Grenfell Tower tragedy continued

[RhythmAndStealth]

Twelve people confirmed dead with that number expected to rise significantly.

Many others injured and distressed. People have lost relatives, friends and their homes.

250 firefighters in attendance, risking their lives in an unprecented fire and it's aftermath. Other emergency services and NHS staff working hard to help survivors.

Many questions to be answered.

to all those affected and everyone helping.

Bangkok Fire investigators are retry good. It also looks like some of the cladding on the lower parts of the building is intact. Plus there will probably be documentation about the refurbishment works with both the contractor and the management organisation.

Does anyone know if it is mandatory for flats to have fire blankets and powder fire extinguishers in them? If not why not? I don't think we had any in my rented flat.

IMO The classist attitudes towards tenants need to change. If we raise concerns about the work of an HA subcontractor we need to be listened to. Instead of constantly dismissed and not believed.

How can tenants keep themselves safe when they have NO SAY over who enters their flat to do work like gas work or whether the person is qualified or not. Training on fire safety is needed yes but without giving tenants more power and more say and a change in consumer law its like Band Aiding a wound.

If tenants WERE thought of as customers (i said upthread its the HA that is thought of as the customer when they employ a contractor) and taken seriously when they raise concerns about work carried out or materials used , the wound would not appear to start with.

Tenants having their concerns listened to and addressed instead of, at best ignored and at worst threatened with legal action if they dont keep quiet would help immensely to achieve fire PREVENTION.

Increasing the number of fire crews arriving would take a lot of money, and would reduce the number of fire fighters available to do things like inspections of housing, which prevent fires.

Not if they weren't doing anything else at the time. I was meaning to mobilise appliances that weren't actively engaged on other things. No point in sending two pumps to a tall building and leaving the platform in the station when they could have mobilised that as well. Obviously, if other crews/appliances were already engaged, then you can't send them. But, at 1am in the morning, they wouldn't have been out doing fire prevention work or inspections, so chances are that there would have been another pump or two, or another platform, at nearby stations, not actually doing anything which could have been mobilised on the first 999 call and then cancelled en route once the closest engines arrived had there been no need for them. That costs nothing more than a bit of fuel as most (if not all) fire stations around there are full time.

Bangkok Someone said earlier fire bridgade prefer that people just get out rather than use extinguisher and blankets. We do have both; they are not mandatory though.

Right, so you want more fire crews to turn up, but only if they're not busy.

I don't think that's much of a resolution, tbh.

Thanks @CoralDreamscapes and @RhythmAndStealth

I think what is becoming clear to me is that this is a REALLY complicated issue.

Also I hope I never live in a high rise with only one staircase!!!!!

Fire investigators are retry good. It also looks like some of the cladding on the lower parts of the building is intact.

Also looks like the flats on the corner near the fire aerial platform were pretty much undamaged, no doubt because of the thousands of gallons of water that were still being pumped into the building from that platform throughout yesterday. I suspect they were trying to preserve as much as possible of the building for fire inspection work on the structure, fittings, etc.

I felt such a shit - moaning about how my travel to and from work was buggered up - to my flat mate and she works in one of the hospital where the victims were taken in and was treating them. Poor girl needed a stiff drink when she got home.

Who is responsible for making the decision to remove cladding from other buildings ?

I know the cladding is only one aspect of the problems with these buildings but if 'they' are made to take it down do you think they'll be reluctant, because it's admitting they got it wrong in the first place ?

It's also completely different to your actual post, which said:

'Pre-determined attendance (number and type of fire engine) can be increased today, so that more equipment and fire fighters get there sooner. (Govt targets just concentrate on first and second attendance response times, so obviously fire departments concentrate on making sure the first two get there quickly, but in cases like this, it just wasn't enough).'

Right, so you want more fire crews to turn up, but only if they're not busy.

But better than them not turning out at all until a "make up" some time later when the fire has taken hold! It's not a perfect world situation, but surely better doing it than not doing it. And as per my earlier post, I was talking about what can be done "today" until buildings are inspected and improvements made. Not intended to be long term solution, but just as an additional precaution until proper long term plans are put in place. As see here, every minute mattered and the fire was never under control - more appliances and people in the first ten minutes or so of the 999 call could well have made a difference in this case. Until the investigations, improvements, etc., why not just do it wherever possible?? It's a no brainer to me.

Sarnies, they'll probably be reluctant to take it down because it will be hugely expensive, and it's everywhere - hospitals, schools.

I hope it turns out that many buildings have the fire resistant type of cladding insulation, but it's extremely concerning.

I am a LL to an HMO (house in multiple occupation) which is in fact just a 3 storey Edwardian house with 4 medical students in it, including my DD. To get my licence, I had to fit (and did so gladly) a state of the art integrated fire alarm and a 30 minute safe exit route, even though a family could have legally lived there with none of that (just as I do in my own house). I don't understand why the same stringent standards are not applied to Councils. It makes a nonsense of the system if only the private sector has to provide fire safe housing. Or do Councils just choose to treat themselves more leniently? Those poor people...

Badbad There already will be a pre-set number of applicances that will attend the flats and which ones they automatically send. That happens for many different buildings based on their fire plan.

I don't think we can realistically expect a large number of fire fighters to be employed in response to what is (hopefully) a once in a life time major incident.

And it's also normal for additional units to be sent from other fire stations, happens all the time even at smaller fires.

I don't know Bunny, because I don't work for the fire service.

I imagine that how many fire fighters are on duty for responding to calls at any one time is worked out based on the cuts to the fire service and the amount of work they have to do.

I imagine that there are all manner of constraints on how often they can go out, how risk increases if they attend additional fires in one night, how much pressure the fire service is under.

Much as the police have complained about how the 'extra officers' on the street after the terrorist attacks are not extra, they are just people working longer and longer shifts, becoming exhausted and over worked.

So I really don't think it is as simple as increase the number of emergencies each crew is responding to. I imagine there are additional dangers to the crew in such a solution, even in the short term, and to the public, as over worked people make more mistakes.

It's also completely different to your actual post, which said:

Pretty clear I was talking short term. Once inspections are done and improvements etc made, then you go back to lower predetermined attendances.

And anyway, even pre-determined attendances today are subject to crew availability. If a town's two crews are already engaged with a callout, and another call comes in, the next two crews needed will come from the next nearest town(s) or the attendance for the first call will be split if en-route, so one to each. Many, many times, the "stop" message is sent pretty quickly, so the second and subsequent appliances get turned back en route. If the pre determined attendance includes something specialised, like a platform, then if the nearest platform is already engaged, the next nearest could be 30 minutes or more away, but it's still mobilised, so that it's at least on its way in case it's needed, and of course, usually turned back en route.

It just seems pretty crazy to have fire fighters and appliances not doing anything waiting for the "make up" call, when they could actually be mobilised and on their way. In a short term situation like we have today, it seems a no brainer - the cost of the fuel seems a small price to pay. If it's a busy time and no others are available, then obviously you can't do it.

I don't think we can realistically expect a large number of fire fighters to be employed in response to what is (hopefully) a once in a life time major incident.

As I keep saying, I'm talking short term, only until we know what the situation is. If this cladding in on other similar buildings, then it could happen again tonight. So, how does it not make sense to send an extra appliance or two to any such call outs, if they're available, until it's established whether such buildings are at risk or not????

Actually am I missing something? Why are we discussing the lack of fire resources when I haven't seen or read anything that even said this was an issue yesterday?

Nicknacky Because the Labour party, and their supporters, want to raise the cuts issue again and say these have impacted the fire services response; no one has said yet that the lack of fire resources was an actual issue.

Several other issues have been raised, but number of emergency services attending was not one of them.

nothettingyounger I also had a 3 storey Hmo ,which I bought before the council got in on the act.

They started with fire doors (fair enough) , fire extinguishers /blankets and smoke detectors. Then they upped it to a fully wired in fire alarm system ,although they couldn't tell me exactly what spec, which I fitted at ££££ , they then told me it was the wrong type .

I had to pay for my license up front , I had all the work done and despite numerous phone calls and emails , they never did come out to complete their inspection.

Once they had my money they didn't want to know.

Alongside Hillsborough and Aberfan, I'd say this disaster ranks alongside the Bradford City Football Club fire (1985) and the Kings Cross fire (1987) in terms of changes in legislation that will come.

If you've never watched the footage of the Bradford fire, I'd recommend you search it ought on YouTube. It shows just how fast a fire can spread - a wooden stand with years of rubbish accumulated underneath.

I am quite concerned the high-rise platform came from Surrey though; I am unsure if this is because there isn't one in London that was operational at that time, or because all of the ones in London were already in use.

I would love it if someone could clarify this; I feel London should have it's own high-rise platform if it doesn't already.

Heres an example of an HA not listening.

Many MANY tenants of our HA have recieved the same letter.

"You do not appear to be paying your rent in line with your tenancy agreement. For example you may not be paying your rent weekly in advance.
Please contact us on the above telephone numbers to discuss your rent account so we can advise you how best to keep your rent payments up to date and prevent further letters being sent "

I phoned the council who pays the HB and they said it was up to date and gave me the amount they had paid. Paid 4 weekly in arrears and paid up to 11th June.

I phoned the HA and told them this. They then tried to tell me that our HB had been suspended for a while back in 2013 and that had caused the "shortfall" When i pointed out there was no way they would have waited 4 years to tell us this IF it had happened. Because they wouldnt believe me he changed it saying it was suspended for a while back in 2012. I had NO letter or phone call about it at the time. Funny that.

THEN he said he would amend our account so we shouldnt get any more letters. We asked for a confirmation letter that this would be done They said no there wouldnt be one.

We are not in breach of a tenancy agreement which involves a payment system the HA agreed to back in 1994.

I have seen on fb that many other tenants who ARE also up to date with their rent have had these letters. There is uproar about it.

Refusing to send a confirmation letter that this is all sorted after sending out a letter which FALSELY says tenants are in breach of their tenancy agreements is just one example of how tenants are viewed.

Its a small thing i know but just an example of what happens.

@notgettingyounger

Your situation has always puzzled me, vis a vis a private LL and the Council as LL.

Anyway, if I had a three storey house and my child was living there, I would have the other occupants as lodgers. Less tax and less regulation. Maybe that is not possible legally, but still.

Not that I am advocating unsafe practises, but as you said yourself, your own house whether it has two rooms or twenty, is not subject to any rules and regs.

I would prefer safety rules, as long as they apply consistently to private and State LLs though.