Grenfell Tower The Aftermath Thread SIX.

[HelenaDove]

I thought i would take the oppurtunity to start thread six as thread five is now coming to an end. to all those lost in the fire their survivors families friends and volunteers.

Link to thread five which also includes links to previous threads.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2959251-London-Fire-Grenfell-Tower-thread-five?pg=1

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

Grenfell cladding maker 'knew it fell below safety standard'
Arconic was aware panels were being used on tower and were unsuitable, inquiry is told

The company that made the cladding panels on Grenfell Tower knew in 2011 they were “not suitable for use on building facades” and performed worse in fire tests than declared on safety certificates, a public inquiry into the disaster has heard.

On the opening day of the second phase of the inquiry into the blaze that killed 72 people, bereaved relatives and survivors heard claims that Arconic knew the fire performance of its Reynobond polyethylene-filled panels was below the minimum required for facades in Europe. The panels went on to be used on Grenfell with the knowledge of the multibillion-dollar US conglomerate and “its representative was pleased when its product was selected”, the inquiry heard.

Claude Wehrle, an Arconic official, explained in internal emails in June and July 2011 how the fire rating of the panels had dropped to class E from class B and they were therefore “unsuitable for use on building facades” in Europe. But, he said, “we can still work with regulators who are not as restrictive”.

The panels were later fitted on Grenfell during its refurbishment between 2014 and 2016 and the first phase of the inquiry last year concluded they were the primary cause of the spread of the fire.

The second phase of the inquiry will examine decisions taken in the months and years before the fire, its immediate aftermath and the role of the UK government.

Listening in the seats reserved for the bereaved and survivors, were Nabil Choucair, who lost six members of his family, Karim Mussilhy, who lost his uncle and Marcio Gomes, who led his pregnant wife and their two daughters to safety from their 21st-floor home.

The Arconic emails were introduced by Marcus Taverner QC, counsel for Rydon, the main contractor, who said: “Arconic continued to use the [class B] certificate to promote sales of Reynobond and did so specifically in the case of Grenfell Tower.”

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
In 2015 Wehrle said in another email that Arconic’s Reynobond panels filled with combustible polyethylene were “dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to fire retardant as a matter of urgency”. Wehrle added that he recognised his opinion was “technical and anti-commercial”.

The inquiry also heard that Celotex, the company which made the combustible insulation which lay behind the cladding panels, was concerned in 2013 about how it would behave in a fire when used with cladding panels.

A Celotex official emailed colleagues in November 2013: “Do we take the view that our product realistically shouldn’t be used behind most cladding because in the event of a fire it would burn?”

Rydon sought to argue that, while it was the main contractor on the project, it worked with other experts and subcontractors and that civil liability and “moral culpability” must be considered in the light of how different parties met their contractual obligations. It said the architects, cladding subcontractor, fire engineer, building control or the landlord were involved in drawing up the specification, but none said that “using Reynobond PE or Celotex RS5000, either individually or together, posed a risk to the health and safety of the occupants of Grenfell Tower”.

Earlier the packed inquiry room in Paddington, west London, heard from Richard Millett QC, the counsel to the inquiry, that almost all the organisations responsible for refurbishing the tower were refusing to accept any responsibility for the disaster. They had, he complained, engaged in “a merry-go-round of buck-passing”.

Millett revealed the architect, contractors, cladding manufacturer and others had made statements to the inquiry about their role in the disastrous refurbishment which contain “no trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened at Grenfell Tower”.

“Not from the architects, the contract managers, the main contractor, the specialist cladding subcontractors, the fire safety engineers or the TMO [tenant management organisation],” Millett said, adding that in every case “it was someone else’s fault

A member of the public reading these statements would be forced to conclude that everyone involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower did what they were supposed to do and nobody made any causative mistakes,” he said.

“Save for RBKC [the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea] and to a lesser extent Celotex, each core participant who played a material part in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower has laid out a detailed case for how it relied on the work of others and how in no way was the work it did either substandard or non-compliant.”

RBKC admits it failed in its duty as a building regulator, the inquiry was told.

Millett said it did not ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system including the crown – an architectural feature that was instrumental in spreading the fire – and failed to identify that the insulation materials or the cladding panels were not of limited combustibility.

“They accept that building control should not have issued a completion certificate as it did on 7 July 2016,” Millett said.

Millett warned the corporates not to treat the inquiry as a dress rehearsal for other possible criminal or civil actions.

Boris Johnson either doesn’t have a grip on Grenfell - or he doesn’t care
Seraphima Kennedy
Read more
“Those who escaped from the burning building with their lives and lost loved ones are owed at least an honest and complete account from those witnesses who are in a position to explain what happened,” he said.

Studio E, the architect, said it believed the building regulations were not fit for purpose, it did not know that the materials it selected were in breach of building regulations and materials manufacturers provided safety testing data that “misled designers to consider that their products were safe”. It said it was building services engineers Max Fordham, another consultant, which proposed the use of combustible insulation and that Rydon had the power to change the materials, but said its position was “not an attempt to pass the buck”.

Advertisement

“Studio E will listen carefully,” the architect firm said. “The company wants to understand and learn, however painful that may be.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/26/boris-johnson-grenfell-inquiry-benita-mehra?CMP=share_btn_tw

Boris Johnson either doesn’t have a grip on Grenfell - or he doesn’t care
Seraphima Kennedy
The fact the prime minister saw no conflict of interest in Benita Mehra’s appointment to the inquiry shows his indifference

t is a scandal that should never have happened. The second phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry opens tomorrow, after the exposure of a conflict of interest that was not resolved until families threatened to withdraw from the process. The appointment of engineer Benita Mehra to the inquiry panel, linked as she was to the cladding firm Arconic, undermined trust and could have left the inquiry’s phase 2 findings open to legal challenge. Mehra has now resigned.

Yet there are still serious questions to answer about the government’s appointment process to the inquiry panel, the due diligence carried out by the prime minister, and the initial failure to reverse the appointment once the conflict was exposed in the Guardian. “The government should never have put families in this situation,” said Grenfell United, the group representing many bereaved and survivors. “They failed to carry out basic checks and understand the importance and sensitivities around a fair and proper process.”

Mehra’s appointment was announced in a letter from Boris Johnson to the inquiry chairman on 23 December. The timing of the announcement – two days before Christmas – struck many as suspicious. It emerged that Mehra had been president of the Women’s Engineering Society in 2018, when the association received £71,000 in funding from the charitable arm of Arconic – which manufactured the cladding used at Grenfell, a material the inquiry found to have been the primary cause of the spread of the fire, which killed 72 people.

Concerns were raised directly with the prime minister, who said he would look into it; but neither Johnson, nor the team around him, seems to fully understand the level of anger and distrust. Until last Friday, the Cabinet Office repeated the line that Arconic’s donation to Mehra’s association was “unrelated to the issues being considered

We should take a moment to reflect on how serious this failure was. A solemn judicial process taking place in the interests of justice and public safety after the deadliest fire since the second world war is starting its most important phase of evidence-gathering compromised by the prime minister. He and his team either do not have a full grip on the Grenfell brief, or they do not care. The letter accepting Mehra’s resignation reiterated that the Cabinet Office “continue to believe that there is no conflict of interest that would have prevented you from taking part in the inquiry”.

As the inquiry opens, this is more than a slap in the face to families who watched flames rip through Arconic’s cladding knowing their loved ones were trapped inside. The failure to see such a glaring conflict is exactly why the inquiry needs to ensure absolute impartiality and transparency, and to demonstrate utter fearlessness at getting to the how and why of what happened

The government must now urgently try to repair trust in the inquiry by finding a suitable replacement. “The government promised two panel members and must now urgently find a new panelist, to bring expertise on community relations to the inquiry,” said Grenfell United. Grenfell has always been about the indifference of those in power to the lives of ordinary people, who put profit before safety. It should be a matter of deep concern that Grenfell United have also raised concerns “about the indifference shown towards bereaved and survivors by the secretary of the inquiry, Mark Fisher … We need to know that the inquiry team will change how it deals with families.” While the report on the first phase was welcomed by families, the inquiry didn’t get parts of the process right, such as communication, and dealing with questions from the families.

Advertisement

This week, the inquiry is expected to hear opening statements from many of the corporate core participants, as well as from lawyers for the families. Over the next 18 months it will scrutinise “the design of the cladding and the choice of materials, the testing and certification of those materials, and the role of central and local government in promoting fire safety”. Senior representatives from Kensington and Chelsea borough council, the tenant management organisation, the cladding companies, government ministers past and present, and the office of the Mayor of London (and let’s not forget that Johnson himself was Mayor of London when cuts were made to the fire service), are all expected to give evidence. Grenfell cuts right to the heart of government

All the Grenfell families want is a fair chance to let the evidence determine where responsibility lies. The inquiry’s report into phase 1 was welcomed – it must now show itself to be fearless at getting to the truth

www.24housing.co.uk/news/government-wont-be-drawn-on-white-paper-release/

Government won’t be drawn on White Paper release
Commons question over timescale gets only a “quickly as possible” answer

Pile of documents, files, and papers
Government still won’t be drawn on the Social Housing White Paper with a timescale as vague as “quickly as possible” offered to the latest question over its publication.

Speculation suggests the Paper will be ready for release in the wake of budget.

But if that’s the case, Housing Minister Esther McVey gave nothing away responding to a written question on the Paper’s projected time scale from Labour’s Barry Sheerman.

“We are working to bring forward the White Paper as quickly as possible,” said McVey.

Labour’s Alex Cunningham got little advance on this stance with his questions on the national model tenancy agreement.

Asked what plans MHCLG had to review the national model tenancy agreement and publish the agreement, McVey said this would happen “shortly” and on the Gov.uk website.

“While we will continue to update this document as required, we do not intend to conduct a fuller review, as the Government is planning a fuller overhaul of the assured shorthold tenancy framework through the Renters’ Reform Bill,” she said.

That narrowed the scope for Cunningham’s question on MHCLG plans to include a consultation process in the review of the agreement.

McVey said feedback on proposed changes would be sought from “a small group of partners” ahead of publication

A reminder of what Rydon are capable of when it comes to social housing tenants.

HelenaDove Sat 30-Jun-18 02:40:39
THIS DOCUMENT. Myatts Field North refurb.

www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/research/pfisocialhousing/MFN_PFI_Refurb_Experiences_Report.pdf
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Fri 14-Jul-17 22:10:33

Residents were told to remove their pets, but no compensation was offered to cover the
costs involved.
 No consideration was given to residents who worked night shifts.
 Workers used electricity paid for by of residents, without offering compensation.
 Doors were left open and residents were able to wander in unchallenged by workers
who did not know them.
 Quality alterations that residents had already made to their homes were ripped out to
make way for inferior alternatives.
 Supposedly completed electrical rewiring was found to be substandard and occasionally
dangerous.
 Supposedly completed pipe works and its housing were found to be substandard.
 In some homes, odd sized radiators and kitchen unit doors had been fitted.
 Flooding in one home had been caused by an unsupervised apprentice.
 Households were left overnight without running water or a toilet.
 At least one resident was left without electricity for a whole weekend.
 Some workers were found to be abusive, bullying and inconsiderate, especially towards
elderly or otherwise vulnerable residents.
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Tue 12-Jun-18 18:10:02

HelenaDove Fri 21-Jul-17 16:39:36

peoplevspfi.org.uk/2017/07/21/myatts-field-north-regeneration-a-pfi-horror-show/
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Fri 21-Jul-17 19:50:21

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/21/the-real-cost-of-regeneration-social-housing-private-developers-pfi?CMP=share_btn_fb
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Fri 21-Jul-17 19:52:14

"Hodkinson carried out a qualitative survey of 14 homes refurbished by Rydon that had been the subject of a huge number of complaints. Showers were fitted next to electric fans. A toilet was installed so close to a wall that you could only sit on it sideways. Some households went for days without electricity and weeks without cooking facilities. Cupboards were fitted with wrongly size doors. Tenants who complained reported that they were treated dismissively. One remembered the site supervisor saying to him, “It ain’t Chelsea, mate.” Regenter’s out-of-hours emergency line linked to the wrong database, so callout engineers weren’t available. The striking thing was how long problems could drag out: one family’s flat was flooded in January 2014, and repairs weren’t even scheduled till September. Two years later, their flat still hadn’t been fully repaired and redecorated. Even at the most straightforward level, the work wasn’t done to a decent standard.

When approached for comment, Rydon said that since the complaints were made, three years ago, attempts have been made to remedy the problems. They said the comments were not reflective of most of the residents, and that there was a good level of satisfaction among the residents now.

For tenants with more complicated requirements, the situation was worse. The Cifuentes family, one of whom used a wheelchair, was left without ramps, hoists or any means of escape in a fire, and without a lock on the front door. Repairs were so slow and haphazard that, at one point, the family had to move out for over a month, and the disabled member could only have his needs met by going into a respite unit – whereupon they were threatened with losing their carer’s allowance, their disability allowance and their car."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/28/grenfell-tower-refurbishers-knew-cladding-would-fail-inquiry-told

Grenfell refurbishers knew cladding would fail, inquiry told
Emails reveal architect and builders discussed how cladding was not fire-resistant

The architect, builders and fire engineer who worked on the disastrous Grenfell Tower refurbishment knew the cladding system would fail in the event of a fire more than two years before 72 people were killed, according to emails revealed at the public inquiry on Tuesday.

Staff at architects Studio E, the fire engineer Exova, the facade installer Harley, and Rydon, the main contractor, discussed how the cladding system they were planning to wrap around the 120-home apartment block was likely to fail in the event of a fire.

“Metal cladding always burns and falls off,” an architect emailed a fire engineer in spring 2015. An employee of the facade installer told a colleague: “As we all know, the ACM [the combustible cladding panels] will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”

The shocking correspondence during the refurbishment works was disclosed to the inquiry by Craig Orr QC, counsel for Celotex, the manufacturer of the combustible insulation used on the building. It came during the second day of phase two of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, which is examining events leading up to the disaster.

In front of bereaved and survivors, including Nicholas Burton, who lost his wife Pily Burton, and Antonio Roncalato, who was not rescued until 6am, the inquiry also heard how, in 2014, the combustible cladding panels made by Arconic, which contained a flammable polyethylene core, were chosen as part of an attempt to cut £454,000 from the budget by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants’ Management organisation.

During the opening of the inquiry, the companies involved in the refurbishment have repeatedly sought to point blame at each other and at the system of testing the fire safety of materials. That pattern, described by the counsel to the inquiry, Richard Millett, as a “merry-go-round of buck-passing” continued on Tuesday.

Arconic said it was not its responsibility “to decide if the product was appropriate to use on a particular project or in a particular configuration”, but rather the designers, contractors and fire engineers working on the project.

Celotex said its insulation was sold as combustible and its use was down to “a myriad of failings on behalf of the designers, contractors, consultants and building control inspectors”. Both firms insisted they were not shifting blame but rather describing the reality of the balance of responsibility in the construction process.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
On behalf of Celotex, Orr told the inquiry the risk of the cladding system failing in a fire was “expressly foreseen by the designers, contractors and fire safety consultants responsible for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment”

He introduced email evidence that began with Daniel Anketell-Jones, a facade engineer at Harley Facades, writing to company director Ray Bailey about the need to introduce fire stopping within the facade to prevent flames spreading across the building in the event of a fire breaking out of a flat.

“There is no point in fire stopping,” Anketell-Jones told Bailey on 27 March 2015. “As we all know, the ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire! The whole point is to stop ‘unseen’ fire spreading in the cavity.”

Four days later, Terry Ashton, at the fire engineer Exova, emailed Neil Crawford, at the architects Studio E, to warn: “It is difficult to see how a fire-stop would stay in place in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail.”

Crawford replied to Ashton: “Hi Terry, this was my point as well. Metal cladding always burns and falls off hence fire stopping is usually just to the back of the cladding line”.

The inquiry then heard that Tony Pearson, also at Exova, told his colleague Ashton on 31 March 2015: “We would not rule out that the fire could enter the cavity if there is flaming through the windows. However, if significant flames are ejected from the windows, this would lead to failure of the cladding system, with the external surface falling away and exposing the cavity.”

In a fourth email, Crawford looped in Simon Lawrence, at Rydon, the main contractor.

Each of Harley, Studio E, Exova and Rydon was openly acknowledging in these emails that the cladding would fail in the event of a fire with external flaming,” said Orr. “That tragically is what happened.”

The inquiry continues

more from the link in the 27th Jan 19.25 post.

"In 2014, the residents’ association was contacted by a whistleblower from Rydon, in a letter that began: “I have never worked for such a bunch of cowboys in my career … I could write a book about their shortfalls.” The contact’s specific points were: that no fire assessments had been carried out in some blocks; that Rydon’s divisional manager had overruled its technical manager, who had called for more detailed risk-assessment; that the fire-stopping at floor level had not been carried out; that the communal emergency lighting had not been subjected to the proper test; that the procedure for testing smoke alarms was unclear.

Advertisement
There were countless other concerns, which Stuart Hodkinson reported to the Health and Safety Executive, as well as to senior officers and elected members of Lambeth and other London councils, the fire service, the gas, water and electricity boards – anyone he could think of. “The response was generally pathetic,” he says.

The Health and Safety Executive took six weeks to reply, then apologised for the “ridiculous amount of time it had taken to investigate”, but did offer two important revelations – that Regenter as the principal contractor did not have an efficient system for managing and monitoring the 14 sub-contractors on site when they visited; and that cuts to health-and-safety funding meant that their scope for investigating and enforcing standards was reduced. Hodkinson was told to contact the Trading Standards authority, but residents across different council housing regeneration schemes told him there was no point as “local authorities do not investigate themselves”.

It felt to Hodkinson as though he were shouting into a void, but that doesn’t mean nothing happened. Rydon contacted the University of Leeds, telling them that their lecturer’s work was bringing the university into disrepute, advising them to take their name off Hodkinson’s report. (The university investigated and found no substance to Rydon’s allegation.) Lambeth council, meanwhile, produced a response in which they exonerated both themselves and the contractor, in the strongest but vaguest possible terms: their independent investigations, they said, had turned up nothing “significant or untoward"

for all our regulations and safety standards it goes to show how little protection we truly have and yes how corrupt our leaders and decision makers are. We trot along with our lives but it's often only when a tragedy occurs that this corruption is unveiled (and even then it is white washed) We are given the line that countries like Russia and China are the baddies but are we any worse?

I think we're worse than Russia and China because our government claims that it works for the people when it doesn't. China very repressive in many ways but at least you know they are. At the same time, I have a friend in China who says the authorities are brilliant when there's a tragedy. A few years ago there was a huge tower block fire there; every citizen was re-housed almost immediately and paid a lot of compensation; 14 or so officials were held responsible and sacked and/or jailed.

Here, as I mentioned, our government is allowing the mass illegal burning of mattresses and sofas to go on round the clock. We estimate that in practice, the toxic equivalent of 3200 Grenfell Towers are burning every year around the UK, many in built-up areas. No one is interested: not the press (which is controlled by business and the government); not the government; not Greenpeace.

The Grenfell Inquiry is being controlled; much sleight of hand practised by the flame retardant industry. They've successfully kept almost all attention on cladding. Yes, cladding was the match, in effect, that started many of the internal fires but you don't focus only on the match when investigating a house fire. You look more closely at what the match set light to, that produced the flames and fumes that did the damage.

The residents are understandably pleased that Boris's person has resigned from the Inquiry. However, no one wants to look at Prof. David Purser, who is well-entrenched in the Inquiry, writing the toxicology report. He was a huge supporter of the flame retardant industry for many years and almost certainly funded/paid by them. Flame retardants were responsible for most of the deaths in Grenfell Tower.

Absolute bastards.

news.sky.com/story/grenfell-contractors-ask-for-no-prosecution-guarantee-from-inquiry-11920712

That is really disturbing about the burning of the flame retardant materials and the dangerous toxins they are emitting. All we hear about is reducing plastic packaging etc which is a good thing but most of us are unaware of this serious problem.

With this Grenfell Inquiry if the facts are there that the flame retardant materials contributed to the deaths will it lead to any change? Will this Prof Purser be able to give unbiased expert opinion?

Helena It is unbelievable that guarantees would even be considered. What is the point if those potentionally responsible cannot face any prosecution?

Post Grenfell attitudes

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3809470-To-think-people-dont-understand-the-magnitude-of-the-social-housing-crisis?pg=1

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/30/people-who-worked-on-grenfell-tower-could-face-life-sentences

People who worked on Grenfell Tower 'could face life sentences'
Lawyers say police interviews indicate workers could face manslaughter charges

Grenfell refurbishment firms ‘killed in pursuit of money’, inquiry told

People who worked on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment could face the threat of being jailed for life, their lawyers have said, with witnesses interviewed by police believing they could be charged with manslaughter.

On Thursday at the public inquiry into the June 2017 disaster, lawyers for current and former employees of the architect, contractor, subcontractor and client on the project said it was plain to those interviewed already by police that the investigation “will include gross negligence manslaughter where applicable”.

“In addition, [detectives] are expressly investigating contraventions of relevant health and safety legislation and regulation,” they said in an application seeking assurances that evidence they give to the inquiry cannot be used to prosecute them.

Health and safety at work crimes are punishable by up to two years in prison, but in the application the lawyers noted that a manslaughter charge could lead to a life sentence.

Jonathan Laidlaw QC, acting for Harley Facades, whose employees are among those already questioned by police under caution and who are due to testify to the public inquiry, said “a significant number” of the witnesses expected to be called in the second phase of the inquiry had already backed the application for protection and more may follow.

“Right through the course of phase two [of the public inquiry] these individuals will remain suspects in respect of whom there is a real and appreciable danger of self-incrimination,” he said.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more
Many witnesses expected to be called had already been interviewed by detectives, he said, and unless they were given the undertaking then they would invoke their right to refuse to answer even the most basic questions in front of the inquiry.

Without protection it would be “impossible to get to the answers the bereaved, survivors and residents are plainly entitled to,” Laidlaw said.

The tactic was branded “sabotage” by lawyers for the bereaved and survivors, many of whom were furious. They are due to consider their position on the application over the weekend. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry chairman, said the witnesses’ move was “very disappointing”, not least because the issue had been raised more than a year ago

Laidlaw said four witnesses for Harley Facades, the company that oversaw the cladding works, had already been interviewed by police and faced further interviews over possible breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

That act places a duty on every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of anyone “who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work”.

“You would need to demonstrate that you had done all that was reasonably practicable to escape conviction,” Laidlaw said. “Any person who has failed to take reasonable care for the safety of another commits a criminal offence potentially punishable by a term of imprisonment.”

Detectives have said they will not consider whether or not to pass a file recommending prosecutions to the Crown Prosecution Service until after the inquiry has concluded. That means any trials could be at least two years away.

Some of the bereaved and survivors have said they would prefer to see justice though the criminal courts than the public inquiry and so would prefer the police investigation to come first..

@mrshoho
*That is really disturbing about the burning of the flame retardant materials and the dangerous toxins they are emitting. All we hear about is reducing plastic packaging etc which is a good thing but most of us are unaware of this serious problem.

With this Grenfell Inquiry if the facts are there that the flame retardant materials contributed to the deaths will it lead to any change? Will this Prof Purser be able to give unbiased expert opinion? *

You're not aware of it because a) only a few of us are monitoring the situation and trying to reveal it, b) the press and so-called green lobby groups are useless: will not touch it because it's too big an issue for them to deal with, and c) the government is covering it up because they do not want to be held accountable: three government departments are to blame: BEIS, the Environment Agency and Defra. I spoke to the EA official responsible and he admitted they're burning millions of sofas and mattresses illicity (and illegally) but whined that they do not have any choice. Yet when I suggested he could get on to BEIS and urge them to change the Furniture Flammability Regulations, in the way recommended by the Environment Audit Committee, i.e. to get rid of flame retardants in UK furniture, he whined again that it's not his job.

There is no chance of an independent report from Prof. Purser. He was put in place by the flame retardant industry, which is also controlling several other people in the Grenfell Inquiry. I understand why Grenfell residents are reluctant to pursue this issue - because they fear it will detract from any wins they're having with cladding - but my view is that that's exactly what the flame retardant industry wants.

Quelle surprise

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51404218

The chairman of the Grenfell Tower inquiry has backed a request from firms that refurbished the building that evidence they give should not be used against them in criminal prosecutions.

Some firms had threatened to stay silent in the inquiry into how Grenfell was covered in flammable cladding.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick said he had asked Attorney General Geoffrey Cox for the assurance "as a matter of urgency".

The fire at the west London tower block in June 2017 killed 72 people.

What happened at Grenfell Tower?
Seven key points from first phase of inquiry
Who were the victims?
Representatives from organisations including cladding company Harley Facades, building contractor Rydon and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation had asked for a guarantee that anything they say in the hearings would not be used as part of any potential future prosecutions.

The inquiry - which is in its second phase - was paused while Sir Martin considered the firms' application, which was vigorously opposed by lawyers representing a group of the bereaved, survivors and residents.

The Metropolitan Police is conducting its own investigation into possible crimes ranging from gross negligence manslaughter and corporate manslaughter to health and safety offences.

In its ruling, the inquiry panel said it would immediately write to Mr Cox - who will make the final decision - in order to secure the terms under which evidence will be given when the inquiry resumes.

It added that the deal must ensure that no "oral evidence given by a natural or legal person before the Inquiry in Modules 1, 2 and 3 will be used in evidence against that person in any criminal proceedings or for the purpose of deciding whether to bring such proceedings".

Grenfell firms seek immunity over evidence
Grenfell firms 'knew cladding would fail in fire'
Firms 'deny responsibility' for Grenfell fire
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds said this deal - if it is backed by the Attorney General - would not provide immunity from prosecution, as the police can still gather their own information.

But he added: "They couldn't use what a witness said at the inquiry as evidence at a trial."

Campaign group Grenfell United has criticised companies involved in the tower's refurbishment for "passing the buck and minimising their own role in the disaster".

The inquiry's second phase, which began last week, is looking at how the building came to be covered in a flammable type of cladding during its refurbishment between 2012 and 2016.

Emails disclosed to the inquiry suggested that companies knew a planned cladding system would fail in the event of a fire.

The investigation has heard that - with the "sole exception" of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which accepted that the tower's refurbishment should not have been signed off - all organisations involved in the work have denied responsibility.

The first phase of the inquiry heard how the fire on 14 June 2017 spread quickly up the 23-storey tower in west London, claiming the lives of 72 people

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/10/charges-possible-over-grenfell-tower-refit-says-inquiry-chair

Fraud charges possible over Grenfell Tower refit, says inquiry chair
Witnesses ‘very likely’ to be asked to discuss issues involving potential offences

People involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower are facing possible charges of fraud and conspiracy to defraud, according to the chairman of the public inquiry into the disaster that claimed 72 lives.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick has told the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, that during forthcoming hearings examining the marketing of the combustible cladding and insulation that spread the fire, witnesses are “very likely” to be asked to discuss issues involving potential fraud offences.

The inquiry had already heard that witnesses could face criminal prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act and in some cases could be charged with manslaughter or corporate manslaughter.

Moore-Bick revealed the possibility of fraud charges in an application to Cox for an undertaking that witnesses’ oral evidence would not be used against them in criminal proceedings.

Advertisement
“Any questions put to employees of the manufacturers or sellers of the cladding materials about how they came to market potentially dangerous products are likely to lead to their invoking the privilege against self-incrimination,” the retired appeal court judge said.

The inquiry was halted on 30 January when lawyers for the architects, the main contractor, facade contractor, fire engineer and landlord led a request to invoke a longstanding protection against self-incrimination

The inquiry had already heard evidence that Arconic, the company that made the cladding panels, knew in 2015 that the material used on Grenfell was “dangerous on facades”. It also heard how in 2013, Celotex, which made the combustible insulation, was considering whether “our product realistically shouldn’t be used behind most cladding panels because in the event of a fire it would burn”.

The request for an undertaking that oral evidence at the public inquiry would not be used by police and prosecutors to try to send people to jail has upset many of the bereaved and survivors. They believe the companies and executives responsible for the disastrous refurbishment should give truthful evidence openly and without condition and face the consequences, even if it results in criminal prosecution. Others have remained neutral on the request, considering the undertaking the only way that witnesses will realistically give comprehensive evidence to the inquiry.

Moore-Bick told Cox he did not believe the undertaking would impede any criminal prosecution. “Given the vast volume of documentary evidence and witness statements already available to the police, any admissions or inconsistent statements, although a potential bonus, are unlikely to provide the foundation for a decision to prosecute,” he said.

He also urged Cox to make a decision “as a matter of urgency”, saying the evidence the inquiry team had uncovered “suggests that significant risks to public health and safety will continue to be created until the full extent of what happened at Grenfell Tower is brought to light”.

The inquiry is not expected to restart until 24 February at the earliest

Grenfell Three years on..............

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grenfell-tower-fire-flammable-cladding-labour-a9563936.html

www.independent.co.uk/voices/grenfell-fire-inquiry-anniversary-residents-cladding-safety-fund-money-a9563636.html

Three years after Grenfell, the government’s lack of action is a disgrace
Tens of thousands of people have spent the lockdown in dangerous homes. The public inquiry has still not delivered justice. And ministers’ promise to give social housing residents a bigger voice has not been delivered

This weekend marks three years since the horror of the Grenfell Tower fire. It was a moment that shocked and shamed our nation.

Coronavirus prevents us from marching silently in west London on Sunday. But across London and across the country, we will come together in silence at 6pm. In that moment, we will stand together in powerful solidarity. We will remember the 72 lives that were taken, and a community shattered by grief.

Grenfell lifted a curtain on inequality in our country. Yet three years on, the scale of government failure is stark. Tens of thousands of people have had to endure the lockdown in dangerous homes. The public inquiry has still not delivered justice. And ministers’ promise to give social housing residents a bigger voice has not been delivered.

This inaction from government comes amid more major fires in the last year, from Barking to Greater Manchester. The risk of another fire like Grenfell is still sky-high.

Last year, in response to public pressure the government announced a new deadline. All Grenfell-style cladding was to be removed from buildings by June 2020. The housing secretary at the time warned that “building owners can expect enforcement action to be taken” if work was not done

Yet on Thursday, official figures revealed that 300 buildings are still wrapped in this deadly cladding. New analysis from Labour finds that 56,000 people are living in these death traps. This weekend should have marked the end of a three-year nightmare for residents across the country. Instead, they will go to sleep tonight in unsafe buildings due to government inaction.

It shames the government that this deadline has been missed by such a large margin. Ministers should now live up to the promises made last year and take enforcement action against building owners who are failing to do this work

The recent launch of the £1bn Building Safety Fund is a welcome step forward. It was something Labour had repeatedly called for over the last three years. But it is increasingly clear that the size and scope of the fund is nowhere near sufficient to ensure that all tall buildings are made safe.

Many leaseholders who have already taken out expensive loans to pay for work are excluded from the fund. If your building is lower than 18m, you are excluded from the fund. Interim safety measures like “waking watch” patrols are also excluded. Some residents are being charged more than £800 per month for waking watch.

To cap it off, leaseholders are reliant on their building owners making an application on a first come first serve basis. There are too few winners and too many losers in a landscape that should have put people’s safety centre stage
The scale of this crisis is vast. Grenfell-style cladding is just the tip of an iceberg. There are another 1,700 buildings with other types of dangerous cladding. At the current rate it would take 39 years to remove it all.

Insurance premiums have rocketed by as much as 1,300 per cent in buildings such as Brindley House in Birmingham. Waking watch schemes are costing leaseholders hundreds of pounds per month with no support offered by the government. Too many tenants feel stigmatised and shut out of the decision-making process with social landlords.

Yet despite all this, the government has still not passed a single piece of primary legislation on building safety. Three years after the fire, this is a failure. The government can, and must, do better.

The human impact of this failure is tragic and growing. A survey of residents, published this week by the UK Cladding Action Group, found that one in five leaseholders trapped by dangerous cladding have thought of suicide or self-harm.

We stand with Grenfell United in calling for real, concrete action to fix this crisis and to get justice. After Grenfell we said, “never again”. But “never again” needs to mean something. Never again should a community like Grenfell be so let down. Never again should so many be left living in fear in their own homes.

Mike Amesbury is the shadow minister for housing and planning

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/13/grenfell-tower-fire-anniversary-covid-19-response

Grenfell relative draws comparisons between fire and Covid-19 response
Families of 72 victims of tower block blaze will mark third anniversary of blaze this weekend

A bereaved relative has drawn parallels between the coronavirus crisis and the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire before the third anniversary of the disaster.

Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle Hesham Rahman died in the blaze, said the pandemic had been tough for many of the bereaved and survivors of the fire, which killed 72 people.

Speaking before the third anniversary of the fire on Sunday, Mussilhy, the vice chairman of the Grenfell United group, said: “Especially in the beginning, there were a lot of similarities to what was happening just after the fire.

Karim Mussilhy.
Karim Mussilhy.
“Being able to know what’s going on with your loved ones when they were taken into hospital, waiting by the TV listening to the number of deaths rising every day, being glued to the TV for any sort of news and not being able to know where to go or who to turn to.”

Mussilhy also drew parallels between the government’s response to Covid-19 and the aftermath of Grenfell.

“The government has been criticised for not reacting quickly enough, making sure the NHS has the right equipment and is supported in the right way to be able to tackle the pandemic. They just didn’t react quickly enough

It’s also three years on, people always say that time changes, time is the best thing for healing, but in this case it feels like it just gets worse and so many things are happening that have so many similarities to what happened to us, and what continues to happen to us.”

In tribute to each victim who died in the west London tower block, bells of London churches will toll 72 times and green lights will glow from tower block windows as remembrance and commemoration moves online because of the pandemic.

Green lights to shine for Grenfell victims on anniversary of disaster
Read more
Faith leaders will conduct sermons and reflections online throughout Sunday and from 10.30pm people in homes across the UK are asked to display a bright green light from their screens to show solidarity with survivors and the bereaved, the Grenfell United group said.

Mussilhy said the lack of face-to-face contact with other victims and those who are bereaved would make this year’s anniversary more difficult.

He said: “I guess going through extremely tough times, the one thing that’s helped me the most is being able to be around people and be around friends and family. Not being able to do that, it’s just been extremely tough.”

A statement from Grenfell United said: “It is a day of remembrance and mourning. This year will be different to the last two years. We are living through another tragedy – Covid 19 – and it has affected our community

“Please join from home to remember 72 lives lost and reflect on our ongoing journey to justice and change. Even apart we remain together until justice comes.”

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “The safety of residents is our priority and we took immediate steps after the tragic Grenfell Tower fire to ensure nothing like it could ever happen again.

“This included setting up the Building Safety Programme and testing process to quickly identify all high-rise buildings with ACM cladding. Since then we have worked tirelessly with councils to ensure buildings at risk are made safe, backed by £1.6bn in funding
We will ensure everyone affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy continues to receive the support they need with over £158m committed to supporting the community so far.

The public inquiry into the disaster was paused in March because of the pandemic and is due to restart on 6 July

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grenfell-fire-third-anniversary-survivor_uk_5ee2269ac5b6b5f57fb5675c?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001

twitter.com/PeteApps/status/1285909983448780800?s=20

d
See new Tweets
Conversation
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
·
55m
Morning summary from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. We've had two key issues this morning:

• The presence of Class F combustible insulation around windows
• Resident engagement and complaints to Rydon

Peter Apps ****@PeteApps**** · 55m On the insulation first (briefly) we saw that despite non-combustible Rockwool being specified, highly combustible Celotex and Kingspan products were used to pack the void around windows, in breach of building regs Peter Apps ****@PeteApps**** · 55m Windows are important, in the context of the fire getting out of the flat where it started and back into the building later on. Moore-Bick said the “configuration and materials of the windows” (fitted in the refurbishment) gave a “disproportionately high” chance of this happening Peter Apps ****@PeteApps**** · 55m Basically, we heard there were informal onsite discussions about how to fill the void, and rigid insulation was picked, with not much by way of a checking process. This is very important for Rydon, because there was no design sub-contractor so no buck to pass Peter Apps ****@PeteApps**** · 55m We also heard serious concern about the windows in the show flat which Mr Lawrence described in an email as a "disaster". Peter Apps ****@PeteApps**** · 55m On resident engagement, Mr Lawrence said he had been "made aware there were several vocal residents one of which could be extremely vocal" by the TMO.

Pressed, he confirmed this meant Eddie Daffarn.
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
·
55m
In particular, complaints about the positioning of Heating Interface Units were raised. We saw a document from Mr Lawrence where he explained the pros and cons of putting them in hallways or kitchen cupboards.
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
·
55m
He said he had not mentioned issues of asbestos because "I assume you don't need to be questioned on this by Mr Daffarn". There was another email which referred to "criticism from the rebel residents about our quality of work"
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
Mr Lawrence said: "I felt there were several very vocal, dare I say it aggressive, residents that in my opinion regardless of what work was being carried out would still have found a reason to complain
1:10 PM · Jul 22, 2020·Twitter Web App
6
Retweets and comments
5
Likes
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
·
55m
Replying to
@PeteApps
Feel it's necessary to give a personal opinion at this point - I found his comments to show an astonishing lack of remorse or insight or compassion for the people he is talking about, some of whom died in the fire

He continues to give evidence after lunch.
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
·
38m
To build on this a little, one of the specific complaints which was discussed from Mr Daffarn was the lack of a self-closer on the fire door on Flat 136. We saw evidence from the Met Police which showed the door still lacked a self-closer on the night of the fire
Peter Apps
@PeteApps
·
38m
Another complained specifically that "residents will be given no choice or opportunity to comment on the... cladding that we are to receive".

Given what we now know, perhaps Mr Lawrence should be asking himself why he didn't listen more to these 'rebels'

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/22/grenfell-refurbishment-firm-called-residents-who-complained-rebels?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Grenfell refurbishment firm called residents who complained 'rebels'
Inquiry into disaster hears evidence of toxic atmosphere between contractors and inhabitants of council block

The builder in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment branded residents who questioned the quality of works as “rebels” and complained that they were “persistent and aggressive”, the inquiry into the disaster has heard.

In evidence exposing a toxic atmosphere between contractors and inhabitants of the west London council block, the inquiry also heard there were allegations of harassment and threats by employees of Rydon and of the tenant management organisation (TMO), and “builders’ swearing, use of abusive and sexually explicit conversations”.

The Rydon manager in charge of the project, Simon Lawrence, also admitted in an internal email that the site was “poorly performing” and they were using “cheap incompetent sub-contractors”. Another email showed Neil Reed, the head of project delivery at the landlord’s agent, complain: “I have never worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance.”

The inquiry into the fire has largely focused on the technical aspects of the construction of the recladding works and the response to the fire itself, but Wednesday’s evidence reached into the broader issue of attitudes towards the council tenants and leaseholders who lived in the block.

Lawrence told the inquiry there were “several very vocal, dare I say aggressive residents.” Among them he named Eddie Daffarn, a 16th-floor resident and co-author of the Grenfell Action blog, who predicted that a fire could devastate the block eight months before the 14 June 2017 blaze that killed 72 people.

The Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (TMO) was so aware of the need to handle opposition from the residents that it even tested prospective contractors on how they might respond to formal complaints from Grenfell Action Group, run at the time by Daffarn and Francis O’Conner.

The inquiry heard that in 2014 Daffarn complained to the TMO, the building’s landlord, of threatened “thuggery”, saying he had heard from neighbours that “the TMO intend to ‘smash down the door’ of any tenant or leaseholder that fails to cooperate with the installation of new heating systems or windows”.

On one occasion during works in 2015, Lawrence emailed a contractor working on fitting window surrounds with combustible material that would later go on to be proved to have helped spread the fire, saying: “We are under massive pressure from the rebel residents about our quality of work … so far their complaints are unfounded, but I need to ensure our finish is good quality, especially on the show areas.”

He told the inquiry on Wednesday: “There were several very vocal, dare I say aggressive residents that in my opinion, regardless of what work was being carried out or not, would have had reason to complain. I met several residents that I put in that category.”

Asked about allegations of “harassment and threats” by Rydon staff, Lawrence said: “I don’t recall it all.”

The inquiry was shown an email from David Collins, the former chair of the tower’s residents’ association, complaining to the TMO about how Lawrence had handled a mess left behind by builders.

“He suggested it was one of my friends’ fault that my flat was a mess, and that the workmen said they didn’t leave things that way,” Collins wrote. “When I (incredulous) said something along the lines of ‘of course it was left here’, Simon replied to say: ‘Why should I believe anything you say anyway?’ … During the conversation he implied that I could just be making this up for my own agenda because I have an axe to grind.”

Earlier it emerged that Lawrence gave a contract for completing the surrounds for the new windows to a company run by his former manager at Rydon, Mark Dixon, who he said “we knew and trusted well”.

The specification was to pack the gaps around the windows with non-combustible Rockwool insulation fibre, but Dixon’s company, SD Plastering, instead used combustible foam boards.

Lawrence told the inquiry that he didn’t read a bill of works that showed Dixon planned to use Celotex panels, at odds with the safer specification. This was in breach of building regulations, and the inquiry has already concluded that the foam insulation in the window surrounds “contributed to the rate and extent of vertical flame spread”.

“We should have checked it,” Lawrence said. “But I would have expected those managing the works on site to have a closer grip on the … specification than someone like myself, but I do agree we should have checked it.”

When he inspected the works in 2015, there were missing finishes and gaps and he thought it was “a disaster”, emails at the time showed.

“I don’t think we were cognisant that there were regulations relating to the window linings internally,” he said. “We thought it was an aesthetic finish product.”

The inquiry continues.

Had the fire brigade out here tonight. Neighbour had a leak through his kitchen light where they are doing the roofs. He phoned HA four times. I gave him the most recent no. for the contractor we have which was from late Feb (when they were originally going to do it) HA havent been out Neither has the contractor Vinci.
Im sick and tired of social tenants being treated like this.

I'm so sorry for your neighbour, Helena. The shoddy service landlords are allowed to get away with shameful.