gadget_uk

Wait. Are you sure you turned the gas off?

The material was what it says it was. It just shouldn't have been used on a high rise building because it is not fire proof*. The same company make a similar product which is fire proof but it was not used on this (and many other) UK refurbishment projects because it is more expensive.

It doesn't appear that we have any restrictions for using it on high-rises here in the UK - but they do in other countries like Germany where it can only be used up to (I think) 12m. Anything taller must use the fireproof version.

There is justifiable blame being aimed at the building owners, the people that specced the refurbishment and the builders who carried out the work. All of them had opportunities to say "This stuff isn't right". I don't see how the manufacturer is to blame though, they took an order for a large amount of cladding and fulfilled it, that was their only involvement. They were not dishonest about the properties of that cladding.

* In fact, if it wasn't for this cladding, the fire might not have spread at all.

My mental image of a "tartan-snatch squad" is glorious.

Also, the official NHS guidance on it's lack of benefit was watered down at the behest of a certain meddling Royal.

Even since I wrote that reply, it's been reported that the Council specifically chose to replace the fireproof cladding with the cheaper stuff - with the stated intention of saving money. Apparently this was a cost saving drive by the Council's deputy leader Rock Feilding-Mellen.

Yes, he/they should not have been able to make that substitution due to building regs. Yes, the contractors could have warned against it... but they specifically took out a fire-proof material for the non-fire-proof version.