Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Eaglecoops CR3 24 Mar 21 11.14am
Originally posted by Matov Only ever seen the most pertinent question about that cladding asked the once, by the head of a housing association up in Norwich. Why was the cladding safe one day and then not the next? The entire issue is around why that cladding received the necessary safety certificate. Realised something was seriously afoot with the entire issue when they spent so much time trying to attack the Fire Brigade, including raising the issue of 'racism. Pure diversionary tactics. No cladding on Grenfall, no tragedy. Its that simple. Both sides of the political debate have some serious questions to answer and it is clear both want the issue brushed under the carpet. Can’t disagree with any of that. Ultimately the manufacturer of the product will argue the product has been tested and approved. Those who approved it will say it should not have been specified for that particular use. Those who specified it will say it has been approved and not installed correctly and those who check the work will probably have just looked at product codes and decided the products were ok. I recall a tv programme on the safety of the material which showed just how far from the mark it was in being fit for purpose from a fire retardant basis. Clearly the material is not fire retardant. Then you have to consider whether the building design itself provides adequate protection from fire to be able to evacuate the building within a certain timeframe, ie adequate fire stops. There is blame to apportion everywhere here.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 24 Mar 21 11.14am

Originally posted by Matov

Only ever seen the most pertinent question about that cladding asked the once, by the head of a housing association up in Norwich.

Why was the cladding safe one day and then not the next?

The entire issue is around why that cladding received the necessary safety certificate.

Realised something was seriously afoot with the entire issue when they spent so much time trying to attack the Fire Brigade, including raising the issue of 'racism. Pure diversionary tactics. No cladding on Grenfall, no tragedy. Its that simple.

Both sides of the political debate have some serious questions to answer and it is clear both want the issue brushed under the carpet.

Can’t disagree with any of that. Ultimately the manufacturer of the product will argue the product has been tested and approved. Those who approved it will say it should not have been specified for that particular use. Those who specified it will say it has been approved and not installed correctly and those who check the work will probably have just looked at product codes and decided the products were ok.

I recall a tv programme on the safety of the material which showed just how far from the mark it was in being fit for purpose from a fire retardant basis. Clearly the material is not fire retardant. Then you have to consider whether the building design itself provides adequate protection from fire to be able to evacuate the building within a certain timeframe, ie adequate fire stops.

There is blame to apportion everywhere here.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 24 Mar 21 12.00pm
Originally posted by Eaglecoops Then you have to consider whether the building design itself provides adequate protection from fire to be able to evacuate the building within a certain timeframe, ie adequate fire stops. There is blame to apportion everywhere here. Except the building frame, in its original condition, cannot burn like that. Policy in such buildings is to have 1-hour fire doors to contain any blaze inside a single dwelling. Grenfall ONLY happened because of the addition of that cladding. Which must have been passed as being safe. For me the only issue is why that was allowed to happen? But yet we got all the emphasis on the Firebrigrade. Makes little sense. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

24 Mar 21 12.00pm

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Then you have to consider whether the building design itself provides adequate protection from fire to be able to evacuate the building within a certain timeframe, ie adequate fire stops.

There is blame to apportion everywhere here.

Except the building frame, in its original condition, cannot burn like that. Policy in such buildings is to have 1-hour fire doors to contain any blaze inside a single dwelling. Grenfall ONLY happened because of the addition of that cladding. Which must have been passed as being safe.

For me the only issue is why that was allowed to happen? But yet we got all the emphasis on the Firebrigrade. Makes little sense.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

croydon proud Any european country i fancy! 24 Mar 21 3.24pm
Originally posted by martin2412 And then the builder (who probably bought it in good faith) needs to sue the architect who specified it, the architect sues the cladding supplier, who then sues the manufacturer. So be it, just let it end up with the insurance company, that all these big building companies have, or is that getting to close to the city of london? Whatever, the flat owner who bought the property in good faith should not be paying a penny!
Alert a moderator to this post

croydon proud

Any european country i fancy! 24 Mar 21 3.24pm

Originally posted by martin2412

And then the builder (who probably bought it in good faith) needs to sue the architect who specified it, the architect sues the cladding supplier, who then sues the manufacturer.

So be it, just let it end up with the insurance company, that all these big building companies have, or is that getting to close to the city of london? Whatever, the flat owner who bought the property in good faith should not be paying a penny!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors