The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

I get that. It contrasts with what has been said about not getting business because a bidder has been undercut. I mean if there's stuff out there that is "good" but costs half as much, why are people bidding based on costs for stuff that is twice as much? If every pound saved increases your [ a business's] chance of getting the job, why factor in more expensive stuff in the bid? 

That's where your architects spec comes in

They can name suppliers and they don't tend to name the cheap ones 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

If you were the one running the project and you were asked by a client to make savings and you did but you(r company) kept some of those savings, didn't tell the client about the savings, asked your supplier not to discuss with the aircraft designers the financial aspect of the new part and acknowledged that there were risks in the decision to cut those costs and the new part was something that contributed to the aeroplane's failure that then yes, you would partly be responsible.

It's tangential, but that's (for aerospace) so far fetched in terms of "not being how it works" as to be essentially a non-credible scenario for one Individual to do that. Though you weren't to know that, and the point you made is nevertheless understood.

At the risk of confusing the discussion, it's actually really important that people have defined responsibilities and "he is responsible" for that or this aspect of safety. You're right that "Safety is everybody's responsibility"  - and that's one of the behaviours and cultures necessary, but specific different people being responsible for ensuring specific actions or checks etc. have been done and them being legally accountable, SQEP etc. is a massive factor and safeguard.

This is why Stevo [or whoever] following your hypothetical example route is non-credible - by making several of those "if" factors the specific job role of different people, then one individual can't subvert the necessary checks, even the one running the project. Engineering leads, Procurement Leads, Contractual Leads, Independent (but internal) Safety Authorities, Customer Airworthiness and Type Approval Authorities... this segregation of roles and oversight prevents your scenario. That's aerospace though and the regime and regulation is obviously different to building.

And yes, there are safety errors in aerospace too and humans being humans.. Look at Boeing and their recent issues - where Independent oversight was hived off, where multiple Individuals all failed. That's the real risk. One person can't cause. But multiple people can - goes back to safety is everyone's responsibility.

Back to the Building Industry, it's really important that as with aerospace all incidents are investigated and all flaws identified and actions put in place to prevent recurrence. It looks like there's been watering down going on with Grenfell, blame/responsibility dodging and less focus than there should be on actually sorting the problems, as we've seen and we're 3 years down the line.

Apologies if this diverts from the grim outcome with Grenfell. It's just meant to outline, a bit, some things that guard against "one person" leading or responsible for to a disaster happening.

[chrisp65]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

I get that. It contrasts with what has been said about not getting business because a bidder has been undercut. I mean if there's stuff out there that is "good" but costs half as much, why are people bidding based on costs for stuff that is twice as much? If every pound saved increases your [ a business's] chance of getting the job, why factor in more expensive stuff in the bid? 

I guess 1: it’s nowhere near a perfect science, but also 2) prices change so what was best value in January when you tendered is not automatically best value now.

We bid for one job in November that included a lift, we have the job, but not a start date. A lot has happened in the last 8 or 9 months that suggests that lift might not be best value any longer.

We had another project we bid for in January, which we’ve recently been contacted to ask if we would still stand by our bid, 6, 7 months later. 

Just think how car prices move around in the month leading up to needing to buy a car. Steel is an item that has been particularly volatile for pricing. Once steel prices are unpredictable, then so are cladding prices.

Again, one way a Client could avoid that price uncertainty would be to name a specific product. But whilst that gives them some price certainty, it makes them a designer, with responsibilities.

It’s not a contrast with the low balling, it’s another variable. You will get contractors that go in low and look for extras, as far as possible, I avoid these types. Then, you’ll get contractors that price for one thing in the time frame they’ve been given, say 3 weeks in January. Then they’ve potentially got 6 months of waiting to find prices have moved or someone has found this magical cheaper product.

It’s lots of things all being very dynamic, with the Client having put it in the contract, build it by ‘x’ date or I’ll only pay you 80%. So like it or not, time is geologically slow right up until the point you have your appointment in writing, when you’re suddenly against the clock.

 

 

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's tangential, but that's (for aerospace) so far fetched in terms of "not being how it works" as to be essentially a non-credible scenario for one Individual to do that. Though you weren't to know that, and the point you made is nevertheless understood.

I don't think it is fully understood reading the rest of your post.

I wasn't responsible for coming up with the setting and I was trying to fit in to the setting some of the things reported in the article about Rydon.

What I'd make clear is that I'm not suggesting anyone should be subverting checks, interfering in other people's duties, roles, &c. or that there aren't or shouldn't be people with specific responsibilities carrying out their specialist roles and who should therefore be responsible for that particular thing that falls under their remit but rather I am saying that if your thing overlaps someone elses or you're in charge of the project and you delelgate to someone else (i.e. you go to a subcontractor and get them to supply with you with a different part/different materials) then there is a duty for you to make sure that the person is carrying out the delegated responsibility properly.

As you said twice in your post, safety is everyone's responsiblity.

There seems to be far too much talked about in this thread (I'd say it has become so common as to be the norm in pretty much all walks of life so not just any particular industry or profession) suggesting the primary responsibility that anyone has is ensuring that responsibilty falls on someone else. If everyone can then do that then responsilbity falls on no-one (apart from some poor unfortunate scapegoat as there's always the sucker left holding the parcel and they're quite likely the least culpable and the only one not concentrating on covering their own arse), nothing gets any better, everyone blames it on a 'system' and everything carries on and we have another huge fire disaster (in the case of this industry) in ten years or so and everyone shrieks, "How?"

It's why the world is so shit, frankly.

Edited July 21, 2020 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

Generally, Clients get what they pay for.

Which makes you wonder why so many of them select their team based on lowest price wins.

 

 

[villa4europe]

Safety is everyone's responsibility, that is something that there is an expectation on site from everyone regardless of the role

Safety through design and CDM though is a different kettle of fish

The responsibility falls on the experts and you don't pretend to be one, you don't dabble, for one as previously mentioned your insurance doesn't let you, its not a blame culture or responsibility ducking it's paying some very qualified people a lot of money to do a job and then trusting them to do it 

There's not many people I know of in a site team who can read and fully understand a cladding spec, especially with enough confidence to try and override a cladding subcontractor and architect I'd they deem it be ok, I would guess that will have already changed post Grenfell 

[snowychap]

12 hours ago, villa4europe said:

you don't pretend to be one, you don't dabble

It's not about that and pretending that the points being made are, just reinforces the opinion being put forward - that it is indeed just about demarcation for the sake of arse-covering and being able to wash hands of any individual and collective responsiblity.

Edited July 22, 2020 by snowychap

[villa4europe]

Just now, snowychap said:

It's not about that and pretending that the points being made are just reinfiorces the opinion being put forward - that it is indeed just about demarcation for the sake of arse-covering and washing hands of any responsiblity.

its not ass covering!

its literally something that I don't know! im not qualified to read a cladding spec, im not insured to read a cladding spec and sign it off, there is no training or any kind of qualification that would enable me to be able to do both my job and that level of technical knowledge, it doesn't exist (albeit like I said previously im sure cladding data sheets and the info required has changed post Grenfell)

I went to uni to study commercial management, I've spent 15 years on site, there is no expectation from anywhere within the companies I work for for me to fully understand a technical data sheet for the products we are installing, im expected to know the cost of them and how they will be built, but in depth knowledge of the materials...no it just doesn't exist in my role

its not a basic knowledge its an expertise 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

its not ass covering!

its literally something that I don't know! im not qualified to read a cladding spec, im not insured to read a cladding spec and sign it off, there is no training or any kind of qualification that would enable me to be able to do both my job and that level of technical knowledge, it doesn't exist (albeit like I said previously im sure cladding data sheets and the info required has changed post Grenfell)

I went to uni to study commercial management, I've spent 15 years on site, there is no expectation from anywhere within the companies I work for for me to fully understand a technical data sheet for the products we are installing, im expected to know the cost of them and how they will be built, but in depth knowledge of the materials...no it just doesn't exist in my role

its not a basic knowledge its an expertise 

 

For what it’s worth, I’ve just recently completed a four day refresher course on lines of responsibility and communication around building construction and the CDM regs.. It’s an unusual piece of legislation for the UK in that effectively if / when there is a significant problem the HSE can presume you as an individual are responsible. It is then for you to be able to reasonably prove why it wasn’t you, by showing it was someone else, or a company, even just the company you work for, rather than you specifically.

It’s not the usual way of things, most would presume the bottom line is innocent until proven guilty, but it’s how it’s been built under CDM. If you can’t prove it wasn’t your responsibility, if you can’t prove for example that you are not the Principal Designer (essentially by being able to provide the name of the person that is), then the authorities may decide that you were.

Similarly, if you suggest an alternative product or construction method and others adopt it on your say so, you’ve potentially put yourself in the frame as the designer for that element.

So you’d be very right to repeat the mantra that you don’t have the expertise. Preferably in writing, that you can produce a record of, should the shit hit the fan.

 

 

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

its not ass covering!

It is.

31 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

its literally something that I don't know! im not qualified to read a cladding spec,

I'm not suggesting you read a cladding spec (or read it and sign it off) and I never have. That has never been the point I've made.

31 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

there is no expectation from anywhere within the companies I work for for me to fully understand a technical data sheet for the products we are installing

There is no expectation in any of my posts that you do that either.

I'm sorry but as you continue to ignore the point(s) that I have made and respond to a straw man then you ought not to bother because it's getting really, really daft now and it just appears as though you're taking my posts on the wider subject as a personal criticism of how you have done or do undertake your job role.

It's fair enough to bring your knowledge of how interactions in this particular industry may occur in order to help the debate and posters in the debate acquire more knowledge about the particular setting in which they're putting wider points (as I've said this goes way beyond simply the construction industry). It is not fair enough, however, for people to either try and use their experience in a field as an appeal to authority that just doesn't work or to try and make it about themselves. I have tried (but perhaps failed on occasions) to talk about 'one' rather than 'you' as an attempt to not make it obvious that it's *not* about the other poster for a few reasons -

1) because it's not just about someone doing that particular poster's job in the wider process (it could apply to any person or actor - by actor I don't just mean an individual but a department, a contracting company, a group of contracting companies banded together for one purpose, &c.),

2) because it might come across purely as a personal slight (and that's pointless and wrong),

3) because it would likely fall foul og getting bogged down in the minutiae of particular experiences relevant to that specific role when it is meant to be a wider point, and

4) because I've been discussing it with a number of different posters - thus it should be obvious that it isn't about any particular individual.

 

Thanks for your time so far, some of it has been relevant - but we're now in the realms of going round in circles largely because you appear to be reading straight past what I've posted.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by snowychap
Missed out a crucial 'not' and also took out a rather unnecessary 'striking'

[HanoiVillan]

 

[HanoiVillan]

By the way, the Tories voted en bloc in that vote, including Kensington's new Tory MP, so fulsome thanks to the Observer for their fine work on that one.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

By the way, the Tories voted en bloc in that vote, including Kensington's new Tory MP, so fulsome thanks to the Observer for their fine work on that one.

It's shocking - every single Tory MP voted against the thing they said they'd vote for - every single one - it's scandalous.

Almost as scandalous is the reporting of it on the BBC where it wasn't initially reported at all and has now appeared as a minor news story under the headline "Grenfell recommendations will be implemented".

 

[choffer]

 

[Davkaus]

I struggle to comment on this with anything other than angry abuse. It's telling that the government get "safe thinking space" while the occupants literally don't have safe space. They couldn't give a **** about the tenants of Grenfell, or anyone in similar housing.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Davkaus

[chrisp65]

The figures for how many buildings have flammable cladding would only be an underestimate anyway. Over three years since Grenfell and they are still findings more buildings clad with deadly materials. Three more found in Cardiff over the summer at the ‘prestigious’ Bay development.

 

But hey, guess what got mentioned at the enquiry a few days ago, the specialist company have accidentally lost all their evidence because as everyone knows, Architectural design liability is what, 6 years ordinarily? So yeah, you could innocently keep everything on a laptop you allow an ex employee to keep. That would be completely normal.

Grenfell documents and design drawings lost forever after being wiped from a laptop.

 

Quote

Emails, documents, design drawings and calculations relating to the Grenfell Tower refurbishment have been lost forever after being wiped from a laptop, the inquiry into the fire has heard.

Design manager Daniel Anketell-Jones, who worked for cladding specialists Harley Facades until March 2016, told the hearing he erased his work computer of all files after agreeing to keep the device despite leaving the firm.

He said he had made the “assumption” his work would remain on the Harley Facades server, which it did not, and denied a claim he arranged for his email file to be deleted from the firm’s internal systems.

“I believed everything would be kept on the company server because all the laptops just attached into the server and all the emails were retained on there,” he said.

Quote

Mr Anketell-Jones, who worked for Harley for almost nine years, told the inquiry: “In the past where I’d had a laptop break or replaced it, it was just a simple case of connecting it back up to the server and you had all your emails instantly once again.”

In his witness statement, he added: “The material that was deleted would have related to all Harley projects I had worked on during my time at the company including the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project.

“This would have included emails, documents, design drawings, calculations.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

It's extremely difficult to actually wipe data like that, especially from company servers. My understanding is that your best bet to do so is really using an angle grinder. However, it is extremely easy to 'accidentally' 'wipe' data if nobody is really that interested in finding it. I would like to know if any experts in data retrieval have been consulted, or if we're just taking this guy's word on this one.

Edited September 19, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's extremely difficult to actually wipe data like that, especially from company servers. My understanding is that your best bet to do so is really using an angle grinder. However, it is extremely easy to 'accidentally' 'wipe' data if nobody is really that interested in finding it. I would like to know if any experts in data retrieval have been consulted, or if we're just taking this guy's word on this one.

I would expect if this was truly challenged, the answer would now be that he also no longer has the laptop. But it’s just bollocks, there is no way the originals were drawn on that laptop and at no point has he had reason to send someone a copy, have someone else in the company check them, price them, work on a quick revision, send them out to a contractor, back them up. Just absolutely stand alone design software on a single laptop, drawn, not saved to a server, shown someone what they look like by just showing them the screen, and then accidentally thoroughly delete them.

Yep, that’s exactly how real life works.  

[Xela]

As well as people trapped in unsafe social housing, there are a lot of people out there in apartment complexes or towers who can't sell their properties anymore due to the confusion around the cladding and the requirement for an EW1S form? (building bods on here will be better placed to confirm). Lenders are now placing £0 valuations on a lot of properties meaning people can't sell and are trapped until they have it, which could take years due to the lack of people qualified to do the work

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54062189

Quote

Many high-street lenders ask for an EWS1 form as proof that cladding is safe but leaseholders say they are struggling to get hold of the form.

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership says cladding problems have blocked tens of thousands of flat sales.

Also if there is remedial work that needs doing then leaseholders could be landed with a huge bill. 

It is a concern for me although my complex is less than 18m tall but the Government advice is so vague, some lenders are even asking for EW1S forms on buildings below 18m and without cladding.

 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, Xela said:

As well as people trapped in unsafe social housing, there are a lot of people out there in apartment complexes or towers who can't sell their properties anymore due to the confusion around the cladding and the requirement for an EW1S form? (building bods on here will be better placed to confirm). Lenders are now placing £0 valuations on a lot of properties meaning people can't sell and are trapped until they have it, which could take years due to the lack of people qualified to do the work

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54062189

Also if there is remedial work that needs doing then leaseholders could be landed with a huge bill. 

It is a concern for me although my complex is less than 18m tall but the Government advice is so vague, some lenders are even asking for EW1S forms on buildings below 18m and without cladding.

 

I know of one person currently being asked by Lloyds Bank to get a surveyor to prove that their brick cladding is fire proof.

I mean, it’s actual brick, not slithers stuck on a board, or a glass fibre mould, or any other trickery. Just actual bricks.