The Grenfell Tower Fire

[DQuaN]

My sister works for KCTMO, she heads one of the customer service teams that deals with resident complaints. She and her team are totally devastated, she's had a really rough day (nowhere near as rough as the residents of course). People have been calling up calling them murderers. She's never liked working there or agreed with their practices. She's doing everything she can at the moment to help the people.

 

[Robin]

My sister works for KCTMO, she heads one of the customer service teams that deals with resident complaints. She and her team are totally devastated, she's had a really rough day (nowhere near as rough as the residents of course). People have been calling up calling them murderers. She's never liked working there or agreed with their practices. She's doing everything she can at the moment to help the people.

I can imagine how tough it is to be in customer support when something bad has happened and you get relentless irrational attacks. People are understandably angry and they need someone to direct the venting at.

 

[McLaren]

Just passed the tower on the way into work. It's still smoudering pretty heavily. Fatalities have unfortunately been confirmed but not how many yet.

A lady on the ninth or tenth floor has reportedly thrown a baby out of a window to escape the flames where it was caught by people on the ground.

This upsets me about some of the media here. 1 article claimed people were throwing their children out the windows and shared a picture of what one would first assume is a person on fire, but was just debris.

Glad it was nowhere near as shocking and the child who was involved was saved.

 

[Robin]

I cannot believe the building is STILL on fire, being fanned by the wind.

 

[Mr P]

Someone on twitter suggesting the death toll in the Grenfell tower blaze will rise above 100 due to info from a fireman in the family..

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=#GrenfellTower&src=tyah

Fires during the night are everyone's worst fears.. being in a tower block with your family and waking up to it is just the worst nightmare imaginable

R.I.P to the poor souls who perished

 

[Highlandor]

BBC news reported that the Firemen could only get up to the 19th floor, I think there were a few more floors above that (24 in total?), I have a terrible feeling death toll could get alot higher..

There was an interesting interview on 6 o'clock news re the renovation and external cladding regulations. There seemed to be alot of ambiguity in the regulations (compared to other Health and Satefy regulations ie sofa / toy foam which cannot burn past so many seconds?).

I can't remember the phrase the interviewee used, but it didn't seem specific.

Although there seemed to be criticism from the Fire Brigade re the safety of the building in the event of a fire, if the regulations aren't up to it there's not alot the Fire Brigade can do to enforce their recommendations.

I bet it's the same ol' bull where a scapegoat or 2 are offered as sacrifice to the baying mob and the real culprits walk away...

 

[Touring Mars]

A truly terrible incident indeed - and by all accounts an accident waiting to happen.

Given that some people struggled to escape from the 7th floor, it would be a miracle indeed if the death toll is not extensive.

 

[Highlandor]

So the tower block was in Kensington and Chelsea Council district, but owned by KTCMO (Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation), but the renovation was done by RYDON Construction, but the cladding was done by Harley Facades Limited.

BBC news report:

Rydon said its work "met all required building control, fire regulation, and health and safety standards". It later issued a new statement, removing the previous mention of the building meeting fire regulation standards, instead saying the project met "all required building regulations".

From the Harley Facades website:

As a design and build contractor, Harley provides a complete and comprehensive package for building envelopes. This offers clients all the benefits of single point responsibility.

From BBC news website:

Ray Bailey, managing director at Harley Facades Limited, which installed the cladding, has said: "At this time, we are not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding to the tower."

The FPA (Fire Protection Association):

http://www.thefpa.co.uk/about/news/...ent-from-the-fire-protection-association.html

Of interest:

“In 2014/2015, following broader insurance industry concerns around the potential for external fire spread in buildings incorporating External Thermal Insulated Cladding Systems (ETICS), we conducted a project at the FPA’s Fire Test Laboratory, funded by a group of UK insurers.

"Many insulating materials may be used in ETIC systems and their fire performance characteristics can range from being non-combustible, to very flammable – it is a matter of choice, and clearly some choices are better than others.”

 

[Robin]

Of course there is likely to be no link between the cladding and the initial fire starting but it did transmit it across the building in minutes! Can't believe the facade company would try and weasel their way out of that one!

They really need to find the manufacturer of these panels. No point grilling the council or the contractors because the first thing that needs to be established is what the cladding was made out of and if it did indeed meet safety standards.

Although cladding can make an old building look nice they were never designed for it and it probably would have been better to tile or paint the concrete.

 

[TheCracker]

The company that manufactures the cladding used, produces two types. One is a double skin of aluminium sandwiching a plastic core, and the other is aluminium sandwiching a mineral based core. When the building was clad in 2015 the plastic core was used when it should have been the mineral one, which i guess is the one that's more fire resident. Whoever it was out of all the companies that were involved, is surely who the blame will fall on.

 

[Milouse]

Although cladding can make an old building look nice they were never designed for it and it probably would have been better to tile or paint the concrete.

Indeed. Cosmetic cladding on balconies already led to this fast spreading fire in 2012 in a Roubaix (France) tower:

Roubaix cladding were made with plasic wrapped in aluminium, something that sound similar to what i heard about London's tower.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Roubaix cladding were made with plasic wrapped in aluminium, something that sound similar to what i heard about London's tower.

Several press outlets here are linking the cladding on Grenfell tower to the cladding on the Roubaix tower (and other tower fires across Europe). There's a lot of speculation at the moment and we don't know until we know, but certainly questions need to be answered.

An anonymous firefighter has, reportedly, told one of the papers that he's seen parts of the lowest floors and there were no fire doors despite them being marked on his plan*. It remains to be seen a) if that's true b) if that's the case elsewhere in the building. If it is true then that's a terrible, negligent error by somebody. The whole point of the "stay put" advice is that these buildings are designed to strictly compartmentalise fires. The speed with which the fire travelled through/across this building suggests that something from the original design has been critically altered.

*All critical buildings lodge plans with the Fire & Rescue services for access in major incidents. These are supposed to be up-to-date.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The company that manufactures the cladding used, produces two types. One is a double skin of aluminium sandwiching a plastic core, and the other is aluminium sandwiching a mineral based core. When the building was clad in 2015 the plastic core was used when it should have been the mineral one, which i guess is the one that's more fire resident. Whoever it was out of all the companies that were involved, is surely who the blame will fall on.

The blame should rest in large part on the people who make the by-laws and regulations regarding this type of renovation if indeed this type of cladding is approved for this type of use. The manufacturer shouldn't be blamed for supplying material that has passed the required testing, if indeed it has. If the regulations were adhered to, the blame should really lie solely with those that drew up the regulations.

 

[Liquid]

An anonymous firefighter has, reportedly, told one of the papers that he's seen parts of the lowest floors and there were no fire doors despite them being marked on his plan*. It remains to be seen a) if that's true b) if that's the case elsewhere in the building. If it is true then that's a terrible, negligent error by somebody. The whole point of the "stay put" advice is that these buildings are designed to strictly compartmentalise fires. The speed with which the fire travelled through/across this building suggests that something from the original design has been critically altered.

c) The building was flawed from the start?

The blame should rest in large part on the people who make the by-laws and regulations regarding this type of renovation if indeed this type of cladding is approved for this type of use. The manufacturer shouldn't be blamed for supplying material that has passed the required testing, if indeed it has. If the regulations were adhered to, the blame should really lie solely with those that drew up the regulations.

What is acceptable by regulations is not necessarily required to be used by the construction companies.

If this is the case, blame should lie partly on the regulations permitting unsafe materials and partly on the companies for using unsafe materials; I'm sure safer materials could have been used but were not chosen.

The big worry for me is that residents' concerns about fires or the potential for a big fire such as this not being acted upon for several years.

 

[TheCracker]

The blame should rest in large part on the people who make the by-laws and regulations regarding this type of renovation if indeed this type of cladding is approved for this type of use. The manufacturer shouldn't be blamed for supplying material that has passed the required testing, if indeed it has. If the regulations were adhered to, the blame should really lie solely with those that drew up the regulations.

Sorry, i re-wrote this when i realised i had repeated myself, what my last sentence was meant to say is: "Whoever it was who specified the use of that particular material out of all the companies/corporations involved, are the ones who should be at blame"

It's a pretty dire situation though. In my own city, almost all the tower blocks have been re-clad in this manner in the past decade or so. How many similar residential towers, the world over, could potentially suffer the same fate?

 

[Johnnypenso]

c) The building was flawed from the start?

What is acceptable by regulations is not necessarily required to be used by the construction companies.

If this is the case, blame should lie partly on the regulations permitting unsafe materials and partly on the companies for using unsafe materials; I'm sure safer materials could have been used but were not chosen.

The big worry for me is that residents' concerns about fires or the potential for a big fire such as this not being acted upon for several years.

I completely disagree. There is a bidding process. Specs are handed out by the buyer. I submit a bid that conforms to specs, I win, I build. I've done nothing wrong if I conformed to my bid. I don't make the regulations, that's not my job. I fail to see why I should bear any responsibility whatsoever in that case, again, assuming I conformed to the specs I was giving during the construction process. The responsibility lies solely with the regulators assuming all other rules, regulations, by-laws and procedures were followed properly.

I renew my contract every couple of years with my local municipality and I'm routinely asked to do things over the next couple of years that aren't in the contract and I simply refuse. Even simple things that might take a few seconds, like turning a screw, that I have done on a regular basis for my other customers I won't do because I know, if the poop hits the fan and something goes wrong, the first question asked is going to be, "who did this and were they authorized to do this?". I made that mistake once and only once, never again. The word of a disposable, replaceable contractor vs. the word of a career gov't employee. We all know how that is going to turn out, my head will roll there's no doubt about that. I make a virtual and/or a paper trail, inform the right people of the work to be done IMO, and cover my ass. All the contractors know each other and we all do the same thing. Assuming they did the same thing in this case, they should have zero responsibility for the outcome.

 

[Highlandor]

To put things into perspective, have a look at the regulations (fire hazards) for sofa's etc, very easy to find on simple google search:

http://www.firesafe.org.uk/furniture-and-furnishings-fire-safety-regulations-19881989-and-1993/

Now try searching for something similiar that is specific for building cladding. Lots of general advice re fire hazards, but anything secific to cladding fire hazard(s)....... (????)..

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/18/external_walls

"If you live in a Conservation Area, a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the Broads, you will need to apply for planning permission before cladding the outside of your house with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles.

Outside these areas, cladding may be carried out without having to first apply for planning permission provided the materials are of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the house."

Maybe someone else can find something specific..??

 

[TenEightyOne]

To put things into perspective, have a look at the regulations (fire hazards) for sofa's etc, very easy to find on simple google search:

http://www.firesafe.org.uk/furniture-and-furnishings-fire-safety-regulations-19881989-and-1993/

Now try searching for something similiar that is specific for building cladding. Lots of general advice re fire hazards, but anything secific to cladding fire hazard(s)....... (????)..

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/18/external_walls

"If you live in a Conservation Area, a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the Broads, you will need to apply for planning permission before cladding the outside of your house with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles.

Outside these areas, cladding may be carried out without having to first apply for planning permission provided the materials are of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the house."

Maybe someone else can find something specific..??

You'd need to look at the Fire Safety Regs. Chapter B4 (Sections 8 and 9) cover the most pertinent parts.

B4. (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.

Sadly this criterion might be judged in hindsight for this particular material.

 

[Dotini]

From the The Sun, which seems to think 100 people died.

THE deadly fire at Grenfell Tower was a tragedy waiting to happen — but who is to blame? Labour MP David Lammy has called for arrests to be made over the “corporate manslaughter”. As investigations begin into how the blaze spread so quickly we reveal the failings that may be held responsible for the disaster.

The council: An ex-employee has accused Kensington and Chelsea council of penny-pinching after being quoted £30million to renovate the block. The property manager said: “Surveyors told the council not to use the cheapest materials but they still accepted the lowest bid.” A “costly” external fire escape was also axed. But council leader Nick Paget-Brown hailed the work to “improve the quality of life”.

The landlords: Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, responsible for maintenance, got £11million in taxpayer cash last year. But in November a tenant group warned “only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude of our landlord”. The non-profit group’s chief exec Robert Black said yesterday: “We are absolutely devastated.”

The contractors: The building’s external cladding was made up of units called Reynobond rainscreen cassettes. Harley Curtain Wall was paid £2.6million to supply the panels, a “commonly used product”. The firm, of Crowborough, East Sussex, went bust shortly afterwards and was bought out by Harley Facades, also owned by boss Ray Bailey, 58. He said: “We are not aware of any link between the fire and exterior cladding.”

The politicians: The PM’s new chief of staff failed to carry out a review of fire regulations despite warnings. A probe promised by Housing Minister Gavin Barwell was delayed last year. And in 2013, then-Communities Secretary Eric Pickles rejected a coroner’s call for sprinkler systems in refurbed high-rises after a 2009 fire in Camberwell, South London, killed six.

The gas company: Residents raised concerns about exposed gas pipes at Grenfell Tower only weeks ago. Renovations to replace new gas risers, which bring in supplies from street level, were carried out earlier this year by National Grid Gas Distribution, now rebranded as Cadent.Cadent said stairwell pipes were boxed in with material fireproof for two hours, but work was still being done to contain floor pipes.

The fridge manufacturer: London Fire Brigade has accused fridge makers of dragging their heels over safety. Since 2010 faulty fridges have resulted in the deaths of seven people in Britain. A spate of recent fires originated in the capacitor, a device that stores electrical energy. While most modern fridges are covered in metal, older models still use a highly flammabl

 

[Highlandor]

Building Regulations (quoted in FSR):
B4. (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.

Sadly this criterion might be judged in hindsight for this particular material.

Well spotted 👍

That gives some hope for possible accountability...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sadly this criterion might be judged in hindsight for this particular material.

Not necessarily - the cladding used in the building was similar to the cladding used in an apartment block that caught fire in the Melbourne Docklands a few years ago. While there are some differences between the materials used in both towers, the Docklands fire report noted that the cladding exacerbated the blaze. In theory, you could argue that the hazards posed by the cladding were recorded in the Docklands fire, and so that the people responsible for maintenance of the tower in London vould have reasonably known about it when they rennovated the tower. Whether or not that holds up under scrutiny would depend on the similarities between the materials used in both fires, and the availability of the Docklands fire report.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not necessarily - the cladding used in the building was similar to the cladding used in an apartment block that caught fire in the Melbourne Docklands a few years ago. While there are some differences between the materials used in both towers, the Docklands fire report noted that the cladding exacerbated the blaze. In theory, you could argue that the hazards posed by the cladding were recorded in the Docklands fire, and so that the people responsible for maintenance of the tower in London vould have reasonably known about it when they rennovated the tower.

True, and investigations into fires in other high-rises (Roubaix in France and some in UAE) also implicate cladding in their propagation. The devil will be in the detail of the BS (British Safety!) standards listed for various materials in those fire regs. Or possibly EU regs if some of the tabloids are to be believed - it was Europe what caused it.

 

[UKMikey]

Looks like the council weren't slow about taking action regarding the Grenfell bloggers' claims:

 

[Liquid]

I completely disagree. There is a bidding process. Specs are handed out by the buyer. I submit a bid that conforms to specs, I win, I build. I've done nothing wrong if I conformed to my bid. I don't make the regulations, that's not my job. I fail to see why I should bear any responsibility whatsoever in that case, again, assuming I conformed to the specs I was giving during the construction process. The responsibility lies solely with the regulators assuming all other rules, regulations, by-laws and procedures were followed properly.

I renew my contract every couple of years with my local municipality and I'm routinely asked to do things over the next couple of years that aren't in the contract and I simply refuse. Even simple things that might take a few seconds, like turning a screw, that I have done on a regular basis for my other customers I won't do because I know, if the poop hits the fan and something goes wrong, the first question asked is going to be, "who did this and were they authorized to do this?". I made that mistake once and only once, never again. The word of a disposable, replaceable contractor vs. the word of a career gov't employee. We all know how that is going to turn out, my head will roll there's no doubt about that. I make a virtual and/or a paper trail, inform the right people of the work to be done IMO, and cover my ass. All the contractors know each other and we all do the same thing. Assuming they did the same thing in this case, they should have zero responsibility for the outcome.

They might not have any legal responsibility if they have followed all rules and procedures which may (or may not) have allowed such a flammable material to be used, I agree with you on that, but as with any company in any industry in a free society the tenants, and to a lesser extent the public at large, are within their rights to criticise, lambast and pillory the company for not doing as sound a job as they could have.

Want to use flammable materials? Go ahead, the law isn't stopping you.
Should you? That's your decision. But the firm shouldn't cry innocence when people pick you up on your decisions.

 

[mustafur]

I completely disagree. There is a bidding process. Specs are handed out by the buyer. I submit a bid that conforms to specs, I win, I build. I've done nothing wrong if I conformed to my bid. I don't make the regulations, that's not my job. I fail to see why I should bear any responsibility whatsoever in that case, again, assuming I conformed to the specs I was giving during the construction process. The responsibility lies solely with the regulators assuming all other rules, regulations, by-laws and procedures were followed properly.

I renew my contract every couple of years with my local municipality and I'm routinely asked to do things over the next couple of years that aren't in the contract and I simply refuse. Even simple things that might take a few seconds, like turning a screw, that I have done on a regular basis for my other customers I won't do because I know, if the poop hits the fan and something goes wrong, the first question asked is going to be, "who did this and were they authorized to do this?". I made that mistake once and only once, never again. The word of a disposable, replaceable contractor vs. the word of a career gov't employee. We all know how that is going to turn out, my head will roll there's no doubt about that. I make a virtual and/or a paper trail, inform the right people of the work to be done IMO, and cover my ass. All the contractors know each other and we all do the same thing. Assuming they did the same thing in this case, they should have zero responsibility for the outcome.

Business have a Legal responsibility and a social one, afterall they don't exist without the customer.

It might not be Illegal to treat a customer bad but don't go crying when they turn on you for doing so.

 

[Dennisch]

I just heard on the radio that there are still 65 people missing?

 

[Liquid]

I just heard on the radio that there are still 65 people missing?

The top floors of the building are either inaccessible or still being searched. 17 people are confirmed to have died with sixty people or so still missing.

I read today that most of the victims may never be identified. Just... awful.

 

[Dennisch]

I read today that most of the victims may never be identified. Just... awful.

If people did stay in their apartments, they'll at least have some sort of a clue who's who.

But man, a possibility for up to 80 deaths. That's 3rd world country numbers for a fire.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Looks like the council weren't slow about taking action regarding the Grenfell bloggers' claims:

EDIT: The letter above is dated 2013 but everything I said about it (or similar subsequent demands) stands.

The police have launched a criminal investigation therefore any published claims against individuals have to be removed while the incident is sub judice.

I'm pretty sure that in return for the blog coming down there'll be a fat pack of information going to the police/parliament/press.

If people did stay in their apartments, they'll at least have some sort of a clue who's who.

True, I think the problem will be with bodies on landings and in stairwells. There are numerous people telling stories of "losing" people as they made their way from the building, the fire/smoke seem to have been well established in the stairwells quite quickly.

But man, a possibility for up to 80 deaths. That's 3rd world country numbers for a fire.

I liked your post, but that's the wrong sentiment. It's ****ing awful

 

[ExigeEvan]

The difficulty in this situation will be who made the decision to utilise the foam insulation if that is indeed the aggravating factor here.

The architect? The contractor? The programme manager? The building owners?

Most materials are UL rated. This ranges from highly flammable to self extinguishing to non-flammable. But when you're using composite structures you don't always test for the combination. You also don't test on a large, wind swept face that might cause flames to be driven up the structure.

So the foam itself might be certified quite highly (charred blocks were seen blowing away from the site), but used in combination with the aluminium cladding and wooden battons and you might have something very hazardous.

Looks like the council weren't slow about taking action regarding the Grenfell bloggers' claims:

That letter is dated 2013!?