Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed To Cheaper Version'

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

Look as if the Council is in deep do-do over this. which might explain the fiasco at last nights Council meeting.

[naomi24]

Cost cutting is understandable - none of us want our local Councils to extravagantly fritter away our money - but in this instance...

//There is no suggestion a deliberate decision was made to cut fire safety.// ….

… so until the result of the investigation is known, best not apportion blame.

[cassa333]

For me it will always go back to, what was the regulations at the time and did what they use meet it?

You can buy the same product from different retailers for various prices. Why pay top £ for the same thing you can get for a third? Or alternative but similar for less.

[mikey4444]

Cassa...the cladding used was the least fire retardant.

From the link ...."Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than a zinc alternative, saving nearly £300,000"

So, the Council will need to explain why the best fire retardant wasn't used, a question that should be part of the Enquiry.

[Old_Geezer]

The best would not have been used because of the size of the budget. But it does suggest that someone thought that the downgrade was an acceptable cut. It may be that the zinc would have done the same, but one has to suspect that the aluminium was a contributory factor in the fire rapidly spreading up the sides of the building. Amazing what comes out of these enquiries.

[naomi24]

//So, the Council will need to explain why the best fire retardant wasn't used, a question that should be part of the Enquiry. //

I see no suggestion that it won't be.

[mikey4444]

OG....Yes, you are right. This might be the tip of a huge scandal.

[Hopkirk]

This is getting more complicated. Last week it was the insulating material sandwiched in the aluminium, then questions were asked about the insulation behind the cladding, now it should have been zinc.

A lot of lawyers are going to get rich out of this.

[mikey4444]

Probably Hoppy, but lets hope that no one else dies in a housing fire again....I am sure that the lawyers will have earned their money.

[cassa333]

Less fire resistant isn't the same as not meeting the requirements. Did they meet the requirements of the time?

I suspect that it will turn out that the different component parts were within the safety requirements but stick them all together and the finished result does not.

Then of course the question would be should they have known or did they know that putting them all together would be less safe?

[fiction-factory]

Mikey- I cannot see how the Council can be in deep do-do if the cladding had the required safety certificate.
It's a shame that people are jumping to conclusions, drawing erroneous conclusions and trying to score political points before the facts have been properly established

[douglas9401]

Some might suggest that fire resistant or retardant is very loose use of English in the specifications.

[Peter Pedant]

some one said
//Cost cutting is understandable - none of us want our local Councils to extravagantly fritter away our money - but in this instance... //

this is is almost a text book negligence innit ?
they should have foreseen something ( less money is lower quality duh) and didnt. The only thing is whether the negligence is gross enough to merit a conviction for manslaughter

and that sort of thing ( criminal charges) are many months away

Did anyone see the chaotic scenes at West Ken Council ?
currently on teevee .

Private seclusion and the refuses ( the ones excluded ) got a high court writ saying a council cant do that and to let them in. Press went in as well so the 'cabinet' up stumps and left - making the council look completely helpless, all on camera

[Islay]

Mikey do you have your kitting packed and sandwiches made for the public execution yet?
Why not wait for the full investigation?

[Islay]

knitting is what I meant of course!!

[albaqwerty]

Council helpless? More like completely incompetent imho.

[Peter Pedant]

// Mikey- I cannot see how the Council can be in deep do-do if the cladding had the required safety certificate. //

god didja see the fella on Victoria live
" the claddingis fit for purpose because it has a bit of paper saying so" and Victoira thingey doesnt even say - excuse me?

easy case law - one law lord in the sicties said - "I dont care how many times you say this is custom and practice - if something is negligent I will find it so"

[Peter Pedant]

Mikey as Rosalie Crutchley as Madam DeFarge in a Tale of Two Cities

I amsure he would make a fist of the part ( = have a good go, for you southerners)

[fiction-factory]

The enquiry may or may not find negligence PP but it seems premature for people to be saying now there was negligence. Doesn't that require for something to be reasonably foreseeable. i fit was reasonably foreseeable then I think the council may well say so why wasn't it foreseeable to the experts

[anotheoldgit]

What I don't understand about this fire hazard cladding, what precautions are taken for those who live in timber houses?

I know there are not many in the UK, but there are a number of holiday chalets and cabins.

[ummmm]

They tend to be single dwellings though, AOG. Fire alarms fitted that can actually be heard and easy escape routes.