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?

@PlanDeRaccordement

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.

Yes, it was illegal to use that type of cladding in buildings over 11m high. But they used it anyway, because it was cheaper.

From the link above: “At the start of 18 months of evidence about decisions taken before the fire, its immediate aftermath and the role of government, the main contractor, Rydon, revealed that Claude Wehrle, an Arconic official, had explained in internal emails in 2011 that the fire rating of the panels had dropped to class E from class B and so were “unsuitable for use on building facades” in Europe. But, he said, “we can still work with regulators who are not as restrictive”

@Changechangychange
*Yes, it was illegal to use that type of cladding in buildings over 11m high. But they used it anyway, because it was cheaper.

From the link above: “At the start of 18 months of evidence about decisions taken before the fire, its immediate aftermath and the role of government, the main contractor, Rydon, revealed that Claude Wehrle, an Arconic official, had explained in internal emails in 2011 that the fire rating of the panels had dropped to class E from class B and so were “unsuitable for use on building facades” in Europe. But, he said, “we can still work with regulators who are not as restrictive”*

But your link and the above do not show that it was illegal to use the cladding in 2007 when it was installed? It only shows that FOUR YEARS LATER the company the did tests that dropped its rating from class B to class E. How is that any different from a home made in 1988 with lead based paint, and then it being banned in 1992?

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

Well yes, but considering the builder used the cladding in 2007 and it was certified safe in 2008, I am not sure how they could have known if would fail new safety tests in 2011? Time machine?

@PlanDeRaccordement the renovation was carried out in 2014-16, so no time machine required.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

[quote Changechangychange]@PlanDeRaccordement the renovation was carried out in 2014-16, so no time machine required.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire[/quote]
Wow. The independent said it was in 2007 and had a 2008 safety certificate. My mistake then. I agree with you the company is liable and if they don’t exist, all construction companies should pay into a superfund to fix the cladding.

@Changechangychange
Here is link to 2008 safety certificate
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-inquiry-cladding-safety-certificate-b1818514.html

Isn't the problem that if a private home has something like asbestos, the risk is only really to that homeowner/resident. Whereas dodgy cladding puts the entire building at risk.

If you lived in a terrace and had an incredibly dodgy gas set up that blew up and damaged several houses on the street, you would be held responsible for the damage to all of those other properties/people. There are regulations for things like MOTs on cars, so that one person with a dangerously clapped out old banger isn't endangering other people on the road.

That's why it is different for something like cladding, because the risk is not to one specific person but to a much wider group.

Ok, reading all the links very carefully, looks like this was the sequence of events:

2004: “disastrous” fire safety test results
2007: these results are not disclosed to BBA, who issue a UK fire safety rating based on the results for a different type of cladding
2011: cladding banned for use on buildings in Europe but still ok to use in UK because “ regulators are not as restrictive”
2014: Grenfell renovation, using cladding banned in UK but still legal to use in UK, based on falsified fire safety test data.

Hopefully I have got that right - it isn’t very clearly explained in either the Wikipedia or newspaper articles.

So I would say there are two issues: the manufacturers falsifying test data - clearly they should be held liable for that.

And secondly our extremely lax building regs - far worse than the rest of the EU, or even the US/Canada, who are not exactly know for being high-regulation countries. There were other issues at Grenfell - it had failed numerous fire inspections for things like obstructed fire exits, expired fire extinguishers, etc, plus the other breaches previously mentioned. That is a government issue - if there had been sprinklers, fire doors, more than one stairway etc, more people might have got out. Councils/freeholders cannot be allowed to completely flout the fire regs we do have, with zero consequences.

Sorry, “cladding banned in EU”.

@TheYearOfSmallThings

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.

Thank you

I have been assured that the cladding where I live is safe but who knows who is telling the truth about any of it? If the company lied on paperwork and the standards are no good, anything could happen.

I can’t believe this isn’t getting more air time. It seems a massive deal to me.

Why is anyone surprised?

The tories have demonstrated time and again that they don’t care about poor people.

Rooner - the conservatives control the media

Exactly Iwantacookie

Thank you for the link Changechangychange
I knew I wasn't making this up.

I agree Roonerspismed

The recent fire seemed to get very little coverage in the news, considering how shockingly similar it seemed to be.

I find this thread really strange tbh.

So many people saying nope definitely shouldn't get any help.
The cladding was aok at the time it was installed etc.

Posting that after I had said the cladding company lied to the regulator, and posted links with emails in the company about it at the time they were quoting to clad Grenfell.

'it caused 72 deaths, including those of two victims who later died in hospital. More than 70 others were injured and 223 people escaped. It was the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster and the worst UK residential fire since the Second World War.'

It was not s trivial incident.
It could happen again.

I simply don't understand why so many on this thread are

Not at all interested in whether/ what errors or lies or shortcuts any of the companies involved made

Saying totally it's right the owners should foot the bill

No concern seemingly that it could happen again

I don't get it. I just don't understand.

Is it a reluctance to believe that established companies would do this? What's the driver for so many people ignoring the posts on the threads about the lying, and presumably doing the same with the news. Because...??? Don't get it.

I don’t understand either @NiceGerbil.

I’m a conveyancing solicitor. “Caveat emptor” does not apply to things that were lied about ffs.

A client was buying a flat last year that has cladding. She withdrew after going to the meeting that the management company arranged to explain the work needed and potential costs. She said it was heartbreaking.

Buying a property of course comes with the expectation of extra costs, and service charges are notoriously awkward, and responsibilities. Paying £1000s because someone lied is NOT part of that.

The court cases are ongoing I think. I would expect someone will be jailed by the end of them. It hasn't gone away. The problem is imv mostly that the companies have gone into liquidation so there are no funds to pay for their mistakes.
I'm not sure who gets the blame for low level of safety requirements - Civil Servants, an MP who was in place when the last set of requirements was set, architects, building companies etc etc

I'd like to add to this. We are a block under 18m so do not qualify for any government support to get rid of cladding and building defects.

The good thing is in case of a fire we will probably get out.

The bad is that we can't sell. We can't move. As banks refuse mortgages on buildings like ours. We can't remortgage either. The government has now said if we need remedial repairs they'd give us a good loan. But no matter the loan conditions, several 10k will throw us so far into debt we are forever stuck here.
We saved for years for a deposit to get on the property ladder. We both work in jobs for the government incidentally. We have had two children once we were financially stable but there is a real chance if interest rates go up and we can't sell or remortgage or get given a massive loan on top for remedial repairs we may have to declare bankruptcy. For me this would mean never being able to work in my job again. It's giving me massive anxiety and my mental health has suffered extremely.

Our plan was to move closer to family now we have children but we can't. We are quite literally stuck here with this shit hanging over us. And nothing we can do. It's awful. And I fear what it will do to me and my family.

@LikeSomeKindOfMadness.
There are thousands, if not millions like you. This needs a concerted campaign to address the injustice.

Thank you @TheABC We are as involved in the Twitter campaigns and stuff as we can. We have written to everyone we know and thought would be useful. Housing ministry ignored us. So did Labour party. Out MP said tax payers shouldn't have to pay to repair our house and she won't help. Basically despite us doing the right thing, training for years, working good jobs, saving and getting all surveys done we can they have retrospectively changed the goal posts. And every time they speak it becomes worse. I honestly don't know how much longer we can handle it to be honest. Some days I have to completely block my social media and news as it just sets the anxiety off worse. We were meant to move last year. We are now stuck with no idea what our future will hold. I refuse to put everything on hold but it's so depressing.

Sorry for the massive moan.

The government should be sorting this out and then fining those responsible

There should have been an investigation into the cladding way before Grenfell. In 2009 there was a fire at Lakanal House; 6 people died, I think, and the fire spread because of the cladding. Grenfell was refurbed with the cladding in 2015, 6 years after the Lakanall House tragedy.

I think there is a bigger issue generally. I wouldn’t touch most new builds right now. Cladding is one issue but there will be others too and it’s been shown that a developer can lie and completely get away with it.

How you can say buyer beware is beyond me. I feel so sorry for people in this situation