 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So after the fire that was Grenfell, and the governmnets knee jerk reaction to removalof all external cladding.
Question, whos going to pay for the removal and reinstatement of the replacement cladding on both Private and Housing association, and the huge costs of planning this work along with rehoming costs of residents.
Also when the external sheet is removed, will the building still be water and wind tight along with the cladding behind still left in place and only held on with basic fixtures, as the over cladding would ensure it couldnt move.
Finally, can you still get home insurance for tower block flats, and if you have a mortgage on a flat, and want to sell is your home now basicly worthless.
Question, whos going to pay for the removal and reinstatement of the replacement cladding
Who gives a ****, just get it fone?!?
Tax payers
I very much doubt the external cladding holds anything on as there's a gap behind it.
It's really only there to improve the appearance and protect the insulation beneath it, so in all likelihood the original external finish is still there and the building will be as completely watertight as it was before.
Seems like a pretty reasonably thing to do but I think there should be a contribution from the manufacturer of the flammable stuff.
Can't see what's changed re insurance..... All houses can burn down.
I very much doubt the external cladding holds anything on as there's a gap behind it.
the insulation is usually just pegged to building and is not securely fixed to resist wind and weather, the outer metal skin is then secured to the building with bolts or screws.
It's really only there to improve the appearance and protect the insulation beneath it, so in all likelihood the original external finish is still there and the building will be as completely watertight as it was before.
Usually the windows are removed and moved outwards over the cladding, and then sealed into the cladding to make a waterproof seal.
Seems like a pretty reasonably thing to do but I think there should be a contribution from the manufacturer of the flammable stuff.
and what planet do you live on, very unlikely theyll just declare bankruptcy or drag it out so long and hoe to be taken over etc.
Seems like a pretty reasonably thing to do but I think there should be a contribution from the manufacturer of the flammable stuff.
Why should they ? Whilst I don't understand why they offer a cheaper alternative that is flammable, it is not their fault that it was specified by the installer.
Well in my experience the external insulation is fitted to the building (screwed through the iinsulation) then the cladding is fitted using brackets with a gap between the cladding and the insulation to provide ventilation.
That's whats happening on my place next week but of course I may be wrong and this is a different system..... [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/grenfell-cladding-was-changed-to-cheaper-version-reports-say ]but it seems not[/url]
3 hospital building now clad with the same cladding, going to be a huge bill for someone.
Why should they ? Whilst I don't understand why they offer a cheaper alternative that is flammable, it is not their fault that it was specified by the installer.
This, there are 101 flammable claddings e.g. chip board, but you wouldn't expect the chip board manuf to cough up if you stupidly clad a 37 storey building in it..
Depends. If it was incorrect specced then the firm that did the spec my receive a claim which in turn could end up with their PI insurer.
Similarly the project manager, the construction firm that did the installation etc.
There's a reason I won't insure anyone involved in cladding. It's often wrongly specced orc the design gets changed due to costs etc and it's hugely expensive to rectify afterward.
From what I understand the cladding met the relevant standards and was classified fire resistant as much as the more expensive panel was. Therefore manufacturer doesn't have any liability I would imagine.
The real problem seems to be with the test procedures for these systems and the use of desktop modelling I think they call it.
Corners cut in testing procedures, who sits on the boards of these companies, who lobbies who to get products passed, these are the questions I would like answered.
Why should they ? Whilst I don't understand why they offer a cheaper alternative that is flammable, it is not their fault that it was specified by the installer.
From what I understand the cladding met the relevant standards
This^
So perhaps the standards need re-examining. Or maybe it's down to the way the cladding was installed. It seems to me that clagging a second skin over the existing structure raises a risk of creating a chimney, but I'm no fire-safety expert.
This seems to be one problem the government will unleash the magic money tree on.
Did they even conclude it was legal to use flammable materials to clad buildings in this way? I'm sure in the initial fall out of the fire it was said it wasn't or perhaps it *could* be if you could pass a fire safety inspection with it in place.
Anyway, as anagallis_arvensis said, get it done, it's a complete **** up to have installed it in the first place, lets not compound the **** up by trying to claim the world's 5th largest economy cannot afford to stop another disaster happening. We can afford it easily, we can afford lots and lots of things very easily - we're just governed by a bunch of rich ****s who'd rather sit on piles of money than stop poor people burning to death.
a building mag is today claiming recladding and proper fire and safety systems will cost 20 million per high rise flat block, plenty of work for us builders then, pity nobody knows as yet whos going to pay the bill.