Grenfell Tower Fire....

Started by Bez, June 14, 2017, 10:00:14 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DavidL

Quote from: Moving Target on June 21, 2017, 08:37:31 am

There are several people with a duty of care here.


First of all there is a single Responsible Person as per the fire risk assessment.


The landlord has the duty under RR(FS)2005 to make sure that the fire alarms ring, mag-lock fire doors swing shut, smoke venting operates and the emergency lights work.


The Designer under CDM2015 has the duty to design out any risks.


The Principal Contractor under CDM2015 has a duty not to use dangerous materials in building projects,
I fully understand all of this but you are conflating various issues when the debate was around the use of the cladding material.
My view is that if the cladding material was approved for use in this application and it was installed correctly, I see no reason why the owner/landlord could be held responsible if the material proves to have led to the rapid spread of the fire.

Slim

I'd argue that there's a duty of care to keep electrical equipment maintained properly as well. I don't know that it was a faulty fridge that started this appalling fire, but if it was - while a fire shouldn't spread from a single dwelling to an entire tower block in a matter of minutes, it shouldn't really spread from a fridge to a wall, window frame or whatever in the first place.

DavidL

June 23, 2017, 01:24:13 am #47 Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 08:49:45 am by DavidL
Quote from: Slim on June 23, 2017, 00:57:38 am
I'd argue that there's a duty of care to keep electrical equipment maintained properly as well. I don't know that it was a faulty fridge that started this appalling fire, but if it was - while a fire shouldn't spread from a single dwelling to an entire tower block in a matter of minutes, it shouldn't really spread from a fridge to a wall, window frame or whatever in the first place.
But very few domestic users of electrical appliances pay any attention to ensuring they are adequately maintained. I don't believe they have any legal obligations to do so either. Regular PAT testing, for instance, is not a requirement for appliances used in the home. I think a lot of the tumble dryer fires in recent years have been caused by blocked filters - don't know whether any user has been prosecuted. Of course, if the appliance has been supplied by a company on a lease basis it may be easier to attribute poor maintenance but, even then, issues may be down to user apathy when it comes to strictly adhering to instructions for use. Perhaps it might be a good idea to introduce regular inspection and testing of appliances in multi-occupancy buildings such as tower blocks.
Most appliance users place their faith in the manufacturers to produce a product that, when used correctly but not maintained conscientiously, will not become dangerous. In my view, manufacturers have a responsibility to ensure this is the case. As we know, in the case of tumble dryers, this is not always the case. Can of worms.

NeilP

most domestic appliances are safe if they're backed up via a rcd on the consumer unit, a legal requirement for rented accomodation these days I think?

Regarding the fire, I suspect we'll discover the fridge fire was dealt with quickly but other factors came into play, e.g. the alleged exposed (unducted) gas pipes that may well have carried the incident to other flats and it would seem that the cladding, once alight acted like an accelerant wrt fire spread, my initial thoughts with my fire safety hat on?

DavidL

June 23, 2017, 14:06:19 pm #49 Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 14:08:32 pm by DavidL
Quote from: NeilP on June 23, 2017, 13:07:01 pm
most domestic appliances are safe if they're backed up via a rcd on the consumer unit, a legal requirement for rented accomodation these days I think

An RCD only protects against a fault in an electrical circuit. Although such a fault may be caused by a non-electrical cause, an issue such as the ignition of combustible material from a heat source would not be prevented by an RCD if the supply to the appliance is not affected before the point of ignition. A tumble dryer fire caused by the ignition of lint in an poorly maintained filter, or an overheating bearing in a washing machine are two cases I can think of where electrical circuit protection may not prevent a fire.
Having said that, I would never consider living in a property without RCD protection on the consumer unit - for most appliance (electrical) faults they are extremely effective.

DavidL

Quote from: Slim on June 16, 2017, 13:48:18 pm

After absorbing the horror and tragedy of what happened here, something that struck me was the fact that the huge majority of occupants in this tower block were immigrants and their families. Please note that the following point has nothing to do with the fact of a fire starting in a building or its consequences; it's an observation that holds true whatever the circumstances.

People complain about the number of homeless people in London and a lack of available housing, and laid bare on our TV screens these last two days is part of the problem - 24 storeys of social housing, overwhelmed by immigration.
The evening news was reporting that the identification and number of those killed may never be known, partly because many occupants were not known to the local authority. It's probable that many who lived there were doing so illegally and quite possibly in overcrowded flats.

Slim

Quote from: Moving Target on June 21, 2017, 08:44:27 am

I nearly responded at length to Pie's video which I found irresponsible and wrong. I didn't because there's no reasoning with an angry mob, and everyone is suddenly a fire safety expert......


It turns out that the same cladding was fitted to tower blocks in Camden in 2006. Aluminium panels with a polyethylene core. Fitted by the same contractor as Grenfell. It's going to be removed "immediately". Can any of our contributors explain how the present government's austerity programme might have been responsible for this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40389148

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/22/grenfell-tower-camden-council-to-remove-cladding-from-five-tower-blocks

"Georgia Gould, the council leader, said the outer cladding panels on five blocks in the borough were made up of aluminium panels with a polyethylene core of the kind believed to have helped the fire at Grenfell Tower to spread across the building.
They were fitted in 2006 as part of a £150m PFI deal by the same contractors which refurbished Grenfell: Rydon, the main contractor, and Harley Facades, the subcontractor"

NeilP

Quote from: DavidL on June 23, 2017, 20:24:44 pm
The evening news was reporting that the identification and number of those killed may never be known, partly because many occupants were not known to the local authority. It's probable that many who lived there were doing so illegally and quite possibly in overcrowded flats.



fake news from the Express or Mail that sounds to me tbh, not impressed

DavidL

June 24, 2017, 08:55:41 am #53 Last Edit: June 24, 2017, 09:08:10 am by DavidL
Quote from: NeilP on June 24, 2017, 01:59:53 am

fake news from the Express or Mail that sounds to me tbh, not impressed
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/20/grenfell-tower-some-victims-may-never-be-identified-lawyer-says


Granted, the Mail or The Express may be a little more 'direct' in reporting the same information. Given that a Home Office whistleblower this week claimed that 150,000 illegal immigrants enter the UK each year, it would be naive to automatically  assume that all the Grenfell residents were known to the authorities. Of course, The Guardian would never make such a suggestion, instead choosing to report that the immigration status of some residents was 'unresolved'.

Bez

John McDonnell quoted as claiming that the residents were "murdered" by political decisions taken over decades....what a loathesome twat.
RC1.1 abd g/n 11/0/bcd/tG PeW/- ~600 x 0 61%

Bisto

Quote from: Bez on June 26, 2017, 08:27:55 am
John McDonnell quoted as claiming that the residents were "murdered" by political decisions taken over decades....what a loathesome twat.



WTF?!  :o >:(  What  a cockwomble!!
No good deed goes unpunished!

No amount of anxiety can change the future. No amount of regret can change the past.

NeilP

Extract  from Panorama (?) documentary from 1984 suggesting the cladding wasn't safe from a  fire safety perspective, sounds like a building regs cover up or similar for a long time over numerous governments tbh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upViHb8z4wY

Newsnight tonight suggested similar neglect of safety

Slim

To be f air I think even Provo McDonnell cited "successive governments" as being to blame for the Grenfell murders, as he saw them. Even so it's an ill-advised turn of rhetoric for someone who's been happy to applaud the use of the bomb and the bullet for actual and premeditated killing.

Moving Target

Quote from: Slim on June 24, 2017, 01:28:47 am
It turns out that the same cladding was fitted to tower blocks in Camden in 2006. Aluminium panels with a polyethylene core. Fitted by the same contractor as Grenfell. It's going to be removed "immediately". Can any of our contributors explain how the present government's austerity programme might have been responsible for this?




It isn't. It's a design feck-up.


BasspedalMan

The issue at present is the baying mob looking for a single person to blame. The Police being shouted at to 'arrest someone' as if that's going to assist anything now. Nothing can take away from the tragedy and it is my view (as a building manager by trade) that heads will indeed roll but without a proper enquiry which forensically inspects all earlier modifications and refits at the property the ultimate culprits risk escaping Scott free whilst 'easy' targets such as Councilors, Council Employees etc. are getting the brunt of the anger. Some of the language being used does nothing to endear the survivors to the general public in my view, which is a shame.....
Ok, I'll join in...

1981 x 1
1983 x 4
1988 x 2
1992 x 2
1996 x 2
1997 x 5
2002 x 3
2004 x 7
2007 x 7
2011 x 3
2013 x 3