An acrimonious disagreement broke out on twitter between the Housing Secretary and campaigners over the delivery of recommendations from the Grenfell Tower public inquiry.
On 30 October, the MHCLG tweeted “It has been a year since the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report was published. We are implementing the recommendations from the report in the most practical, propotionate and effective way as a priority. By reforming building and fire safety we are making homes safer.”
It did not take long before angry tweets were being fired back with people complaining about the slow speed of implementation, some of the recommendations being amended or dropped altogether and the Government’s proposals on the funding of cladding removal costs, particularly from leaseholders.
The group End Our Cladding Scandal responded with “We beg to differ. We wouldn’t be here, speaking on behalf of millions of people, if that were true. Please, follow our 10 steps if you want to.”
Current affairs journalist and broadcaster Kate Lamble challenged the Housing Secretary, tweeting “One year on from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s first set of recommendations we think only 4 of 46 have already been implemented.”
Other responses were elicited from such groups as the UK Cladding Action Group, Olympic Park Homes Action Group, East London Cladding Action Group, Richmond House Residents and Grenfell United.
Campaign demands
The 10 steps referred to by the End Our Cladding Scandal are:
- The Government must lead an urgent national effort to remove all dangerous cladding from buildings by June 2022, including the prioritisation of blocks most at risk
- The Building Safety Fund must cover all buildings, regardless of height, and a range of internal and external fire safety defects, not just cladding
- The Government should provide the money up front and then seek to recover it from any responsible parties or via a temporary levy on development
- Social housing providers must have full and equal access to the fund
- The government must compel building owners or managers to be honest with residents about fire safety defects
- The Government should cover the cost of interim safety measures
- The Government should act as an insurer of last resort and underwrite insurance where premiums have soared
- A fairer, faster process is needed to replace EWS and funding is necessary to ensure all buildings that require a form are surveyed within 12 months
- Mental health support must be offered to affected residents
- Protecting residents from historic and future costs must be a key commitment of new building safety legislation
EWS refers to a system for competent fire risk assessors to confirm the safety of an external wall façade, without them having to carry out invasive tests. It has problems from day one because there is a shortage of surveyors, they struggled to obtain indemnity insurance and when inspections were carried out, they usually resulted in the building test being “failed”.
These problems were exacerbated when the Government changed the threshold of building heights which needed testing, adding another 88,000 residential buildings to the testing programme.
The upshot is that banks require EWS forms for almost all purpose-built flats and the system cannot cope with demand. These properties cannot be sold and the occupants cannot move. An estimated 1.5 million flats across the country are unsellable, causing a huge deadlock and misery for individual mortgage holders.
By Patrick Mooney, Editor