Topic: Grenfell Tower Fire

[Alan_X]

Am I the only one who reads that and wonders that it implies there is such a thing as "combustible cladding"?  And why the hell such a material should even be available?

"yeah, you can have this cheaper option, but it burns like a sunuvabitch.  Still, what are the odds of that happening, eh?"

Lots of things are combustible in the right circumstances - aluminium and zinc will burn if the temperature gets high enough so everything has to be properly qualified and specified.

If you ban all combustible materials you can't use wood for example - no timber clad buildings. At one extreme, a garden shed is clad in wood and would probably burn like a sunnavabitch.  But it's small and easy to escape from. It's also possible that an otherwise combustible material is ok to use in certain circumstances.

The bottom line is that you can't say that every building material has to have the highest level of fire resistance - the costs would be astronomical for basic housing.

[SP]

You can make a thermite bomb out of aluminium and rust - yet iron and aluminium are both sensible building materials in most circumstances. 

[Dr. Beaker]

Wood is actually one of the better fire resistant materials for normal domestic construction!? But only when you get to the big oak beam variety. The outside of the beam just sort of bakes and protects the inner part, and whereas a steel beam would expand and push the walls over, the wood doesn't. When you see a really old build ing that has been almost destroyed by fire, those big old beams are usually still there. But everything burns at some temperature, it's as simple as that.

[Alan_X]

I watched Newsnight that Doc suggested. I'd recommend anyone interested should watch it. An informative and intelligent piece of journalism.

One rumour it dispels early on is the nonsense that Grenfell Tower was clad to improve the views from some oligarchs' gardens. Like most other overcladding of this type it was done to improve the 'U' values (thermal insulation) as part of the drive to reduce carbon emissions.

The two bits that were of particular interest for me were:

1. the different performance of perfectly installed against 'typical' workmanship and;

2. the use of general tests and performance with different materials to justify the use of a particular materiai in a facade.

As a specifier I have to use the information provided by suppliers and manufacturers and the certification provided by testing agencies (public and private). If it's a large job it's preferable to test a part of the facade but on smaller jobs that's simply not feasible.


This is going to have a big impact on the way materials are approved and tested with much tighter resstrictions on what can and can't be used together.

[Red Beret]

Wood is actually one of the better fire resistant materials for normal domestic construction!? But only when you get to the big oak beam variety. The outside of the beam just sort of bakes and protects the inner part, and whereas a steel beam would expand and push the walls over, the wood doesn't. When you see a really old build ing that has been almost destroyed by fire, those big old beams are usually still there. But everything burns at some temperature, it's as simple as that.

I believe the Chinese have actually used wood as a re-entry heat shield.  Saw it on Vintage Space.

Of course, I realise that almost any material is combustible under the right conditions; what disturbed me is the concept of cheaper = more combustible, where there is a clear trade off on safety versus cost. 

Regardless of what a building expert or landlord might consider a likely scenario for a given blaze, or circumstances in which a particular cladding might ignite, there's a clear price put on the life contained within the building, which almost certainly comes down to the type of human being expected to inhabit the environment.  ie - the richer your are the more likely you will find yourself in a block less likely to burn.

Now my couch may well have a label on it's underside that says "keep away from open flames", but my landlord has a duty of care.  If I have a fire they must ensure it is as self contained and of minimal risk to my neighbours as possible.  It may be an emotive argument but I feel there is a lack of morality at play here, where some lives are considered less important than others.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Wood is actually one of the better fire resistant materials for normal domestic construction!? But only when you get to the big oak beam variety. The outside of the beam just sort of bakes and protects the inner part, and whereas a steel beam would expand and push the walls over, the wood doesn't. When you see a really old build ing that has been almost destroyed by fire, those big old beams are usually still there. But everything burns at some temperature, it's as simple as that.

I've been on many jobs where they used intumescent paint on all the inner steel.It swells up and works by charing on the outside kind of like the oak beams that you are talking about & can give up to 2hrs of protection.Can be used on most surfaces but is mainly used on steel and wood.

I remember I one job where the painters used what was the paint for the whole site on less than 1/3rd of it,it aint cheap stuff and I never did see those guys again.

[Alan_X]

I've been on many jobs where they used intumescent paint on all the inner steel.It swells up and works by charing on the outside kind of like the oak beams that you are talking about & can give up to 2hrs of protection.Can be used on most surfaces but is mainly used on steel and wood.

I remember I one job where the painters used what was the paint for the whole site on less than 1/3rd of it,it aint cheap stuff and I never did see those guys again.

I assume you reported it.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I assume you reported it.

Hahaha No,it was the first time I had ever come accross the stuff,it expands to 50x what you put on and they were giving it coat after coat.I did earn a few quid & some skunk off them though by lending them one of our scissors lifts & pickers.

[Alan_X]

I believe the Chinese have actually used wood as a re-entry heat shield.  Saw it on Vintage Space.

Of course, I realise that almost any material is combustible under the right conditions; what disturbed me is the concept of cheaper = more combustible, where there is a clear trade off on safety versus cost. 

Regardless of what a building expert or landlord might consider a likely scenario for a given blaze, or circumstances in which a particular cladding might ignite, there's a clear price put on the life contained within the building, which almost certainly comes down to the type of human being expected to inhabit the environment.  ie - the richer your are the more likely you will find yourself in a block less likely to burn.

Now my couch may well have a label on it's underside that says "keep away from open flames", but my landlord has a duty of care.  If I have a fire they must ensure it is as self contained and of minimal risk to my neighbours as possible.  It may be an emotive argument but I feel there is a lack of morality at play here, where some lives are considered less important than others.

That's far too simplistic. We used to do private residential for high end clients but gave up because they often penny-pinch and try to get you to fudge the building regulations. We had one client who wanted an open plan upper sleeping area and we had to refuse because he might have sold it on. There's nothing in the regs that says you can use less fire resistant materials for poor people.

Value engineering and cost cutting are part of virtually every construction project. I've worked for Harrods, Selfridges and high end brands and every one has a budget to work to.

Something has gone horribly wrong here but it's not a case of one regulation for the poor and one for the rich.

We still don't know what happened or why the choices were made.

[Alan_X]

Hahaha No,it was the first time I had ever come accross the stuff,it expands to 50x what you put on and they were giving it coat after coat.I did earn a few quid & some skunk off them though by lending them one of our scissors lifts & pickers.

I'm not being funny mate. I've specified intumescent paint on a few projects and if it's not applied properly and there's a fire people die. If I knew there was a building where the steel wasn't properly fire proofed I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

[John C]

Newsnight had a very interesting interview with (the very unsensationalist and painfully non-accusatory) Jonathan O'Neill, Managing Director of the The Fire Protection Association.

Yes, a slightly different subject but it was better than Ch4's effort yesterday when one chap claimed he had a degree in something that could contradict the latest evidence that some bodies were incinerated beyond being identifiable.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I'm not being funny mate. I've specified intumescent paint on a few projects and if it's not applied properly and there's a fire people die. If I knew there was a building where the steel wasn't properly fire proofed I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Oh it was known,the daft twats sat around for 3 days waiting for the next paint delivery.We had to take down a load of our work so that the next painting contractors could put it right,they stripped the lot and started over.

[Red Beret]

That's far too simplistic. We used to do private residential for high end clients but gave up because they often penny-pinch and try to get you to fudge the building regulations. We had one client who wanted an open plan upper sleeping area and we had to refuse because he might have sold it on. There's nothing in the regs that says you can use less fire resistant materials for poor people.

Value engineering and cost cutting are part of virtually every construction project. I've worked for Harrods, Selfridges and high end brands and every one has a budget to work to.

Something has gone horribly wrong here but it's not a case of one regulation for the poor and one for the rich.

We still don't know what happened or why the choices were made.

It's not an argument.  It's an opinion.  And as stated it's emotive.  I'm happy to stick with it.  I never said one rule for the poor and one for the rich; call it semantics but I said if you're rich you are less likely to end up in a block that's potentially lethal. 

By your own admission, landlords will try to circumvent regulations, but regardless of the occupants I find that cladding that offers varying degrees of combustibility, which allows for a cheap option, disturbing.  This isn't like a fire door, where you have a good idea that it will be rated for 30 minutes, or an hour.  There's a good chance you know what you're getting.  But who the heck knows how their own cladding is rated?

I'm not like you.  I don't research; I don't delve into the detail.  I'm not qualified in any of this.  I'm a regular person with learning difficulties.  Education on this matter comes difficult to me.  I think what has happened is immoral, and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise.

[Alan_X]

It's not an argument.  It's an opinion.  And as stated it's emotive.  I'm happy to stick with it.  I never said one rule for the poor and one for the rich; call it semantics but I said if you're rich you are less likely to end up in a block that's potentially lethal. 

By your own admission, landlords will try to circumvent regulations, but regardless of the occupants I find that cladding that offers varying degrees of combustibility, which allows for a cheap option, disturbing.  This isn't like a fire door, where you have a good idea that it will be rated for 30 minutes, or an hour.  There's a good chance you know what you're getting.  But who the heck knows how their own cladding is rated?

I'm not like you.  I don't research; I don't delve into the detail.  I'm not qualified in any of this.  I'm a regular person with learning difficulties.  Education on this matter comes difficult to me.  I think what has happened is immoral, and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise.

Fair enough. It wasn't meant to come across as me having a go.

You're right that there is a moral issue about the provision of social housing and fact that there are people in high rises who would probably be better off in traditional low rise housing.

[Red Beret]

Fair enough. It wasn't meant to come across as me having a go.

You're right that there is a moral issue about the provision of social housing and fact that there are people in high rises who would probably be better off in traditional low rise housing.

That's okay - didn't mean to come across as grouchy.  Had a few cans lol 

[Jiminy Cricket]

It's not an argument.  It's an opinion.  And as stated it's emotive.  I'm happy to stick with it.  I never said one rule for the poor and one for the rich; call it semantics but I said if you're rich you are less likely to end up in a block that's potentially lethal. 

By your own admission, landlords will try to circumvent regulations, but regardless of the occupants I find that cladding that offers varying degrees of combustibility, which allows for a cheap option, disturbing.  This isn't like a fire door, where you have a good idea that it will be rated for 30 minutes, or an hour.  There's a good chance you know what you're getting.  But who the heck knows how their own cladding is rated?

I'm not like you.  I don't research; I don't delve into the detail.  I'm not qualified in any of this.  I'm a regular person with learning difficulties.  Education on this matter comes difficult to me.  I think what has happened is immoral, and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise.

I think you do yourself a disservice, Red Beret. You write well, and you write intelligently (much better than average, I'd say). I'm dyslexic by the way. For the most part, it is irrelevant. I'm not even sure I'd describe it as any kind of disability. I just happen to score less highly on a few specific tests; this categories me as 'dyslexic'. I also score higher than most people in some other tests. We are people; we are varied in our abilities.

You offered an opinion in an area where you have (self-admitted) limited knowledge; your opinion was disputed/refuted. That all really. How many of us here write only about matters in which we are expert? If that was the standard, there be no content at RAWK.

[Trada]

Police saying that there are reasonable grounds to bring Corporate Manslaughter charges against Kensington and Chelsea Council and Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Org.

[sms1986]

Police saying that there are reasonable grounds to bring Corporate Manslaughter charges against Kensington and Chelsea Council and Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Org.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40747241

Hopefully charges will be brought, because this was an entirely avoidable tragedy.

[Yorkykopite]

A really excellent and moving report on BBC Newsnight just now - on the experiences of survivors.

[Trada]

If you can watch tonights Newsnight about floor 21 its heartbreaking.

[Yorkykopite]

It was an amazing and poignant film.

[alonsoisared]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Grenfell_21st_floor

A very touching article that accompanies the Newsnight report. I missed the programme itself, will have to try and catch up on it somewhere.

[Yorkykopite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Grenfell_21st_floor

A very touching article that accompanies the Newsnight report. I missed the programme itself, will have to try and catch up on it somewhere.

You realise - again - when you watch it two separate things which tragedies like Grenfell and Hillsborough remind us of.

The first is the deep trauma suffered by survivors who have seen things that most people outside a war zone never have. The second is the natural dignity and fellow-feeling that most people have in spades.

I can't help wondering what the immediate aftermath of Hillsborough might have looked like if the crime had been committed in similar conditions to those that exist now. I'm thinking of mobile phones, the 24-hour news cycle, and social media etc. It's hard to imagine that Liverpool's grief and Liverpool's sense of outrage wouldn't have been felt by the rest of the nation much earlier. Fifteen years earlier indeed. Grenfell, for example, has been incredibly well-covered, on all levels, by the BBC in the past few months. That film is another example.

Of course my question is ahistorical for a particular reason to do with Hillsborough, or more particularly, with the Justice Campaign. The success of that campaign has absolutely altered the social and political climate of the country. It represents a major story in British social history and always will do. The reason is that everyone today is more sensitive to both the possibility of an institutional cover-up and more on the look out for certain national newspapers denigrating victims of tragedies when those victims are poor or working class.

Grenfell campaigners - and good luck to them - are beneficiaries, in part, of the great work done by the HJC.     

[S.Red please]

https://imgur.com/a/I3L0K

Grenfell Tower lit up by the full moon, making it look like they were all home again. Quite a surreal picture (from Twitter).

[Alan_X]

From the BBC. Looking forward to Lily Allen (and others) explaining away the shite she spouted about there being hundreds of bodies.

Grenfell Tower final death toll stands at 71

5 hours ago

Seventy one victims of the Grenfell Tower fire have been formally identified and police believe that all those who died have now been recovered.

The number of victims includes baby Logan Gomes, who was stillborn in hospital on 14 June, the day the 24-storey blaze broke out.

The final two victims to be formally identified have been named as Victoria King and daughter Alexandra Atala.

The Met said it was providing "every support we can" to the bereaved.

Metropolitan Police Commander Stuart Cundy said: "I have been clear from the start that a priority for us was recovering all those who died, and identifying and returning them to their families.

"Specialist teams working inside Grenfell Tower and the mortuary have pushed the boundaries of what was scientifically possible to identify people.

"After the fire was finally put out, I entered Grenfell Tower and was genuinely concerned that due to the intensity and duration of the fire, that we may not find, recover and then identify all those who died.

"I know that each and every member of the team has done absolutely all they can to make this possible."

In June, the Met had a list of 400 missing people - some of whom were reported a number of times under different names or spellings, with one person in particular recorded 46 separate times.

The work to investigate and locate all those reported as missing was only concluded in the last few weeks, the Met said.

The family of Ms King, 71, and Ms Atala, 40, said they were "devastated" to learn of the pair's fate, adding that the mother and daughter were "devoted to each other".

The original missing persons list was also made higher by fraudulent cases, police said, with some individuals attempting to benefit financially from the tragedy.

There are a number of ongoing fraud investigations, and earlier this month one man pleaded guilty to fraud after claiming that his wife and son had both died in the fire.

The Met is also investigating alleged thefts from seven flats at Grenfell Tower, although no perpetrators have yet been identified, according to BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.
Searching every flat

Commander Cundy told BBC News: "There was only one way in and out of the tower and [CCTV] footage shows 223 people came out and survived."

He said not all 223 people were residents, some were visitors, and some residents were not in the tower at the time.

While the final stage of the search operation is not expected to conclude until early December, the Met said in a statement: "Based on all the work carried out so far and the expert advice, it is highly unlikely there is anyone who remains inside Grenfell Tower".

Specially trained officers from the Met, City of London Police and British Transport Police have been involved in the search and recovery operation, thoroughly searching every single flat on every single floor.

Officers have examined 15.5 tonnes of debris on each floor, helped by forensic anthropologists, archaeologists and forensic dentists or odontologists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42008279

[So… Howard Philips]

It's a lot easier to spout conspiracy theory shite than sift through tons of debris knowing it will contain human remains.

Respect to all the public servants who saw this through.

[Yorkykopite]

It's a lot easier to spout conspiracy theory shite than sift through tons of debris knowing it will contain human remains.

Respect to all the public servants who saw this through.

Yes, well said.

There was some real gibberish spouted about numbers from people who knew nothing and simply wanted to capitalise on grief and make a political point.

[JohnnoWhite]

There already WERE several irrefutable political points to be made full stop - irrespective of any over-inflated numbers of deaths claimed by anyone. The state of the inadequate ingress / exit design, the lack of sprinklers, the cheap fireproof cladding dumbed-down to save the very affluent Royal Borough a few lousy quid, the lack of appropriate fire fighting equipment supplied to and carried by the LFS to fight such a high-rise fire.

If the forensics experts (what a horrible job for those poor bastards to have to slave over?)  say 71 died then 71 it was that died. But the penny-pinching myriad of civvy and political bastards who short-changed those 71 lost souls are jointly and severally responsible for the 71 deaths.

[Alan_X]

There already WERE several irrefutable political points to be made full stop - irrespective of any over-inflated numbers of deaths claimed by anyone. The state of the inadequate ingress / exit design, the lack of sprinklers, the cheap fireproof cladding dumbed-down to save the very affluent Royal Borough a few lousy quid, the lack of appropriate fire fighting equipment supplied to and carried by the LFS to fight such a high-rise fire.

If the forensics experts (what a horrible job for those poor bastards to have to slave over?)  say 71 died then 71 it was that died. But the penny-pinching myriad of civvy and political bastards who short-changed those 71 lost souls are jointly and severally responsible for the 71 deaths.

Sorry Johnno but as far as we know, the design of cladding is what killed 71 people. How do you know that ingress/exit design had any part to play? Slinging around statements about a subject where you have no professional expertise doesn't help.

Maybe we should all wait for the results of the investigation before making sweeping statements. The identification of the dead has been done in a scrupulous way that makes a lot the earlier inflamatory statements look stupid.

[So… Howard Philips]

Sorry Johnno but as far as we know, the design of cladding is what killed 71 people. How do you know that ingress/exit design had any part to play? Slinging around statements about a subject where you have no professional expertise doesn't help.

Maybe we should all wait for the results of the investigation before making sweeping statements. The identification of the dead has been done in a scrupulous way that makes a lot the earlier inflamatory statements look stupid.

Hopefully the rest of the investigation will be carried out as professionally and clinically as the forensic work in the tower itself.

This initial outcome shows the value in not leaping to judgement straight away. After all in April 1989 large parts of the population didn't know the true story of Hillsborough.

[JohnnoWhite]

Sorry Johnno but as far as we know, the design of cladding is what killed 71 people. How do you know that ingress/exit design had any part to play? Slinging around statements about a subject where you have no professional expertise doesn't help.

Maybe we should all wait for the results of the investigation before making sweeping statements. The identification of the dead has been done in a scrupulous way that makes a lot the earlier inflamatory statements look stupid.

Alan, I was responding to another post which alleged  the following "There was some real gibberish spouted about numbers from people who knew nothing and simply wanted to capitalise on grief and make a political point."

I was a little non-plussed by the inference that anyone commenting back then knew nothing, had capitalised on grief and had made political points. There was a plethora of statements in the media at the time which were suggestive of poor design, suspect materials etc etc.

I chose to respond to that inference by using the statements from the LFS at the time who had criticised the evacuation access/egress design of the building in respect of smoke-filled passageways, the lack of sprinklers and the dubious fire-protective (effing useless! My comment NOT the LFS!!) cladding. I repeated their statement. That was MY source.

Similarly, the LFS confirmed in the aftermath of the tragedy that they had not been issued with the specific equipment to reach anywhere close to those heights. Fact.

Those heroes did their best with what they were given and all of them deserve an honour for their valour. These are not in any way "sweeping statements made by know-nothings making political points  but actual statements made by those professionals charged with saving lives when the shit hit the fan on that tragic night.

[Fortneef]

Its not 'the design of the cladding' though. If dangerous cladding can be bought, supplied, installed, and accepted, then something else is very wrong. 

[Alan_X]

Its not 'the design of the cladding' though. If dangerous cladding can be bought, supplied, installed, and accepted, then something else is very wrong. 

How do you know it wasn’t the design? I’ve looked closely at the photos and available documentation and in my opinion it’s possible that failures in the design and/or workmanship could be at fault. The chimney effect and flanking around the windows seemed to allow the fire to spread vertically and then across. If that’s the case then the fire stopping design or installation could be the reason.

It’s not ‘dangerous’ cladding. It’s safe if used in the right locations and with the correct design and detailing. In other words, it’s the design. And that’s true of a whole range of materials used in construction.

But that’s based on limited information. I don’t know how anyone can categorically say what the reasons were. 

[Fortneef]

Thanks. We are arguing at cross purposes. I interpreted 'design' as the construction of the material, not the whole system.

I wonder - how though are cladding design and/or installation errors on a high rise supposed to be detected though? An abseiling surveyor? 

[JohnnoWhite]

Thanks. We are arguing at cross purposes. I interpreted 'design' as the construction of the material, not the whole system.

I wonder - how though are cladding design and/or installation errors on a high rise supposed to be detected though? An abseiling surveyor? 

I would hope and expect that all safety challenges are performed on all grades/materials used in the factory fabrication of the cladding to determine its fire-resistant and any other relevent properties - long before it's hoisted wholesale 60-odd metres in the air to be fitted.

[24/7]

Please read this thread, containing some news updates and a petition well worth signing.

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=337465

Thank you.

[Zeb]

Just got an e-mail saying that the petition will be debated in Parliament on 14 May 2018.

Petition again, as a reminder:

Bereaved families & survivors call on PM to exercise her powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint additional panel members with decision making power to sit alongside Chair in Grenfell Tower Inquiry: to ensure those affected have confidence in & are willing to fully participate in the Inquiry

To secure trust in an establishment we feel has been distant & unresponsive, & to avoid a collapse of confidence in the Inquiry's ability to discover the truth, it is fundamental that;

1. The Inquiry is not led by a judge alone. Panel members must be appointed with relevant background, expertise, experience, & a real understanding of the issues facing those affected

2. Legal representatives of bereaved families see all evidence from the start & are allowed to question witnesses at the hearings

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Exactly what I said from the beginning.

Grenfell Tower cladding failed to meet standard

Fire tests carried out as early as 2014 showed cladding used on Grenfell Tower failed to meet the safety standards originally claimed by its manufacturer, a BBC investigation has found.

The firm Arconic knew the test rating had been downgraded, but the UK body that certifies building products said it was not told about the change.

An industry source, who has worked on a number of cladding schemes, said he believed there should have been a product recall.

Arconic said it did share the rating with "various customers and certification authorities".

It said the results were also published on the website of the French facility that carried out the tests in 2014 and 2015.

The cladding used on Grenfell was Reynobond PE, aluminium panels containing a plastic filling, that were popular in cost-conscious council refurbishment schemes.

While zinc cladding was initially considered when the tower was refurbished in 2015, Reynobond PE was a cheaper option, saving nearly £300,000.

In the standard European tests for "reaction to fire", products are rated A to F - with A being the top rating. Reynobond PE had a certificate based on a rating of B.

Some in the construction industry regarded this to be the required standard for use on buildings over 18m in height, though the government says this was wrong and it should have been A rated.

The rating was issued in 2008 by the British Board of Agrément (BBA), which used technical data provided by the manufacturer to assess the standard of the panels.

However, the BBC has uncovered a series of reports commissioned by the manufacturer in 2014 and 2015, during the planning for the Grenfell refurbishment.

Two configurations of the cladding, both later to be fitted at Grenfell, were tested.

One, known as "riveted", was given a classification of C, not B as was stated on the certificate.

Another type, the "cassette system", where the panels are formed into shapes before being fitted, was classified as E. In this case, the reports suggest the testing process was not completed.

However, the BBC also obtained Arconic correspondence sent to clients from late 2015 in which the company appears to confirm some of the panels were rated class E.

The email specifically addresses "concerns about the product's fire reaction class in the UK".

The BBC spoke to one source, who has worked on major cladding schemes, though not Grenfell.

He told us the email was not sent to his company's technical department and was only found after an intensive search of all company records following the Grenfell fire.


The source said E rated cladding would have been unacceptable in the projects he worked on.

"To be blunt," he said, "you wouldn't put E on a dog kennel".

He said he should have been informed of the classification results by Arconic with a product recall.

"We would have had to inform our client who would have had a duty of care to say this material is no longer compliant with building control or building regs and should be removed from buildings."

That will now happen, but only as a result of the Grenfell fire and the loss of 71 lives.

Fire testing is carried out regularly by companies producing building materials and, because the results are commercially sensitive, they are not made public.

Instead, manufacturers share their results with The British Board of Agrément (BBA).

After seeing the BBC's evidence the BBA said it "was not notified that there were other test results available in addition to those quoted in the BBA Certificate.

"It is a requirement of the certification process that the BBA is informed of information like this."

The inspectors who "sign off" construction projects rely on the accuracy of the BBA certificates.

Barry Turner, the technical director of Local Authority Building Control, which represents all council building control teams, said: "We are very dependent on the manufacturer telling us there has been a change to that product.

"If someone comes with a classification which doesn't meet what's indicated in the building control guidance then we would say 'that's not suitable. Go away and find another product.'"
What are the regulations in the UK?

Since the Grenfell Tower fire, ministers and experts have argued that buildings over 18m needed to meet a class A standard, not B.

But many in the construction industry claim the guidance for meeting the building regulations was unclear until after the fire.

In England and Wales, class B is still regarded as the required standard for some buildings of less than 18m in height which are close to other structures.

The BBC's latest findings could also result in scrutiny of buildings in Scotland where a B classification can also be used on tall buildings under certain circumstances.




How has Arconic responded?

Arconic told us: "We previously provided the classification results to various customers and certification authorities, and they were also posted on the CSTB's publicly available website."

The CSTB is the French facility which carried out the tests.

If the reports were available on its website, they are not now, and the CSTB was not able to provide them. The BBC obtained them through other sources.

We could find no mention in Arconic's marketing material of the lower classifications for the cheaper Reynobond PE cladding.

However, the company advertises more expensive versions of its cladding that were classified A2 and B in the European tests.

Arconic also suggested the BBA certificate could not be relied on alone as a mark of fire safety.

Its statement said: "The relevant UK building codes and regulations require entities who design the cladding system, such as architects, fabricators, contractors, or building owners, to conduct their own full systems testing or analysis of the entire cladding system."

What more do we know about the Grenfell cladding?

The BBC can also reveal Grenfell Tower was fitted with two different versions of the Reynobond PE cladding.

Arconic changed the makeup of its product, replacing the grey translucent plastic with a black material, also plastic, during the refurbishment of the tower.

It said the change was made to ensure cladding would weather better in direct sunlight and the test results suggest the new version performed better when exposed to flames.

Yet some of the older cladding was already installed on Grenfell and other towers, and was not removed.

What did our testing of the panels show?

We asked plastics experts at Impact Solutions in Aberdeen to analyse the older and newer versions of the panel for the BBC.

They concluded both were made of polyethylene plastic.

However, chemical analysis suggested the original Reynobond panel had a wax ingredient, possibly added to make it easier and cheaper to form into sheets.

The Impact Solutions experts believe this substance was removed for the newer version of the cladding.

At our request, the company exposed the panels to a flame under laboratory conditions, demonstrating that the newer version burned for a slightly shorter period than the older.

But both samples caught fire within two minutes, both dropped streams of melted, flaming plastic.

Les Rose, from Impact Solutions, described the speed at which the plastic burnt as "fairly dramatic", observing that it appeared to be "feeding the flames".

He regarded neither type of cladding as adequate for fixing to tall buildings.

Since the Grenfell disaster, Arconic has withdrawn Reynobond PE from the market for all building uses.

The company is now being forced to disclose evidence to investigations by the police and the Grenfell Tower public inquiry.

So it was tested and yet they still fucking used it,people need to be going to jail for this shit.

Feel physically sick reading that,like I am just about to drop on the Big One just without the excitement.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Leaseholders of flats face £40,000 bills over Grenfell type cladding

Battersea residents told upgrade, including combustible panel replacement, will not be met by Astor management firm

Residents of 80 flats managed by a company owned by David Cameron’s half brother-in-law are each facing bills of up to £40,000 because the building is clad with flammable panels similar to those used on Grenfell Tower, in London.

Leaseholders of the Sesame apartments in Battersea, south London, fear they are trapped in unsellable homes and William Astor’s company claims it is not responsible for the costs.

A spokesman said the firm’s duty was to the unnamed pension fund which owned the freehold and on whose behalf the firm managed the building.

Astor’s company is about to send the leaseholders £8,000 bills to cover a new fire alarm and the cost of a 24-hour watch in the building, following the fire on 14 June 2017 at Grenfell Tower, North Kensington, which claimed 71 lives

Leaseholders fear a further £2.2m bill for replacing the combustible panels that failed fire tests last year could also fall to them. Astor’s company has said it hoped insurers and warranty providers would pay the bill.

Across England 306 residential buildings, with a height of more than 18 storeys, have been identified as having cladding that has failed fire tests.

In common with many other blocks the cladding at the Sesame apartments is still in place but the “stay-put policy” for residents in the event of a fire there has been abandoned in favour of evacuation.

According to the planning documents the cladding specified on the building was made by Alucobond, a Germany-based company, which said that it withdrew aluminium composite cladding panels with a combustible polyethylene core in 2014.

The same brand of cladding was used at a complex including 1,000 flats at New Capital Quay, Greenwich, where one residentwas told by a surveyor that her £475,000 flat had been slashed in value to £50,000.

The Greenwich case was debated in parliament on Thursday. The Labour MP for Battersea, Marsha de Cordova, said: “Leaseholders are still being left in limbo about whether they will be footing the bill. But it is not leaseholders who have failed to upgrade buildings or cut corners with safety regulations. The burden should not fall on them. The government says it would be morally wrong for leaseholders to be held liable for the costs, but these must not be empty words. It has the power and it has the duty to intervene.”

Several of the residents own only a fraction of their flats under a shared ownership scheme, but have told de Cordova that they have been informed they will be liable for 100% of the remedial costs.

One said: “I am facing being trapped in an unsaleable property for which I’ll likely have to pay service charges that I cannot afford. I thought I was doing everything right when I saved up in my 20s to buy a home, and now my future looks dire.”

Astor, whose full title is The Hon William Waldorf Astor IV, is the owner of two companies which manage the block as part of his freehold property business, which includes freeholds of 150,000 properties, his spokesman said. He is a scion of the wealthy Astor family and half-brother of Samantha Cameron, the wife of the former prime minister.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Am I missing something but surely if the flats had the wrong cladding it falls on the owner/management of the building to pay and fix for it not the leaseholders as they bought in good faith that it was all fine, otherwise they can just sue the surveyors for not spotting it?