Grenfell Tower block disaster

I thought Grenfell would be a game-changer for social housing. Alas, nothing will change. The housing crisis will continue and dodgy landlords will continue to make money, hand-over-fist, out of the poor.
 
According to today’s Guardian 367 of 489 tower blocks tested in Greater Manchester did not meet fire safety standards. That’s a 75% failure rate.
 
Ricster said:
I thought there was a vote last year where 310 Tories voted against making homes fit to live in?

Would these Grenfell incidents come under that vote?
Click to expand...

Nobody voted against making homes fit to live in. What happened was Labour tabled an amendment to the Housing and Planning Act which stated homes must be fit for human habitation. The reason it was voted down was because local authorities already have enforcement powers when this is not the case. Under the Housing Act, local authorities have powers of enforcement against hazards. For the purpose of the act, a hazard is defined as follows:

“hazard” means any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise).​
 
Mustard Dave said:
Nobody voted against making homes fit to live in. What happened was Labour tabled an amendment to the Housing and Planning Act which stated homes must be fit for human habitation. The reason it was voted down was because local authorities already have enforcement powers when this is not the case. Under the Housing Act, local authorities have powers of enforcement against hazards. For the purpose of the act, a hazard is defined as follows:

“hazard” means any risk of harm to the health or safety of an actual or potential occupier of a dwelling or HMO which arises from a deficiency in the dwelling or HMO or in any building or land in the vicinity (whether the deficiency arises as a result of the construction of any building, an absence of maintenance or repair, or otherwise).​
Click to expand...
The amendment was to give tenants the power to take landlords to court if their home was unfit. It was supported by the Tory government....and voted down by Tory landlord MPs.
 
Vic said:
The amendment was to give tenants the power to take landlords to court if their home was unfit. It was supported by the Tory government....and voted down by Tory landlord MPs.
Click to expand...

Points 1 and 2 are incorrect:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160112/debtext/160112-0003.htm

Point 3 is irrelevant.

Ricster said:
Yep ive just researched this.

Its pretty disgusting to see people putting their own greed as more important than the safety of human life.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.indy100.com/article/72-mps-vote-human-habitation-living-standards-private-landlords-grenfell-tower-7790891?amp
Click to expand...

The statistics in that article are meaningless out of context. This amendment would not have prevented the Grenfell tragedy or prevent justice taking its course.
 
The fire door fire test failure issue on top of the cladding fire test issue proves that both:
1. The relaxation of the fire regs back in 2005 that allowed materials made from materials that have passed the fire test to no longer have to be retested is clearly a serious error. AND
2. business simply cant be trusted to stick to the regs
So, going forward, every piece of fire safety equipment has to be tested and then retested in the manner it will be deployed to a high density housing project.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.