Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Social Housing

Re: Social Housing

Postby atticus » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:51 pm

Would you argue that the balance was right at Grenfell Tower?

Would you argue that the materials used delayed the spread of the fire so that the situation could be dealt with safely?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Social Housing

Postby theycantdothat » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:42 pm

atticus wrote:Would you argue that the balance was right at Grenfell Tower?


Events would suggest not.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Social Housing

Postby atticus » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:51 pm

Obviously, but I'm trying to see where diy's thoughts are going.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Social Housing

Postby diy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:31 pm

My point was to illustrate the conflict between the drive to achieve one at the expense of the other.

I think (without getting in to the design issues), there needs to be some improvements to how designs are validated.

I don't think computer models are sufficiently accurate to prove encapsulated flammable materials meet the requirements. This is what the industry tests are concluding. PIR can be protected effectively, it's used extensively in new builds.

The current cladding could be made safe. Evidently the design did not comply with approved document B, even if it had the correct rating.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Social Housing

Postby dls » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:52 am

I thought they were not fitted as insulation. Insulation would require certain standards, cladding requires (wrongly as it turns out) less standards. That it might in addition have an insulating effect does not make it insulation.

I anticipate that this is why in the end there are likely to be very few successful prosecutions.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Social Housing

Postby shootist » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:11 am

There was an interesting snippet on the idiot box last night about this. I was not in a position to give it my full attention, but it suggested that the regulations may be overcome by means of producing a 'satisfactory' test of the panels in question even if the panels did not meet the required specifications.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Social Housing

Postby diy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:52 am

Yes - testing and certification does not necessarily require testing as a normal person would see it. The problem though is often Building control approval is needed after the fact, so there a genuine need for paper based proving of materials.

Any modification to the thermal properties requires building control approval, even if it is as a consequence of other work.
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/2 ... egulations

The fact that its cladding not insulation means the thermal properties are likely to be exempt. i.e. it doesn't need to meet the required w/m2 standard
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Social Housing

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:24 pm

dls wrote:I thought they were not fitted as insulation...


It is my understanding that one of the main drives for the cladding was to help meet our carbon reduction targets.

I anticipate that this is why in the end there are likely to be very few successful prosecutions.

I suspect there will be some other reason. I predict two, maybe three successful prosecutions, one or more that get appealed.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10093
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Social Housing

Postby atticus » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:24 pm

I see we are all agreed that Mr Peaker has written an interesting article.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Social Housing

Postby diy » Wed Jun 28, 2017 9:00 am

I strongly disagree with his view that "fitness for habitation" should mean "does not contain hazardous materials". With my "where will it all end" hat on, you have to recognise that housing stock varies hugely and imposing a duty to assess all possible hazards as part of a fitness for habitation would probably result in empty properties and increased homelessness or a significant increase in the subsidy needed for social housing. There is a further argument "tory boy hat on", but more for those hard working people on lower incomes - why should those living in subsidised housing be given greater protection from hazards than those living in private homes? It should be risk based and building control regulations is the best place for that.

Finally and I hope this is not a surprise to most, but depending on when your house was built, there may be Arsnic, Anthrax, calcium hydroxide/oxide, lead, asbestos, wood, straw, polystyrene, PIR, foam, fiberglass, various resins, glues and laminates which all fall in to the category or toxic, flammable or both.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Previous

Return to Landlord and Tenant Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest