For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
#1816640
Bill McCarthy wrote:Gone are the days when we had a Clerk of Works to oversee build quality and regulation. This has been handed to the contractor who will cut corners at every opportunity.


Apparently the council-employed building inspector just briefly looked at the 'fit and finish' after the job was complete as he had too many cases on his books to do anything further.

Personally I'm left wondering how a contracted fire safety consultant can justify their position in this whole sorry saga.
#1816649
Do items 1 & 2 in https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55349395 say that respected manufacturers misrepresented / falsified technical data of vital importance to their products' performance? If so, then workmanship etc becomes less of a contributory factor.

The appointments of clerks of works and a firm of architects by the council seems to have foundered on that common contractual rock where neither party understands what the other party believes their respective roles and responsibilities to be.

Bill H
Charles Hunt, johnm liked this
#1819451
I can understand why 'gagging' clauses might be routinely inserted into private contracts (between corporate supplier and corporate or individual client), but I fail to see how they can properly belong when the primary client is a Government Department and the ultimate one is the taxpayer, while the perceived 'victim' of poor service is the ordinary citizen. I'd have thought it was in the essential public interest that poor delivery to the nation by a corporate supplier be publicised. Is this a (further) symptom of the outsourcing mentality of the last few decades ? :(

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55611467
#1819460
Very much doubt it has anything to do with outsourcing as the civil service is quite capable of having an ego as fragile as glass when it comes to criticism.

That sort of unnecessary and very probably illegal wording is what happens when a lawyer has what seems like a bright idea in very particular circumstances. Thereafter the clause is cut and pasted into subsequent legal docs forevermore, whether or not is either useful or applicable. Obviously, the idea of giving free money to thousands of victims who might then mump about some thing or other will stick in the craw, but nobody is immune from criticism, even civil servants.

It's another holes in Swiss cheese scenario but leaseholders have been dealt with very shabbily. Blame the money lenders who look for ever more creative ways of inventing £s out of thin air to increase their ROI by shafting somebody way down the chain.
#1847811
eltonioni wrote:..

At Grenfell, the public sector was as, if not more, culpable as the private sector. ... Lots of things went wrong at Grenfell, all of them to do with people not doing their job properly, for many different reasons. ...


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57160531

"Grenfell councillor queried colour of cladding but not safety..

..told a public inquiry that he believed safety was being handled by experts.

He said he hadn't opened an email giving him safety advice, but he did send emails saying he didn't like the proposed "champagne" cladding colour..."

So the 'public servants' in the Fire Brigade had done their job, but arguably the elected representative had not :roll:

ISTR reading in the original "Parkinson's Law" of a (quite possibly apocryphal or even wholly fictional) instance of a Board of Directors spending more time quibbling over the details of a proposed bicycle shed for employees than on a major strategic investment, because former contained 'detail which they can understand'.
Last edited by kanga on Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rogerb liked this
#1847838
Colonel Panic wrote:

That doesn't have the hallmarks of a dumping ground (even if it was one).


Too late!

Note: This OpenRent Property Is No Longer Available For Rent.


Rob P
#1847849
kanga wrote:
eltonioni wrote:..

At Grenfell, the public sector was as, if not more, culpable as the private sector. ... Lots of things went wrong at Grenfell, all of them to do with people not doing their job properly, for many different reasons. ...


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57160531

"Grenfell councillor queried colour of cladding but not safety..

..told a public inquiry that he believed safety was being handled by experts.

He said he hadn't opened an email giving him safety advice, but he did send emails saying he didn't like the proposed "champagne" cladding colour..."

So the 'public servants' in the Fire Brigade had done their job, but arguably the elected represenmtative had not :roll:

ISTR reading in the original "Parkinson's Law" of a (quite possibly apocryphal or even wholly fictional) instance of a Board of Directors spending more time quibbling over the details of a proposed bicycle shed for employees than on a major strategic investment, because former contained 'detail which they can understand'.


I can't comment on what email a councillor might or might not have received/actioned but usually I'd expect a councillor to right at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to decision making. A team (that should be) full of talented, responsible, knowledgeable professionals really don't need some make-weight councillor sticking their oar in on anything important. IME most councillors are only just capable of putting their hand up at the right time in a meeting vote - you'd have to be an idiot to trust them with fire safety decisions. Obviously, Grenfell had more than its fair share of idiots.

Back in the day, I would give clients (esp public sector ones) lots of choices of paint/carpet/curtain colours to keep them busy doing things that they thought were important while we got on with the real work. My apologies to any forumites who've just realised why their architect kept sending samples boards for their approval. :lol:

His preoccupation with cladding colours isn't remotely surprising. Today's flurry of interest in what a councillor did or didn't do has politics behind it, not building safety.
#1950826
I'm currently reading "Show Me the Bodies: How We Let Grenfell Happen" by Peter Apps and it's fascinating and frightening at the same time. Although the author's politics are left-leaning, he didn't fall into the trap of blaming the Tories for everything. The failings were universal, and nobody is spared from his forensic investigation. I thoroughly recommend it to anybody who has even a passing interest in this tragedy.
StratoTramp, Flyin'Dutch', eltonioni and 1 others liked this
#1950839
eltonioni wrote:
Back in the day, I would give clients (esp public sector ones) lots of choices of paint/carpet/curtain colours to keep them busy doing things that they thought were important while we got on with the real work. My apologies to any forumites who've just realised why their architect kept sending samples boards for their approval. :lol:


Clearly that's what happened at Grenfell too isn't it. The "Grownups" made decisions to save money by cutting safety standards, but have ultimately left the bewildered local politicians to carry much of the can for it.

G
#1950847
kanga wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64443282

"Grenfell fire: Michael Gove says government guidance was a factor"


Mr Gove should be reminded that the insulation WAS flammable. There was no wriggle room for a system approach merely because the Buildings Regs state that insulation and not the rain screen should be of limited combustibility (ie it won't support a flame) .
Insulation Materials/Products
12.7 In a building with a storey 18m or more
above ground level any insulation product, filler
material (not including gaskets, sealants and
similar) etc. used in the external wall construction
should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A).
This restriction does not apply to masonry cavity
wall construction which complies with Diagram 34
in Section 9.

The entire cladding system failed because the entire installation wasn't suitable for the application from the fixings to the fire stopping to the composite insulated aluminium cladding. Yes, the Regs were carp and a bit loose but that doesn't excuse Kingspan and BRE for their lack of care and misrepresentation.

It shouldn't have happened no matter what the Building Regs say. The outcome was predictable and the circumstances were inevitable, eventually.


Genghis the Engineer wrote:
eltonioni wrote:Back in the day, I would give clients (esp public sector ones) lots of choices of paint/carpet/curtain colours to keep them busy doing things that they thought were important while we got on with the real work. My apologies to any forumites who've just realised why their architect kept sending samples boards for their approval. :lol:


Clearly that's what happened at Grenfell too isn't it. The "Grownups" made decisions to save money by cutting safety standards, but have ultimately left the bewildered local politicians to carry much of the can for it.

G

Some of the 'grownups' were specifying components and systems which had been brought to them by people who were incompetent and/or bringing products to market with what will probably be proven in court to be illegally obtained fire certification.

You won't find more of critic of Design and Build procurement than myself - especially in the hands of the public sector- but people who specify for a living should ask themselves what checks beyond the data sheet they make when using certified products offered by the world's largest and most prestigious materials suppliers. Our dirty secret is that we, in every industry from buildings to rocket surgery don't make any extra day-to-day checks, ever. We all rely on manufacturers, suppliers and specialists to do their job correctly.


As an aside and in general, just what role should a councillor / CEO take other than ensuring that a professional team is appointed and maintained, and then picking pretty colours? Councillors might have been negligent in various ways (and maybe even on the take during procurement) but they are so far down the technical pecking order that they are amoeba to the rough-arrissed crew on the cherry picker.
#1950852
Well precisely Eltioni.

I know from many years experience just how much people kick back in aeronautical engineering, arguably the second most regulated engineering discipline after nuclear, when you ask for more evidence. What material is that? how do you know it's that strong? what's the source of this? In my recent work in electric flight a large number of suppliers simply refuse to answer the questions so you have a choice of no project, or escalating costs as you test and characterise everything that comes in.

The right answer inevitably is an expertly managed compromise, but so far as I can see in Grenfell and doubtless many other similar projects, there simply was no compromise - everything was taken at minimum standard and face value, neither of which in retrospect were appropriate.

But you're right - politicians *now* have the evidence to force change, but historically they were reliant upon the grownups in the room. Just turns out they weren't very grown up.

G
eltonioni, OCB liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8