That proposed prison in Nigeria might be a good place to put them.

Mar 11, 2018 at 6:01 PM | tomo

Masi Naqshbandi,

https://www.insurancefraudbureau.org/media-centre/news/2012/crash-for-cash-fraudster-sentenced-to-7-years-in-prison/

tomo, more to appear?

The Met Police, which is already investing eight potential fraud cases related to Grenfell, added: ‘We will investigate anyone who we think is fraudulently profiting from the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower.’

Kensington and Chelsea council also confirmed it was investigating fraud cases related to the aftermath of the fire, adding: ‘We have a number of fraud investigations under way and we have handed a number of cases to the police. ‘We do not discuss case specifics or individual details as it may impact investigations or any subsequent prosecutions. ‘We have clear policies in place for officers to follow when they think fraud has taken place and we will take action — including evictions — where necessary.’

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/12/entire-family-15-claimed-living-grenfell-tower-fire-7380007/?ito=cbshare

Pitiful design decisions
Defective and untested emergency provision

Mar 12, 2018 at 1:53 PM | tomo

The building was safer for residents, (in the event of a fire) when it was built. There was less fuel for a fire, fewer means for it to spread, and people would have evacuated anyway.

V is making a big deal about the door resistance being 15 mins , not 30 ?
That's rubbish cos it all depends the intensity of the fire
..and the fire was longer than 30 mins anyway

Mar 15, 2018 at 10:42 PM | stewgreen

No, it is not rubbish!

Fire Resistance? Smoke Resistance?

Different classifications for different purposes, but in Multiple Occupancy buildings, doors to each flat (but not the internal doors within each flat) should have been 1/2 Hour or 1 Hour. Doors in corridors, and leading to staircases etc might have been 1 Hour or higher.

The rating should allow people to escape, and pass doors with a fire the other side. Escape routes need to be clear of flames, and toxic fumes and smoke.

The issue is whether the WRONG doors were fitted, and if so, who did it? Did the contractors doing a refurb substitute cheaper doors? Had anyone noticed? Had residents replaced their "own" front doors?

stewgreen, cont'd

Someone has tested a door that was not consumed in the fire. If the tested door was of similar design to other doors that were destroyed in the fire, this would suggest that many were substandard....

The further scandal is that Residents were told to stay in their flats, and await rescue.

tomo,

everyone is going to be blaming everyone else, if it is all as reported by the BBC. Architects and Building Control will have relied on Certification/Testing from the BBA, probably supplied to them via the cladding manufacturers.

I think the origins and significance of buildings <18metres > is linked to the extended height and reach of "standard" Fire Engines/Pumps, rather than the nature of a fire that may be created.

stewgreen'
TV

Sorry about the last post - on my phone, in landscape, the keypad obliterated everything.

stewgreen: 'One day someone will put the jigsaw together.
I hate the way it takes so long'

The paper work should have been up to date!

It wasn't, so that is the first mistake. Any DIY should require a review of the restrictions for that building.

It is like upgrading an IT system that has no documentation: we want the new system to run just like the old one, but with this one enhancement, isn't a spec, well, not if you are in Development or Testing!

Apr 6, 2018 at 7:56 AM | tomo

Insurers have to accept that a building was built in accordance with the Building Regulations at the time, and has been refurbished and maintained in accordance with the Building Regulations at the time of any work.

An insurance company can decide to stop insuring an individual building, or method of construction. As nothing has been proven YET, the Insurance industry may be waiting for evidence.

IF the Inquiry points the finger of blame at an individual or company, their Liability Insurers will be braced for extensive claims. I would imagine that 5-10(?) different Insurance Policies (some may be with the same Insurance Company) may be on a high level of concern.

The wording of any conclusions/recommendations issued by the Enquiry will be written carefully, with Legal Advice, and will be examined even more carefully by other Lawyers.

The simplest facts are that a similar fire may have started in Grenfell Tower when it was first built. It would not have spread in the same manner. Occupants would have evacuated.

Apr 6, 2018 at 11:00 AM | Robert Christopher

So many mistakes in so many areas
Apr 6, 2018 at 7:56 AM | tomo

I am aware that manufacturers AND suppliers of most materials used in construction are being asked to verify their "Certifications and Approvals".

With so many products AND materials now imported from the Far East, how do UK and EU companies verify "their" products?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/05/which-names-250-fridges-and-freezers-that-pose-fire-risk

"The consumer body Which? has described 250 of the most popular fridges and freezers on sale in the UK as “potentially unsafe”, adding that they could be putting lives at risk.

The organisation demanded that retailers immediately stop selling the models it had identified after an investigation showed that the backing material on almost half of all the fridges, freezers and fridge-freezers tested was made of an unsafe plastic that posed a fire risk.

Its list of the 250 “don’t buy” models includes appliances made by most if not all of the leading manufacturers, including AEG, Kenwood, Hotpoint, Smeg, Candy, Hotpoint, Zanussi, Indesit, Whirlpool, Hoover, Bush and Ikea.

The Which? warning comes after the London fire brigade (LFB) said that even though there was on average one fridge or freezer fire a week in the capital, it believed most manufacturers were still dragging their heels on making fire safety improvements."

stewgreen: 'One day someone will put the jigsaw together.
I hate the way it takes so long'

The paper work should have been up to date!

It wasn't, so that is the first mistake. Any DIY should require a review of the restrictions for that building.

It is like upgrading an IT system that has no documentation: we want the new system to run just like the old one, but with this one enhancement, isn't a spec, well, not if you are in Development or Testing!

Apr 6, 2018 at 11:00 AM | Robert Christopher

The Managing Agents should have been able to produce relevent documentation, and up to date records of work carried out. Presumably , they have.

Meanwhile more blundering from people who appear incapable of doing their jobs competently
Apr 11, 2018 at 2:05 PM | tomo

Supertroll mentioned Gas Supply Pipework. A ruptured gas pipe will cause an inferno, once the gas is ignited, with a source of oxygen (fresh air). It can't start multiple seats of fire, as gas under pressure will escape through the first available holes. An inferno within the Gas Main ductwork would be a contributory factor.

"Why this continued attention to the exterior cladding and insulation? Photographs and video clearly demonstrate that fire engulfed the interior of flats before the exterior burned. Because flats on numerous floors burned before the external fire reached them, it must have spread vertically from within the building, presumably up the stairwell (associated with the gas supply?) Note I am not denying that the exterior burned ferociously and must have contributed."

Jul 5, 2017 at 7:41 AM | Supertroll

"How did the fire get "out" of the original flat that had the fridge fire? The Fire Fighters on the outside saw the flames.

How does a fire spread outwards and upwards within a concrete building? Through doors, corridors, stairs lifts etc, but also through holes formed within the concrete ceilings/floors for pipework, electrics, ventilation, and of course gas pipework. When built, these openings were probably enclosed with some form of asbestos cement panelling.

If there was a main Gas Isolation Valve for the entire building, did it stay in the "On" position?"

Jul 5, 2017 at 4:00 PM | golf charlie

Apr 19, 2018 at 12:59 PM | tomo
There will be more .....

It looks like the inquiry might have to retain a consultant from The Magic Circle then?
Apr 11, 2018 at 4:07 PM | tomo
https://www.dezeen.com/2018/04/17/grenfell-tower-fire-report-london-uk-news/

"Deficiencies" introduced during renovation works at Grenfell Tower contributed to fire deaths, according to a leaked report by fire safety experts.

Poorly installed fire barriers, gaps around window frames, and flammable cladding and insulation were introduced to the west London tower in renovation works by Studio E Architects before the fire, states the report.

The 210-page document prepared by fire experts BRE Global for the Metropolitan Police's investigation into the blaze, as seen by the Evening Standard, claims the fire's 71 deaths could have been avoided.

The report does not specify whether fault lies with the design or the installation of the features introduced during the renovation of the 24-storey 1970s residential tower. But it does claim that, had the postwar housing block remained unaltered, the fire would have been unlikely to spread.

Fire would have had "little opportunity" to spread in unaltered Grenfell Tower

The fire, which was started by a faulty fridge-freezer in a fourth-floor flat on 14 June 2017, instead broke through a window and spread rapidly up the building in a chimney-like effect attributed to its new cladding."

●NB, remember that it was a hot day and night. Many windows may have been open.
IF Fire Breaks within the cladding were inadequate, the window frames would have been "in the chimney flue" that the fire roared up. If they burned or melted, the fire would have got back inside, even if/when windows were shut.