Towering Inferno!

[flatandy]

Hopefully it’ll be the entire council, and all the people involved in deregulation, and the cladding manufacturers.

[perrykneeham]

All the people involved in the deregulation? Step forward Mr. Blair.

[perrykneeham]

The cladding manufacturers knew they the material would fail in a fire. And?

www.bbc.com/news/uk-51279906

Thing is that a) that means nothing. Butter would melt is a fire, which is why Anchor don't offer a BBA-accredited fire certificate for it, and b) they repeated this non-story again today, citing revealing emails.

It's horseshit of course. Wonder why they keep reciting this nonsense.

[flatandy]

They don't clad buildings in butter. Did you know that?

[perrykneeham]

According to the BBC they do. Wilfull immiolation.

You see, it is quite possible for a manufacturer to make several similar products, some of which are suitable for, say, indoor use and some for outside. Maybe even, fire-roasted and non fire-roasted. It is fair to say that they are aware of which is which, the racist bastards.

But - hey - imagine if someone chooses to swap out the approved product with an unsuitable one, cos it's cheaper .....

[flatandy]

I don't think anyone's really criticising the cladding manufacturer. They're criticising the Tory scum who decided to put butter, firewood and jet fuel all the way up the outside of a tower block.

[perrykneeham]

Nah, that was Labour's murderous deregulation of Building Control and the frankly racist Fire Reform Act of 2005 which seems to have been designed specifically to toast poor illegals.

New Labour. New Dangers.

[flatandy]

I don't think it was Labour who cladded the outside of the tower block in thermite.

[perrykneeham]

Oh, but it was. They monetised (and weaponised) Building Control and the Fire Regs. They made compliance a matter of "who pays the piper calls the tune."

[flatandy]

“Created the regulatory environment” isn’t the same as the literal cladding of the building in liquid oxygen tanks that the Tories did.

[perrykneeham]

Destroyed the regulatory environment, you mean. 150 years of municipal oversight sacrificed to appease Labour's property developer mates. <cough> Momentum <cough>

[perrykneeham]

"Mariam Ali-Pattergill, who bought a lease on a London flat with flammable cladding, says she must pay £40,000 this year for fire insurance and for the cost of having the cladding removed. She is one of hundreds of residents at the M&M buildings in Paddington who must pay tens of thousands of pounds because their flat blocks were built with ACM cladding - the same type as that on Grenfell Tower."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-54839539

If this is true, then it's a bloody disgrace. I suspect it isn't, mind.

[voice]

Why do you think its untrue, id be interested what you base that on

[mids]

It's on the BBC website.

[mids]

Anyway, serves her right for buying a flat made out of sweets.

[perrykneeham]

There are a few people who the freeholder could, and should, go after before sending a bill to the leaseholders: the developer, the architect and the (no doubt freelance) building control surveyor. All of the above are actually liable. At least two of them carry Professional Indemnity insurance.

The next line is that the leaseholders were sold a fully compliant, brand new building. They have a claim against the vendor.

Finally, the leaseholders' own buildings insurance should cover this. It's amazing what you can claim for: SW Water presented my parents with a bill to replace defective pipes in their road. It was about £ 150,000. They just divided the bill between the affected neighbours according to what length of pipework they used and their insurers paid.

[perrykneeham]

This last point is almost certainly known by the whiner, but it spoils the whinge.

[flatandy]

Leaseholds are stupid. A sensible person would have bought the entire tower block and then could have decided to keep the anthracite cladding.

[perrykneeham]

But only if it was steel-framed. That's the gold standard. Doesn't matter what you do after that. Clad it with airliners and kerosene, if you want.

[perrykneeham]

This was interesting:

www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/bre-accused-of-enabling-criminal-grenfell-cladding-manufacturers?tkn=1

Lawyers a dirty dogs, aren't they? There's nothing clever, ethical or fair about making ridiculous illogical statements and then asserting, not suggesting, criminality.

Basically, this cnut's case is that the BRE approved the use of the insulation panels for use in buildings above 18m and that they are at fault because the contractor chose to install them in a non-approved frame. It's laughable pish, but what it suggests is that the "victims" are aiming for the jackpot of government money, rather than going after the commercial organisations who will have limited resources, capable lawyers and no political considerations.