Gr en fell firms refuse to accept blame
TRAGEDY: Private firms that refurbished Grenfell Tower have refused to admit any responsibility for the fire which killed 72 people, despite experts saying the work failed to meet building regulations, an inquiry has heard.
The inquiry’s chief lawyer accused companies of pointing the finger at each other.
PRIVATE FIRMS which refurbished Grenfell Tower have refused to admit any responsibility for the catastrophic fire which killed 72 people, despite experts saying the work failed to meet building regulations, an inquiry has heard.
The second phase of the investigation into the disaster opened yesterday, and the inquiry’s chief lawyer accused corporate companies of pointing the finger at each other without accepting any blame.
Built in 1974, the tower was extensively refurbished between 2012 and 2016, most significantly when flammable aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding was wrapped over its concrete exterior.
The first part of the inquiry found this was the “principal” reason for the rapid spread of flames.
Counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC said in his opening remarks: “With the sole exception of RBKC (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea), not a single core participant involved in the primary refurbishment of Grenfell Tower has felt able to make an unqualified submission against their own interests.
“With that solitary exception, Mr Chairman, one finds in those detailed and carefully crafted statements no trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened at Grenfell Tower.
“Not from the architects, not from the contract managers, main contractors.
“Any member of the public reading those statements and taking them all at face value would be forced to conclude that everyone involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower did what they were supposed to do and nobody made any serious or causative mistakes.”
The second stage of the inquiry will consider how the high-rise block came to be covered in flammable cladding. Lead refurbishment architects Studio E said it “did not have any knowledge that the products used on the tower were unsafe” and said product manufacturers had “produced materials and testing data which had the effect of misleading designers to consider that their products were safe.”
In a statement to the inquiry it said: “Studio E considers that it acted as would be expected as a reasonably competent architect in its position” and called itself a “conscientious, ethical and responsible” firm.
Rydon, the main contractor, said the providers of the cladding and insulation, Arconic and Celotex, had misled buyers into believing their products were safe for use on high-rises despite appearing to know of the dangers.
An internal report from an Arconic director in 2011 noted the material Reynobond PE was “dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to (FR) fire resistant as a matter of urgency”, according to counsel for Rydon Marcus Taverner QC.
The email, sent by official
Claude Wehrle, added: “This opinion is technical and anticommercial, it seems.”
Mr Taverner also read out an internal Celotex email from November 2013 which showed officials knew using the insulation CelotexRS500 alongside aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding could be dangerous.
Survivors’ groups have said phase two of the inquiry must focus on who is to blame for the “devastating refurbishment” of the 25-storey building between 2012 and 2016.
Seventy-two people died as a result of the blaze at the west London block, after an electrical fault with a fridge freezer sparked a fire in June 2017.
No trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened.
Richard Millett QC, counsel to the Grenfell Tower inquiry.