Just read on twitter that every piece of cladding across the UK tested so far has failed safety checks.
Damning, but aren't they supposed to be testing first the ones that they expect to fail?
Just read on twitter that every piece of cladding across the UK tested so far has failed safety checks.
Damning, but aren't they supposed to be testing first the ones that they expect to fail?
Presumably no testing was done before installation ?
Of course not why would they be tested prior to installation?
All products get tested at Warrington to british standards or tested elsewhere to European standards and certificates of performance get produced. They do not individually get tested each time they are installed. Incidentally the same panels are being installed in Newcastle as we speak.
Sorry FS perhaps I was not clear.
You infer that in fact the cladding would have been tested prior to being used on the installation by Warrington or elsewhere.
Presumably it failed its ability to withstand fire or is it only now being tested for that quality ?
I think the performance of the materials will have long since been established. In my opinion, and only my opinion, I think the arguments will not be about the performance of the product but its suitability on tall buildings and whether the product is accepted under the Building Regulations.
I may have misunderstood your earlier posts but I got the impression you expected further tests of the products prior to installation on the cladding by the HSE or Council. This will have long been established and listed on the British Board of Agrement Certificate.
Not at all FS, if full traceability is available to whoever checks the H and S risk assessment and method statements and they actually check them fully no complaints at all. By that I mean check back to Standards and not assume Data Sheets are correct, they often are misleading and hide failings in the product.
As you say there is more to this than meets the eye so hopefully it can be resolved and any blame allocated correctly.