The latest Grenfell revelations may have exposed a national scandal

Grenfell Tower
Support us and go ad-free

An investigation by HuffPost has revealed a huge problem with fire regulations in the UK. But the media outlet only painted a portion of the story. And the implications could turn into a national scandal.

Remember Grenfell

72 people were killed in the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017. A report for the public inquiry said that, among other things, evidence “strongly supports” the idea that the tower’s cladding played a role in the fire’s spread. Another report said combustible material in the tower’s windows and exposed gas pipes had the same effect. But it also pointed to another possible reason the fire spread so ferociously. This was that none of the fire doors in the tower met current regulatory standards.

Fire doors “contributed to the disaster”

As HuffPost reported:

A public inquiry… stated that poorly performing Manse Mastador [door] products contributed to the disaster…

In July, the government announced fire doors made by five different companies had been taken off the market following tests on the same doors used at Grenfell.

The Manse Masterdor specifically was found to withstand fire for just 15 minutes. It should offer protection for half an hour.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

But it’s not just Grenfell. The issue of dangerous fire doors is looking like a national scandal.

A national problem?

HuffPost revealed a potential catastrophe via Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to local authorities. It discovered that there are at least 25,000 fire doors in use in social housing that are the same as five types used in Grenfell Tower. HuffPost said that many councils are aware of the hazard. Some are waiting on government guidance, which is yet to materialise. Others say they are unaware of how dangerous certain types of doors are. Some refused to answer HuffPost‘s FOIs saying separate companies were responsible for property management.

Meanwhile, Inside Housing revealed that 71% of 1,584 tower blocks it checked had faulty fire doors. It also noted that the regulatory system for fire doors in the UK was “light touch”.

A potential scandal

But what HuffPost and Inside Housing didn’t consider was that council-owned social housing is only a portion of the total number in England. Therefore, the implications could be even greater.

As of March 2017, just over 1.6m social homes were owned and operated by local authorities. The greatest number, more than 2.4m, was from private providers, often housing associations. In Grenfell, evidence emerged of one housing association not maintaining its fire doors correctly. And this could point to the scale of the problem with fire doors being much greater than HuffPost revealed.

The current legal requirements for fire doors are complex. But it’s a major concern that councils found so many dangerous fire doors in their own social housing. Because with 60% of social housing being outside council ownership, the implications of HuffPost‘s research could be huge.

Featured image via Paula Peters – Twitter

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. I understood that the fire dept used to have a say in what was safe, and the councils made a ruling so they no longer had any real influence on decisions made. Originally the building plans had to pass their scrutiny. this was changed. To myself this is far more damaging as it means they were conscious of what they were doing.
      Removing a public body in charge of oversight for adequate fir protection.
      I may be wrong but this what I remember reading at the time after the fire.

      1. I’m sure read about this in the Canary or the Guardian shortly after the fire. It’s been overlooked this cutback in service while leaving it up to the responsibility of the Town Council this aspect of building safety.
        Here’s an issue for you which isn’t from Huffy.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.