Unsafe Cladding

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’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.

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.

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’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.

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 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.

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

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

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?

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

Very interesting suziewoozie wonder if that is the same in Scotland

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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

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.