-
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.
deleted-
'shop'?
Do not understand how anyone working in a shop is involved in either the specifying or supply of flame retardant exterior cladding. -
the council.
No-one from the council involved KCTMO is a stand-alone company,
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/grenfell-towers-management-company-who-are-kctmo-what-other-properties-have-they-worked-on-a3565311.htmlFurther up the thread it was established that 'buidling control' is, now, also essentially privatised, so afaik, no Council involvement in checking the works.
mespilus
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.