Very true, but the jist of the story / situation is that insurers are judging just about any facade on the relative combustibilty of any/all of its component parts irrespective of the construction. As such its going to be nigh on impossible to prove to an insurers satisfaction that any cladding/ewi system containing a combustible component is “safe”. Even where a system could be demonstrated via tests as having good design and performance, given the abysmal standard of workmanship at grenfell , how would you demonstrate that an existing installation is fit for purpose.
A structural engineer i use says that getting insurance to do work on high rise blocks is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive , many companies are deciding to avoid such work , leaving the few that do being both increasingly expensive and cautious in the work they do.
Freeholders will be well aware that just about every building is going to have question marks over it if inspected, values will be much reduced and huge bills on the horizon. Left unchecked where does it all stop, the current focus is on residential property , will it spread to commercial and state owned buildings?

All for the desire to blame the Grenfell tragedy on a single failing and avoid exposing the full failings at grenfell ( many of which should have been learnt after Lakanal)

The knock on effects to other housing stock covered by fire safety legislation is going to be collossal catching up with whats not been done for years.

https://shepwayvox.org/2020/08/31/part-3-leaked-spreadsheet-shows-many-outstanding-fire-works-cannot-have-been-completed-in-two-months/

I can take you to a low rise block where 1950’s flat entrance doors consisting of 2 layers of hardboard a bit of wavy paper and minimal timber have been passed of as 30 minute fire doors , conveniently ignoring that there are no closers or smoke seals either.

Council says that under the 2005 fire safety order act , they don’t need to do the work until “major works “ on the block are undertaken, that works are prioritised across the estate on risk weighted basis. They als accept that such a situation would be unacceptable in the private sector but that the council can’t prosecute itself.

The only thing that’ll sort the sector as awhole out is massive grants from central government, which will just expose the social sector for the expensive basket case it is.

My opinion is that the social sector has been given an easy ride in terms of fire safety and enforcement, would any other building of grenfells design have been allowed to omit a wet riser for its entire history. That in most cases enforcement of building regs is done by local authorities and that they can’t prosecute themselves means that the sector is well able to cut corners.
My local authority has still not met the requirements of the 2005 act in respect of fire safety and openly states that it will deal with buildings in order of fire risk. Surely it was never expected that it would take over 15 years to meet legislation.
They have low rise properties where the fromt doors to flats are the original 1950’s doors that consist of hardboard cardboard “eggboard” and skinny softwood edgings, but these are passed off as 30 minute fire doors needing upgrading with closers and intumescent /smoke seals. This was achieved using an assumed build date of the 1970’s by the surveyor.
Dr. Lane’s report has endless examples of poor workmanship / materials and compliance. It’ll be rife across the social sector, the cladding scandal and endless examples,of private sector blocks having issues is purely to distract attention from the real problem

Apologies i’ve obviously got building regs mixed up with fire regs. In which case Grenfell should never have had occupancy or completion certs issued, yet the building has been occupied for decades, the fire service will have been well aware that the wet riser was not installed and you would have hoped this was flagged up at every inspection over the decades.

The social sector gets a free pass in many areas, again my local council is quick to condemn private landlords that don’t comply with regulation and prosecute when they can. Yet earlier this year they had considerable numbers of gas certs that were out of date, queries over electrical installations and many cases where legionella risk assessments had not been actioned, in my block issues identified have not been sorted in over 4 years. Yet none of these will be prosecuted, instead the council make statements along the lines of “we’re very sorry and lessons have been learnt”.

Again apologies, rereading my posts certainly shows i was not particularly clear, sarcasm wasn’t my intention. I’ve no doubt that there are issues within many parts of the construction industry regarding quality and adherence to regs.
But in the case of Grenfell this emdless preoccupation with components of the cladding system being flammable is (to my mind) being used to obscure the buildings and its managements greater failings and that it was these rather than the cladding that resulted in the death toll. Hopefully there will be as much effort at the enquiry to explore these other failings in as much detail as the cladding, ( i have my doubts).

I do feel that the social sector has sailed closer to the wind than the private sector. The governments response in terms of its guidance notes is going to cause untold misery to those that own flats in high rise blocks and by the time the insurance industry has interpreted the guidance as conservatively as possible the knock on effects will cause ever more issues. (As i’ve mentioned before my local council is loking to remove an xps and render system from its 6 high rise blocks and “reprovide insulation” seemingly on the grounds that the xps represents a fire risk.
The figure estimated is 12 million, which would provide many new homes if the existing system was demonstated as not being a risk to safe evacuation in the event of a fire)

But as the response in so many areas to the risk of covid has shown , there seems to be an expectation of zero risk in life , especially by those who don’t have to achieve and cover the costs of doing so.

As you say, an outcome where it was decided that enforcement of current legislation would be far more beneficial than ever more rules would most likely be the best outcome for the short to medium term. Allowing for a more considered approach to change in the future.

Be interesting to see how things progress.

djh,

in the case of Grenfell though it is the case and that was my point. The reason for options 1 & 2 are for cases where the work has been carried out without the knowledge of the authorities.

Court action is needed if the the owner refuses to apply for a building warrant in order to force the owner to either reverse the work done or to apply for a warrant. You cannot enforce a warrant if it has not been applied for as there is no warrant to enforce.

If the warrant has been applied for but the work has not met it then the completion certificate is withheld and the only reason to take that to court is if the owner believes they have met the requirements and take it before the court to get a ruling.

Posted By: JontiThe reason for options 1 & 2 are for cases where the work has been carried out without the knowledge of the authorities.

No. If you read the link I provided, you will see that those are the options available if the work was under the supervision of the LABC, and were not done to its satisfaction.

Posted By: djh

Posted By: Jontibuilding warrant

That's a Scottish concept not relevant for Grenfell.

My mistake. I hadn't realised that England had no equivalent to the Scottish building warrant nor that if the work managed to go unnoticed/challenged for two years then it was not possible to force the owner to correct the work regardless of how safe or not it was. Very frightening.

There can't be many of us reading this forum who are unaware of Kingspan. The revelations of the fire safety testing of Kingspan insulation revealed to the Grenfell Inquiry is jaw dropping.
However, it may come as a shock that anyone with investment in sustainable funds, whether through ISAs or SIPs, probably invests in Kingspan.

All the focus on the cladding , but nothing about a building that never complied with fire regs from day it was built. No wet riser being the main failing. How could the fire service do its job in a building that didn’t have the facilities to let them do it. Yet over the buildings history the fire brigade/ service would have had ample opportunity to flag the matter.
The fire service got the commander on the night to fall on her sword ,to my mind help cover their complicity in what occurred. By all means deal with the cladding but only if every other factor leading to the tragedy receives the same attention.

The latest admissions from LABC seem utterly damning. Anybody defending such supposedly 'public' building control may want to rethink their position. Building control needs to be properly accountable, whether it's publically or privately run.

It seems to me that as the landlord and the body who should have imposed building regs. the local council carries the can. It should be blindingly obvious that the building industry is not willing to ensure regulations are met so why even let them try. Current building regs. from a safety point of view are more than adequate.

Better fire alarms are of no use when residents are told to stay put.

Of course the solution reached will be more red tape and legislation that will be totally useless because it will not be enforced.

Posted By: tonyaII see that Mercedez has severed ties with Kingspan: announced just before the race on Sunday. Bit late in the day?

My understanding is that Kingspan was unaware of the use of it's product in the building and had nothing directly to do with it. If that is the case then it is a case of cancel culture and maybe we should be boycotting anything to do with the owners of the building in the form of the local council which I guess we could extrapolate that out to the UK general public as a whole

djh,

My understanding is that it was Arconic who sold the cladding system to Grenfell. My understanding is also that it is them that knew the cladding was not safe for the purpose it was bought for.

I had somehow missed how Kingspan 'famously' fudged their fire test results However, I stand by the rest as even if they had not fudged the test Arconic would still have sold the same product to Grenfell.

I agree completely about the electoral system but it is what we have. It would be far better if the true power lay in local, town council politics rather than the centralised systems we have at the moment. I am not so bothered by the 'first past the post though'.

Posted By: djh

I had somehow missed how Kingspan 'famously' fudged their fire test resultshttp:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/shocked.gif" alt="" title="" >However, I stand by the rest as even if they had not fudged the test Arconic would still have sold the same product to Grenfell.

Not quite sure how fudging fire tests somehow makes them blameless?

I never said they were blameless just that they were not responsible for it being incorrectly installed. Arconic knew it was not suitable yet still sold it to be installed.

I would also say less delegate and more give up more power to a local level. IMO it would be much better if the town council was the most powerful decision making body and the national was dependant on it.

Fostertom,

I am thinking of something slightly different to what you appear to be. We don't have local politics here in the UK. If you local elections are on a town borough, village level where the electorate is up to maybe 10'000 people who elect the local committee then you get local people who are interested in local issues being elected. If local politics are also the strongest force on the political scene then voters can directly influence what issues are debated.

The problem throughout the UK is that politicians are rarely from the area they represent, generally don't have much idea about the area they represent and have very little contact with the people who vote for them. UK politics is its own little soap opera with little to do with the the country they supposedly represent.

The problem with proportional representation is you can only vote for a party which locks in that which you claim FPTP does, where as it is better at a local level to be able to vote for someone you know and trust.