LKP would like to express our deepest sympathy to all those affected by tragic fire at Grenfell Tower. Residents of flats across the country are now quite naturally also concerned about the saftey of their own blocks.
The press has been speculating on who and what is to blame, but it will take experts some time to work out all the factors that contributed to this disaster. It will take even longer to understand how policies and regulations should change across the social, private and retirement sectors.
LKP patron, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, ex fireman and one time Minister for London, leads the first debate on the issue in the House of Commons on the 26th June.
Jim has just spoken on the BBC Sunday Politics show with a debate at 11:41 along with new Labour MP Emma Dent Coad and conservative MP Bob Neil. As Jim has explained there are many factors to consider, including compliance with the regulations that already exist. The programme can be watched HERE
LKP plans to publish a number of articles looking at some of the wider issues over the next few weeks. As Jim Fizpatrick pointed out today the buck stops with parliament. But there are many more groups who have answers to give.
- Why have the s20 procurement rules, which the CMA recommended should be amended in 2014, not been updated?
- Why do we have problems with compliance with existing building regulations?
- Why have building regulations not moved forward?
- How can we still have these issues when the Health an Safety Executive has been in existence for 40 years?
Although it would not have been relevant in the case of Grenfell Tower leaseholders can make some positive contributions to the saftey of their block by supporting expenditure on saftey issues.
On occasions we have received complaints from leaseholders about their property manager wanting to bring their fire system up to date. Their argument is that there is no obligation for an existing building to meet current fire regulations so why should he have to pay?
Leaseholders can also help with their own fire alarms by adhering to the manufactures advice. These alarms should be replaced after a certain period of time. Here is some useful advice from the London Fire brigade which makes clear fire alarms should be replaced at least every 10 years. http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/SmokeAlarms.asp
Leaseholder resident associations should ask their managing agent for a copy of their site’s most recent fire risk and saftey assessment.
Related posts:
Sesame Apartments: Yet another anonymous Long Harbour freeholder demanding £2.2 million over Grenfell cladding
Blenheim Centre flat owners to be spared £20,000-30,000 each on Grenfell cladding bill, Legal & General tells LKP
20,000 leaseholders trapped in blocks with Grenfell cladding, says Telegraph
Croydon leaseholders at Citiscape face £750,000 bill to remove Grenfell Tower cladding
Grenfell United link up with leaseholder groups to protest cladding crisis and warn next government of Grenfell 2
The Local Government Group in 2011 issued 192 pages of detailed binding guidance for managing fire risk in purpose built blocks (not just LA run). This was separate to the building code.
I studied this document in 2012 as part of research into RTM. We are not, thankfully, a high rise block, but I like to read.
I find nothing at all mentioned about cladding a building in insulation that can never be as fire resistant as concrete or bricks. Aluminium burns too. Or about any external cladding? I may have missed that paragraph.
Some ‘expert’ extracts will need revising:
“11.2 There is no evidence from fire statistics to suggest that those living in purpose-built blocks of flats are at greater danger from fire, once it breaks out, than those who live in houses.
11.3 Once a fire occurs in a block of flats, the likelihood of a death is actually less than the likelihood of a death when fire occurs in a bungalow or a house.
11.4 In addition, because, in a block of flats, each individual flat is totally enclosed in fire resisting construction, the vast majority of fires are contained within the flat (and, in the majority of cases, the room) where they start. It is certainly rare for anyone, outside the flat where a fire starts, to die as a result of a fire in a flat.
13.1 There is a common misconception that those living on the higher levels of a high rise block of flats are at greater risk from fire than people living in low-rise blocks, or in bungalows and two-storey houses. However, statistically, there is no evidence to support this…”
“Part B: More generally, application of current benchmark standards to an existing block of flats is not normally appropriate. ”
“Certain developments in fire safety technology and practice (eg smoke alarms within flats) should be adopted. However, other developments such as automatic suppression systems ***will only be appropriate if the cost and effort of adopting them*** is proportionate to the risk.”
In other words, cost is weighed equally with lives (I fear money tips the scales in practice).
“23.3 It is wholly inappropriate to impose the current guidance for new blocks of flats retrospectively to existing buildings.”
“wholly inappropriate”? I think the authors of this guidance need to be asked to explain the basis of this blanket statement. The law hates blanket policies.
Who wrote this god-like stuff? Experts? Spare us those in future.
There is one paragraph of note:
“85.2 Processes should be in place for landlords and other responsible persons to scrutinise alterations and building work within common parts that could have an effect on fire safety in the block. It is important that Building Regulations approval is obtained where relevant.”
Leaseholders as private ‘owners’ are responsible persons within the building.
What processes since 2011 have been in place for leaseholders to scrutinise alterations and building works within common parts? What does “scrutinise” mean in practice if it is merely being allowed to see (if that) and obliged to pay?
Put building control back under accountable local authorities. Put social housing back under accountable local authorities.
It looks as if all these guidance notes need reversing with some legislation introduced to back it up.
More red tape I am afraid, but until this Government and others realise that Red Tape can save lives nothing will be done.
Same goes for Leasehold Reform.
I own a flat ( shared Freehold) In a Victorian conversion comprising of 7 flats in the ‘Very Smart ‘part of Maida Vale. I rent it out. Lucky? Much?. Anyway, we have got this managing agent who advised our directors to have a ‘ Health &Safety’/ ‘ Fire Assessment ‘ carried out in March 2015. No problem with that! However, although I have seen invoices for the amount £ 500+ ( I insisted on an inspection of the accounts) the reports of the Assessment have not been made available despite repeated requests. Oh and by the way, in September 2015 we were informed by our agent that the communal Electrics housed in the pavement vault were ‘ Dangerous’ and we must not enter the area because it is so ‘ Dangerous’…. Yeah right! Some outfit probably under the ‘ Umbrella ‘ of their company got £3000 + to ‘Make safe’ the ‘Dangerous’ Electrics. I sure you are all thinking – ” why wasn’t the danger flagged up when the Assessment was allegedly carried out in March of the same year?????
I am a fortunate reasonably articulate woman who owns her own property, is not intimated by bullies and can give as good as she gets. Oh how feel for the blighted tenants / Leaseholders of ‘ Grenfell Tower’ who must have been bullied and threatened by whomsoever when they voiced genuine concerns about the safety of their ‘Home’ that they must have been thankful to have. I have seen a copy of the legal letter sent to the bloggers voicing their concern. Bully- Threaten – Intimidate with dodgy solicitors letters. WELL, who’s sorry now? The responsibility lies somewhere , this must NOT become ‘Hillsborough ‘ The truth Is required NOW not in 20+ years. Shocking.
It is to be hoped that the need for more appropriate fire safety measures will not be seen as a financial goldmine to unscrupulous managing agents seeking to boost their profits. I have been past Grenfell Tower, and believe me nothing in the media shows the true horror of actually seeing the building close up. I am not ashamed to say I cried.
Michael I think ” Unscrupulous Managing” agents had better run for cover! I believe that this tragic avoidable heartbreaking incident is going to shine a bright light on the relationships between ‘Landlords’ i.e. ‘ Housing associations’ managing agents, and their chosen contractors Also, I believe that some spivvy Freeholders will be thinking that they have had a lucky escape!! .I neglected to state in my previous post that- Apparently the allegedly ‘dangerous’ electrical system that had not been highlighted by the alleged assesssment 6 months earlier required such ‘URGENT’ repair that there was no time for the s20 consultation………I too passed by Grenfell Tower and am going to sign the wall. I just couldn’t think of anything to write yesterday. It was all too awful and overwhelming. Such Horror.
Whilst I would not wish to speculate on the exact circumstances of the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, what is not open to speculation is that in 2016 72 MP’s who derived substantial incomes from being landlords themselves voted against an amendment to the Housing Bill that was designed to make homes safe and fit for human habitation.
It is not a matter of speculation that the Grenfell Action Group had issued numerous warnings on safety that were ignored.
Included in their pleas were comments such as “Only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of Heath & Safety legislation tat they inflict on their tenants and leaseholders” Another comment says”Let’s hope we won’t have any serious fires on any of those estates because it appears that someone’s death is possibly the only thing that might stir KCTO out of it’s extreme complacency”
Just wondering? Does any one know if there is any correlation between a managing agent’s safety record and their financial position? Further in relation to development insurance, would premiums be increased if a managing agent pleaded guilty(and were heavily fined) to several breaches of Health & Safety legislation that resulted in a fatal fire at one of their developments?
In my buildings insurance, a block policy purchased by Freehold Managers from Zurich, one of the insured risks is corporate manslaughter. This seems to be a moral hazard because if I happen to be killed by their negligence I have already paid their legal costs. Surely insurers should be prevented from bundling this risk into the bill paid by residents?
Exactamundo Mr Epstein. Thank heavens for the Grenfell Action Group recorded blog.I recall a spokesperson for either the council or KCTO on the telly box stating that ” The residents did not want sprinklers as the refurb would take longer “…… I do hope that the police are ensuring at this very moment that all documents pertaining to the ‘ refurb’ of Grenfell Tower are being preserved.
I wonder will we see some scapegoats sacrificed? Those who selected the cheaper flammable cladding, or who failed to ensure gas pipelines were properly boxed in and protected from fire perhaps.
But what of those who made these decisions possible? The political ideologues and their acolytes in DCLG who decided that retrofitting sprinklers and updating building standards was “red tape” that wouldn’t be countenanced? Exactly the same attitude they have manifested to leasehold reform or regulation of managing agents.
My landlord is a donor to the Conservative party. Fire inspections for our building were faked. Things were certified as working that were not working by someone who didn’t visit. Lives were endangered as result. Shouldn’t this be a crime? Since the faked inspections were no doubt a chargeable event I wonder if the Conservative party’s accepting money from dodgy landlords isn’t complicity in their behaviour? If this isn’t “living off immoral earnings” what is? Isn’t the “bonfire of regulations” and refusal to regulate, to adopt best practices, to learn from international experience, in order to continue enjoying such income simply corruption?
Isn’t the Conservative party simply institutionally corrupt?
Wow Paul Joseph. I think we must share the same ‘Managing Agent’. You make valid points re the DCLG. Let’s see where blame is scattered. Is it true that the cladding used is ILLEGAL in the UK? I heard that on Sky.
PS .I Also agree with the your view regarding the Conservative Party!
Yes the cladding at Grenfell is definitely the main (but not sole) reason why the fire spread so quickly. Two towers recently suffered the same issue in Dubai. However there were no deaths and no injuries. The reason is that the fire alarm worked and everybody had sufficient time, even with around 100 floors in the buildings to evacuate. (From what I recall, although can’t be certain, the alarms in Dubai are randomly tested by the Fire Service). Serious questions need to be raised as to why the fire alarms at Grenfeel did not sound. Were they tested weekly ? Were they subject to malicious damage by tenants ? Why was the staircase blocked with rubbish ? Who put the rubbish there the management company or the tenants ? Why did the tenant who’s fridge caught fire not sound the alarm but spent time packing his suitcase then knocked on a neighbours door before he left ? Why did he not phone the Fire Service straight away. I understand the block was subject RTM and 8 tenants were on the management board. Lots of questions to be answered here.
Ian, To our understanding some of the comments you make have appeared in the press but not all may turn out to be correct. We have purposely not speculated on all the circumstances around the fire as it will take some time for the fact to emerge.
We will however be looking at the wider issues.
The first debate on the issue will take place in the House of Commons on the 26th of the month
Yes I agree Martin. We need to await the facts from the investigation before blaming the Conservative Party and the local Labour council.
I don’t think that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has a Labour Council
I agree as to not repeating wholly inappropriate speculation. As for an RTM company, that is one ‘question’ that does not need awaiting answer.
RTM companies are leaseholder companies and must register with Companies House. I can find no such company registered for this address. Given the relatively small number of leaseholders I would be surprised if they had an RTM company.
The eight tenant “management board” appears to refer to the eight tenants on the KCTMO?
The Kensington and Chelsea TMO Board of directors is described, according to its website, as made up of 15 Members comprising eight residents of the TMO (I’ve not checked if any were resident of the actual tower itself), four Council appointed members and three independent members.
However the board members shown on the same page shows 8 resident board members, only three council nominated members, and 2 independents. Perhaps the other 2 are not photographed?
I have heard it reported that the residents were merely advisory board members, but this is not clarified on the KCTMO web page. They all described as directors.
I think it is important to fact-check legitimate sources even if the facts when found there are confusing.
I would await the official enquiry before offloading any blame at all on the victims. To me the really sickening reality is, having had to visit high rise residential towers for work, that human beings should never be forced to live in them as home. Certainly not families, disabled etc. I hope from henceforth they will never have to.
Tear them all down and give people proper homes.
The folks in Dubai seem happy enough wth them.
Yeah You tell em Ian!! The brutalist tower blocks built in the 60’s / 70’s to house the poor ( Pile em high , life is cheap) are very similar to the Luxury high rise block in Dubai complete with concierge, perfumed lifts numerous fire exits and several chandliers hanging in the foyer for good measure. Gawd, families currently living in tower block don’t bleeding know how lucky they are. Do They? I mean, my family lived on the motorway in a cardbo- That’s enough ed…….
Nothing wrong at with high rise towers. When I was a youngster my best friend lived in one. Was really nice balcony, lift and great view over the city. Nicely kept gardens. Council built and no issues with it at all. Why is it that whatever you give some tenants they are never satisfied and want more ? In fact 1970’s tower blocks are fairly safe, it’s when they start fitting modern flammable cladding that problems start. If they were left as they were built there would be little issues with them.
I have lived in a FIRSTPORT Managed estate since 2003 consiting of freehold houses and more than 10 blocks with single entrances with few blocks managed by three housing associations.There are over 100 flats.
As lead management company, FIRSTPORT HAVE NEVER CONDUCTED A FIRE DRILL DESPITE REPEATED REQUEST.
First Port? Aren’t/ weren’t they Peverel’? Oh Mer C you poor leaseholder- I truly have ‘MERCY’ on you!! You and your fellow residents should all get together and inform your agent that you are contacting the media regarding their seemingly cavalier attitude to ‘ Health & Safety’ Fire Risk legislation. They have got form. Don’t take it any longer!
Yeah Ian I am sure your friends “High Rise” block, rocked bambino!- I mean, with a balcony and all….. What the bejasus do folks expect?? To live in a property that is “Fairly safe” ? What Eeegits! Do you still live with mummy , Is that why you feel safe sweet pea ? Does mummy still tuck uyou up in your Jim Jams? AWWWWWW bless.. Too cute. ????
Grow up.
Who could watch Panorama tonight and not be devastated, angry and determined for change and justice?
Social housing tenants, others paying local high rents to subletting landlords, and leaseholders who bought their flats and presumably paid handsomely for majpor works, had a right to not find themselves trapped in a highrise block knowing they were about to die a horrific death, and to know this for up to FIVE HOURS ahead yet be unable to escape: the elderly, the disabled, young children and babies alike.
Meanwhile, shocking to read Volume 2 of the Building Regs 2010 and see all the tables of technical specs for fire safety in blocks that look so expert and scientific.
I guess that’s what happens when luck is treated as science and arrogance as expertise.
Paddy, Ian Martin has told us that there is nothing wrong with high rise blocks. I mean blimey, he had a mate who lived in one that had a balcony with a view…what more could one possibly ask for? I must admit that he didn’t mention fire exits , but hey, it had a view from the balcony….. It’s all good – ask. Ian Martin…
You’re not capable of having a debate with throwing insults. Typical left winger.
‘Throwing Insults”? “Typical Left Winger” Hahaha! I am not a ” typical” anything…… Mr Man.
Breaking News! It has emerged that a “Completion” certificate was never issued for the works at Grenfell Tower. No final inspection was undertaken and the works were not signed off.
Wow!!!!!!!! Does that mean it’s corporate manslaughter? Staggeringly inept by ‘ whomever’. I wonder if the investigation will throw up ‘ connected companies’ ‘Backhanders’ . FRAUD? You know, the usual practice………..
Excellent news about luxury flats being made available as permanent rehousing. Is Britain finally being shamed into decent homes for all?
I pray the mix offered these 68 homes reflects the families .
I have worked in Wolff house and the adjoining buildings in the past. They are/will be fully air-conditioned and extremely well put together.
The plantroom is very very energy efficient and the on site maintenance team are great. I can fully appreciate why the service charges are high for that development.
What delicious Irony! Now let’s hope the person(s) responsible for this avoidable catastrophic event will be charged with Corporate Manslaughter and if found guilty be given a lengthy prison sentence. In the meantime,I think tenants/.leaseholders who believe their freeholder/ management are up to ‘No Good’ should contact the media as I believe they will be ready and Willing to pounce on negligent / exploitative landlords whether they be ‘Housing Assoc’ or the other lot that have been mentioned in numerous posts here and elsewhere…..
I see that on the BBC this morning (after the Camden blocks were evacuated) the MP for Salford (Labour spokesperson) feels that anyone who feels unsafe in their home should be immediately rehoused while there is an assessment. I think this is regardless of whether high or low rise, public or private sector, older or newer property – they shouldn’t have to stay in a home which they are concerned might not be safe.
What do others think about this?
Well then surely the buyers of TW and others alleged sub standard new build leasehold houses and leaseholders living property in flats whereby their Freeholder/ Managing agent says that a risk assessment has been carried out in the common parts but refuses to make available the ‘REPORT’ of the alleged assesssment should I believe assume that they are living in ‘ unsafe properties’. Good point Vivien Alfred. Chicks are coming home to roost.
There is a debate in parliament scheduled for Monday which may act as the start of the process of understanding all the issues involved at both Grenfell and the problems that may also apply to some other sites.
There is inevitably massive concern at the moment and Camden has made a judgment to evacuate a small number of blocks while it makes an assessment. That does not mean anything other than a small number of blocks likley to be at risk.
The idea that everyone should be rehoused if they feel unsafe is of course entirely impractical as we do not have enough house as things stand.
As I explained in the main article we have not written about the causes of the Grenfell disaster becasue we do not know enough to comment at the moment. It will inevitably turn bout the combination of events and causes which it will take the experts some time to investigate.
The national press has in some cases made wild speculation about there being hundreds of blocks at risk only to then report its a much lower number.
Most property managers on most sites will be providing residents with information so they can understand more about their own sites. For the vast majority of sites the issues which impacted Grenfell will not apply.
“Most property managers on most sites will be providing residents with information so they can understand more about their own sites”
I think you are being extremely optimistic here Martin. One of the main reasons for ‘most’ sites going RTM is surely because ‘most’ property managers DO NOT COMMUNICATE with their residents but rather tell them what is going to happen and then send out huge bills to pay for it whatever it is!!!!!!
Grenfell Tower has been an extreme and heartrending example of the problems faced by many for many years and the only debate that needs to be had is how to stop it once and for all!!
Paddy as usual hits the nail on the head with his comments below!!
Completely agree – there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation out there which causes alarm. If you suggest any building with cladding (of whatever kind) is a potential disaster waiting to happen of course the residents will feel rehousing on demand is the only solution.
It seems to me that one of the biggest issues is why regular inspections – presumably by the fire brigade – have not identified these problems. On a scale of 1 to 10, were they of serious concern, or only minor? If they were identified, was anything done about them? There are a lot of unanswered questions and speculation and accusation does not help.
It seems to me that two of the biggest issues is why regular inspections – presumably by the fire brigade – have not identified these problems. On a scale of 1 to 10, were they of serious concern, or only minor? If they were identified, was anything done about them?
Second, what happened to building control inspections? Why were these issues not picked up during construction?
There are a lot of unanswered questions and speculation and accusation does not help.
Can’t speak for tower blocks but since 2005 Fire Safety regs, inspections can be done by anyone. We haven’t seen the fire brigade inspect, Just cut and paste private reports with a hefty bill.
Hopefully issue will return to fire service. They are the people who fight real fires, not desktop theories.
We haven’t even seen a “cut and paste ” report of the inspection that was allegedly carried out in our communal area which comprises of a ground floor/first floor / 2nd floor. (Victorian residential 7 flats) in March 2015. I have seen the invoices which totals 500 +. I have called the ‘company’ that supposedly carried out the inspection but they always say that there is nobody available ……….. Personally I don’t believe an inspection was carried out, This agent also included ‘Terrorism Cover in our service charge budget but when I insisted on a copy of the building insurance schedule it showed that terrorism cover was not included- I contacted the insurer for clarification who confirmed we had no cover? £700 charged for the cover either disappeared into the ether or was NICKED.? Who knows……
You can actually buy a Fire Safety Inspection kit from W.H Smith for less than 20 pounds.