Jump to content


Are our Tower Blocks safe?

Recommended Posts

Julie Dore didn't authorise the work. The people incharge then long gone either MP"s or Lords now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate our Labour council but it looks like that councils all over country have invested into the same cladding.

The cladding passed all current safety standards so there is no criminal negligence.

 

I think the investigation will say that no one was to blame, that it was an unfortunate set of events and will recommend new safety standards.

 

Hooray, a sensible post.

 

I hate our Labour council but it looks like that councils all over country have invested into the same cladding.

 

The cladding passed all current safety standards so there is no criminal negligence.

 

I think the investigation will say that no one was to blame, that it was an unfortunate set of events and will recommend new safety standards.

 

It will all boil down to semantics, and will be argued about for years.

 

I hate our Labour council but it looks like that councils all over country have invested into the same cladding.

 

The cladding passed all current safety standards so there is no criminal negligence.

I think the investigation will say that no one was to blame, that it was an unfortunate set of events and will recommend new safety standards.

 

And it will drag on for years, while people try to nail someone down for it. I pity the person who heads this investigation.

 

-

 

It was a shocking event, and with all what's going on (positive things like it being removed immediately in places), it's unlikely to happen again.

 

It's also been seen worldwide and they are also testing things. That's what happens after a catastrophic event, people learn. Some people don't realise that this is how the world works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't see the point in recladding.

 

The tenants get their heating as part of their rent..

 

Although it maybe classed as part of the rent account to be paid its is an added charge on top. Its also expensive despite the fact that the heat is from the hot water being generated by the incinerator that burns the cities rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
Do you imagine that it said to use materials that didn't meet the building codes at the time?

 

No idea. Did it? Either way any scenario could have implications on recovery routes dependent on the contract.

 

Did the materials not meet the regulations - I haven't seen that only that it was different to what the council initially asked for (allegedly)?

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No idea. Did it? Either way any scenario could have implications on recovery routes dependent on the contract.

 

Did the materials not meet the regulations - I haven't seen that only that it was different to what the council initially asked for (allegedly)?

 

According to auntie Beeb, the cladding was swapped to a cheaper LESS fire retardant panel. There's nothing to suggest it wasn't up to code at the time.

 

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to auntie Beeb, the cladding was swapped to a cheaper LESS fire retardant panel. There's nothing to suggest it wasn't up to code at the time.

 

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

 

The article you linked also says...

 

"Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating."

 

Confusing.

 

Edit. The lunchtime news is repeating the anomaly, ie that the replacement aluminium cladding had a less fire resistant core, yet they both had the same fire rating.

 

Faced with cost cutting pressure, and paperwork confirming that the cheaper cladding had the same (presumably compliant) fire rating, it's no surprise that they would agree to a change. In fact, if it subsequently came out that they had failed to change to a cheaper, compliant material, they would be criticised for wasting money.

 

We will need to wait for the enquiry to sort the wheat from the chaff, and whether it was reasonable to change from the original specification, eg whether the specification was tight enough, etc.

Edited by Eater Sundae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest makapaka
The article you linked also says...

 

"Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating."

 

Confusing.

 

Edit. The lunchtime news is repeating the anomaly, ie that the replacement aluminium cladding had a less fire resistant core, yet they both had the same fire rating.

 

Faced with cost cutting pressure, and paperwork confirming that the cheaper cladding had the same (presumably compliant) fire rating, it's no surprise that they would agree to a change. In fact, if it subsequently came out that they had failed to change to a cheaper, compliant material, they would be criticised for wasting money.

 

We will need to wait for the enquiry to sort the wheat from the chaff, and whether it was reasonable to change from the original specification, eg whether the specification was tight enough, etc.

 

Absolutely - which is why its not as straightforward as just checking deliveries / dragging contractor's back to site for remedials etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I read that Cllr Dore said that SCC can't afford to replace all cladding and that the original cladding cost £300,000 less.

 

The cladding on our blocks are 23 years old. How do we know if they were up to spec all that time ago. Janet Sharpe told us that the cladding has some sort of fire wall behind it but yet we haven't had any proof of this. She also said that we are to have a sprinkler put into our kitchens. That's all good until some one who is doped up or drunk decides to set it off. ( most of the tenants on our blocks are either doped up or drunk ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cladding on my Tower Block has been tested and deemed fit for purpose. so the SCC say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest busdriver1
The cladding on my Tower Block has been tested and deemed fit for purpose. so the SCC say.

 

Under the circumstances I doubt very much they would say it was OK if it was anything other.

Looks like you will have to find another stick to beat them with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you noticed how quiet it has gone in regard to what tower blocks around the UK have failed? The other day it was 190 blocks out of 191 but none of them named.

 

Sheffield Council wouldn't announce if they had failed or not. It was a few weeks ago when they said everything was fine just for a few days after that to find out it wasn't fine in one block they had allegedly tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.