Unsafe Cladding

I should add more importantly people’s lives are at risk.

They're only going to give money to buildings that are taller than 18m. If you live in a building that is smaller then you have to apply for and pay back a loan. Why is cladding less dangerous on a 17m building?

I agree wholeheartedly. The builders should be made to correct the problem.

As I understand it many of the responsible companies have gone out of business.

vampirequeen I didn’t realise the financial support only applied to buildings taller than 18m . This is unacceptable. Any cladding used by builders that causes a fire risk should be replaced. Also why is this stuff allowed to be manufactured in the first place?

Also shouldn’t local councils be checking that materials used are safe. What is then the role of a budding inspector?

The cladding issue is a real scandal and many people’s lives have been put on hold for the last two to three years. Some people have gone bankrupt, others are trapped in flats they cannot sell as they are valued at £0 and most live with the worry of fire breaking our. The amounts of money the residents are paying out in waking watches is truly horrific. So the most important thing is for the government to coverall the costs of making these buildings safe ( whatever their height) and underwrite all liabilities of residents.

Sorting out who is legally responsible will actually take years and years and years and is actually very complex (and as said above, many firms are no longer in business). Both the government ( including previous governments) and the building industry must dread cases going to court as it will reveal changes in legislation, responsibility for inspections, enforcement and wholesale disregard of whatever regulations were in place anyway. The truly shocking facts emerging through the Grenfell enquiry show the cavalier disregard exhibited at every level for the safety of the cladding materials and thus the residents.

So basically no residents should be financially penalised for the wholesale failures of others. The government should provide all the money required immediately ( we all know that there is a magic money tree) and then decide whether and how to pursue all those truly responsible - builders, developers, cladding providers, councils, central government etc. I really can’t see that happening as their are too man6 skeletons in all those cupboards. Paying up will be the least politically damaging imo. But the current offer is nowhere near good enough.

Gwyneth cladding is used in all sorts of aituations, not just buildings. The manufacturers of the cladding do not necessarily know what the rules are that govern the use of its products in every situation.

The main responsibility lies with the contractor who bought a product that was not fully fire proof when the manufacturer also sold a fireproof version.

I am not defending the manufacturers, I do not think they were diligent enough in knowing where it could and could not be used and making this clear at point of sale. I am explaining why the product is made, it is perfectly safe to be used in some circumstances, but in others it isn't. In this case the construction company was using unsuitable materials because it saved money.

Monica I think the Grenfell enquiry is showing that in some cases the manufacturers knew exactly what game they were playing - cheaper unsuitable cladding = a sale and they knew the purpose of the cladding. What’s the better this was more widespread than Grenfell
Hers’s a useful article about the issue in general and Grenfell it’s from the FT which I’m finding more and more a good source on all sorts of issues
www.ft.com/content/554a8c8e-277d-4be5-a433-49dd666c3cef

The officials don’t help. When we moved into our newly built house we had problems with the water pressure. Eventually we got Scottish water to have a look and they found the wrong sized pipes had been used. Who signed it off? They let the developer sign off his own work. It was quickly replaced but whether they went after the developer we don’t know. What is the point of having an inspector if they don’t ‘inspect’?

So how much building work has been self signed off over the years?

suziewoozie Yes, that became very clear yesterday. But how much can a supplier of a range of products do to influence the end user? They can refuse to sell the product when they know the use of the product is unsuitable, they can draw a potential purchasers attention to suitability of use, but refusing to sell the product could push the company into bankruptcy, costing jobs.

Sales managers and their like are on bonus related pay - and will soon lose their job, if it is known that they are advising potential customers against buying their products.

As I said I am not defending these companies, more pointing out that these issues are complex and not quite as straight forward as some people think it is and even if the journalist fully understands the technology and regulation system, they must simplify to make their reports intelligible to the lay reader.

Where there is a clear line is that the building contractors, having won a contract by competitive tendering, then have to bring it in ontime and on budget so the temptation to cut corers, use cheaper materials.

Anyone who has bought a new house, will know the problems, with plumbing, heating and building services and structure, contractors trying to get away with cheaper, smaller pipes (see above), builders not using the right bricks, in the hopes that everything will hold up long enough (in years) to save themselves from having to remediate the work up to standard.

I agree the issues are complex - my post made that clear. There are many many with blood on their hands re Grenfell and also responsible for the dreadful current situation of so many leaseholders. Lots of powerful vested interests in keeping the game of pass the parcel of blame game going. That’s why we should support the government giving all the money necessary to free the leaseholders from the terrible situation they are in. Blame and responsibility is for another day.

Spot on, vampirequeen... It should be the same for any building that has this useless cladding... It stinks to high heaven to put people's lives at risk... If it was MP's with this problem, it would be claimed on expenses,as usual...

Tizliz

The officials don’t help. When we moved into our newly built house we had problems with the water pressure. Eventually we got Scottish water to have a look and they found the wrong sized pipes had been used. Who signed it off? They let the developer sign off his own work. It was quickly replaced but whether they went after the developer we don’t know. What is the point of having an inspector if they don’t ‘inspect’?

So how much building work has been self signed off over the years?

Governments have changed the rules over the years to make self signing off easier and easier. It saves builders money and allows local authorities to employ fewer inspectors. What’s not too like if you’re after votes? And it gets rid of so much of that evil red tape.

Here’s an explanation (BR means building regulations)

Competent Person self-certification schemes (England and Wales only)

Competent Person schemes were introduced by the Government to allow individuals and enterprises to self-certify that their work complies with the BR, as an alternative to submitting a building notice or using an Approved Inspector.

The principles of self-certification are based on giving people who are competent in their field the ability to self-certify that their work complies with the BR, without the need to submit a building notice and thus incurring local authority inspections or fees. It is hoped that moving towards self-certification will significantly enhance compliance with the requirements of the BR, reduce costs for firms joining recognised schemes, and promote training and competence within the industry. It should also help tackle the problem of 'cowboy builders', and assist local authorities with enforcement of the BR.

Very interesting suziewoozie wonder if that is the same in Scotland

suziewoozie I read the definition of a COmpetent Person and nearly fell off my chair laughing.

I have a plumber about the house at present. He was telling me yesterday about a hospital contract he was on. The hospital specified that all invoices had to be signed off by two Competent Persons before they are paid. Except only one Competent Person has been appointed, so all invoices are paid with just the one signature.

It is systems like this that lead to disasters like Grenfell Towers. Systems are set up, then another part of the organisation, decides to ignore or countermand part of the system and then another part has to accept something that does not comply with the approved system because nothing can function unless they do

What’s sad MOnica that this situation was completely foreseeable. It’s not an unintended consequence of allowing self certification. I’m not going to argue that all safety regulations/inspections that used to exist were beyond reproach but I do think that some of the truly mindless comments made about red tape and health and safety are made by people who do not understand the sheer venality of some of those involved in all stages and types of some businesses . Reading some of the emails from companies involved in the Grenfell cladding scandal was truly awful - cheering and whooping and swearing with delight when they’d ‘got one over’ and made themselves a shedload of money . People died in horrific circumstances and the lives of countless others have been affected for ever. And now all these poor people in the flats. But hey it kept down council tax and increased profits so what’s not to like?

vampirequeen

They're only going to give money to buildings that are taller than 18m. If you live in a building that is smaller then you have to apply for and pay back a loan. Why is cladding less dangerous on a 17m building?

The cladding on Grenfell should not have been used over 18m high, because of the risk of fire spread - the chimney effect. Also fire fighting can be carried out effective, quickly below 50ft or so and evacuation is much easier, so lower risk.

I’m not sure that on low rise it is compulsory to remove the cladding but given the publicity most want it gone

The problem with the less than 18m as I understand it is that they are excluded from the certification scheme.. What’s happening is that regardless of height, no certificate means no mortgage and solicitors/ surveyors refusing to take part in selling properties. Hence the £0 valuation. It’s Kafkaesque

I live in a block of private flats on the 3rd (top floor) so under 18 metres tall. We had a letter from our management company in Dec saying our cladding is fine but the wooden flooring on our balconies may not be good enough and may need to be replaced. I’m waiting to hear more. It may be possible to put fire proof paint over the floors otherwise the estimate for each flat is £4000 which I couldn’t afford without a loan . My outgoings each month are quite expensive as I live in the SE. Finding another large payment every month to pay the loan off would mean even less money left over to manage on than now. Needless to say nothing was apparent when the sale went ahead 4 years ago. I am very cross especially as I may want to move again in the next year or two.

Twice sorry to hear that - you’re an example of what I’ve been hearing, that it’s not just cladding that's an issue but all sorts of other shortcomings are emerging. No doubt there must be issues re insurance whilst matters are sorted out ( if they ever are). I also wonder if you wanted to see ( even if the balcony issue were sorted) would the letter from the management company be acceptable or am I misunderstanding and they have got a certificate?

I’m not sure suziewoozie I am presuming they have a certificate for the building and on checking, because of this issue, they think they might have a problem with the balconies. The letter said they are checking all options and will get back to us. Our management company are not very good, except the yearly fees still go up most years of course. If I knew then what I know now I would never have bought a flat in the first place.

Well Jenrick’s statement is going down like a lead balloon. Tory MP for Stevenage impressive with his analysis of why he’s got his head in his hands.

I can't help feeling that if Grenfell Tower had been home to the rich and famous this debacle would have reached a speedy and satisfactory conclusion ages ago. According to the inquiry, the cladding recommended for the building was not the cladding that was used. Who made that change and why? They should be answerable, surely. My guess is money. Why go to the expense of using a certain type of cladding when a cheaper alternative is available and I can line my pockets with the cash saved. The answer we all know now is that the expensive cladding fared much better in fire testing so that was why it should have been used. Any company found to have used sub standard cladding against the architects and surveyors instructions should be made to foot the bill.