You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected
April 10 2021 8.33pm

Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 2 « First< 1 2

 

View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 24 Mar 21 11.14am Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 24 Mar 21 12.00pm Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

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.

 


Now on GAB @Matov. Come and help build something.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View croydon proud's Profile croydon proud Flag Any european country i fancy! 24 Mar 21 3.24pm Send a Private Message to croydon proud Add croydon proud as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 2 « First< 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Fire safety cost protection for residents rejected