I had to turn the radio off...

[meridian]

Grenfell Tower: Fire started in Hotpoint fridge-freezer, say police - BBC News

Det Supt McCormack says the tests carried out on the cladding and insulation were "small scale" but added: "All I can say at the moment is they [the tiles and insulation] don't pass any safety tests."

So far no-one seems to be able to say what went wrong. Were the regulations incorrect?

The regulations weren’t explicit enough to prevent councils/builders trying to save a few quid by installing (what are now known as) firetraps.

While I understand the residents’ need to get closure, trying to find a single point of blame is a fool’s errand. There’s an entire system of failure - council cuts leading to poor decisions in cladding materials and lack of sprinklers, firefighter cuts in depots and numbers under multiple administrations, poor decisions in advice to stay in their homes, etc.

[CryingSheep]

The fabrication was still legal. The question is why was it legal.

If that was true why courts have been ruling that the builders/owners of blocks with similar fabrication/isolation cover the costs of changing it and not the individual apartments owners?

And we are talking several millions of pounds in most cases...

[Whorty]

For the fire service it was a Black Swan. It's always easy with hindsight to say how we would do it differently next time. There was a perfect storm of cock ups from many areas that unfortunately led to deaths that could have been avoided. Like Hillsborough though, the survivors and their families need someone to blame.

[BrilloPad]

If that was true why courts have been ruling that the builders/owners of blocks with similar fabrication/isolation cover the costs of changing it and not the individual apartments owners?

And we are talking several millions of pounds in most cases...

Often apartment owners own part of the building. It seems the courts are acting retrospectively. Who do they think they are - HMRC?

[meridian]

Often apartment owners own part of the building. It seems the courts are acting retrospectively. Who do they think they are - HMRC?

There are many examples of things that are not explicitly illegal, but then along come a few chancers that think they have a loophole they can exploit, which then requires (retrospective) legislation.

In most cases it doesn’t cost lives though.

[BrilloPad]

There are many examples of things that are not explicitly illegal, but then along come a few chancers that think they have a loophole they can exploit, which then requires (retrospective) legislation.

In most cases it doesn’t cost lives though.

On the surface it seems clear. The cladding should be a certain amount of fire resistance built in. Tests after Grenfell have show that is the cladding used did not.

[CryingSheep]

Often apartment owners own part of the building. It seems the courts are acting retrospectively. Who do they think they are - HMRC?

I would risk to say that in the UK at least 90% of apartment blocks are leaseholds, therefore apartment owners are not responsible for the external parts of the building (including isolation) obviously the land owner will have on the lease a clause mentioning that the leaseholders have to pay a service charge to help maintaining the building and might be asked for an extra contribution for unexpected expensive repairs the building might need.

If you were right and the use of that bad isolation was legal the liability would be with the leaseholders. But as I mention several times courts have been ruling the building constructor or owner to pay for these repairs.

To give you a concrete example, after 10 years my building needed new lifts. This had a cost of 1 million pounds that not being directly responsibility of the leaseholders (lifts are common parts of the building) every leaseholder had to contribute to this repair using the clause mention above. The building next door (with exactly same lease contract) was found to be build with this inflammable isolation. The cost to substitute it was 3 to 5 millions. The building owner tried to put it on the leaseholders but after 1,5 years in the courts, the building owner or constructor (whatever) was forced to pay the bill.

[CryingSheep]

On the surface it seems clear. The cladding should be a certain amount of fire resistance built in. Tests after Grenfell have show that is the cladding used did not.

So the cladding itself is not illegal, but failed the minimum legal requirements for fire resistance. Doesn't that make it illegal then?

[meridian]

On the surface it seems clear. The cladding should be a certain amount of fire resistance built in. Tests after Grenfell have show that is the cladding used did not.

Read (and make an effort at comprehending) the link I provided you earlier.

The ACM panels do not fulfil the role of insulation and have no particular insulative properties. It is commonly argued, then, that they are not fillers. This confusion and the resulting loophole in the regulations mean that polyethylene core ACMs have been used on high-rise buildings ostensibly in compliance with Building Regulation B, as is the case at Grenfell Tower.

[OwlHoot]

Correct, and assuming the block has been rebuild using appropriated materials the "stay put" rule would probably be the best bet for surviving, BUT as anyone could understand after just a few minutes something was clearly wrong with this block and the fire was completely out of control, therefore book rules wouldn't/shouldn't apply and most likely urgent evacuation would be the best option, and this lack of decision is fire brigade fault (don't confuse with individual fire fighters, that are just following orders!!!)

That may be so in principle, but if the firemen had deviated from the "stay put" rule then any survivors and relatives of victims etc could sue for damages.