No London Fire Thread?

[Smiley]

Meanwhile, back to the casualties.
I've got about 4000 tea lights here, do you think that will be enough?

[rollup]

The residents had raised the issue of power surges in the past

2013

Grenfell Tower residents were today informed that the Council’s and TMO’s insurers ‘Zurich’ will not be compensating them for damage to electricl appliances suffered by many in the recent power surge debacle. ‘Zurich’ found that the TMO had not been negligent in regard to this incident. They therefore declined to provide compensation in response to residents insurance claims.

This appears to be a classic Catch 22 situation. Residents can’t be compensated unless the TMO admits negligence, and the TMO will never admit negligence for fear of embarrassment, and to avoid any possibility of facing criminal charges for endangering life by negligence.

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.c ... e-victims/

That sounds like only half a story to me.

I suspect that the insurance the residents had was actually "building insurance" which, as you may know, is sort of like "3rd party only" car insurance.
It's there so that if you have a problem in your own property and it has an effect on your neighbours the insurance will cover any costs incurred by your neighbours.
It's often compulsory in shared accommodation, such as flats, because something like, say, a gas leak in one flat could force the entire block to evacuate and easily accrue vast sums in compensation claims (for hotel bills etc) even if there's no damage caused.

The residents were probably offered this insurance as part of their rental agreement and simply assumed it was some kind of "house & contents" insurance.
Hell, they might even have been led to believe that was the case deliberately, in order to persuade them to pay it.

In order to claim on that, they would have to prove that somebody "further up the chain" had been negligent and that'd incurred costs which they could all claim compensation for.

For normal H&C insurance, there doesn't usually have to be any negligence proven.

It's unfortunate but it sounds like the residents thought they had H&C insurance when they were actually paying for building insurance, which forced them to try and establish negligence in order to make a claim.
Should've read the fine-print, I'm afraid.

A tenant cannot take out building insurance on a property he is renting.
Only the landlord can do that.

[Si_Crewe]

A tenant cannot take out building insurance on a property he is renting.
Only the landlord can do that.

What I'm saying is it sounds like part of their rent agreement was a charge for "insurance" which may have led them to believe that their possessions were insured in the event of an accident.

If they actually HAD H&C insurance, it wouldn't be possible for a single insurer (Zurich) to say "No, sorry. You need to prove negligence before we pay out" because 100 tenants might have 100 different insurance providers.
The most likely way that Zurich could do something which applied to ALL tenants would be if it was in relation to a policy that was common to ALL the residents, such as the building insurance policy.

[McAz]

A tenant cannot take out building insurance on a property he is renting.
Only the landlord can do that.

What I'm saying is it sounds like part of their rent agreement was a charge for "insurance" which may have led them to believe that their possessions were insured in the event of an accident.

If they actually HAD H&C insurance, it wouldn't be possible for a single insurer (Zurich) to say "No, sorry. You need to prove negligence before we pay out" because 100 tenants might have 100 different insurance providers.
The most likely way that Zurich could do something which applied to ALL tenants would be if it was in relation to a policy that was common to ALL the residents, such as the building insurance policy.

They pay for building insurance indirectly via their service charge. It is possible that some of them believe that this covers contents - anything is possible - but they are (or should have been) explicitly told that it does not and to arrange for cover for contents.

The following by Home Group, one of the UK's biggest providers, is typical of the advice given to social housing tenants.

"It is important to have adequate insurance in place to protect your furniture, decorations and other belongings against fire, theft, vandalism or water damage from burst pipes. As your landlord Home Group insures the building you live in, but it is your responsibility to cover the contents."

[McAz]

EDIT: First sentence above applies to tenants in flats and other dwellings with common areas (obviously).

[Si_Crewe]

They pay for building insurance indirectly via their service charge. It is possible that some of them believe that this covers contents - anything is possible - but they are (or should have been) explicitly told that it does not and to arrange for cover for contents.

The following by Home Group, one of the UK's biggest providers, is typical of the advice given to social housing tenants.

"It is important to have adequate insurance in place to protect your furniture, decorations and other belongings against fire, theft, vandalism or water damage from burst pipes. As your landlord Home Group insures the building you live in, but it is your responsibility to cover the contents."

Indeed.

It sounds like they either din't bother considering insurance or they might've been told that a charge they were paying was for "insurance" and they accepted that explanation at face-value.
Obviously there's a reason why they've all been compelled to get together and attempt to claim from a common insurance provider (Zurich) and the most likely explanation is that they were trying to claim on the building insurance.

Stuff related to utilities and insurance is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine because I bought a house in Scotland using an English mortgage provider and it's a terraced house where one of the adjacent properties is divided into flats which are a mixture of private and council rentals.
It was a huge minefield attempting to get my mortgage, insurance and utilities sorted out in compliance with both Scottish and English law so I notice when this sort of stuff might be an issue for other people.

[McAz]

They pay for building insurance indirectly via their service charge. It is possible that some of them believe that this covers contents - anything is possible - but they are (or should have been) explicitly told that it does not and to arrange for cover for contents.

The following by Home Group, one of the UK's biggest providers, is typical of the advice given to social housing tenants.

"It is important to have adequate insurance in place to protect your furniture, decorations and other belongings against fire, theft, vandalism or water damage from burst pipes. As your landlord Home Group insures the building you live in, but it is your responsibility to cover the contents."

Indeed.

It sounds like they either din't bother considering insurance or they might've been told that a charge they were paying was for "insurance" and they accepted that explanation at face-value.
Obviously there's a reason why they've all been compelled to get together and attempt to claim from a common insurance provider (Zurich) and the most likely explanation is that they were trying to claim on the building insurance.

Stuff related to utilities and insurance is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine because I bought a house in Scotland using an English mortgage provider and it's a terraced house where one of the adjacent properties is divided into flats which are a mixture of private and council rentals.
It was a huge minefield attempting to get my mortgage, insurance and utilities sorted out in compliance with both Scottish and English law so I notice when this sort of stuff might be an issue for other people.

I am similarly puzzled as to why Grenfell tenants would need to claim in respect of a building they do not own or have responsibility for - either there is misreporting here, or the building insurance contains some provision which covers tenant's contents (or proportion thereof) in exceptional circumstances (though I couldn't find it when I was looking through K&C's generic rental agreement yesterday), or maybe they are trying for an ex gratia.

[Guest]

They pay for building insurance indirectly via their service charge. It is possible that some of them believe that this covers contents - anything is possible - but they are (or should have been) explicitly told that it does not and to arrange for cover for contents.

The following by Home Group, one of the UK's biggest providers, is typical of the advice given to social housing tenants.

"It is important to have adequate insurance in place to protect your furniture, decorations and other belongings against fire, theft, vandalism or water damage from burst pipes. As your landlord Home Group insures the building you live in, but it is your responsibility to cover the contents."

Indeed.

It sounds like they either din't bother considering insurance or they might've been told that a charge they were paying was for "insurance" and they accepted that explanation at face-value.
Obviously there's a reason why they've all been compelled to get together and attempt to claim from a common insurance provider (Zurich) and the most likely explanation is that they were trying to claim on the building insurance.

Stuff related to utilities and insurance is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine because I bought a house in Scotland using an English mortgage provider and it's a terraced house where one of the adjacent properties is divided into flats which are a mixture of private and council rentals.
It was a huge minefield attempting to get my mortgage, insurance and utilities sorted out in compliance with both Scottish and English law so I notice when this sort of stuff might be an issue for other people.

Wrong.

They can only have Contents insurance and this depending on provider costs about £2.20 a week and is tagged onto the rent.
They can claim against their landord's insurance for their negligence.
The Leaseholders in the block, which can be counted one one hand, will have H&C insurance but they will claim against their landlord's insurance.
Your English mortgage provider should have transferred the business to their Scottish office.

[McAz]

They pay for building insurance indirectly via their service charge. It is possible that some of them believe that this covers contents - anything is possible - but they are (or should have been) explicitly told that it does not and to arrange for cover for contents.

The following by Home Group, one of the UK's biggest providers, is typical of the advice given to social housing tenants.

"It is important to have adequate insurance in place to protect your furniture, decorations and other belongings against fire, theft, vandalism or water damage from burst pipes. As your landlord Home Group insures the building you live in, but it is your responsibility to cover the contents."

Indeed.

It sounds like they either din't bother considering insurance or they might've been told that a charge they were paying was for "insurance" and they accepted that explanation at face-value.
Obviously there's a reason why they've all been compelled to get together and attempt to claim from a common insurance provider (Zurich) and the most likely explanation is that they were trying to claim on the building insurance.

Stuff related to utilities and insurance is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine because I bought a house in Scotland using an English mortgage provider and it's a terraced house where one of the adjacent properties is divided into flats which are a mixture of private and council rentals.
It was a huge minefield attempting to get my mortgage, insurance and utilities sorted out in compliance with both Scottish and English law so I notice when this sort of stuff might be an issue for other people.

Wrong.

They can only have Contents insurance and this depending on provider costs about £2.20 a week and is tagged onto the rent.
They can claim against their landord's insurance for their negligence.
The Leaseholders in the block, which can be counted one one hand, will have H&C insurance but they will claim against their landlord's insurance.
Your English mortgage provider should have transferred the business to their Scottish office.

Ah, that may explain it.

[wutang]

Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/worl ... -fire.html

Informative piece about the obsession with cutting red tape and "freeing businesses from the burden of safety regulations" (remember that next time you here the moronic phrase "health and safety gone mad"), and the role this played in the Grenfell fire.

There was countless warnings about this cladding as it was involved in building fires around the world and for years there have been demands to restrict its use, as they do in America and other European countries. There rejected these warnings because of the effect it would have on businesses.

How the cladding is marketed depending on local laws - European customers are told its a fire risk

[wutang]

Grenfell Tower: cladding linked to fire pulled from sale worldwide

Arconic discontinues Reynobond PE, the cladding linked to the London blaze, for use in high-rise buildings

The company that manufactures the cladding believed to have contributed to the rapid spread of fire through Grenfell Tower has pulled the material from sale around the world.

Arconic said on Monday that is was discontinuing Reynobond PE, the aluminium cladding with a plastic core that was revealed as flammable in the wake of the blaze that killed at least 79 people in west London.

The firm said it had stopped global sales of the cladding for tall buildings over concerns about the “inconsistency of building codes across the world”.

Reynobond PE, one several options offered by the company and not the most fire-retardant, has been banned for use on towers in countries including Germany and the US but not the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... SApp_Other

Damage limitation

The decision to stop selling it for use in skyscraper cladding comes after it emerged that the company knew the less fire-resistant version, Reynobond PE, would be used on Grenfell Tower despite its own guidelines warning it was unsuitable for buildings above 10m.

Emails obtained by Reuters showed Arconic was involved in discussions about the use of cladding on the building during 2014.

One of its own brochures states that Reynobond PE should only be used in buildings up to 10m, with more fire-resistant products recommended above that height. Grenfell Tower is more than 60m tall.

[wutang]

Grenfell fire: Some landlords have still not submitted their cladding to tests, Sajid Javid reveals

The Communities Secretary says not enough have come forward yet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09366.html

Pretty obvious why they are not coming forward.

Why isn't the Government forcing them to? this is surely a public safety issue

[rollup]

Grenfell fire: Some landlords have still not submitted their cladding to tests, Sajid Javid reveals

The Communities Secretary says not enough have come forward yet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09366.html

Pretty obvious why they are not coming forward.

Why isn't the Government forcing them to? this is surely a public safety issue

Is it 75 tested so far and 75 came back as bad news?

[Guest]

Grenfell fire: Some landlords have still not submitted their cladding to tests, Sajid Javid reveals

The Communities Secretary says not enough have come forward yet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 09366.html

Pretty obvious why they are not coming forward.

Why isn't the Government forcing them to? this is surely a public safety issue

Is it 75 tested so far and 75 came back as bad news?

No
75 were tested in one day and 75 failed but over a period of six working days.

[wutang]

This could quite easily go in the Hillsborough thread as a sign that the Tories haven't changed a damn bit





Judge who sided with another scummy Tory London council over its treatment of housing tenents - his decision was later overturned by the Supreme court.

I wonder how this inquiry is gonna go