Fire Insurance Grenfell Tower

This isn't an answer to your question granny sue sorry, but I live in a council owned bungalow, I was advised by the housing dept to insure contents but not the building , surely the same would apply to the tower ?

Whilst the tenants would be responsible for contents insurance surely the council would/should have had buildings insurance.

I assume yes because the chap who telephoned me deals only with insurance,i doubt he is employed just to inform a new tenant they only need contents insurance vanpire queen , he stressed not to insure the property only contents

Not sure if this is relevant but we run our business from the premises now owned by Mr. S.'s mother. For years the company paid for the property insurance when Mr. S's. father was involved but we found out that the insurance was invalid because only the owner of the property can have the property insured and the premiums must be paid for by the owner.

1) Buildings insurance doesn't cover tenants' losses. There might be a case for them to sue the TMO.

2) There would have been conditions attached to the buildings insurance, such as an obligation to carry out gas safety checks, etc.

I don't know whether the insurance would cover loss of life, should tenants decide to sue for negligence.

I wouldn't mind betting that there will be lengthy and expensive challenges as to whether KCTMO fulfilled its obligations.

The building must have been worth millions of pounds and the insurance company won't hand over the money without a fight.

I worked for a local authority and neither our contents or buildings were insured. We did have employers insurance and public liability, but there was a view that the bill to insure all their buildings and contents was not financially possible.

In any tenancy it is up to the Tennants to insure their personal contents and belongings

KCTMO does insure its residential properties. The details are here:

www.kctmo.org.uk/sub/home-ownership/122/building-insurance

I haven't had time to read the details.

I've just had a horrible thought. I hope the person whose fridge caught fire isn't considered liable.

Have the found out who this person is daphnedill i was wondering about this too.
I recall reading in my paper that he knocked on his neighbours door to alert them to the fire but only after he had packed his suitcases!!!

I havent seen anymore written or spoken about on this point.

There's that myth again. The truth seems to be that he alerted his neighbours, and then grabbed a few essentials - that's a long way from 'packing a suitcase'.

The responsibility for the fridge could even be laid at the door of the manufacturer or the building owners because of the power surges.

Certainly not the 'fault' of the owner mcem

Agreed. If the fridge had a fault it's not his 'fault' any more than it was the 'fault' of all the owners of the tumble driers which were in the headlines recently. The fire risk was identified there and machines were recalled or repairs offered. Don't think that problem has been resolved but it's a different slant if the manufacturer of the fridge is in any way responsible.

If the fridge/freezer hadn't a fault, if that cladding hadn't been used, if that fridge/freezer had been in one of the many other buildings with that cladding, so many if's , asked by many who are grieving every day

Thank you for all your comments. It really makes you think about serious incidents like this.
A lot of landlords (public and private) will have to rethink their commitments to tenants.
This terrible event may just revolutionise the way buildings are managed in the future.

I was playing devil's advocate when wondering who will be considered liable. I believe one of the tabloids published a picture of the man, in whose flat the fridge was situated, which was appalling. As far as I know, the fridge could be part of the fixtures and fittings, as the one in my rented house is.

Of course, there are "ifs", which is why the inquiry must be dealt with sensitively.

Nevertheless, the matter of insurance is no doubt already being discussed. The building has been insured for replacement, which will cost many millions. The insurance company will no doubt demand a full investigation, especially as so much money is involved. Tragically, the tenants won't benefit, unless they had insured themselves for contents.