Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Well it could appear they went with the cheapest form of cladding which was flammable and also that they ignored the residents pleas for the fire risk the building posed even without that cladding.
---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------
The council seems to have been removed from the management of the crisis but the real issue here isn't their poor response but that they were in charge of this building ultimately and they have had repeated complaints about the safety of the building.
|
It's used up and down the country, not just in this instance. If it's that bad, why isn't it completely banned or simply not made in the first place.
The cheapest option was to have no cladding at all. It wasn't replacing anything, it was an additional feature.
The fire still got outside from inside a flat and then back into the building. Should that have happened that quickly?
Some of the complaints were from before the renovations.