Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[Tetchytyke]

The London Fire Brigade did say that there was some doubt about the integrity of the building.

There always is "doubt", which is why they sent drones in first. But firefighters have been right to the very top, which they wouldn't be if the drones had picked up significant structural damage.

If it was built properly (unlike, say, Ronan Point) then the concrete superstructure should still be sound. And it's going to be an interesting job demolishing the place later.

The bast***s! Attempting to destroy evidence that could be used in court or during the course of an inquiry hardly reflects well on them, does it?

Less covering-up, more trying to stop their name being associated with the incident as best they can.

It's no different to Townsend Thoresen or Singapore Airlines rushing to paint over the name on their equipment after their big accidents.

Edit: even electronic heat detectors don't get triggered by any normal cooking incident of that nature, that's the whole point of them, they are meant to detect proper fires. I have one in my kitchen and thus far I haven't triggered it, and no the battery isn't flat.

In theory. I set the fire alarm off a couple of times when I was in my flat in London cooking a stir fry. Some bozo installed the heat detector right above the oven (or, more accurately, installed the oven right below the heat detector...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

In theory. I set the fire alarm off a couple of times when I was in my flat in London cooking a stir fry. Some bozo installed the heat detector right above the oven (or, more accurately, installed the oven right below the heat detector...)

Whoops. Though isn't that kind of thing one reason why you technically need landlord's consent to replace a kitchen (or indeed any fixed item) in a leasehold flat? (though rarely is it enforced properly).

Of course the threshold to set off a heat detector that just beeps at you is much lower than a sprinkler that makes anything in the room or the room below an insurance write-off.

 

[AlterEgo]

It will be interesting to see how many of the victims were there without the knowledge of the overall landlord. HIMOs (Homes In Multiple Occupation) are a hidden danger.

The fire service say they simply don't know how many people they're looking for.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even without HMOs they wouldn't. You don't have to tell anyone if you have guests.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It will be interesting to see how many of the victims were there without the knowledge of the overall landlord.

Not all the flats were rented from the council, there were a fair few in private ownership.

 

[AlterEgo]

Even without HMOs they wouldn't. You don't have to tell anyone if you have guests.

True, but given the demographic makeup of many of the survivors and missing, I'd bet my bottom dollar a lot of them were in precarious housing conditions and possibly in HiMOs.

When this all comes out in the wash we will hang our collective heads for having a government that allows this to happen. What a horrendous tragedy, foreseen by the people who lived there no less.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting snippet from the BBC:

Construction firm Rydon, which carried out the refurbishment, initially said in a statement that the work met "all fire regulations" - the wording was omitted in a later statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40284233

 

[Groningen]

If i repeat somebody correct me, but here in the Netherlands it is said that the (main) fire spread on the outside of the building. The surface was covered with plastic covers. The building was renovated 1 a 2 years ago. And yes; voices here say that it can also happen here.

 

[jon0844]

In most cases the leaseholder just gets billed for their share of work.

If sprinklers become a requirement (and no grandfather rights) then they will indeed be required to pay, but that doesn't solve the issue of who pays for the others.

 

[vrbarreto]

Interesting reading.. Especially pages 22 and 23 talking about steel wool vs foam as insulation in cladding!

PDF file:

Cladding Technical Guide

Quite a damning statement on page 23 under general on the type of cladding used in Grenfell...

 

[DarloRich]

There is going to have to be a wide ranging public enquiry into this terrible tragedy with some widespread changes to governing principles in high rise buildings.

I can't link to the actual interview directly, but, if you go to the BBC live page on the fire, you'll find an interview with a chartered accountant who specialises in fire protection. He gave a lecture three years ago predicting a fire with multiple fatalities in a British structure like this due to ineffectual regulations surrounding cladding standards. From what he's saying, the only rules are to do with the exterior surface; from a legal standpoint there's nothing specifically to prevent someone using whatever they want under the cladding as insulation.

From what i can remember the building regs are vague and unclear on this point.

It is a mystery how a local fire (short circuit in a fridge?!) can spread to the complete building.

it is sadly very easy: more recent services breaching fire breaks, alterations to the original layout that don't recognise crucial safety features, service runs acting as chimneys, fire doors propped open, items left in stair/hall ways, undocumented tenant changes to flats, fire doors replaced by less robust but perhaps nicer looking doors etc etc

That is before we start looking at cutting costs and specifications to budget.......

In this case it is suggested that the cladding also helped the fire travel up building and over the firebreaks.

 

[vrbarreto]

From the link I posted about the different types of cladding:

Built up:

Built-up
systems provide excellent fire performance,
with only minimal changes required to
enhance the level of resistance to fire
performance.
They are suitable for virtually all applications
where there may be a higher than normal fire
risk or where risk control management may
be difficult.


Mineral wool:

Mineral wool insulated composite panels will
give the highest level of performance when
a fire resisting construction is required for
external walls in boundary conditions or for
internal compartmentation. The mineral wool
insulation is non-combustible and will not
contribute to the growth of a fire, even if the
core becomes exposed to flame. For a
number of pre-finished steel mineral wool
insulated composite panels, the overall
performance of the panel when assessed
against the criteria for classification to
EN 13501 can be classed as A2, that is that
the entire panel is of limited combustibility.
This is occasionally required as part of the
product specification.

Foam Core:

The fire performance of the current
formulation PIR factory insulated foam
filled composite panels is significantly
better than previous generation
polyurethane and polystyrene core panels.
Indeed many of the concerns around factory
insulated foam filled composite panels relate
to instances involving earlier generation foam
panels. It must however be noted that all
foam cores are combustible. Integrity of the
panel joints and adequate fire stopping and
sealing practices around penetrations
through the construction are essential to
prevent exposure of the core during a fire.
Delamination of the panel skins or failure
of the panel joints can lead to exposure of
the panel core and rapid fire growth.
Where risks are high or risk management
is difficult the specifier should consider the
suitability of this type of construction.


Guess which one was used in Grenfell and which one is the cheapest?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And which one now needs to be banned in all high rise applications (i.e. any application where you can't just climb out of the window)?

 

[Saint66]

Death toll risen to 17, expected to increase further.

 

[jon0844]

Though it is perhaps better to look at positive solutions to these problems - for example secure bike storage areas with proper Sheffield stands covered by CCTV would mean I wouldn't want to be lugging my bike up the stairs.

"Thou shalt not do X" usually gets ignored. "Wouldn't it be better to do Y?" is more likely to get a positive response.

People don't want to leave bikes outside in communal areas, for theft reasons. Even CCTV wouldn't guarantee the same level of security, so people bring stuff in. And nobody can enforce 24/7, and if they did then you'd get people moaning on social media about human rights and other nonsense.

Plus resources are tight. My wife would love to go around and take bikes away, but she's neither authorised or able to.

The upside, if any, is it might be easier now to enforce rules by pointing out health and safety without being ridiculed as 'H&S gone mad' which is so commonly said.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Erm, I thought the issue was that they WERE leaving them in communal areas, just unsuitable ones.

 

[jon0844]

Erm, I thought the issue was that they WERE leaving them in communal areas, just unsuitable ones.

They're leaving in stairwells, not areas outside for bikes. Most likely for security and convenience. One particular leaseholder refuses to keep the bike in his property (or outside) arguing it would hinder escape if left by his door. He doesn't seem to care that he's not forced to have a bike or block his front door.

You can imagine how some people think. Me me me. And if you tell them you get the 'jobsworth' accusations. Perhaps now this might change.

CCTV for bikes isn't much good, as thieves hide their faces. Plus there's the cost (people funnily enough want to keep management fees to a minimum, as stated at all tenant meetings). Hatfield railway station can get two bikes stolen per day when covered by a myriad of cameras. It doesn't help that the police don't really care, and just give a reference number for insurance.

I get why people do it but it's clearly a risk. Like those who change, in breach of their lease, front doors or change windows (and then get upset when told they'll still have to pay when the whole block gets done).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One of the big issues is persuading people that things like fire doors are actually necessary. There's that mentality of "it won't happen here/to me" that we all have from time to time, so tragic though it is, this event may at least drive home the reasoning why fire doors should not be wedged open. Though unconfirmed, there's a suggestion that the refurbishment may have compromised the systems designed to contain a fire. Having lived in communal buildings (though 3-4 storeys rather than 20+) there does seem to be a bit of a lax attitude towards maintenance and inspection from many of the management companies which are appointed by owners/local authorities.

Ultimately whatever regulations are in place to prevent or minimise such events, those regulations will only ever be as strong as the inspection and enforcement regime that accompanies them. The pro-austerity policies of the last 7 years have in my opinion contributed to this tragedy, which is all the more stark considering the huge inequalities particularly in the Capital and even more so in that immediate area. As some of the residents stated yesterday, if the block had been in Chelsea their concerns might've been listened to.

 

[jon0844]

There would be plenty of right to buy, then sold on to more affluent, residents living there. People buy because of the location and also that they're often pretty large compared to new builds.

I don't think it was a 'them and us' attitude, but plenty of people are saying this. Some are saying it's only Tory councils that have cut back on safety. Cheap political point scoring when it really isn't the time and place - yet.

 

[Tetchytyke]

if the block had been in Chelsea their concerns might've been listened to.

I don't think that makes as much difference as people think. Look at Pacific Wharf in Rotherhithe as an example. A two-bed flat there is worth the thick end of a million quid, but:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/we-won-the-battle-of-the-wharf-6933719.html

The flats' garage was "six inches deep in sewage". The complex had a large hole in the roof, toxic mould on the walls, and nothing holding up the ceilings except the tops of the windows. It did boast magnificent balcony views of the River Thames. Unfortunately, some of the balcony railings were only superficially fixed to the rest of the building and could have collapsed, if anyone had leaned heavily on them. Oh yes, and the entire complex lacked basic fire protection, making it a deathtrap.

Unscrupulous developers will cut corners and cut costs regardless of whether it is a "luxury" development or not. If they can get away with it.

The biggest result of council cuts is that councils no longer have the time, people or resources to enforce existing legislation. We see that in Newcastle with my client base where the council do not enforce existing HMO legislation and don't even bother investigating all but the biggest breaches because they don't have the resources.

If you don't have the people to investigate, then companies will cut corners. Ronan Point proved that as long ago as 1968. Not very much has changed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think that makes as much difference as people think. Look at Pacific Wharf in Rotherhithe as an example. A two-bed flat there is worth the thick end of a million quid, but:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/we-won-the-battle-of-the-wharf-6933719.html



Unscrupulous developers will cut corners and cut costs regardless of whether it is a "luxury" development or not. If they can get away with it.

The biggest result of council cuts is that councils no longer have the time, people or resources to enforce existing legislation. We see that in Newcastle with my client base where the council do not enforce existing HMO legislation and don't even bother investigating all but the biggest breaches because they don't have the resources.

If you don't have the people to investigate, then companies will cut corners. Ronan Point proved that as long ago as 1968. Not very much has changed.

This is a good point- wealth does not make one immune from tragedy or from being ripped-off. My point was more that if the people complaining 18 months ago had looked and spoken differently and had a slightly different postcode, their concerns may have been heeded.
People often have subconscious prejudices that they won't even notice are affecting their decision making. Anyone who has travelled on a 1st class ticket while dressed casually will likely have encountered this.

 

[DarloRich]

.

CCTV for bikes isn't much good, as thieves hide their faces. Plus there's the cost (people funnily enough want to keep management fees to a minimum, as stated at all tenant meetings)

What they want is not to get ripped off by managing agents who do sod all for their vast piles of money. Tenants WANT the agents to spend some of it discharging their duties looking after the building. That is what i wanted when i lived in a flat. Best thing ever was setting up a residents management committee and booting the agents into touch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What they want is not to get ripped off by managing agents who do sod all for their vast piles of money. Tenants WANT the agents to spend some of it discharging their duties looking after the building. That is what i wanted when i lived in a flat. Best thing ever was setting up a residents management committee and booting the agents into touch.

TBH that's what puts me off living in a flat. I'd actually quite like to, but only in a commonhold (or Scottish style tenement) one, leasehold just has too many problems.

 

[DarloRich]

TBH that's what puts me off living in a flat. I'd actually quite like to, but only in a commonhold (or Scottish style tenement) one, leasehold just has too many problems.

you still carry a share of the "common expenses" or whatever the term is under the Scottish system.

I must point out not all managing agents are cowboys however the bad ones outweigh the good

 

[61653 HTAFC]

you still carry a share of the "common expenses" or whatever the term is under the Scottish system.

I must point out not all managing agents are cowboys however the bad ones outweigh the good

It doesn't help that many blocks are owned by multiple different individuals, often small-scale buy-to-let landlords. Communal buildings require overall management so the various owners or tenancy managers will have to agree on which management company to engage. As with many commitee decisions this will often simply go to the cheapest option, not necessarily the best.

My current rented flat is in a small converted mill of 12 apartments, 4 storeys high. Of the 12 flats all are rented privately, no individual owns more than 2 flats within the 12, and there are at least 4 different letting agents managing the tenancies within the building. The management company in charge of security, safety and maintenance of communal areas are based somewhere down south and are extremely difficult to get hold of, even more so to get anything done. As tenants all we can do is register our discontent with our letting agents and hope that this feeds back to landlords eventually. It doesn't help that many of the issues are caused by tenants (doors being wedged open etc.) or a combination of tenant/landlord ineptitude (tenants not supplied with a key for external door, so rather than demand a key they simply deactivate the lock so that anyone could enter).

 

[DarloRich]

It doesn't help that many blocks are owned by multiple different individuals, often small-scale buy-to-let landlords. Communal buildings require overall management so the various owners or tenancy managers will have to agree on which management company to engage. As with many commitee decisions this will often simply go to the cheapest option, not necessarily the best.

My current rented flat is in a small converted mill of 12 apartments, 4 storeys high. Of the 12 flats all are rented privately, no individual owns more than 2 flats within the 12, and there are at least 4 different letting agents managing the tenancies within the building. The management company in charge of security, safety and maintenance of communal areas are based somewhere down south and are extremely difficult to get hold of, even more so to get anything done. As tenants all we can do is register our discontent with our letting agents and hope that this feeds back to landlords eventually. It doesn't help that many of the issues are caused by tenants (doors being wedged open etc.) or a combination of tenant/landlord ineptitude (tenants not supplied with a key for external door, so rather than demand a key they simply deactivate the lock so that anyone could enter).

The individual leaseholders aren't the problem. The freeholder and his agents are. it is in the leaseholders interest to get the bets deal on the management. After all a tatty block will be harder to rent out.

There is a process for Leasehold Enfranchisement or for booting out sub standard managing agents via the Leasehold Advisory Service or the Right to Manage process. Often all it needs is someone ( and of course it is easier in a small block) to take a lead.

 

[DarloRich]

The PM has ordered a public enquiry:

BBC: Prime Minister Theresa May has ordered a full public inquiry into the fire that engulfed a west London block of flats, killing at least 17 people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40291227

 

[jon0844]

What they want is not to get ripped off by managing agents who do sod all for their vast piles of money. Tenants WANT the agents to spend some of it discharging their duties looking after the building. That is what i wanted when i lived in a flat. Best thing ever was setting up a residents management committee and booting the agents into touch.

This trust is part of the council and in my opinion they do a very good job, with no evidence of significant cuts over the years either.

There have always been tight budgets to keep management fees down, while making sure to do good quality repairs and maintenance. Often there's a surplus to carry over for figure works.

As it happens, the council only has one high rise block in the borough to worry about.

 

[johntea]

Hit a chord with me this sad incident, many years ago when I lived with my parents their hairdryer caught on fire and within minutes their whole room was alight, let me tell you it is bloody scary seeing thick smoke flood out of a room and I still remember the smell. We got out and the fire service did an amazing job, which meant it was mainly contained within the room rather than potentially spreading to the whole house.

I always test smoke alarms frequently now and turn electricals off where possible when not in use (sadly it looks like a fridge was partly responsible which I guess you can't really turn off).

 

[DarloRich]

This trust is part of the council and in my opinion they do a very good job, with no evidence of significant cuts over the years either.

There have always been tight budgets to keep management fees down, while making sure to do good quality repairs and maintenance. Often there's a surplus to carry over for figure works.

As it happens, the council only has one high rise block in the borough to worry about.

the council are in a better place and are more aware of their responsibilities. It is the private freeholders and agents who can be rogues.

When I dealt with leasehold property councils were an absolute pleasure to deal with: Organised, honest, provided the right paperwork asap and while happy to enforce their rights they lived up to their responsibilities.