Unsafe Cladding

I’m really pleased that I started this thread as I have learnt so much re the complexity of the problem. So thanks to all of you for the information you’ve provided. Hopefully the government will start moving quickly to help people, some on here, who find themselves in this awful situation.
susie yes I agree that it is far more important for the government to financially support people quickly and get the cladding removed before any more lives are endangered. Any inquiry can wait until later.

That’s a nice post Gwyneth I’d wondered about starting a thread on this so was pleased to see yours. I’ve been interested in the Grenfell enquiry and sad it hasn’t had more airtime but through listening to LBC over the past few months I learned a great deal about everyone else affected by cladding issues. They have an excellent young reporter Rachel Venables who has led on both these issues and has been very impressive. I know people are sometimes quite dismissive of commercial radio stations like this but honestly, no other news output comes anywhere as close to LBC in covering both the Grenfell Enquiry ( which is sitting again now) and the wider cladding issue.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be living in, paying a mortgage for, a flat which is effectively worthless. Many young people having stretched themselves to buy their first property, are now facing bankruptcy, and as at least one owner said, 'if I go bankrupt, I lose my home and I lose my job', presumably he was working in some sort of financial role. There are also people like the poster on here who have downsized to a flat and now find themselves having to find more money each month out of a limited income. Sadly, the Grenfell scandal, like many other things like the destruction of ancient woodlands to clear the way for the unnecessary HS2 rail line, the destruction of fisheries, the huge leap in import and export costs due to the unfolding disaster of Brexit, and many, many other things, are all being under reported due to the all consuming Covid19 and the vaccination programme. Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing covid and the associated financial and social problems, but I do wish that we would hear reports on the news of other things which are happening, things which are of desperate importance to those involved.

Firstly, the government should never had relaxed the building regulations in the first place. The local authorities should have funded to protect the public from danger.

Secondly, the fire service should have been able to continue to check buildings and builders should have been required to meet those fire standards.

Thirdly the trading standard and the fire service should have been enabled to check all cladding etc. was tested.

Fourthly, all building companies or their directors should be obliged to make restitution even if they have gone out of business.

Fifthly, all the building insurance companies likewise.

Sixthly, all leaseholders should be free from the cost of rectifying the problem they had no control over.

Lastly, any cost involved should not be funded by the tax payer. Government must recoup the costs!

All this because the regulations were changed to reduce costs to the public purse. I for one believe the government should protect its citizens from cowboy builders and the like!

I have no trust in government. It’s false economy to reduce public services with the tax payer picking up the bill when the system is not fit for purpose.

Sarnia part of the problem is that most of these projects go out to competitive tender, so if a construction company wants a particular project it has cut the price to the bone to get the job in competion with other construction companies doing exactly the same thing.

The client, especially government/council clients, want the project to cost as little as possible and are inclined to place price above almost everything else in assessing competitive bids.

So the constructor, having made a low, almost profitless bid for a project - and won it - then has to build the project as cheaply as it can, in order to make any profit, or even merely avoid making a loss, and has to cut corners on the construction, left, right and centre.

I know it is nice and comforting to think cutting corners means rich companies and individuals (evil, bad, dishonest, and utterlt despicable, as they always are) lining their pockets, but often it is a question of bidding low and then desprately trying not to make a loss.

Look at the number of, especially state, contracts that are delayed because the construction company has gone bust. There was a big hospital in Liverpool, I think, that is years behind completion because of that.

That pockets get lined, is undeniable, but that is usually by directors who are doing that regardless of how profitable the company is. Many directors of bust companies have done that hurriedly the year before the company fails.

The real problem and the cause of much of the cost cutting, which is done by site and project managers. is because the company made an unrealistic bid because they wanted the job, and the jobs of senior site management depends on them making some kind of profit out of the project and this cascades down the site team.

The other problem Sarnia, is that because construction companies do run on this margins and go bust, the company that installed the cladding has often gone bust years before the problem becomes evident.

The government should immediately fund remediation in all of the affected buildings. There is no reason to draw a line at 18m or 6 storeys. These leaseholders living in a 5 storey building should not be expected to take out a loan to fund the work.

Having paid for all remediation, the government should seek recompense from those who are culpable for the Grenfell disaster and the construction of other dangerous buildings.

These include, not only, developers, builders, designers, specifiers and product manufacturers, and their professional indemnity insurers, but also the Local Authorities, if their building inspectors did not spot cladding which did not comply with the Building Regulations, and the government itself, if the Building Regulations allowed this to happen.

Varian, unfortunately private companies were able to certify their own work as long as the had a Competent Person. This was part of the new regulations. I’m sure I read somewhere that lower standard cladding was provided instead of the cladding that had been approved. Surely the architect and the company’s Competant Person should have taken action

Reminds me of the film The Towering Inferno when the architect changed the specification to use cheaper and less effective and fire safe cabling.

Building regulations would never have been allowed that cladding on “ new build” apartments and the manufacturers did not recommend it on high rise. The risk was known but there was a loophole that allowed it to be used on refurbishments, it was building regulations that was at fault, because developers will always use whatever is cheapest to get the job done.