newer standards.

New Providence Wharf was built between 2001 and 2005 (by Ballymore).

I think the cladding was added to Grenfell during refurbishment - the original tatty looking old structure may have been safer.

Thankyou MrsTerryPratchett for your posts.

I suspect GreenWillow is a cabinet member.

Like others, I have no investment in any of these flats and don't personally know anyone who does - this isn't personal, I just have a moral compass.

The buildings were compliant with building regulations. The regulations were not strict enough. The government need to put their hands up and say we didn’t do a good enough job.

This ^
It WAS known at the time that this cladding was not good enough, and yet, it was allowed to be used.
It is not comparable with the asbestos example as it was many years after asbestos was used that the problems were uncovered.
This cladding (and presumably the other money saving, but life risking issues) WAS ALREADY KNOWN to be a cheap and dangerous alternative to other options available and yet it was still allowed to be used.
That is 100% different from something being found to be dangerous years later.

However, it is a real safety issue, which is why the Government need to resolve it first, and argue about how much of the cost they can get back from developers - or even a % from the home owners - at a later date.
Yes, it will cost millions, or even billions, but we are talking about people's lives, not a new podium and flagpole for announcements, or rolls or wallpaper for a flat, or PPE contracts where credible PPE didn't appear, or Test and Trace Apps that have never done their job.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@EvilPea
You expect a level of safety compliance for at least the ten years of your nhb. (new building)

Most new buildings don’t come with a warranty over 5yrs and that is for structural faults usually. When it comes to building code changes, there is no expectation that a home will meet ANY future building code changes.m[/quote]
No. But you wouldn’t expect a year or two into ownership to find the regulations were so wrong.

It was 10 years when I bought my new build. But that was some time ago.

New builds are marketed as worry free, no unexpected costs, no refurb costs.

Not unsafe dangerous homes that will cost billions to sort out

@EvilPea

New builds are marketed as worry free, no unexpected costs, no refurb costs.

Not unsafe dangerous homes that will cost billions to sort out

That’s just marketing twaddle though, anybody with half a brain knows that home ownership comes with responsibilities - especially when you’re a leaseholder.

But you wouldn’t expect a year or two into ownership to find the regulations were so wrong.

True. 1-2yrs would be rare and also not what happened with the Grenfell cladding. It had a 2007 safety certificate at the time of the fire in 2017.

New builds are marketed as worry free, no unexpected costs, no refurb costs.

Yes well, we all know advertisements tend to be overly optimistic. There are new builds all over flood plains in England that are falling apart due to subsidence.

*2008 safety certificate. Sorry. Typo.

This cladding (and presumably the other money saving, but life risking issues) WAS ALREADY KNOWN to be a cheap and dangerous alternative to other options available and yet it was still allowed to be used.

Was it? I thought it wasn’t discovered to be unsafe until years after installation. It might have been a cheaper and less safe option, but for what you say to be true, it must also have been illegal to sell/use.

It's not just happening in canary wharf but all over the country, manchester, bolton.
What shocks me is the race to the bottom in this country. And how people will pipe up saying 'well I've got asbestos tiles or subsidence and I didn't get any help.' Thing is these are multiple dwellings involving 100's of people.

I'm really confused by some of this.

There is a remedial fund for buildings with ACM cladding on.

There is also a remedial fund for buildings with non-ACM cladding on.

Additionally, funding has recently been released for interim necessary fire safety measures such as waking watch.

I don't disagree that this is an absolute travesty, and that people shouldn't be having to live in unsafe properties. But there is funding available in a large proportion of these cases. It doesn't help that the projects take a long time to carry out and people are trapped mortgage and/or sales wise until it's done, but the vast majority of the cost should be covered by the money from the building safety fund. My understanding with this most recent fire is that the remediation works were due to start fairly soon.

However, it is a real safety issue, which is why the Government need to resolve it first, and argue about how much of the cost they can get back from developers - or even a % from the home owners - at a later date. Yes, it will cost millions, or even billions, but we are talking about people's lives,

They’ve already done that? February they set aside £3.5 billion to replace the cladding and the % portion the leaseholders have to pay will be on interest free loan with repayments of only £50 pcm.

The irony is I did have asbestos and had to get it remediated at my cost and I don't live in a flat with this issue and I still think it's something the government should help with.

It's fire safety. Surely even utter twats know fire safety in tower blocks is different to other issues.

I think these flat owners have had enough government help. Tbh.
From Wikipedia
“Government relief for affected leaseholders

In May 2018, the Government announced funding of £400m for the replacement of ACM cladding on social housing over 18m tall. The Government followed this in May 2019 with £200 million of funding for remediation of ACM cladding on high-rise buildings in the private sector.[34] A year later, it pledged £200m towards making similar replacements on privately owned blocks.[35]

On 26 May 2020 the Government announced £1bn to replace "unsafe non-ACM cladding on residential buildings that are 18 metres and over and do not comply with building regulations".[36]

On 31 January 2021 the government Waking Watch Relief Fund of £30 million opened. This paid for buildings to install alarm systems consistent with evacuating residents in the event of a fire rather than them staying in place (though not for the cost of waking watches themselves).[37]

On 10 February 2021 the Government announced a 'five point plan' and £3.5 billion cladding replacement fund. This would pay to remove 'unsafe cladding' from buildings over 18 metres; provide 'a long-term, low interest, government-backed' loan-scheme for leaseholders in 11-18 metre buildings to pay to replace their cladding (paying back no more than £50 pcm); and provided nothing for lower buildings or remediation of other expensive fire-safety problems such as a lack of fire-breaks in the cavity between the walls and the cladding, balconies, waking watches, or non-compliant fire-escape routes.[38][39][40]”

And this is why the question of who helped to initially pay for the Downing Street makeover is important. It’s not about curtains, it’s about corruption, bribery and who gifts money and expects favours in return.

Boris is prioritising his fucking wallpaper over poor people and I can’t understand how so many vote Tory.

I cannot understand the moral compass of a politician
they dont have a moral compass, it is absent, or maybe there is a set of scales upon which 100, 000 poor people = 1 wealthy tory donor

I can’t understand how so many vote Tory
it will be a combination of reasons, probably including being too stressed and undereducated to properly ascertain their own self interest.
Doing things properly to work towards a fair society is hard and boring, people will always be attracted to populist and charismatic leaders, they hack into human weaknesses.

I notice there is a very nice 3 bed for sale in New Providence Wharf for £1.6 million.

Hi can't believe people demanding the Gov fork out - look guys - the Gov is you and me, the poor pensioner down the road, the hard up student - WE are the Gov money through our taxes.
I read that thstblock was paying 47,000 a MONTH to have people watching out for fires but you want everyone else to bail them out - nice, I'm sure there's nothing like the nhs which needs the money more than those flat owners!

The government needs to get its priorities sorted and get this unsafe cladding off the buildings now.
They can argue about whose paying afterwards and imho that is every single person who allowed the cladding to be put there in the first place.

I lived in this block when I first moved to London (2005). My then boyfriend and I shared a 2 bed with another couple and back then paid 1k a month (for one room) which was a lot.

It was ultra modern, gym, swimming pool, floor to ceiling windows, high spec etc. Bobby Zamora (old footballer) owned the penthouse.

This shows that it absolutely is a regulation rather than socio class issue I think. IMO just because a flat owner can afford to replace cladding for the block, doesn’t mean it should. The building companies need to be held accountable here.

A life is a life if there is a fire you can’t get away from.

The buildings were compliant with building regulations

They weren’t - the manufacturers submitted falsified test data about the cladding material. The actual test data would have prevented its use.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/17/grenfell-cladding-makers-did-not-reveal-disastrous-fire-test-data

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/27/grenfell-tower-inquiry-companies-passing-the-buck-on-responsibility

If a drug company hid the results of drug safety tests, and patients died as a result, would you just “oh well, serves them right for assuming prescribed medications are safe! What do you expect, taking medicine? Caveat emptor” Of course not.

You assume that when you are buying a flat, the builder has not used cladding which is known to be highly flammable and which has failed safety tests. There should be compensation available, and yes, ideally that should be from the manufacturer, but if the manufacturer has gone bankrupt, it should be via the government.