The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[Chindie]

In my corner of the insurance industry, if a submission mentions the word cladding I effectively have to throw the submission in the bin. Type? The actual work relating to cladding? The profession? Don't care. Look at cladding to tell people if it's flammable? Decline. Stood next to some cladding for a moment a decade ago? Decline.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Chindie

[chrisp65]

16 minutes ago, Chindie said:

In my corner of the insurance industry, if a submission mentions the word cladding I effectively have to throw the submission in the bin. Type? The actual work relating to cladding? The profession? Don't care. Look at cladding to tell people if it's flammable? Decline. Stood next to some cladding for a moment a decade ago? Decline.

That does appear to be the case.

The word ‘cladding’ is disappearing from use, ‘finished in’ or ‘has an outer envelope of’ or ‘the external wall is made up of’.

But not cladding. Hence a problem for someone who’s got a flat which has ‘brick cladding’. The Lloyds mortgage software has clearly seen the word cladding and just announced ‘tell them to **** off’.

 

[HanoiVillan]

 

[chrisp65]

Who fakes a Fire Safety Certificate?

BBC

Quote

The fire safety certificate for cladding on a block of Cardiff flats has been found to be fake.

A resident of Marseilles House at Century Wharf discovered the building's External Wall Fire Review (EWS1) contained a false surveyor's signature.

 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

Since we were talking about data and keeping it recently on this thread, today's inquiry updates might be notable:

Doesn't seem sus at all.

[chrisp65]

It’s just so sad.

I really hope the stitch up is not allowed to happen. Nobody responsible, nobody keeping records. People destroying records ‘innocently’ when all those lives have been lost.

I fear the law will not be agile enough to punish all these guilty people.

[HanoiVillan]

20 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’s just so sad.

I really hope the stitch up is not allowed to happen. Nobody responsible, nobody keeping records. People destroying records ‘innocently’ when all those lives have been lost.

I fear the law will not be agile enough to punish all these guilty people.

I think the woman who binned her notes in 2018 after the inquiry started might be in a legally precarious situation. We'll see I guess.

[HanoiVillan]

Pretty big news from the enquiry today:

I don't think it's anything we didn't already know, or at least strongly suspect, but it's now out in the open. Extract:

'In evidence to Grenfell inquiry’s examination of the manufacture, testing and sale of the largely plastic materials, Roper said the firm had been “dishonest” by “over-engineering” a cladding fire safety test to achieve a pass.

A first test in February 2014 failed in 26 minutes, with flames engulfing the rig. But after changing some of the materials used around the insulation, including adding concealed fire-retardant panels, a second test three months later passed and was used to market the foam boards as safe for high-rise buildings.

Roper was asked to produce slides for the sales team that would not include mention of the earlier failed test or the fact that the magnesium oxide board had been added in the second test. The slide was “downright misleading” and “intended to mislead”, he agreed under cross-examination by Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry.'

They literally altered the insulation in the test by hiding fire-retardant materials in them. This should surely be legally actionable.

Edited November 16, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

That is so depressing.

What goes through your mind to fake up a life saving fire certificate.

[Shomin Geki]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Pretty big news from the enquiry today:

I don't think it's anything we didn't already know, or at least strongly suspect, but it's now out in the open. Extract:

'In evidence to Grenfell inquiry’s examination of the manufacture, testing and sale of the largely plastic materials, Roper said the firm had been “dishonest” by “over-engineering” a cladding fire safety test to achieve a pass.

A first test in February 2014 failed in 26 minutes, with flames engulfing the rig. But after changing some of the materials used around the insulation, including adding concealed fire-retardant panels, a second test three months later passed and was used to market the foam boards as safe for high-rise buildings.

Roper was asked to produce slides for the sales team that would not include mention of the earlier failed test or the fact that the magnesium oxide board had been added in the second test. The slide was “downright misleading” and “intended to mislead”, he agreed under cross-examination by Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry.'

They literally altered the insulation in the test by hiding fire-retardant materials in them. This should surely be legally actionable.

Whilst acknowledging that this may sound pompous or insensitive, this tragedy is becoming a huge piece of grim literature warning us of so much that is shameful about this country.  It's like a goddamn Hogarth of modern elite indifference and venality.  The popular government mantra of 'lessons to be learned' couldn't be more starkly urgent when it comes to Grenfell.  And yet the lessons keep coming...

I was living not too far from Grenfell when it burned.  It still haunts me.

[HanoiVillan]

On 16/11/2020 at 20:16, chrisp65 said:

That is so depressing.

What goes through your mind to fake up a life saving fire certificate.

This comment has stayed with me, but the behaviour seems to be endemic within the industry. Today's developments:

Key extracts from the article linked in the tweet (sorry they are extended, but you need the full context):

'Kingspan, which supplied insulation for Grenfell Tower, threatened an injunction against the National House Building Council (NHBC) after it became aware that the K15 Kooltherm product it had been using was not compliant with building regulations.

[...]

After waiting for months for confirmation of the product’s suitability, the NHBC said it would have to start warning projects on which K15 had been used that it was non-compliant.

In response Kingspan instructed its lawyers to send a letter on 13 February 2015 to the NHBC saying it would seek a legal injunction under the Defamation Act 2013.

The letter read: “It is our client’s position that neither the NHBC or the market as a whole will suffer any detriment as a result of our client being given a further sensible period in which to demonstrate compliance.”

It gave a deadline of 16 February 2015 for a response and added that if it had not heard from the NHBC, “our client considers it will be left with no alternative to protect its position by applying to the court for an injunction preventing the NHBC from making the statements you propose in relation to the K15 boards”.

[...]

Earlier in the day the inquiry heard about Kingspan and Mr Meredith’s repeated attempts to achieve certification for the new version of K15, which spectacularly failed fire tests in 2008.

Kate Grange, counsel to the inquiry, highlighted a number of occasions on which Mr Meredith told clients that Kingspan was awaiting test results for K15 that could prove its compliance even though the Building Research Establishment (BRE) – responsible for evaluating the product – had already said it failed the tests.

Eventually on 1 May 2009 Kingspan K15 wrongly received certification for use on buildings taller than 18m from the Local Authority Building Control (LABC), which said it “could be considered a material of limited combustibility”.

Ms Grange said: “Kingspan knew, didn’t it, all along that K15 was not a material of limited combustibility; on the contrary, it was a combustible insulation, wasn’t it?”

Mr Meredith replied: “Yeah, definitely,” adding that the document was “very misleading”.

Despite this, internal emails on 7 May 2009 from Mr Meredith’s boss Phil Heath hailed the certificate as “great news” and just days later on 11 May demanded that testing of potential solutions to the defective insulation was stopped to focus resources elsewhere.'

direct link: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/kingspan-threatened-legal-action-against-nhbc-for-raising-concerns-over-non-compliant-insulation-68732

 

Last week, it was a company hiding fire-retardant materials in a test model in order to secure a dishonest test result. This week, it is a different company using lawyers to threaten a defamation case against a regulator doing their statutory duty and warning that their product was unsafe.

This is a sick industry.

[chrisp65]

I have been in a position where I have specified Kingspan products almost as my default. 

I knew I could specify them, because they were industry standard and compliant, I didn’t have to go doing bespoke research, their certification was in the front of the file.

Now we all just jostle someone else to the front to be the person that actually names the actual product that will actually be bought.

Once upon a time, I’d have said ‘kingspan’, now I say ‘compliant cladding’ and we all argue over who names the name of the product.

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is a sick industry.

Absolutely. It's grim.

[HanoiVillan]

Probably worth noting as well that the Chancellor said nothing today about funding for cladding removal in his big Spending Review. This despite the fact that dozens of buildings across the UK remain clad in products that we now know decisively failed fire safety standards.

Not a single word.

[HanoiVillan]

More infuriating Kingspan content from the inquiry yesterday:

The title tells you what was happening:

'Text messages sent the year before the June 2017 disaster, which claimed 72 lives, suggested the employees believed the company was lying to the market about the fire performance of the “shit product” but one of them appeared to think that was funny, the public inquiry heard.

The plastic foam Kooltherm K15 insulation had failed several full-scale fire tests but was being sold on high-rise buildings on the basis of tests that related to the spread of flames across its foil surface rather than the whole material, and on an earlier full-scale test of a different, less combustible version of the product.

In a November 2016 text chat Peter Moss, a member of the firm’s technical team, asked his colleague Arron Chalmers, about the fire performance of the foam insulation, which was marketed as having a class-0 rating – the safest for spread of flames across the surface of a product.

After telling Moss that it was class 0, Chalmers added: “Doesn’t actually get class 0 when we test the whole product tho. LOL.”

Moss replied: “WHAT. We lied? Honest opinion now.”

Chalmers said: “Yeahhhh. Tested K15 as a whole – got class 1 [a worse performance]. Whey. Lol.”

Moss’s response was: “Shit product. Scrap it.”

Chalmers then explained that it was “worded in such a way that it ‘implies’ the facing can give you class 0 … But don’t tell anyone that.”

Moss then quoted the Kingspan marketing literature: “Kingspan Kooltherm K15 is class 0 (non combustible).”

Chalmers said: “All lies mate … Alls we do is lie in here”'

But Kingspan executive Adrian Pargeter does not accept there is any dishonesty:

'Adrian Pargeter, Kingspan’s director of technical and marketing, was asked about the exchange by counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC, who suggested it was “a pithy summary of Kingspan’s culture at the time”. Pargeter said: “I don’t believe that’s true at all.”

Millett asked: “Do you accept that a culture of lying about the fire safety of products is particularly serious, because you’re taking risks with people’s lives?”

“I don’t believe that we are lying,” Pargeter replied. “I can’t explain why they’re describing it as such in that way between the two of them.”

Earlier that year during an email discussion about the classification of the product, Chalmers also said: “Yeah, does seem a bit of a cheat though doesn’t it claiming class 0 for just a facer test, when as you said it’s meant to be product as placed on the market.”

At that point a Kingspan executive on the thread interjected and said: “Perhaps it would be better if you had a meeting to discuss this matter verbally.”

Pargeter said this was because the email chain was getting long. “I don’t think it was a cheat; it was just a literal interpretation of [the building regulations].”

“It’s cheating,” said Millett. “And it’s cheating because you know very well that’s not what the people who put together [the building regulations] meant, but you were taking advantage of a clever-clogs reading of it to try to sell product.”

“I don’t think it was a clever-clogs reading of it,” said Pargeter. “It was how it was written.”'

[Xela]

The ongoing cladding crisis is a national disgrace. This poor lady is thought to be the first homeowner to be declared bankrupt due to the remediation costs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-55847260

Quote

Twenty-eight-year-old Hayley Tillotson is the first person in the UK believed to have been made bankrupt because of the cladding crisis. She bought her first home in Leeds two years ago but learnt that it was clad with flammable material. Overwhelmed with the extra costs of dealing with the problems, she had to hand back her keys.

Regular stories in the newspapers of flat owners being handed huge bills of c£40k plus to remediate unsafe apartment blocks and having to fork out hundreds of pounds a month to have a 24hr 'fire watch' to ensure safety until the work is completed. These people purchased properties in good faith and through no fault of their own are being handed huge bills. Until then the flats are valued at £0, are unsellable and lenders will not allow any remortgages. 

There is a Government 'fund' to assist but it is far too small to cover all the impacted buildings. 

 

[trekka]

17 minutes ago, Xela said:

The ongoing cladding crisis is a national disgrace. This poor lady is thought to be the first homeowner to be declared bankrupt due to the remediation costs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-55847260

Regular stories in the newspapers of flat owners being handed huge bills of c£40k plus to remediate unsafe apartment blocks and having to fork out hundreds of pounds a month to have a 24hr 'fire watch' to ensure safety until the work is completed. These people purchased properties in good faith and through no fault of their own are being handed huge bills. Until then the flats are valued at £0, are unsellable and lenders will not allow any remortgages. 

There is a Government 'fund' to assist but it is far too small to cover all the impacted buildings. 

 

I'm dreading hearing anything from my Housing Association at the moment.  I bought a new-build flat on a shared ownership basis 12 years ago (still here!) and we had the "fire watch" installed just before Christmas.  There are apparently works to install new fire alarms on every communal floor starting next week.  That is all I know (for now).  I only hold a 25% mortgage on this place as I wanted to get a foot on the ladder to build a bit of equity before selling up and buying a house in time.  That hasn't quite worked out yet but at least the cost of any increase in service charge etc shouldn't (hopefully) be too significant.  

[Xela]

2 minutes ago, trekka said:

I'm dreading hearing anything from my Housing Association at the moment.  I bought a new-build flat on a shared ownership basis 12 years ago (still here!) and we had the "fire watch" installed just before Christmas.  There are apparently works to install new fire alarms on every communal floor starting next week.  That is all I know (for now).  I only hold a 25% mortgage on this place as I wanted to get a foot on the ladder to build a bit of equity before selling up and buying a house in time.  That hasn't quite worked out yet but at least the cost of any increase in service charge etc shouldn't (hopefully) be too significant.  

The complex i'm on is due to have its assessment this year for the coveted EWS1 form. I *think* we'll be ok as we're under 18m tall (the initial guidance was it was only needed for buildings above this until the Government said otherwise) and there is no visible cladding or timber work on any of the blocks. Each apartment has fire alarms and sprinkler systems in as standard. 

There is due to be some more RICS guidance coming out in the next month or so, which might clear some of the muddy waters around who needs it and who doesn't. 

 

[trekka]

Now you've prompted me, I've just dug out the fire report / update with the game on in the background (it only turned up a few days ago and got lost in the other mail):

- Waking Watch is needed because the height of the building exceeds 18m. The need for this expensive waking watch will be reduced with new wireless fire alarms being fitted. 

- External cladding includes Euroclass A2 with phenolic insulation and a non-insulated internal steel frame with a cement particle sheating. 

- Rainscreen cladding with a non-insulated internal steel frame with a cement particle sheathing board and plasterboard inner lining.

- Rendered external wall insulation - acrylic render finish on expanded polystyrene insulation on a non-insulated steel frame.

- Masonry walls with rigid PIR cavity insulation on a non-insulated internal steel frame with plasterboard inner lining.

- Timber cladding and non-insulated steel frame, brickwork or reinforced steel wall.

- Vertical or horizontal fire barriers were found either to be absent or incorrectly fitted within the cavity of rainscreen cladding, rendered external wall insulation. 

- The combustable materials used in the external wall systems comply with the Building Regulations at the time of construction but would not meet current regulations, in particular the external wall insulation on some of the blocks. 

- Private balconies in all blocks have combustible timber cladding decking with dividing screens in timber.

Stage one will be to fit the new fire alarms.

Stage two will be to appoint a lead consultant.  It states "just so you aware, we are registered with the Government's funding programme and whilst the application could result in the delay of funding for the works, if that is not the case, the works will still need to continue and we will set out that programme to you in due course". 

They also talk about "zero valued" properties and that they will issue a completed EWSI form once all remedial works are complete to mitigate against this. 

They are in communications with the original developer to establish their own financial contribution towards any work.

They have raised the issue urgently with the MP for Portsmouth to explain the situation and "seek his support in progressing matters, particularly on funding.  They have raised concerns that leaseholders are potentially going to pay for the remedial works which seems unfair".

This isn't looking good at all. Bollocks - time to invest in a campervan. 

 

[sidcow]

On 19/09/2020 at 15:36, Chindie said:

In my corner of the insurance industry, if a submission mentions the word cladding I effectively have to throw the submission in the bin. Type? The actual work relating to cladding? The profession? Don't care. Look at cladding to tell people if it's flammable? Decline. Stood next to some cladding for a moment a decade ago? Decline.

I started working in insurance in 1989 and one of the first things I was taught was cladding was very problematic.  Core is massively important.  Pir or Pur but basically it's going to burn. 

Sun Valley Fire, Atherstone on Stour fire, Center Parcs.  Its been known for 30 years that composite panels are dangerous and will cause massive fires. 

I just cannot understand how they are just not banned, unless insulated with a completely non combustible material. The manufacturers just can't be trusted, they come up with pretend 'systems' that are supposed to stop fire. And they come up with monikers for their panels that make it sound like they are fire safe. 

Ironically it's not the Government or property damage insurers who have been fully aware of the danger who are making it almost impossible to install flammable panels (someone always broke ranks and chased the premium) but Professional Indemnity insurers. It's a brave contractor who installs flammable panels when he has no cover if they burn. 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by sidcow