i have cladding on my house put there by the council? am i safe?

another

some years ago under the governments warm home scheme i got engergy efficient cladding on my house i own. i didnt pay for it the council did.
im now really worried that it might be sub-standard. that i might be sitting in a house wiht the same cladding that was on the tower blocks in london.
i live a concrete construction house (not prefab) and there was no cavity wall to fill so they said the next best thing is cladding on the outside of the house.

thanks in advance

molerat

Unlikely, you have not got "cladding" you will have external insulation a completely different thing. The link explains.
https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/external-wall-insulation-safe/

House_Martin

I believe the Grenfell Tower cladding was primarily for insulation purposes just like cladding for single story houses. Gas had recently been installed in the tower something I think should be banned in high tower blocks. Reports say the contractor supplied the cheaper version, £2 a metre less than the fireproof version and this was passed for use by the local council despite being banned in the USA for buildings over 40 ft .
What about interior insulation cladding ?, this is far more popular than exterior.. Is this fireproof.?

PasturesNew

Even "if" your cladding were "the wrong sort" - "the wrong sort" is the right sort up to a certain height, certainly a height bigger than a house.

In a house, even if you had the wrong stuff and it did catch fire, you've got easy routes out and plenty of time to escape. The issue with tower blocks is that people don't have easy routes to escape, they're many many floors up (so need to run down many many stairs) and there aren't the ladders/hoses to get people out.

So, even IF your cladding were "the wrong sort for high tower blocks" you'd have nothing to worry about as you've so little of it - and so many options and choices and routes of escape, that it shouldn't be a worry at all.

Of course, whether that personally scares you is another matter, but "the wrong sort" isn't the wrong sort for every building/situation - just big/high towers.

EachPenny

another wrote: »

im now really worried that it might be sub-standard. that i might be sitting in a house wiht the same cladding that was on the tower blocks in london.

The things to worry about are:
1) Having working smoke alarms
2) Testing your smoke alarms regularly
3) Planning your escape routes if a fire happens - would you (and your family) be able to get out of the house in the dark. From time to time practice what you'd do in an emergency.
4) Keep your exit routes clear of obstruction and flammable materials.
5) If the exit doors and windows have locks, make sure you keep keys in places you'll be able to get to them in an emergency. The bottom of a handbag or trouser pockets are not good places.
6) Switching appliances off - phone chargers, TV's - not leaving them on standby.
7) Not smoking in bed, or cooking when tired and after drinking.

Once you've dealt with all of those, and any other issues your local fire service may suggest, then it is time to worry about whether your house has the same kind of cladding used on tower blocks. But since it is a house, as PasturesNew points out, flammable cladding can be used unless it is an exceptionally tall house. If you really wanted to you could clad your house with wood, and paint it with flammable paints - so it is unlikely Grenfell Tower type cladding needs to be a cause of concern.

House_Martin wrote: »

Gas had recently been installed in the tower something I think should be banned in high tower blocks.

Interesting - would you like to explain why you think gas should be banned in high tower blocks?

House_Martin wrote: »

Reports say the contractor supplied the cheaper version, £2 a metre less than the fireproof version and this was passed for use by the local council despite being banned in the USA for buildings over 40 ft .

Reports say a lot of things. People quoting reports on the internet also say a lot of things. We'll only know how much - if any - of this is true after the public inquiry and police investigation have finished.

However, one thing I am fairly sure of is there is no cladding available on the market which is 'fireproof'. At least not since asbestos was banned.

matelodave

I think there's been a lot of ill informed speculation about what actually happened, from the time the fire started, how it spread so rapidly from one flat to engulf the whole building so untill there's been a proper investigation and enquiry no one will really know why the building went up so fast. There may have been other contributing factors which we haven't heard about yet

As has been said, possibly the cladding might have been inappropriate for the height of the building, but if it was approved then there was no reason for it to not have been used. The main question is why and how did the fire escape from the flat where it started.

I'm not convinced that the talking heads or armchair experts that the TV, radio or newspapers roll out on these occaisons really help the situation or whether they just create fear, panic and anger in the rest of the population.

teddysmum

The problem with the cladding on the block of flats was that it should not have been used on buildings over a certain height and nowhere near as high as this tower block.

House_Martin

I don t think its speculation about how the fire spread so quickly. There is footage of it taking only 15 minutes to engulf nearly all the building via the outside cladding..Only in this manner , on the outside, can it possibly have travelled so fast.
Also newspapers have printed names of the company , and its director who supplied non fireproof insulated cladding.. Whoever chose this cladding in the local council is out of a job very soon ,, along
with possibly the buildings regulation manager who approved it as the fireproof version was only £2 a metre dearer.
Here is a bit of anecdotal chit chat on how it started on the 4 th floor.The person in that flat was supposed to be fully clothed and ready to leave at the time the fire started.It was reported at first as a fridge explosion..something I doubted..Possible but highly unlikely.

EachPenny

House_Martin wrote: »

(A) I don t think its speculation about how the fire spread so quickly. There is footage of it taking only 15 minutes to engulf nearly all the building via the outside cladding..Only in this manner , on the outside, can it possibly have travelled so fast.
Also newspapers have printed names of the company , and its director who supplied (B) non fireproof insulated cladding.. (C) Whoever chose this cladding in the local council is out of a job very soon ,, along
with possibly the (D) buildings regulation manager who approved it as the (E) fireproof version was only £2 a metre dearer.
Here is a bit of (F) anecdotal chit chat on how it started on the 4 th floor.The person in that flat was supposed to be fully clothed and ready to leave at the time the fire started.It was reported at first as a fridge explosion..(G) something I doubted..Possible but highly unlikely.

This is a near perfect demonstration of the dangers of internet speculation.

A) There is no doubt the fire spread over the outside surface of the building. How it spread is still unclear and it is not yet a known fact that it was 'via the outside cladding'. The latest news reports suggest 'tests' have shown the cladding was less flammable than the insulation. If true, this might suggest the supposedly "highly flammable" cladding may not have been the main cause of the fire.

Before speculating on the cause of the fire and the spread over the face of the building people should read up (and understand) the 'Coanda effect'.

The cladding wasn't 'insulated'. Neither the cladding nor the insulation were ever claimed to be 'fireproof' - either in design/specification or what was actually installed.

C) What evidence do you have that anyone from the council chose the cladding?

D) What evidence do you have that a 'building regulation manager' from the council 'approved' the cladding? Why do you think this person had any involvement in a decision relating to the cost of the material?

E) As above, and in previous posts - can you identify what the 'fireproof' version was?

F) It isn't only this bit of your post which is 'anecdotal'.

G) The police have confirmed a faulty fridge was the starting point of the fire. They have even identified the make and model. It is not one powered by gas.

House_Martin

A perfect demonstration of Eachpenny and his way of adding lots of his usual "mays " to his posts and completely ignoring my "possiblys "..Lets wait for the official enquiry before you start your usual back room lawyer diatribe. You are correct , it is not yet known definitely if it spread via the cladding.That will come after the public enquiry, but one report in a national newspaper stated that fireman had dealt with the fire in flat 16 on the fourth floor ( reported by an Ethiopian mini cab driver Mr Behailu Kebeile ) and were leaving thinking their job was done and not aware of the outside cladding and insulation was on fire...Any bets on the cause of the whole tower going up I m willing to take them on.

ChaunceyGardiner

What nonsense. This was a steel-framed, concrete building. Each dwelling is a highly fire-resistant compartment. Unless petrol or some other accelerant was somehow leaking from the roof there is literally no possible explanation for the rapid spread up the walls other than the 'cladding'.