https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/how-grenfell-cladding-f...

Pretty horrible and getting worse

another source... from a website I frequent. The report only took 7 years.

https://www.dezeen.com/2024/09/04/grenfell-tower-f...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Depressing number of the contributory factors were things society still holds to be good - Cheaper, faster, prettier, less regulation, less interference from local authority inspectors .....

There were a lot of cladding fires before 2017. There were a lot of warning about the dangers.

Celotex falsified the insulation tests.

The cladding applied over the insulation wasn't supposed to be flammable.

The windows were not installed properly and provided no fire barrier resistance.

The "local authority" seemed to know about all of these and chose to allow the project to proceed and also chose not to act on any warnings after the work was completed.

How much regulation is enough? Does every government entity need to employ their own engineering firm so they can properly evaluate every detail of every construction project?

Yes, every government entity I know does hire an engineering company to carry out their work, but when suppliers lie about their materials and falsify specs, contractors cut corners, or the entity itself ignores the regulations and warnings, it doesn't make much difference how many engineers you have, or how many regulations address the issue. The result will not be satisfactory. Enforcement needs to have teeth, but even that is no guarantee if there are parties determined to circumvent all of those things. China has severe penalties, yet they are still occasionally forced to imprison offenders and even go so far as execution. What can you do... Apparently a quick buck can be very tempting to some.



--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Quote (LionelHutz)

The windows were not installed properly and provided no fire barrier resistance.

If I were to pick a single failure in the design/construction part of the refurbishment, the fire compartmentalisation being compromised by the windows is it. As-built, the tower's original windows formed part of the compartmentalisation, but moving them from the plane of the original concrete out to the outer plane of the cladding was a fatal mistake. It allowed the fire travelling up and along the insulation cavity to rapidly jump from compartment to compartment.

That's not to disregard the horrendous choice of materials and manipulated/misleading testing, and the rest. It's just the one thing which I feel could have made all the difference in the speed of the spread through the interior. Slow the interior fire spread down enough, and many more could have escaped or been rescued.

Hard to stray too far from the panel selection. I keep looping back to this.




--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

The bit that I also wonder about, especially now, is the provision of smoke hoods and general escape provision to each apartment in a high rise. I think the latest fire which happened a couple of weeks ago in a shorter building, the FB did actually carry these and use them in the evacuation of people when they, this time, made the call in time to evacuate as opposed to "Stay in PLace".

"from the BBC Assistant Commissioner Goulbourne says more than 80 people were evacuated from the building by firefighters.
He adds that 20 people were rescued with some given fire escape hoods, which provide 15 minutes of clean air while the person is moved to safety.

I bought one a few years ago to take on planes and in strange hotels. Pray I never need to use it, but its a relatively cheap insurance policy.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I have found doing personal building work that there is an utter adversion of builders to go anywhere near mineral wool insulation.

And some of the nonsense they come out with to sell using foam insulation is utterly mind blowing.

Mail
Article just released.

Architect firm blocked from closing down.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13819355/...

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Seems kind of pointless to prosecute the firm, it'd be a hollow victory since everyone already knows they are partly responsible and they won't get any money prosecuting a liquidated company.

They are being blocked to prevent liquidation (basically dispersion of assets).

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

It also blocks a few other legal things I think.

I doubt they have much capital assets.

It will be more about the PI insurance policies.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

There is something about the company directors legal exposure as well I seem to remember.

Which is why there is a trend for project companies to be formed and then dissolved after completion.

There is mention about not being able to bring corporate manslaughter charges against the firm once it was dissolved.

Once it is dissolved.
In UK all companies remain active until removed from Companies House, a registration of all companies operating in UK. I requested my company to be removed when I retired, but they ignored my request for a year, so they are right when they say it can take a year to get removed.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

That's why they form the project companies.

Basically they only have a year's worth of exposure after completion.

But why would it make sense for owners to do business with such companies, if they know they will disappear as soon as the project is finished? The first things we check before issuing a construction contract is how long they've been operating, their financial status, current litigation and experience in similar projects. We don't want to do business with any potential "fly by nighters".

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

They appear to be established.

In reality the company the business is being processed through is something else.

It's our MBA friends again. I believe they call it a fuse setup.

From that other web site...

"One night in 2010, a Shanghai high-rise fire killed fifty-eight people. Before dawn, local Party members had coordinated twenty-five fire stations, a hundred fire trucks, and a thousand firefighters along with police, hospitals, finance, insurance, housing, donations, counselling, criminal investigators, and schools.

Forty-eight hours later, state-owned insurers compensated families for lost property and wrote $250,000 checks for each death. Ten days later, Shanghai Mayor Han Zheng confessed, "Our poor supervision of the construction industry caused the fire". He implemented new building codes, fired or demoted thirty officials, and indicted twenty-two, most of whom went to prison, two for sixteen years. The contrast with London's Grenfell Tower fire is stark."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote:

Once it is dissolved.

Is is present tense. If they try to get money from the firm AFTER it is dissolved then the firm was dissolved, not is dissolved.