-
If the manufacturer,
http://omnisexteriors.com/
had only the one grade of ACM,
thay could possibly claim that they merely 'suppiled' a requested material.However,
http://omnisexteriors.com/roofing-and-cladding/metal-facade-systems/acm/
shows they offer three grades,
PE, FR and Mineral Core,
clearly indicating that the PE is only suitable for the applications where flammability is not the deciding factor.Every manufacturer has a 'Duty of Care' to ensure the material they offer for sale is 'Fit for Purpose'. The 'PE' grade should never have been sold for the Grenfell Tower refurb project.
mespilus-
In the "which bastards are culpable" stakes here, I think the manufacturers are a long way down the list.
There are far more culpable people to focus your ire on.
-
I agree with the sentiment but in reality these kind of decisions are rightly made by the people who are paid professionals responsible for designing and specifying construction builds, and by the building control officers who are then paid to ensure that these plans and the actual construction of them, is compliant with all relevant laws.
It is not for someone working in a shop, with possibly no construction knowledge or experience, possibly being paid fuck all to simply administer orders, to advise construction companies on large scale refurbishments. The people who should have known better, and probably did, are the ones culpable, and they work for the construction firm and the council.
andyp
deleted
The manufacturer provides a range of grades of cladding each at a given price/specification ratio.
But the manufacturer does not decide which grade of cladding is nailed to the building. The decision as to which grade of cladding used is the one that could possibly be negligent.
I say possibly because their are multiple parties involved in a major building project all involved in the decision and any decision on negligence will depend on each parties exact terms of reference.