Grenfell Tower

[CurtainRaiser]

So Johnson lied. Again.

 

I'm beginning to see the link between Doris and his disciples.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/22/mps-defeat-bid-to-save-leaseholders-from-huge-fire-safety-bills?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[John52]

Is there anything the Tories wouldn't do to inflate house prices and protect rentiers?

 

Lloyd George said it best in 1909.

 

"What is the landlord's increment? Who is the landlord? The landlord is a gentleman - I have not a word to say about him in his personal capacity - the landlord is a gentleman who does not earn his wealth. He does not even take the trouble to receive his wealth. He has a host of agents and clerks to receive it for him. He does not even take the trouble to spend his wealth. He has a host of people around him to do the actual spending for him. He never sees it until he comes to enjoy it. His sole function, his chief pride, is stately consumption of wealth produced by others. What about the doctor's income? How does the doctor earn his income? The doctor is a man who visits our homes when they are darkened with the shadow of death: who, by his skill, his trained courage, his genius, wrings hope out of the grip of despair, wins life out of the fangs of the Great Destroyer. All blessings upon him and his divine art of healing that mends bruised bodies and anxious hearts. To compare the reward which he gets for that labour with the wealth which pours into the pockets of the landlord purely owing to the possession of his monopoly is a piece - if they will forgive me for saying so - of insolence which no intelligent man would tolerate. Now that is the halfpenny tax on unearned increment. This system is not business, it is blackmail

 

Now I come to the reversion tax. What is the reversion tax? You have got a system in the country which is not tolerated in any other country of the world, except, I believe, Turkey; the system whereby landlords take advantage of the fact that they have got complete control over the land to let it for a term of years, spend money upon it in building, in developing it. You improve the building, and year by year the value passes into the pockets of the landlord, and at the end of sixty, seventy, eighty or ninety years the whole of it passes away to the pockets of a man who never spent a penny upon it.

 

Look at all this leasehold system. This system - it is the system I am attacking, not individuals - is not business, it is blackmail. I have no doubt some of you have taken the trouble to peruse some of these leases, and they are really worth reading, and I will guarantee that if you circulate copies of some of these building and mining leases at Tariff Reform meetings, and if you can get workmen at those meetings and the business men to read them, they will come away sadder but much wiser men. What are they? Ground rent is a part of it - fines, fees; you are to make no alteration without somebody's consent. Who is that somebody? It is the agent of the landlord. A fee to him. You must submit the plans to the landlords architect and get his consent. There is a fee to him. There is a fee to the surveyor; and then, of course, you cannot keep the lawyer out - he always comes in. And a fee to him. Well, that is the system, and the landlords come to us in the House of Commons and they say: If you go on taxing reversions we will grant no more leases? Is not that horrible? No more leases! No more kindly landlords with all their retinue of good fairies - agents, surveyors, lawyers - ready always to receive ground rents, fees, premiums, fines, reversions - no more, never again! They will not do it. We cannot persuade them. They wont have it. The landlord has threatened us that if we proceed with the Budget he will take his sack clean away from the hopper, and the grain which we are all grinding our best to fill his sack will go into our own. Oh, I cannot believe it. There is a limit even to the wrath of outraged landlords. We must really appease them; we must offer up some sacrifice to them. Suppose we offer the House of Lords to them? Well, you seem rather to agree with that. I will make the suggestion to them. I say their day of reckoning is at hand."

 

 

Lloyd George's plans to impose a land tax were foiled by the landowners in the House of Lords. A hundred years later the wealth of the great landowners has become even more obscene. The policy of both New Labour and Tories has been to restrict housing supply to inflate prices for the landlords' benefit. They have left a string of loopholes to avoid inheritance tax and the Tories want to do away with it altogether - they would rather tax poor mans earned income than rich mans unearned income. Now we are seeing it extended further with even detached houses being sold leasehold without the hapless buyers realising what leasehold really means!!! Salesmen disguise it by calling it 'virtual freehold' People are led to believe they are buying the house and land but they are not!! It still belongs to someone else who will control it and charge more rent on it!! They are just paying a lot of of the rent up front!!! It's a gigantic conspiracy against the people of Britain and it's time to bring the whole edifice crashing down.

[Bulletguy]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-23 7:24 AM

 

So Johnson lied. Again.

 

I'm beginning to see the link between Doris and his disciples.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/22/mps-defeat-bid-to-save-leaseholders-from-huge-fire-safety-bills?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Many face the choice of going bankrupt or losing their home. Johnsons lot don't care though. They are too busy pillaging the country for their own ends and squandering taxpayers money on silly jets and flags.

 

https://tinyurl.com/tckym8vn

[Bulletguy]

 

MPs have for the fifth time rejected an attempt to protect hundreds of thousands of leaseholders from crippling fire safety bills of up to £100,000 each.

 

Despite 32 Conservative rebels, the Commons voted 322 to 256 to reject a House of Lords amendment aimed at protecting leaseholders from costs to make their homes safe in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire.

 

MPs have calculated that the total bill could reach £15bn, but so far the government has pledged only £5bn to fund cladding repairs on buildings over 18 metres tall.

 

Labour supported the amendment and only 32 Tories with a moral compass. :-(

 

https://tinyurl.com/4mst4w2w

[Brian Kirby]

On the face of it, it seem to fall into the same category as advising people to choose their parents with care! Only in this case it seems to be "when you bought leasehold, you should have chosen a building over six storeys/18M high." I know the deed is now all but done, but surly it can't stand, can in? It is totally illogical and unjust.

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

 

On the face of it, it seem to fall into the same category as advising people to choose their parents with care! Only in this case it seems to be "when you bought leasehold, you should have chosen a building over six storeys/18M high." I know the deed is now all but done, but surly it can't stand, can in? It is totally illogical and unjust.

Meantime Johnson squanders £2.6 million to stick some flags and a microphone in a room not to mention decorating his flat with £850 a roll wallpaper whilst these folk face bankruptcy and is some cases, being made homeless.

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

[John52]

Bulletguy - 2021-04-29 7:01 PM

Meantime Johnson squanders £2.6 million to stick some flags and a microphone in a room not to mention decorating his flat with £850 a roll wallpaper whilst these folk face bankruptcy and is some cases, being made homeless.

 

Apparently he chickened out of using his media room when he realised they might ask him awkward questions :-S

[CurtainRaiser]

John52 - 2021-04-30 6:40 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

 

A special 1% turnover tax on all building companies with a turnover of more than £5M.

 

And a special special turnover tax of 5% on all conglomerates that own one or more building subsidiaries with turnover below £5M. Let's close that loophole immediately.

 

But as these building companies have paid millions in donations/bribes to their chums in the Tory party this wasn't an option.

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-30 9:04 AM

 

John52 - 2021-04-30 6:40 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

 

A special 1% turnover tax on all building companies with a turnover of more than £5M.

 

And a special special turnover tax of 5% on all conglomerates that own one or more building subsidiaries with turnover below £5M. Let's close that loophole immediately.

 

But as these building companies have paid millions in donations/bribes to their chums in the Tory party this wasn't an option.

 

So the good builders will pay for the bad ones and pass the cost on to the innocent house buyer.

Plus the Government will make a mess of it like everything else, and hand the money raised to their chums.

How is that better than doing nothing?

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2021-04-30 6:40 AM

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

I think the principle that the polluter pays should apply.

 

The government legislates for the standards to which buildings are built. That legislation, in the form of The Building Regulations, lies in the Building Act 1984. The government has also legislated for the approval procedure, which requires approval to be obtained for building work before work commences on site, and in any event before a building can legally be occupied. Originally, approvals could only be granted by Local Authority Building Control departments, but more recently approvals can be given by Approved Inspectors (basically private surveyors). Work that has not been approved, or which does not comply with what was approved, is liable to be ordered to be taken down at the expense of the building owner. If it is subsequently discovered that completed work was in accordance with an approval, but the approval had been wrongly given, the Local Authority becomes liable for remedy or taking down. This applies even to work erroneously approved by an Approved Inspector!

 

The regulation for fire performance of external walls for buildings exceeding 18 metres in height, B4 (1), states "The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building." But, at Grenfell they did not. So, for whatever reason, the Grenfell cladding, and seemingly an awful lot of cladding on other buildings is/was, in terms of that regulation, illegal. But, all that illegally combustible cladding was apparently approved under the government's Building Regs. approval procedure.

 

It is the role of the designers of a building to obtain the approval. It is the role of the Local Authority/Approved Inspector to grand that approval - subject to their being satisfied that the design complies with the requirements of the Regulations.

 

How the actual building is then procured varies depending on circumstances and the size of the project, but is usually by sending the designs and specifications to a selected group of building contractors to submit sealed tenders for the work, with the usual expectation that the lowest clean tender price will be accepted. Again usually, the work will be monitored for compliance with the design etc. (and thereby the approval) during construction. Building Control/Approved Inspectors are also required to visit the site at critical stages of the work to check compliance.

 

In the case of the Grenfell contract, only outline designs were prepared, and it seems these were not given Building Regulations approval before the designs were novated to Rydon Homes under a "develop and construct" type contract, under which Rydon became contractually responsible for development of the full, detailed, designs and obtaining the necessary Building Regs approvals. As RBKC Building Control did not (apparently) grant any approvals it seems this must have been done by an Approved Inspector who would have been appointed by Rydon, and who would have become responsible for monitoring quality and progress on site. However, for reasons that are not yet clear, it seems that RBKC Building Control visited the site on numerous occasions during construction, but had no role in "signing off" the completed work. That raises a number of questions around the wisdom of an arrangement under which a house builder was employed to undertake a technically complex project, and why it was accepted that he could employ his own approvals consultant who would then become responsible for vetting the quality of his employers work.

 

As all of that was facilitated under legislation passed by Parliament, and as every stage the work was authorised under that legislation, and as once appointed the role of the builder is merely to execute what he has priced for based on the designs that his employer has accepted, I don't see how anyone other than the authority which made the rules that imposed that sequence of events can be responsible for what followed. That authority is central government.

 

The Grenfell enquiry is running the wrong way round, and seems to me primarily designed to kick the Grenfell can and its fallout as far down the road as possible, and seems also liable to prejudice any court cases that might be brought against those responsible for the defects that allowed the (clearly) flammable cladding to be approved and fitted. All that was needed was for the police to investigate how the materials came to be approved, and whether what was installed complied with the approval. That should have been a fairly quick, straightforward (albeit unfamiliar) task, and would have established the answers to three critical questions. 1 Who submitted the application for approval. 2 Who gave the approval. 2 Did what was built comply with the approval. FWIW, I think the answer to all three questions can be found with Rydon, always assuming they haven't suffered a catastrophic data loss in the meantime, of course!

 

Once the flawed procedure that gave rise to Grenfell is laid bare, I think it will become clear who should be liable for all the other cases where similarly flammable cladding designs have been installed. Someone, somewhere came up with a clever wheeze that has fooled those whose role is to ensure the safety of buildings. Ultimately, it seems most likely to be the law of unintended consequences, but each change and relaxation has been deliberate, and is likely to be a consequence of lobbying by the construction industry generally. After all, why would anyone else push for measures intended to make their lives easier?

[Guest pelmetman]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-30 9:04 AM

 

John52 - 2021-04-30 6:40 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

 

A special 1% turnover tax on all building companies with a turnover of more than £5M.

 

And a special special turnover tax of 5% on all conglomerates that own one or more building subsidiaries with turnover below £5M. Let's close that loophole immediately.

 

But as these building companies have paid millions in donations/bribes to their chums in the Tory party this wasn't an option.

 

So remind us what your £4.1 million tax funded business does? ;-) .......

 

Just askin :D .......

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-30 6:39 PM

 

I think the principle that the polluter pays should apply.

 

But what does that actually mean in this case?

The taxpayer is at least as innocent as the building owners, and often has less money.

 

 

[CurtainRaiser]

pelmetman - 2021-04-30 6:48 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-30 9:04 AM

 

John52 - 2021-04-30 6:40 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

 

A special 1% turnover tax on all building companies with a turnover of more than £5M.

 

And a special special turnover tax of 5% on all conglomerates that own one or more building subsidiaries with turnover below £5M. Let's close that loophole immediately.

 

But as these building companies have paid millions in donations/bribes to their chums in the Tory party this wasn't an option.

 

So remind us what your £4.1 million tax funded business does? ;-) .......

 

Just askin :D .......

 

Creates long term jobs that last longer than your pouffe business.

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2021-05-01 1:51 PM

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-30 6:39 PM

I think the principle that the polluter pays should apply.

But what does that actually mean in this case?

The taxpayer is at least as innocent as the building owners, and often has less money.

I'd hoped I'd explained that! :-)

 

Government, through parliament, created the procedures that resulted in the Grenfell fire spreading as it did, and that resulted in approval of cladding materials that should not have been approved. Who else is culpable?

 

Those involved in the approvals process seem, at present, to have played by the rules. It is the rules, and so the rule makers, that are at fault.

 

It may not be fair, but the fire was hardly fair on the 71 who lost their lives. The cost to those now expected to fund remedial works to buildings below 6 storeys will be life changing. That also is unfair. The cost to the average taxpayer is a few shekels, and is the price we pay for electing chumps. That, to me, is the least unfair outcome.

[CurtainRaiser]

I'd disagree, yes the governments, of both persuasions, watered down the regulations in their drive to remove "red tape", that together with the effective privatisation of the building inspectorate and letting the regulatory boards be staffed and financed by the manufacturers of building products is what led to these disasters - lets not forget Grenfell wasn't the first. These changes came about due to lobbying, with associated political party funding, by the building and product manufacturers, they should meet the costs.

[Brian Kirby]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-01 6:40 PM

 

I'd disagree, yes the governments, of both persuasions, watered down the regulations in their drive to remove "red tape", that together with the effective privatisation of the building inspectorate and letting the regulatory boards be staffed and financed by the manufacturers of building products is what led to these disasters - lets not forget Grenfell wasn't the first. These changes came about due to lobbying, with associated political party funding, by the building and product manufacturers, they should meet the costs.

 

And I respectfully disagree with, but without disputing, that. :-) Who was lobbied, and who gave way before the lobbyists? Who accepted the party donations?

 

Our MPs are supposed to be grown-ups, not children with half-formed moral compasses to be bought off with a bag of sweets!

 

First we select them as candidates via our political parties, then we elect them without further question. We get the MPs we deserve. If they prove inadequate to the task, and produce inadequate regulations, it is our collective fault.

 

The whole cladding debacle is the consequence of flawed regulation. If the use of the flammable cladding was limited to a handful of buildings I would tend to agree, but that so many buildings, in so many different places, were so clad, it is almost impossible to conceive any alternative root cause than the regulations themselves. Otherwise, I can't understand how so many different Building Control Bodies across England can have approved materials that should not have been approved. They can't all have been stupid!

[John52]

Brian Kirby - 2021-05-01 6:20 PM

the price we pay for electing chumps.

 

You speak for yourself ;-)

and you would put those chumps in charge of taxing the money and dishing it out *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-01 2:18 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-04-30 6:48 PM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-04-30 9:04 AM

 

John52 - 2021-04-30 6:40 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2021-04-29 5:29 PM

It is totally illogical and unjust.

So whats the solution?

Would it be any less unjust to make the innocent taxpayer pay even more than they have already?

Seems to me the Government has already let the guilty get away with it through limited liability :-S

This Tory Government is never going to hold the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower to account >:-)

 

A special 1% turnover tax on all building companies with a turnover of more than £5M.

 

And a special special turnover tax of 5% on all conglomerates that own one or more building subsidiaries with turnover below £5M. Let's close that loophole immediately.

 

But as these building companies have paid millions in donations/bribes to their chums in the Tory party this wasn't an option.

 

So remind us what your £4.1 million tax funded business does? ;-) .......

 

Just askin :D .......

 

Creates long term jobs that last longer than your pouffe business.

 

I paid back the £1500 the UK taxpayer gave me via stealth taxes within a few months ;-) ..........

 

The jury is still out on whether the UK taxpayer has got their £4.1 million back from your business after 25 years :-| .......

 

 

 

 

[John52]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-01 6:40 PM

 

I'd disagree, yes the governments, of both persuasions, watered down the regulations in their drive to remove "red tape", that together with the effective privatisation of the building inspectorate and letting the regulatory boards be staffed and financed by the manufacturers of building products is what led to these disasters - lets not forget Grenfell wasn't the first. These changes came about due to lobbying, with associated political party funding, by the building and product manufacturers, they should meet the costs.

 

Some of the builders - but you would tax them all - good and bad - even though they were obeying the law?

In my experience the bad ones will have covered themselves with limited liability >:-(

so it will be the good ones who will pick up the tab for them ..

.. and this despicable chumocracy 'Government' in charge of handing out the money *-)

[John52]

... They've already sent over £250 million of our money to the Royal Tory Borough of Grenfell Tower - richest in the country, so we pay for their mistakes. And they chucked it around so recklessly they gave over £100,000 to a fraudster claiming to live in one of their flats that didn't even exist. 8-)

[CurtainRaiser]

John52 - 2021-05-02 8:49 AM

 

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-01 6:40 PM

 

I'd disagree, yes the governments, of both persuasions, watered down the regulations in their drive to remove "red tape", that together with the effective privatisation of the building inspectorate and letting the regulatory boards be staffed and financed by the manufacturers of building products is what led to these disasters - lets not forget Grenfell wasn't the first. These changes came about due to lobbying, with associated political party funding, by the building and product manufacturers, they should meet the costs.

 

Some of the builders - but you would tax them all - good and bad - even though they were obeying the law?

In my experience the bad ones will have covered themselves with limited liability >:-(

so it will be the good ones who will pick up the tab for them ..

.. and this despicable chumocracy 'Government' in charge of handing out the money *-)

 

Yes I'd tax all of them with a turnover of more than £5M. Most building companies will be operating as limited companies to protect the directors from being sued, indeed most large construction companies set up subsidiaries for each building project.

 

The tax I'm proposing would be ongoing, not just to fund the cladding repairs but to allow truly independent inspection and research boards to be put in place. The days of building inspectors being directly contracted by the developer or cladding manufacturers submitting their own fire safety certificates should be long gone. Yes I'm suggesting a return to the days of properly funded independent building inspectors and construction boards - like we used to have before the drive to remove the pesky red tape.

 

Yes it would hit all building companies above a certain size, both old and new, but as I have said above most large companies establish subsidiaries so each company is a new company. And yes developers may pass the cost on to new buyers but elasticity of demand would soon correct that.

[John52]

Yes we should go back to proper having building inspectors and EU safety standards I agree with you there.

But with the death trap cladding you would still be taking more money from innocent people and giving it to the Tories to chuck around to their cronies & fraudsters. I can see it going (indirectly) to £billionaire Tory landowners like furlough & farm subsidies :-S

 

[Brian Kirby]

John52 - 2021-05-02 8:28 AM

Brian Kirby - 2021-05-01 6:20 PM

the price we pay for electing chumps.

You speak for yourself ;-)

and you would put those chumps in charge of taxing the money and dishing it out *-)

But who else is there to do that? We elect them to do a job on our behalf. We choose them. If they are not up to the job, ultimately, whose fault is that? I don't like it, but I can't see a workable alternative either.

[Brian Kirby]

CurtainRaiser - 2021-05-02 10:03 AM.......................or cladding manufacturers submitting their own fire safety certificates should be long gone. ................................

Just on this, the manufacturers of all proprietary components of buildings (doors,windows, insulants, cladding materials) have to submit their products for specified tests, and the tests must be carried out by approved and certificated test establishments. The test certificate then belongs to the manufacturer because they paid for the tests. Anyone proposing to use the product will have access to the certificate, and the building control body to which the eventual application for approval is submitted will take the certificate, the test house, and the nature of the intended use of the product into account in assessing the application.

 

If the proposed use doesn't comply with the conditions under which the test was conducted, the building control body should offer the applicant two choices. Refusal of the application, or the conduct of a test of the proposed form of construction by, in the case of fire performance, constructing a full scale mock up at a suitable test station and then setting fire to it under controlled conditions to evaluate its real world performance. This does not seem to have happened in the case of Grenfell or in the other instances of this flammable cladding being used. It is, however, exactly what was done by the government after Grenfell, which is how we know that the materials used, and the combination in which they were used, should never have been passed for use. The outstanding question is why?

 

It is being claimed that government relaxed the requirement for full scale testing by allowing acceptance of "desk studies", in which the fire performance of the proposed construction is assessed by a fire engineer. That fire engineer will have been employed by the applicant, in competition with other fire engineers so, having created a competitive market for that service, the starting gun on a race to the bottom was fired.

 

Both main suppliers to Grenfell (Celotex and Reynobond) had individually had full scale fire tests of their products in rain-screen cladding formation conducted by reputable test laboratories, and both caution that the resulting test results, which demonstrate compliance with regulations, are only valid for construction exactly replicating their test rigs.

 

The combination of Reynobond cladding and Celotex insulation was, as above, only tested in that way after the Grenfell fire, when it spectacularly failed.

 

And yet, someone decided that the untested combination of the two materials in rain-screen cladding would provide adequate protection against fire spread, and someone else accepted that decision as sufficient for the application to be passed. There is clearly precedent for this, or the other similarly clad buildings would not also have been approved.

 

I'm expecting a small group of fire engineers and approved inspectors to be identified at some point as having become the "consultants of choice" on projects using rain-screen cladding. They will all carry professional indemnity insurances with limited cover, and the resulting claims will greatly exceed the extent of their cover. Their actual liabilities are not limited by the extent of their PII cover, so most of those involved will be liable to bankruptcy.