The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[TRO]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

Well, first, it's not my description, I simply quote the piece (with approval).

Second, where he says "Brexiteers wibble about mental abstractions such as sovereignty but are ignorant of nitty-gritty ground truth of how exactly to negotiate the countless minutiae of Brexit.", I think that is unquestionably true of the main people charged with leading Brexit negotiations on our behalf.  They are shockingly, shamefully ignorant about what is involved, as has been amply shown.

Third, I don't have disdain for sovereignty.  Quite the opposite.  My concern is that the people running Brexit have no concern for the sovereignty of this country and its inhabitants, they will be more than happy to sign away vast powers to corporations, and enter into damaging trade deals with fhe US, and continue to shelter Saudi from being exposed as sponsors of terrorism; and so on.

Fourth, I agree that the former trade agreement has stealthily encroached far beyond what was inyended.  But bear in mind that the UK has pushed hard for many of the expansions that now offend us.  We are not blameless, and this is not a sleight of hamd by some other countries.

But all of that is a side issue, which belongs in another thread.  The substantive point Dillow makes is that too many people  making policy on our behalf are managerialists who are in thrall to slogans and shallow thinking, and out of touch with the real concerns of real people; and that Grenfell illustrates this, as does the choice of new leader.  I agree with that, and think it's an insight worth sharing.

I think the last paragraph is possibly true, but mirrors much of every aspect of our society.....rightly or wrongly, its par for the course.....They are all painted with self interest.

I am reluctant to sign away my passion to any politician from any party such is the jaundiced view of have of any of them all, but I have even lesser trust of those similar politicians from foreign lands.

I can only imagine that there are so many conflicts of interest our lot  have to deal with in the complexity of their job, its no wonder they end up in a duck shoot.

It is so easy to see politicians as shits, but at least they are our shits.

 

[snowychap]

They (RBKC) are doing lots of work very well.

[peterms]

Some discussion of the legal issues bearing on possible prosecutions:

Quote

The recent events at Grenfell Tower have sparked national outcry and raised important safety questions. It seems that the cladding applied to the external part of the building may well have contributed to the abnormally rapid spreading of the fire.

So where does this leave the various parties involved with the design, manufacture and installation of said cladding?

These parties will include not just the private companies and consultants involved with the project, but also the local authority which would have commissioned the works, agreed the specification and monitored the installation, or engaged others to do so for them.

At this stage there is no clear view of who is to blame, but prosecution cannot and should not be ruled out, not least because of the high-profile nature of the incident.

So, what are the key issues to be considered by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and, possibly, a jury?

Gross negligence manslaughter and corporate manslaughter

First the investigation will concentrate on identifying whether there is significant evidence to support charges of gross negligence manslaughter or corporate manslaughter. The test for gross negligence manslaughter is:

• Was there a duty of care owed by the defendant to the deceased?
• Did a breach of that duty of care lead to the death(s)?
• Did the behaviour of the defendant fall so far below the standard which could reasonably have been expected that it warrants criminal liability?

The test for corporate manslaughter is broadly similar in that the organisation (there is no individual liability under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007) is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised:

• Causes a person’s death;
• Amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased

The organisation is guilty of an offence only if the way in which its activities were managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach.

So far as the charge of gross negligence manslaughter is concerned, issues will arise for the prosecution should they identify negligence on the part of a number of people but no single person’s negligence led to the fire.

The offence does not allow the aggregation of various people’s negligence to be taken into account. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 does allow for aggregation of negligence but as does not allow for individual liability.

Was one entity to blame?

On a project such as the refurbishment of a high-rise tower, there would have been more than one person or corporation responsible for design.

However, there is also very likely to be one entity or person with overall responsibility for design. But it is not just that consultant’s scope of service or assumption of responsibility that should be scrutinised here.

It would be more appropriate to assess likely liability for gross negligence, in this instance, within the realms of what they should do about high-risk fire issues, at law. That boils down to one issue.

Which of the entities involved had a duty to warn?

In this case that question can probably be reduced to the issue of who had knowledge, and who ought to have had knowledge, of the issue with the cladding?

Of course, deciphering who had a duty to warn is not easy.

Some involved on the project may have been unaware that the cladding was not fire retardant. Some, despite knowing that it was not, may still be entitled to assume that design would be implemented which prevented the cladding from spreading fire.

Designer’s liability and a duty to warn

While there is no general duty to warn in English Law, there is a duty to warn where there is danger to the lives of humans (see Akenhead J, in Cleightonhills v Bembridge Marine).

Ultimately, all the construction professionals contracted with the council who knew that the cladding was not fireproof are likely to have had a duty to warn.

This is unless the circumstances show that they could have feasibly assumed the cladding would then become fire proofed during the installation process.

Once it is established that someone owes a duty to warn, to comply with their duty they must proceed with extreme caution. Ordinarily, simply warning an employer, for example, of a risk of catastrophic fire is not enough.

One must warn vigorously or, where the risk is high, simply refuse to proceed with the works, perhaps even take steps to prevent others from proceeding.

Without seeing the contracts, professional appointments, and explanations as to why decisions were made, it would be inappropriate to attempt to place definitive blame on the cladders, contractors, architect, engineers, those checking building regulation compliance, or the employer.

But, on the face of it, if there was a lead designer or consultant, that individual may find it difficult to argue that they did not have a duty to warn. Meanwhile, the assumption that others will be “designing out” a fire risk is likely to protect the “lead consultant.”

Indeed, it may be that those with overall design responsibility may only be able to vindicate proceeding, once aware of a fire risk, with the cladding installation, if they had been told expressly that the cladding was fire retardant.

As enquiries continue, it remains unclear who may find themselves standing in the dock but it could well be any of the designers, contractors or even the local authority which commissioned the works. From this list it is possible that all three entities could be prosecuted for breaching a duty to warn.

Whether a breach of a duty to warn in this instance constitutes gross negligence manslaughter or corporate manslaughter will ultimately be a matter for the jury to decide.

One thing is for certain, however: that these events will serve as a tragic reminder to everyone involved in the design and construction industry as to the importance of safety and the responsibility that rests upon their shoulders.

 

[Demitri_C]

There are grounds for corporate manslaughter charges against the councils. Bloody hell, I thought they may try over this up

[Chindie]

'Grounds' is a long way away from 'guilty' of corporate manslaughter.

[peterms]

I'd have thought it more likely that charges would be brought against firms and individuals who either knew or should have known, given their professional background, of the risks.

But if K&C are prosecuted as well, that may go some way towards making people feel some sense of redress.  Powers exist to surcharge councillors for decisions which create loss, and bar them from office.  It's not impossible that could be considered, but a long shot.

[bickster]

I'm actually shocked the police have announced this so soon after the event. I expected at least another few years would go by before anything like this was announced. A sign of a weak Tory government perhaps

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm actually shocked the police have announced this so soon after the event. I expected at least another few years would go by before anything like this was announced. A sign of a weak Tory government perhaps

I suspect the police, especially in that area, are more attuned to the mood of the community than are some of the local councillors, all of the government, the appointed special investigator, or the media.

Best get on with it, then.  And lay some charges, against some people who have a case to defend.

The police will be mindful that their credibility is wafer thin, in many communities.  Having been charged with a technically complex but morally simple case, get on and do it.  Quick.  But don't let speed compromise the strength of the charges, because that would be much, much worse.

[Demitri_C]

Great gesture from QPR

Quote

 

QPR are hosting a match at Loftus Road on September 2 to raise funds for those affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The #Game4Grenfell will feature a host of current and ex-professionals such as David Seaman, Les Ferdinand, Alan Shearer and Ally McCoist, as well as celebrities including Marcus Mumford, Jarvis Cocker, Wretch 32 and Richard Ashcroft.

Loftus Road was used a temporary relief centre after Grenfell Tower fire

The 90-minute match at Loftus Road - just a mile away from the North Kensington tower block - is the brainchild of QPR chairman Tony Fernandes, Columbia Records president Ferdy Unger-Hamilton and Toast Entertainment Group.

QPR set up a relief centre at their stadium in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, and Ferdinand - the club's director of football - revealed his desire to take part in the fundraising game is a very personal one.

"This is a game about bringing the community back together," Ferdinand told Sky Sports News.

"The reason why I wanted to be part of it was because I grew up on the Lancaster West Estate, right next to the Grenfell Tower.

"All through my life from the age of five to 22 I lived on the estate, so seeing it on fire was quite surreal for me.

"I remember living on the estate and Grenfell Tower is where I learnt to play table tennis, where I learnt to play snooker and pool. There was a community centre underneath the tower. I did all of those things there when those kind of facilities were not readily available to the kids."

Les Ferdinand spent his formative years living next to Grenfell Tower

QPR chairman Fernandes added: "It will take years, and in some cases a lifetime, for our community to recover from this.

"We hope this match, this event, this demonstration of support, will help, in some small way, to show that all those who have been affected are not alone. We all stand together."

Former QPR striker Peter Crouch will also play in the match alongside his friend, firefighter Gregg Jules, who was directly involved in the relief effort.

Peter Crouch will play in the match

More than 2,000 complimentary tickets will be issued to those directly affected by the fire, including families, the emergency services, volunteers, local residents and those who played their part in the recovery efforts in North Kensington.

Tickets for #Game4Grenfell - which has been organised by the QPR in the Community Trust group, the club's official charity - will be priced £15 for adults and £5 concessions.

 

 

[chrisp65]

The guys on Newsnight and their researches have revealed that the rate of complaints and objections against Building Control rulings runs at 1 in 500.

That is, builders and developers think 499 of 500 decisions by Building Control on their proposed works are correct and fair.

So either all property developers and their builders and architects and engineers are all so conversant with the correct application of building regs that they fall in to line automatically. Or, something else is happening.

Remember, much of Building Control, looking out for your welfare and safety in buildings, has been privatised. Developers can pick and choose who signs off their work. If they don't like the decision making process from one company, if someone is costing them money, they can move their account elsewhere. As long as we can trust developers and builders to do the right thing by us, and not just maximise profit, we'll be fine.

 

[blandy]

23 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The guys on Newsnight and their researches have revealed that the rate of complaints and objections against Building Control rulings runs at 1 in 500.

That is, builders and developers think 499 of 500 decisions by Building Control on their proposed works are correct and fair.

So either all property developers and their builders and architects and engineers are all so conversant with the correct application of building regs that they fall in to line automatically. Or, something else is happening.

Remember, much of Building Control, looking out for your welfare and safety in buildings, has been privatised. Developers can pick and choose who signs off their work. If they don't like the decision making process from one company, if someone is costing them money, they can move their account elsewhere. As long as we can trust developers and builders to do the right thing by us, and not just maximise profit, we'll be fine.

The headline and your "sceptical" take on it don't sit right with me, Chris. It doesn't make sense as a thing. If builders are not objecting to rulings of failure/deficiency, then doesn't that suggest that they know and accept something is substandard? Isn't that the sceptical conclusion? That builders are being caught bang to rights?

if you include rulings of "that's passed", then you'd expect zero appeals against those rulings, so again I don't get it.

so what am I missing that leads you to your view? Accepting it's something you will know about and I don't know anything about.  I don't doubt that your verdict is accurate regardless, just that the two things here are not linked, or at least I don't get how they're linked.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

The headline and your "sceptical" take on it don't sit right with me, Chris. It doesn't make sense as a thing. If builders are not objecting to rulings of failure/deficiency, then doesn't that suggest that they know and accept something is substandard? Isn't that the sceptical conclusion? That builders are being caught bang to rights?

if you include rulings of "that's passed", then you'd expect zero appeals against those rulings, so again I don't get it.

so what am I missing that leads you to your view? Accepting it's something you will know about and I don't know anything about.  I don't doubt that your verdict is accurate regardless, just that the two things here are not linked, or at least I don't get how they're linked.

You'd have to look at a few things. Firstly, with all the sections of Building Regs, how much detail are your BC company going in to. I know from personal experience that I've worked on schemes where we have used great structural engineers and great M&E guys, on jobs where budget hasn't been an issue, private clients or private banks where they'll recoup their outlay within weeks.

But out of idle curiosity, I've neglected to submit any information whatsoever on the new steel that is going in, or the fan coil units or the alarm system. The pack I've submitted has looked slick, it's had everyone's logo on the front cover, delivered on time, all that. But zero information on steel loadings, or what sort of alarm system is being installed. More often than not, we'll get an approval through. 

Or, we'll have an argument ready to try and round off the corners on some legislation. We'll want to do a fairly common cheat to gain some floor space, we'll put a room within a room. On  a simple read of Part B, you can't do that. There are acceptable ways around it, but it shouldn't be your first choice of design solution. I've drawn up a room within a room but not included the fact that it's staff only, it has vision panels, there's extra smoke detectors etc etc.. Most often, that drawing will get a pass.

That's me, hopefully doing the right thing, but testing the system out of curiosity. Working out for myself which of these BC firms are good or not so good. Being a white hatted kind of guy, when I get to choose the BC firm, I'll go for the one that asked me the most questions last time. But how can it be that I get to 'choose'? There's your flaw in the system, right there.

But I do know of a small number of larger building companies that will lean on building control. That will let them know that if this isn't given a certificate then bosses will talk to bosses. We're opening on Monday and we need that certificate. There are bullies out there and there are overworked people clinging on to the job out there. It's a set of circumstances where I don't need much imagination to know people must be certifying stuff that hasn't been properly thought through. And I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt here.

Like I say, I'm personally very lucky. The Clients I've got are either spunking money like they have to get rid of it, or are terrified of ever being responsible for anything. So my projects are (to the best of my limited ability) fully compliant. But, tales from industry nights out suggest I'm in a fairly unusual position. 

It's part of the reason I'm so utterly dubious of professional lobbyists acting for builders. I'm in the privileged position of declining to work for them.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I do know of a small number of larger building companies that will lean on building control. That will let them know that if this isn't given a certificate then bosses will talk to bosses.

Thanks for replying. Your answer doesn't fit with the first post's linking of the 1 in 500 appeals stat though, does it? Maybe it's the stat that's out of place, as the rest all makes complete sense. No one will appeal against their plans being passed. People will only appeal against a fail if they think there's a genuine false verdict and/ or they think they will get a different result on appeal.  All the stat says is that BC non compliant verdicts rarely get appealed against. Maybe there's more behind it, but it's not apparent how it's relevant to much at all.

[snowychap]

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

Your answer doesn't fit with the first post's linking of the 1 in 500 appeals stat though, does it?

It's one complaint in 500 rulings (whether they be a pass or a fail), isn't it?

[chrisp65]

42 minutes ago, blandy said:

Thanks for replying. Your answer doesn't fit with the first post's linking of the 1 in 500 appeals stat though, does it? Maybe it's the stat that's out of place, as the rest all makes complete sense. No one will appeal against their plans being passed. People will only appeal against a fail if they think there's a genuine false verdict and/ or they think they will get a different result on appeal.  All the stat says is that BC non compliant verdicts rarely get appealed against. Maybe there's more behind it, but it's not apparent how it's relevant to much at all.

What the stat is saying, is for every 500 applications lodged with BC, the building industry get's what it wanted 499 times.

Only on 0.2% of applications does the Building Control Officer ask for something over and above what was being offered, that the builder thinks isn't 'fair' and so takes it to appeal. As the regs are not prescriptive, but more subjective, I find that quite an odd statistic. That given the freedom to comply any way you see fit, combining new materials or taking a novel approach, it's only in 0.2% of cases that the BCO significantly disagrees. We're either all geniuses, or the relationship isn't robust and challenging enough.

This is the world of the 'desktop study'. We have data sheets on 3 products, so we assume that if we combine known results in a ratio of 20:10:70 then we'll achieve a new but predictable result. Well, it's a theory.

Now, the BCO can say one of three things here:

1 - yep, sounds fine

2 - show me all the paperwork and give me some thinking time and I'll consult the fire service

3 - I want to see data sheets on these products tested together in this combination

 

Given that answers 2 and 3 potentially cost someone somewhere a lot of money, and only 0.2% of decisions are objected to, how often do you imagine answers 2 or 3 are selected?

 

 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

What the stat is saying, is for every 500 applications lodged with BC, the building industry get's what it wanted 499 times.

That's not quite right, either, though, is it?

It's not a rate of failure of 1 in 500, it's a rate of objection of 1 in 500 - and it's the latter that could lend support to a worry that the watchers and the watched are a little too in synch for comfort.

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

It's one complaint in 500 rulings (whether they be a pass or a fail), isn't it?

 

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

What the stat is saying, is for every 500 applications lodged with BC, the building industry get's what it wanted 499 times.

Only on 0.2% of applications does the Building Control Officer ask for something over and above what was being offered, that the builder thinks isn't 'fair' and so takes it to appeal.

Exactly. Without more detail we can't know for example if in those 500 rulings, 200 were "not good enough, do more" and the builder went "OK, I'll fix it" - i.e it doesn't show how many "not good enoughs" there were which went unappealed. In my ridiculous example it would be 199 were rejected, and the builder accepted that his work was inadequate and took corrective action. It's not a full set of data (as quoted) from which to make a judgement.

I completely understand the wider point about cosy arrangements and all the rest, but the stats neither prove not disprove it, as far as I can tell from the explanations. It's like court verdicts - no defendant appeals "not guilty", and defendants only appeal if they think they are genuinely hard done by, or if they think they can "get away with it" but in neither case does the number of appeals imply the system is too lax, or too strict.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's like court verdicts - no defendant appeals "not guilty", and defendants only appeal if they think they are genuinely hard done by, or if they think they can "get away with it" but in neither case does the number of appeals imply the system is too lax, or too strict.

I don't think one would use appeals (either number or proportion) made against not guilty verdicts as a measurement of the strictness or laxness of courts.

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

Without more detail we can't know

Whilst more detail might give you more to think about, the implication of the 1 in 500 rulings being appealed statistic is that the system has a 99.8% success rate (where success is measured by acceptance of the ruling), isn't it? That strikes me as oddly high.

Edited July 30, 2017 by snowychap

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 

Exactly. Without more detail we can't know for example if in those 500 rulings, 200 were "not good enough, do more" and the builder went "OK, I'll fix it" - i.e it doesn't show how many "not good enoughs" there were which went unappealed. In my ridiculous example it would be 199 were rejected, and the builder accepted that his work was inadequate and took corrective action. It's not a full set of data (as quoted) from which to make a judgement.

I completely understand the wider point about cosy arrangements and all the rest, but the stats neither prove not disprove it, as far as I can tell from the explanations. It's like court verdicts - no defendant appeals "not guilty", and defendants only appeal if they think they are genuinely hard done by, or if they think they can "get away with it" but in neither case does the number of appeals imply the system is too lax, or too strict.

Yes, that's true.  It may be that in 499 cases the builder didn't get quite what they wanted but thought for whatever reason that an appeal wasn't worth pursuing.  Vanishingly unlikely, but possible.

We can however put together several things in order to get a feel for what's going on.  We know from other sectors that cosy arrangements between regulators and regulated are common, ranging from simply making sure that staff are briefed to be as polite and welcoming as possible, to hiding things away, to cultivating relationships which may end with regulators being offered nice jobs with regulated firms.  Simple bribery I suspect is rare.  We know how cosiness develops, with working relationships between fellow professionals on each side of the regulatory fence, who may never speak to a tenant from one year to the next, and we may think it unremarkable that this is so.  We know that many of the tower blocks which have been signed off have proven to be unsafe:

Quote

The government has announced an independent review of building regulations after tests showed that at least 82 residential high-rises use a combination of insulation and cladding that does not meet fire safety standards.

The tests, which were ordered after the Grenfell Tower blaze, involved a large-scale fire test with the same combination of aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding and insulation used on the building in north Kensington, west London.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said tests on a 9 metre-high demonstration wall found the combination did not meet safety standards for preventing vertical fire spread, when subjected to a simulated blaze inside a flat.

Details of the test, carried out by the Building Research Establishment, showed flames spread to the top of the simulated cladding wall in eight minutes and at peak temperatures of more than 800C.

Of the 82 blocks so far identified that use the combination, 47 are owned or maintained by local authorities, the DCLG said. It has not identified their locations, but nine are known to be in Salford, Greater Manchester.

Salford council said the cladding and insulation, on nine towers at the Pendleton blocks, was already in the process of being removed, after earlier tests on just the external cladding, which found this too failed fire safety tests.

Advice to building owners released simultaneously by the DCLG warned that while the tests would eventually involve combinations of three types of cladding and two sorts of foam insulation, the expert panel did not expect any of these would meet current building regulations advice...

The tests which were so dismally failed were conducted, I gather, on cladding which had been fitted exactly correctly, with all the fire breaks installed.  Yet we know from past experience of building work on tower blocks (See Dunleavy, Mass Politics of Housing in Britain) that in very many cases work was carried out in a shoddy way because of the difficulty of doing the work in a difficult, exposed and dangerous location and the difficulty of inspection, coupled with the willingness of individual staff to cut corners and the willingness of their employers to fail to have a system of work which prevented this.

We also have the useful anecdotal insights that Chris has posted about how things which the system is meant to pick up in fact don't get picked up.

So it seems a reasonable conclusion would be that the system we have is weak to the point of danger, easily flouted, and needs radical change.  A bit like another sector, banking, in fact.  This is where light touch regulation, self-certification, and bonfires of red tape, lead.

[chrisp65]

One last one on this and I'll park it up, as all three of us are on the same page, just reading the emphasis differently. The 1 in 500 was quoted by Chris Cook from Newsnight, but for the life of me, I can't see reference to it on his blog.

Building Control approval is a process of negotiation, so the 1 in 500 is not a 499 right first times. It's 499 builders and developers content with the final outcome of early rejections and negotiations. Only once every 500 times does the developer still feel hard done by to a point they want an appeal or an official objection of some sort at what should have been the end of the process.

But remember reasonable and negotiation and subjective interpretation. The developer does not always go in with everything they are willing to offer on day one. As a fairly unreal example: They'll price the job for needing 75% of the building materials to be class 0 for spread of flame. They'll then 'offer' 65% of materials being class 0. The three possible results being acceptance, upgrade to 75% or upgrade to 90%. Being made to upgrade to 75% is no real hardship, that was in the original calculations of the guy that bought the block to convert it into a house of multiple occupancy anyway.

The problem comes when they are told to use 90% class 0. Then that's actually costing them money they hadn't anticipated and buggering up the bottom line. That is then robustly challenged and at that point it either goes away, or it sticks. If it goes away, there's still no problem, still no formal objection. If it sticks, well that project lost money, that's your 1 in 500.

So the next HMO you build, do you go with Mr 90% Class 0 Materials, or do you try your luck with a different Building Regs firm? Perhaps one based 250 miles away that is very competitively priced to win the work and subsequently isn't going to be doing a 500 mile round trip to be on site every 5 minutes bothering the builder.

I'm not suggesting it's all rotten to the core. But a system with private developers, health and safety, fire regulations and a diverse range of builders of varying degrees of size and competence, with a 0.2% dissatisfaction rate, that sounds quite impressive. 

Planning. That hasn't been privatised just yet, the planner's job isn't currently beholden to 'the market'. It would be interesting to see the satisfaction rating of developers and builders for the Local Planning Authorities. But don't get me started on planners...