Grenfell refurbishment firms ‘criminally failed to consider safety’, inquiry into the fire hears

Support us and go ad-free

Companies which refurbished Grenfell Tower are responsible for the deaths of 72 people “as sure as if they had taken careful aim with a gun and pulled the trigger”, the inquiry into the disaster has heard.

Sam Stein QC, for victims, bereaved and survivors, said: “Those companies responsible, killed when they criminally failed to consider the safety of others.

“They killed when they promoted their unsuitable dangerous products in the pursuit of money … and they killed when they entirely ignored their ultimate clients, the people of Grenfell Tower.

“So why have no admissions been made to their own failures? Perhaps there is no real mystery. Imagine the financial consequences … think about the drop in trade, the loss of profit, the insurance implications.”

The inquiry has already heard designers, contractors and fire safety consultants had “expressly foreseen” the risks of installing the planned cladding system which would fuel the rapidly spreading fire in June 2017.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Main contractor Rydon, external wall subcontractor Harley Facades, refurbishment architects Studio E and fire inspectors Exova are alleged to have known the proposed cladding in which the 129-flat tower was to be encased would burn and fall off if exposed to external flames.

Celotex, which supplied the flammable insulation, saw the building as a “flagship” for its product and cynically exploited the “smoke of confusion” surrounding building safety regulations, the hearing was told on 30 January.

The firm actively promoted its RS5000 insulation product for use on the 67-metre tall building despite knowing it should have been recalled after safety tests, counsel for victims Stephanie Barwise QC said.

In a statement submitted to the inquiry, she said: “The insulation and cladding panels’ manufacturers, who became involved in actively promoting their products specifically for use at Grenfell, knew that some were ill-informed about the Building Regulations/guidance and exploited that lack of knowledge.

“The degree of contempt demonstrated by the manufacturers for safety is extraordinary, especially given both Arconic and Celotex understood that their products were combustible and indeed highly flammable.”

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. It is rather crass to say the companies “are responsible for the deaths of 72 people as sure as if they had taken careful aim with a gun and pulled the trigger”. Aiming at someone and deliberately pulling the trigger is a premeditated action, with the specific intent to kill. Nowhere is there any evidence of a specific intent to kill. Negligence, yes; driven primarily by profit, yes; lack of adequate attention and oversight, yes. But intent? Making daft accusations and straying from the facts like this is simple sensationalism, and detracts from the validity of the evidence presented. When people start exaggerating, the people they are talking to stop listening.

    2. I agree.
      Who is ultimatley responsible is who makes up the building codes. The public through the codes has the final say, and somehow this safety concern was severly corrupted.
      By whom, and how.
      Its just not a private smoking gun. Its the way the public iinstitution’s rules were altered which needs examing.
      Its take two to tango.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.