Tower Block Disaster - Grenfell

[bovlomov]

It seems to me that corruption and corner cutting should be factored in to any risk assessment. A risk assessment that assumes the honesty and diligence of all parties (designers, developers, clients, builders, and all the people who sign off the project stages) isn't painting a true picture of the overall risk.

There's probably enough data to establish with some degree of accuracy the additional risks: how often fire breaks are not restored, how often advice on sprinklers is unsound, and what percentage of specified materials are unsatisfactory. After that process, either it would be decided that another independent survey is required, or that human nature (or original sin) renders all tower blocks unsafe.

As it stands, a tower block is considered to be safe if a few boxes have been ticked, even if it is the mafia and Mr Magoo who are ticking the boxes.

[Flinders]

Beyond the fires themselves one has to question why any electrical appliance should go on fire, they aren't designed to and we are meant to have breakers in place and rcd's. If a tumble dryer sets fire due to a manufacturing defect( one manufacturer did ) then if an occupant is present they should have an extinguisher provided if not present then the flat should contain any fire. A fire detection system should then detect and trigger an alarm to correct authorities....... but perhaps this is where there is no provision in place for a few tens of pounds but should be. It's frustrating to argue the case in defence of the tower block as a place to live when all I'm fighting is human incompotence to take notice of professional advice and to understand how to maintain a safe building. It's no different to health and safety in factories, we've come a long way in reducing workplace accidents by applying sinple rules and regulations and educating the workforece to avoid the accidents that were commonplace in the past.

I agree these buildings could be safe. But how do we ensure what should be done is done when even governments don't seem interested except in the few days after whatever the last tragedy was?

Appliances sometimes fail. Any engineer will tell you about failure curves. These vary in shape and size, but are always there. Breakers and rcds are designed to stop the power to prevent shocks and further damage elsewhere in the system, not prevent or put out a fire. Sprinklers are the best way of dealing with that sort of fire, as a rule.

Firefighters I have spoken to are generally opposed to us ordinary types using fire extinguishers for anything bar very very minor fires. This seems counter-intuitive, but is based on bitter experience. They don't want people attempting to put a fire out and thereby delaying their exit from a building. In a domestic setting, where there are not staff trained as fire wardens as, say, large industrial companies have, they generally don't like there to be fire extinguishers at all. They are not at all easy to use correctly, you have to use the correct type for the fire, they have to be regularly maintained (and often are not) and recharged if used (and often are not) leading to a false sense of security and/or people struggling to get them to work when they should be getting out of the building. Used by people without training they may even make matters worse, especially if the wrong type is used.

[old_windbag]

I thought the issue at Ronan Point was that nobody had considered what would happen if there were to be a gas explosion.

Ronan point did not have floors and walls tied together it was the weight of the floors resting on the walls that kept them in place. The gas explosion in one flat was able to lift the ceiling/floor( depending on view ) enough to allow the walls to blow out and then all the supported building above collapsed. So not an expected outcome and perhaps they expected the gas would blow the windows out before this happened but I don't think it was an expected failure. But lessons learned....... grenfells situation is a failure of those in charge and management of it together with perhaps outdated building regs and irresponsible selection of cladding materials. It'll all be found out( if honest people do investigations ) we are just speculating what led to the disaster.

We use so many things today that have had catastrophic failures leading to occasionally high death tolls but we correct any design flaws or fix procedures to eliminate human errors and we end, for example, with the trains, planes, cars we have today. Not all of us think in a way as to cut safety features here and there playing roulette with peoples live in order to further our own financial gain.... but there are those in authority who have no conscience to do so. Its in these peoples thinking that the faults lie. When you do a job properly the chances of a "grenfall" event would be probably be zero, and not at high cost either. I mentioned the dropped fag earlier igniting rubbish (bradford ), 661-pete mentioned that and kings cross...... both down to people not undertaking general everyday duties you'd expect in such environments.

Oh mr poulson and t dan smith was an interesting corruption story. Some of newcastles newly reclad buildings are the legacy of t dan smith and some of the overly modern buildings in the city centre. He wanted to make newcastle the brasilia of the north and had big ideas but it went pear shaped and he went to prison for it. He lived in one of the blocks of his creation I believe. Amber films have a number of documentaries with t dan smith that are good to view. I always think of get carter but that was loosely the stafford lavaglio situation and the murder of angus sibbet.

Flinders:
Yes I am aware of the bathtub curve( most of us in here are at the right hand side of it ) but electrical items are designed to fail safe using various choices of component type. I mention the breaker because it will trip with a specific current over a specific time. It's a layer of safety on top of that already designed into an appliance. Even if an extinguisher isn't used if an alarm is triggered or a phone call made the fire brigade will be there in a very short time. The flat should contain a fire comfortably for that time. But how do you control tenants behaviour, what if they have the very rare event of a fire but have a kitchen full of spirits( not ghosts ) or any other highly flammable product. So there are some things out of control of even the tower blocks management other than a tenants agreement and trust. Vorpal stated a fire caused by a candle.... yes it happens and people use them ( women around their baths - sexist ) but not necessary and like cigarettes an obvious fire hazard.

[hjd10]

There are a few things that I'm struggling to understand with the safety of this building.

1. Who signed off the building when the works had been undertaken (building inspector)?
2. Do the Fire Service not have to sign off a building of this type? I know the residents had called the fire service previously with concerns.

Now both of these organisations should be working without a political agenda, they have the power to deem a place unfit until suitable works have been completed to address issues. I guess the outcome of any official investigation will result in big changes and management within the Council will have to look at the risks and have personnel accountable.

Very Sad but maybe changes made as a result of this sorry saga will improve the situation for other buildings (residents) in the future.

[Redvee]

Saw a brief PA video from inside the shell of the building and with the increased death toll figure due to be announced Monday morning one of the subtitles said some of the victims might never be identified.

[Flinders]

Flinders:
Yes I am aware of the bathtub curve( most of us in here are at the right hand side of it ) but electrical items are designed to fail safe using various choices of component type. I mention the breaker because it will trip with a specific current over a specific time. It's a layer of safety on top of that already designed into an appliance. Even if an extinguisher isn't used if an alarm is triggered or a phone call made the fire brigade will be there in a very short time. The flat should contain a fire comfortably for that time. But how do you control tenants behaviour, what if they have the very rare event of a fire but have a kitchen full of spirits( not ghosts ) or any other highly flammable product. So there are some things out of control of even the tower blocks management other than a tenants agreement and trust. Vorpal stated a fire caused by a candle.... yes it happens and people use them ( women around their baths - sexist ) but not necessary and like cigarettes an obvious fire hazard.

First point, things are not all designed to fail safe, second point, the point of a failure curve is that some things fail to do what they should- including fail safe. Think of lithium batteries- in so many things in most dwellings, yet so prone to failure and ignition they now have to be sent to me by carrier in special packaging.

Tripping the current is a good thing when something fails, but like I said, it will neither prevent a fire in an appliance nor put one out. In this building, there have already been previous fires due to a faulty electrical supply within the building causing electrical equipment to catch fire. At this point, we don't know whether that may be an issue here too. from the Guardian:

The residents of Grenfell Tower were alarmed to discover smoke pouring from their electrical appliances in May 2013. Laptops, televisions, washing machines and fridges were damaged by an unexplained series of power surges that prompted the frightened occupants of the 24-storey tower in west London to descend on their estate office, demanding action and answers.

In an email to Robert Black, CEO of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which manages the 1970s social housing property on behalf of the local authority, one resident explained “we had numerous power surges in the space of a minute, and in that process my computer and monitor literally exploded, with smoke seeping out from the back”.

According to the July minutes of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s housing and property scrutiny committee, KCTMO “carried out some repairs and continue to monitor the situation. It is too early to say whether the problem has been fully resolved and here responsibility lies for the cause. It is possible that the fault that has been rectified is not the primary cause.”

The cause of the surges, which are now likely to be reviewed following claims that last week’s blaze started when a resident’s fridge went up in flames, were just one of many concerns about fire safety that the residents have raised with KCTMO down the years. As far back as 2004 they flagged up issues with the building’s emergency lighting system, which was supposed to activate in the event of a fire.

(Residents reported that some areas the emergency lighting was not on this time either.)

Fire/smoke alarms are a good idea. When they work. In this case, people didn't hear them for whatever reason, though the company that appears to run them says they did go off as they have a record of that at their base. So either they were not loud enough, or something else went wrong.

A flat should contain a fire. The fact that it did not needs to be investigated.

Statements about the smoke in the stairwell and corridors have to be investigated because fire doors (heavy and self-closing) should have prevented that, as should the ventilation system.

Unless someone is storing industrial quantities of flammable materials in their flat, that should not cause the spread of fire in a properly compartmentalised building. AFAIK there has not been any suggestion from anywhere in this case that I have read that any inappropriate materials were being stored anywhere. But you are right to point out the risks. I use solvents and work at home. I only keep one spare bottle of any solvent at any given time - that's one thing I would never buy in bulk whatever the discount.

[Vorpal]

Regarding appliances, not all are designed to fail safe, however, even if they were, the Grenfell was public housing, which means that many of the people who lived there could not afford new appliances, may have repaired their own appliances, and are unlikely to know if, for example, it has been subject to a recall by the manufacturer.

The Shepherd's Bush Fire was caused by a faulty tumble dryer. IIRC, there was some attempt to obtain recompense from the manufacturer.

[JimL]

Regarding appliances, not all are designed to fail safe, however, even if they were, the Grenfell was public housing, which means that many of the people who lived there could not afford new appliances, may have repaired their own appliances, and are unlikely to know if, for example, it has been subject to a recall by the manufacturer.

The Shepherd's Bush Fire was caused by a faulty tumble dryer. IIRC, there was some attempt to obtain recompense from the manufacturer.

That statement is rather patronising and ill informed.

[[XAP]Bob]

I'm not so sure - given that in general the occupants of social housing are not the wealthiest portion of society it seems reasonably to expect that they will use older devices for longer, and make an effort to repair them...

The poorest in society, and yes Kensington does have communities in the poorest few percent in the country, don't tend to subscribe to the throwaway society that the rest of us are able to afford to (whether or not we choose to).

[Vorpal]

Regarding appliances, not all are designed to fail safe, however, even if they were, the Grenfell was public housing, which means that many of the people who lived there could not afford new appliances, may have repaired their own appliances, and are unlikely to know if, for example, it has been subject to a recall by the manufacturer.

The Shepherd's Bush Fire was caused by a faulty tumble dryer. IIRC, there was some attempt to obtain recompense from the manufacturer.

That statement is rather patronising and ill informed.

Is it? It's not meant to be either.

I'm basing it on personal experience, and that of friends. When I was poor, I could never afford anything new, not even the cheapest. Most of my expensive items were either given to me, or bought cheaply from others when they bought something better.

edited to add: there was a point in my life that I don't think I had a single appliance, except maybe my toaster that hadn't been repaired at least once. I once got a washing machine from a friend who replaced it with new. She let me have it for free on the basis that it didn't work. So I repaired it, and that was the very first washing machine I owned. Up until then, I had been spending money to do it in laundrettes.

[AlaninWales]

May I once again take the opportunity to remind everyone that to clad the outside of Grenfell tower block with fire proof material would've cost an extra £5,000! with that kind of penny pinching what else will be uncovered in an independent Enquiry?

Did the material used meet current standards/requirements? Yes/No. If yes, then there is no case to answer except to say that the current standard has been proved inadequate. Spending more money than need be is not the way councils or businesses can afford to work, or many individuals come to that. A silly example might be in road repairs where patching is obviously cheaper than doing a "proper" job. If the fire was started by a refrigerator, has the brand and model been publicised? If the fridge is a fitment provided by the building management, then the logic of spending a little more might apply to that as well.

I am not an apologist for any of the problems that lead to this event. I am truly horrified.

Well once again people are ignoring the ability to access experts via the internet. I think this is the third time I have posted this link, which BTW is to a firm of architects who specialise in dispute arbitration. http://www.probyn-miers.com/perspective/2016/02/fire-risks-from-external-cladding-panels-perspective-from-the-uk/ The regulations advise

The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety. The use of combustible materials for cladding framework, or of combustible thermal insulation as an overcladding or in ventilated cavities, may present such a risk in tall buildings, even though the provisions for external surfaces … may have been satisfied.

but there is no compulsory requirement for non-flammable cladding.
However the link also says:

The View of the Court

Following a fire at Sahib Foods production factory, Southall, in January 1998 with a loss of £17million, and despite the court finding considerable negligence by the occupant, there was a civil court judgment against the architect for specifying internal EPS-cored composite panels, for the total loss, physical and consequential trading loss, beyond the room of origin. (On appeal the award was reduced by two-thirds, because of the contributory negligence.)

There was no loss of life or personal injury in the fire. The building was provided with adequate means of escape. The premises had a Fire Certificate. There was no question of a breach of the Building Regulations or any other statutory requirement.

However, the Judge “…was not the slightest impressed by the submission that since the defendants had complied with their statutory requirements and as a result no one was killed or injured they had fully performed their duties. Nor was I impressed by repeated submissions that warnings about this sort of fire were ‘insurance led’. That submission seems to me to be close to the frequent thief’s submission that the only people to suffer from his activities are insurers.” [43]

UK Building Regulations generally only require that reasonable standards of health and safety are secured for persons in or around buildings. The Sahib -v- PKS judgment made it clear that protection of property from fire is also an obligation for the architect / specifier, in the view of the High Court in England & Wales. The view that the building is sacrificial in fire incidents, provided there is no threat to persons, became no longer sustainable.

So simply complying with building regulations may still not be enough to avoid civil (at least) liabilities. Whether architects, planners and the budget-owners they advise have also a duty in law to take reasonable measures to protect human life seems (AFAICT) to be an open question.

[Ruadh495]

This is what I hope isn't going to happen:

The "cause" of the fire will be traced to an appliance which had been poorly repaired by an "unauthorised" person. The owner of the appliance is held responsible and goes down for manslaughter.

All other investigation just... stops.

(See the Selby rail crash. Yes, Gary Hart almost certainly did fall asleep at the wheel, but why wasn't the railway adequately protected from the motorway? A driver could lose control for a variety of reasons. And why was a train being propelled at high speed? Anyone who has played with a train set knows what happens when you have the locomotive at the rear. Hart was held responsible and those questions were shelved, which means the whole thing can happen again.)

[old_windbag]

First point, things are not all designed to fail safe, second point, the point of a failure curve is that some things fail to do what they should- including fail safe. Think of lithium batteries- in so many things in most dwellings, yet so prone to failure and ignition they now have to be sent to me by carrier in special packaging.

Tripping the current is a good thing when something fails, but like I said, it will neither prevent a fire in an appliance nor put one out. In this building, there have already been previous fires due to a faulty electrical supply within the building causing electrical equipment to catch fire. At this point, we don't know whether that may be an issue here too. from the Guardian:

When products are designed the tests they undergo before being released to the public include enough testing and component selection to avoid the high risk of fire or electroution of the user. Failures occur in devices initially at higher rates and at end of life but the "expected" failures and the manner in which they fail are normally understood and the product designed to react in a safe manner. We have moved on a long way from appliances of the 30's/40's having learned along the route. The breaker as I say is a layer on top of that already built into the appliance, it may not prevent a fire but removes the source of energy to continue fuelling it beyond the materials in the product, the event of fire is part of the product design and choice of components. Manufacturers do sometimes make mistakes, it's not common as who wants a bad reputation and falling sales, so never intentional and we do have high standards to comply with. But we do see dodgy imports from china etc that have fake standards on them and some will get past trading standards, a sad state of consumerism unfortunately.

The voltage surges etc that lead to strange events is something serious that should have been investigated along with all the other safety issues. These are faults not of appliances but the infrastructure and its maintenance( the grid isssues may lie in something more complex that the grid authority would have to monitor ). These are failings of humans to act on and react to, as is so often the case.

The lithium battery issues vary but we've seen the samsung debacle and also I think nokia had some charging issues. The issues were reacted to and addressed but if we could run out new technologies to meet consumer demand at the rate they want and still make it perfect on first attempt then we would be a brilliant society...... but we know that's difficult to achieve. But once a technolgy is established it's normally very reliable and inherently safe. If someone wishes to remove a lithium pack from a product and hammer a nail into it then thats beyond any control...... perhaps thats a reason for so many smartphones having non removable batteries( outside of built-in obsolesence ).

But at the endo of the day even if a product causes a fire the next stage is having a flat that contains the said fire/smoke..... to date it seems to do exactly that as we aren't seeing tower block fire deaths on front pages every couple of weeks and nor have people lived in fear of being in a tower block, many do like them. The failings as I say are human in not following up events and maintaining or installing new equipment as their responsibilty as a landlord/housing association. Thats how it appears together with the main culprit the added cladding.

We have layers of safety all the way through our modern lives and when adhered to they work, they may not prevent all deaths but they work in our favour and get better year on year. If beaurorats choose to cut some of those out then we know where blame lies. I think it's a shame if residents have objected for years and were ignored, it shouldn't happen, but I've seen too much of it and I'm at the point in life that I simply feel like banging politicians and beaurocrats heads off walls. We need whistle blowers to out these people and bring change, it's hard to fight a system that is built on generally corrupt principles, no wonder people end off using violence. Even the good politicians and officials( there will be some ) will be beaten down by the system we have.

Flinders if I had my way these issues would not happen as I'd appoint people on ability and integrity not because they are part of a club I attend or have interests in a brotherly manner. Nor individuals driven by the salary of a post. Sadly we seem to be good at choosing the wrong candidates for a post but that goes back to the selection panel...... all cut from the same cloth I bet. We all too often pay for that in events like this, but they always seem to find another exellent well paid position even with blood on their hands.

[JohnW]

This is what I hope isn't going to happen:

The "cause" of the fire will be traced to an appliance which had been poorly repaired by an "unauthorised" person. The owner of the appliance is held responsible and goes down for manslaughter.

All other investigation just... stops.

(See the Selby rail crash. Yes, Gary Hart almost certainly did fall asleep at the wheel, but why wasn't the railway adequately protected from the motorway? ......................

Yes, I know the spot and I've wondered that...........but are those barriers not highway department responsibility? - and do they even know enough to provide for and protect cyclists?, never mind trains?

....................And why was a train being propelled at high speed? Anyone who has played with a train set knows what happens when you have the locomotive at the rear. Hart was held responsible and those questions were shelved, which means the whole thing can happen again.)

Well, it was doing what it was designed to do. I think that the integrity of the coaches would have performed better except for the amazing and dreadful coincidence of the 'meet' with the freight train just at that moment.

This is what I hope isn't going to happen:

The "cause" of the fire will be traced to an appliance which had been poorly repaired by an "unauthorised" person. The owner of the appliance is held responsible and goes down for manslaughter.

All other investigation just... stops......................

Yes - I hope that it doesn't go that way, but the rich and powerful may very well have means of getting off the hook and it honestly wouldn't surprise me. I have a mental picture of a scenario where someone rich and powerful enough to have budgeting responsibility and who sees 'poor' people as invalid and inconsequential, can escape it all to their villa in the Bahamas.

[Flinders]

This is what I hope isn't going to happen:

The "cause" of the fire will be traced to an appliance which had been poorly repaired by an "unauthorised" person. The owner of the appliance is held responsible and goes down for manslaughter.

All other investigation just... stops.

(See the Selby rail crash. Yes, Gary Hart almost certainly did fall asleep at the wheel, but why wasn't the railway adequately protected from the motorway? A driver could lose control for a variety of reasons. And why was a train being propelled at high speed? Anyone who has played with a train set knows what happens when you have the locomotive at the rear. Hart was held responsible and those questions were shelved, which means the whole thing can happen again.)

The train was being propelled from the rear? That's weird. What's your source for that, just out of interest? (not doubting you, just wanting to know more about it) Except for electric trains with traction motors down the length of the train, which is a completely different matter, I didn't think that was ever done except for banking. Even in Ye Olde Days, when there was one engine at one end and they couldn't always be turned, they didn't go facing forwards and push from the back- they went to the front and pulled going backwards (if you see what I mean).

in the case you suggest I would have thought that it wouldn't be the owner, but whoever repaired it who might be at risk of prosecution.