Massive fire in London

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wilfy said:
I could order 500 sheets of trespa today and not be asked what it was for, this is also used in cladding and has fr and non fr grades.
Click to expand...

These are now very install friendly and rather than bespoke size, engineered sheets, they are bought at standard size and cut to suit on site. The supplier may simply receive a request for a price for Xm^2 and have no involvement in the design. Or they may. We don't know yet.
 


Kevj said:
These are now very install friendly and rather than bespoke size, engineered sheets, they are bought at standard size and cut to suit on site. The supplier may simply receive a request for a price for Xm^2 and have no involvement in the design. Or they may. We don't know yet.
Click to expand...
f***ing awful when you're making furniture out of it though.
 
Wilfy said:
I could order 500 sheets of trespa today and not be asked what it was for, this is also used in cladding and has fr and non fr grades.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that things have changed since I worked in the industry. Off the shelf cladding wasn't around then but it makes sense to have it available.

That said, any supplier on a job of this size in any industry would be expected to about it from the start, I'd have been fire from a sales job if something like this had been missed.
 
AB22 Easy Tiger said:
I'm not surprised that things have changed since I worked in the industry. Off the shelf cladding wasn't around then but it makes sense to have it available.

That said, any supplier on a job of this size in any industry would be expected to about it from the start, I'd have been fire from a sales job if something like this had been missed.
Click to expand...
It may well be that they knew what it was for, I suppose it would also depend on if the contractor orders large quantities of both fr and non fr. if they do, the supplier may not even think to ask.
 
I'm Spartacus said:
But surely a decent supplier wouldn't flog something that isn't suitable for certain applications, especially if they know it's against the regs or dangerous? Even a diy store wouldn't sell someone a little sheet of flammable foil covered foam insulation if the gormless customer told them it was to rest against the fireplace to block the heat from a log burner when it got too hot.
Click to expand...
the guy who was on tv said this was no excuse or defence. if they knew and carried on, then guilty

Kevj said:
I've covered this in a previous post. Let's say for example it is the fire doors that are to blame for this atrocity. The fire door supplier is invited to tender and informs their client that the spec is incorrect and the fire rating should be 60 minutes, not 15 as requested. The supplier isn't going to supply the more expensive door at the same price as the less expensive 15 minute fire door. Who is in the wrong?

But in the both cases, fire door manufacturers will be involved in ensuring the door fits the opening, not in adherence to the overall fire strategy of the building. And the suppliers who may be involved at early stages of design are not always the final supplier as the main contractor is not obliged to use the original specifiers supplier unless frame agreements or similar are in place.
Click to expand...

I would say both. if the supplier knows what spec is required and he supplies inferior quality, then he is as guilty as the other. he should turn the business down
 
Last edited:
soapster said:
the guy who was on tv said this was no excuse or defence. if they knew and carried on, then guilty

I would say both. if the supplier knows what spec is required and he supplies inferior quality, then he is as guilty as the other. he should turn the business down
Click to expand...

I don't know* if such a law exists. For a sales person to be facing potential imprisonment because a client chooses not to listen to you is a very grey area and I do not know if there is a previous case which has set a precedent. At the moment, we are all speculating. I will be following the case with a keen interest.

* I am very confident that this incident will bring about changes in law and Building regulations. I also see a carte blanche banning of certain products in certain applications.
 
Kevj said:
I don't know* if such a law exists. For a sales person to be facing potential imprisonment because a client chooses not to listen to you is a very grey area and I do not know if there is a previous case which has set a precedent. At the moment, we are all speculating. I will be following the case with a keen interest.

* I am very confident that this incident will bring about changes in law and Building regulations. I also see a carte blanche banning of certain products in certain applications.
Click to expand...
I am not a genius with the law, I am just going of what a guy on sky news said. he was both an architect and a lawyer and the head of some national group. He was actually talking about installers and architects / planners. some architect tried to use it as a defence that although he suspected something was dangerous and he carried on with it, as it complied with building regs. He used that as his defence. The judge threw it out, because his knowledge told him it was dangerous what he was being done and he carried on with it.

I would read salesman (not be the guy on the front counter, selling you the fork handles. it would obviously be somebody senior in the company to deal with such a big order and discounts etc. He knows what the doors are for. he knows building regs says they must be XXX type or better. He then sells him XX or even x, which is lesser than building regs etc with the intention of these doors being fitted. These doors get fitted.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter
This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant. The law in respect of this has been clarified in the case of R v Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79 where a four stage test for gross negligence manslaughter known as the Adomako Test was outlined by the House of Lords:

The test involves the following stages:

a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#gross

I don't know if this fits as I don't have a great deal of dealings with manslaughter and I will bet it is a minefield of legislation.

janiep will be better qualified to give an opinion
 
soapster said:
I am not a genius with the law, I am just going of what a guy on sky news said. he was both an architect and a lawyer and the head of some national group. He was actually talking about installers and architects / planners. some architect tried to use it as a defence that although he suspected something was dangerous and he carried on with it, as it complied with building regs. He used that as his defence. The judge threw it out, because his knowledge told him it was dangerous what he was being done and he carried on with it.

I would read salesman (not be the guy on the front counter, selling you the fork handles. it would obviously be somebody senior in the company to deal with such a big order and discounts etc. He knows what the doors are for. he knows building regs says they must be XXX type or better. He then sells him XX or even x, which is lesser than building regs etc with the intention of these doors being fitted. These doors get fitted.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter
This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant. The law in respect of this has been clarified in the case of R v Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79 where a four stage test for gross negligence manslaughter known as the Adomako Test was outlined by the House of Lords:

The test involves the following stages:

a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#gross

I don't know if this fits as I don't have a great deal of dealings with manslaughter and I will bet it is a minefield of legislation.

janiep will be better qualified to give an opinion
Click to expand...

You make some very good, substantiated points. I have only speculated based on my own experiences and as this is unprecedented, I can't see the central government trying to cover this one up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top