More High-Rise Jerry-Building Identified

[Canary42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-44366477

Why aren't these issues picked up by Building Regulations Inspections? If a private house owner contravenes these Regs by just one small item, they come down like a ton of bricks (pun unintended), but the large construction companies get away with murder (literally in the Grenfell case allegedly). I guess it's because they can afford massive back-handers.

[Buenchico]

Those buildings were put up over half a century ago (1965) when the building regulations probably only required that a building should remain intact under 'normal wear and tear'. The current concerns are not that it could collapse in normal use but only if there was, for example, a major gas explosion within the building. Given that there's no gas supply to it, that's not exactly a high-risk factor.

[Gromit]

The building is 53 years old, so if it was going to fall down, it would have done so by now.

I expect it is a con. Move the long term social housing tenants out, and then flog it to a for re-development to someone in the same lodge as the Mayor.

[Canary42]

Thank you B & G, point taken. I got taken by Press sensationalism :-(

[douglas9401]

I could foresee a cheap and effective remedy coming along as the last tenant shuffles off down the road, suddenly making the flats a viable proposition again.

[mushroom25]

//Given that there's no gas supply to it...//

errrrrmmmm....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/27/grenfell-tower-gas-pipes-left-exposed-despite-fire-safety-experts-orders

[douglas9401]

No gas supply to the blocks in the article, mushroom25, not Grenfell.

[mushroom25]

Ah ok, thanks Douglas.