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

Do your bit for independent journalism

Did you know that less than 1.5% of our readers contribute financially to The Canary? Imagine what we could do if just a few more people joined our movement to achieve a shared vision of a free and fair society where we nurture people and planet.

We need you to help out, if you can.

When you give a monthly amount to fund our work, you are supporting truly independent journalism. We hold power to account and have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence the counterpoint to the mainstream.

You can count on us for rigorous journalism and fearless opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right wing mainstream media.

In return you get:

  • Advert free reading experience
  • Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
  • 20% discount from our shop

 

The Canary Fund 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.