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

EachPenny

ChaunceyGardiner wrote: »

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'.

It depends what you mean by 'cladding'.

ChaunceyGardiner

EachPenny wrote: »

It depends what you mean by 'cladding'.

I mean that which was recently attached to the external walls of the building: rain screen, insulation and anything else, which acted as a chimney and/or ignited.

Lorian

Presumably melting of window frames played its part too.....?

EachPenny

ChaunceyGardiner wrote: »

I mean that which was recently attached to the external walls of the building: rain screen, insulation and anything else, which acted as a chimney and/or ignited.

So you are talking about the whole cladding construction, not the rain screen 'cladding' which HouseMartin appears to be referring to in his comment "Also newspapers have printed names of the company , and its director who supplied non fireproof insulated cladding".

There is no disagreement that part of the cladding system enabled the spread of fire. The point (A) I was making is we don't yet know which part(s) of the system were the main cause. The majority of the speculation has been about the PE core of the aluminium composite - the bit which was supposedly chosen because it was £2 per m2 cheaper.

I don't believe it is 'nonsense' to say that it isn't clear which part(s) of the cladding system were the main cause of fire spread.

House_Martin

EachPenny is addicted to having the last word on any discussion , so I will add my tenpenworth hoping its the last .He seems to now to be appearing to be an expert in "cladding " with his usual pedantry in his wording. I don`t get my news on internet speculation thanks but just from one of the UKs best newspapers who are known for digging the dirt and getting to the truth..
They reported on Monday June 19th that the builders had saved just £6250 from the £10 million pound job by fitting cladding which has a plastic core.Initially a fireproof metal cladding had been chosen by architects but contractors switched it for Reynobond PE. Arconic which makes Reynobond has three versions of its product and warns the the PE version should not be fitted above 10 metres high to avoid fire spreading extremely rapidly. The fire retardant version, Reynobond FR costs only £2 per square metre more, which is not advised to be fitted above the reach of fire engine ladders, around 30 metres..Higher than that panels classed as "zero combustibility " should be used Arconic says.

antrobus

"Preliminary tests show the insulation samples collected from Grenfell Tower combusted soon after the test started. The initial tests on equivalent aluminium composite tiles failed the safety tests.

http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-six-fatalities-following-the-fire-in-north-kensington-246230

another wrote: »

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....

Contact your local council with your concerns. They should be able to advise you as to the materials used.

I would not be too worried. As far as a fire in your house is concerned, what you need to ensure is that you can get out of the house as soon as the fire starts. As in run to the front door (or whatever) and get the heck out of there.

EachPenny

House_Martin wrote: »

EachPenny is addicted to having the last word on any discussion , so I will add my tenpenworth hoping its the last .He seems to now to be appearing to be an expert in "cladding " with his usual pedantry in his wording. I don`t get my news on internet speculation thanks but just from one of the UKs best newspapers who are known for digging the dirt and getting to the truth..
They reported on Monday June 19th that the builders had saved just £6250 from the £10 million pound job by fitting cladding which has a plastic core.Initially a fireproof metal cladding had been chosen by architects but contractors switched it for Reynobond PE. Arconic which makes Reynobond has three versions of its product and warns the the PE version should not be fitted above 10 metres high to avoid fire spreading extremely rapidly. The fire retardant version, Reynobond FR costs only £2 per square metre more, which is not advised to be fitted above the reach of fire engine ladders, around 30 metres..Higher than that panels classed as "zero combustibility " should be used Arconic says.

I'm not an expert in cladding, but I have a professional knowledge and interest in its use and the history it has in fires, especially on tall buildings in London.

Can I take you back to the morning of 14 June....

EachPenny wrote: »

House_Martin wrote: »

...I know its early days with todays tragedy in London , but switching gas meters has led to many explosions/fires in houses over the years..Gas had been installed in those flats lately I believe

Given that people are still risking their lives in this tragedy I wouldn't want to speculate on the cause, let alone implicate energy theft. People who understand fire engineering will have seen the TV pictures and have a good idea what has happened, but will be keeping their views to themselves. That is what I'm doing anyway.

While you were speculating about the fire being caused by people fiddling their gas meters, I was watching what was obviously a "cladding" related fire. I didn't publish that opinion on the internet as at that point people were still dying, and it is kind of poor taste to speculate while people are suffering.

The question was what part of the cladding system was involved, was it the rain screen, was it the insulation, was it adhesives or sealants or was it simply the gaps which should have been filled with air, but could have contained various other things including gases. Shortly after this the media decided it was the rainscreen because documents proved that someone had chosen to save money by using a flammable version. And off the media and political circus ran.

You see obtaining a clear definition of what is meant by "cladding" as pedantry. I see understanding and differentiating the components of the cladding system as essential to understanding the cause of the fire so similar fires can be prevented in the future, and so people like the OP can get facts which will either put their minds at ease, or help them understand the risks involved.

Does it occur to you that reading "one of the UKs best newspapers who are known for digging the dirt and getting to the truth" does not mean you understand what happened in this fire? Can you appreciate that a newspaper which makes money out of "digging the dirt" may be slightly too interested in the "dirt" and not interested enough in the "truth".

Given the choice between being called a 'pedant' and being someone who believes reading a newspaper is sufficient to have a good understanding of something, then I'd much rather be the pedant.

Having the last word is not important to me - what counts is people being given, or being able to access, the correct information. What matters to me is people like the OP being able to feel reassured that provided they take sensible precautions they do not need to panic about having a 'cladding' material on their house, regardless of what type of cladding material it is.

I hope this discussion has had that effect.

House_Martin

Glad you admit to being a pedant EachPenny. Can you do me a big favour and put me on your ignore list please. I ll definitely do the same with you and we will be both happy.I hope THIS is the last post from YOU on this subject, It probably wont be though knowing what you are like.And by the way there is a full enquiry due on the fire as of yet before any facts reported by the press AND the Police and Fire Brigade are found to correct.

footyguy

another wrote: »

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

You say you own the house. Therefore the council cannot touch it unless you contracted them to (or in some extreme cases, they had a court order to carry out the work). Which was it?

In what way do you thing the insulation is sub-standard?
Why do you think that?
Do you have an expert report to substantiate such beliefs?
If not, you'll need one if the installer does not agree with your claims.

I would seek independent legal advice if you have an independent expert report confirming the work performed and/or materials used are sub-standard.

Good luck!

System

This link might help the OP:

https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/external-wall-insulation-safe/