Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Thea timescale of when decisions were made and by whom have still not been identified. IMO the REAL issue is who decided to change the material from that set out by the architect without the change reviewed and other than cost - why. THAT is where the buck stops which will come down to procedures within the prime contractor hence it being a systematic failure.

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Obviously its a systemic failure that a banned substance was
knowingly used to clad a residential dwelling of over 18 metres
height Todgy, it couldnt be anything else could it??
But the material is the main fault, without the flammable material
even with the systemic failure there would have been NO disaster !!

Donkeyman! 👎👎

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

If you've been following the investigation as it's being reported, the K15 in it's 2005 form was never designed for high rise buildings. Kingspan changed the insulation formulae in the hope it could be used for high rise buildings. As you saw in the BBC's news article, the new insulation formulae failed the companies own internal safety tests BUT someone in that company made the decision to use the 2005 safety certificates on the failed 2006 cladding that was now repurposed as being ok to be used on high rise buildings.

So it's only natural for an architect when looking around for the right cladding for their project to think that the 2006 K15 cladding was safe to use because not only did the manufacturer of the clad advertise that the new K15 was OK to use on high rise buildings but it also had safety certificates to prove it was safe (obviously not safe due to a scam by the company) so how is the architect to know that the 2006 cladding he/she chose is actually unsafe?

You've only got to see the reasons why Kingspan did what they did when the investigation into the cladding showed it is in use on hundreds of high rise buildings. The obvious conclusion is that Kingspan wanted a piece of the pie but they knew their 2005 cladding was not up to the job as it is only allowed to be used on buildings of a certain height. Changing the insulation formulae would have allowed the K15 cladding to be used on high rise build but it failed the manufacturers own safety checks. Therefore, rather than say 'oh well, looks like were out of look on this one team', the falsified documents and safety certificates to make it look like the new 2006 version of the cladding was safe and ok to use on high rise buildings. It was done out of pure greed, hence why it has appeared on hundreds of high rise buildings.

As the inquiry continues I am sure we will find out just how much architects and building construction companies knew about the differences between the 2005 and 2006 cladding.

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

The cladding defined by the architect was NOT what was eventually used. Someone decided to cost reduce the job by changing the cladding without ensuring that what was used instead was fit for the purpose. Part of the difficulty in determining where failures took place is lining up what was done, by whom it was known, and at one point the wheels came off.

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Materials on a building job in a majority of cases get changed, it's a common practice within the building trade. You are right with regards to checking if 'fit for purpose' because it would appear with regards to this case that everyone involved took Kingspan's word on faith that their changed K15 cladding was 'fit for purpose'. This is why the fire service and the council are in an ongoing battle as to who is at fault for not checking the cladding before it was installed on the building.

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Wasnt the responsibility for controlling the fire standards of uk
removed from the fire brigades a few years ago and transferred to
the municipalities Dodge?? What the motivation for this was l have
no idea? But it seems everything has gone downhill since then??
I believe it was in the Thatcher era which could give a clue??

Donkeyman! 👎😟👎

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

It was only Maggy Thatcher imposing her will that saved the UK from TOTAL collapse in a matter of weeks. The UK was on the very edge of collapse.

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

And have been ever since Todge!!
I see the bosses of the cladding companies have off loaded their
shares in the companies recently, exactly what l told you several
months ago would happen if there was any delay in prosecuting
them?? Im only surprised it took them so long to do it!!
Now the companies will go bankrupt and there will be no money
for compensation etc !!
Long term imprisoment is the only answer if that happens, if they
dont skip the country ??

Donkeyman! 👎😟👎

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Why not sell any shares one has in a business if there is something nasty coming down the pike? I certainly would, in fact DID when I found out that the service life of fibre manufactured by a business I had a substantial holding in proved to have a much shorter service life than had been specified. When the news hit the streets the manufacturer went bust because of warranty claims but thankfully I had sold out only a couple of weeks before.

Fibre (optical cable) has quite a short life in many applications. For example when installed overhead 25 years and you're doing very well. The manufacturer was producing lower cost and claiming longer life than other manufacturers. I heard about this from a long standing friend in the QA lab - and bailed. Insider trading? Certainly. It's only natural.

Re: New lows for Grenfell!!

Theres a difference there Todge?
You were a mere shareholder with little or no influence over the
product. In other words just the mug that invested?
Whereas the Grenfell lot were owners that actually instructed staff
to follow dangerous practices and indeed dishonest falsifications
as well by promoting a totally unsuitable product ??
With the result we see !!

Donkeyman! 👍😟👍