Personal Injury Solicitors

It has now been over a year since the Grenfell Tower fire claimed the lives of 72 people. Since the fire, countless questions have been raised as to how such a tragic event could happen; what caused the fire? How and why did it spread? Could more have been done to save lives?

The Grenfell Inquiry has begun to hear expert evidence on the cause and spread of the fire. Five expert reports are to be published, outlining the cause of the inferno and why it spread so quickly. They will include analysis of the effectiveness of the fire prevention measures within the building.

Below are some of the key findings from the first four days of the hearings:

Day 1

According to expert, Professor Luke Bisby, the primary cause of the fire’s spread was the cladding which had been added to the tower during the 2012-16 refurbishments. He explained how the cladding prevented the fire from simply rising upward and instead wrapped the building in flames.

Professor Bisby’s assertion that the cladding accounted for the rapid spread of the fire draws attention to building regulations and whether such cladding was permitted by regulations. This has raised various debates with experts being unable to come to a unanimous conclusion. For example, the Government has said that the core of the aluminium cladding was ‘filler’ for the purposes of the guidance – something rejected completely by Dr Barbara Lane, fire engineer at Arup.

Also addressed was the “stay put” policy implemented by the London Fire Brigade at Grenfell. Dr Lane concluded that the “stay put policy” failed 32 minutes after the first 999 call. Residents were not told to escape the building until 02:47 despite the fire brigade declaring the situation a “major incident” at 02:06; warranting the abandonment of this policy.

Day 2

On 5 June 2018, lawyers representing survivors and bereaved families made their opening statements. These statements included revelations about fire safety checks undertaken during the refurbishment of the tower.

Lawyer Imran Khan, QC urged Chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick to consider to what extend race played a role in the reaction to the fire. He pointed out that there was a disproportionate representation of black and minority residents in tower blocks.

Day 3

On 6 June 2018, Council and contractors appeared for the first time. The key discussion at this point was the refurbishment of the tower with evidence as to how the refurbishment may have contributed to the spread of the fire. Lawyers representing the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea stated that the fire brigade can audit the fire risk assessment as the enforcing authority. This would prove to be significant as it was revealed that the assessor for the Grenfell Tower had written on each of his fire risk assessments:

“You do not have to give a copy of your risk assessment to anybody, not even the fire authority.”

Day 4

On 7 June 2018, representatives for the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), the Fire Officers Association (FOA) and London Fire Brigade (LFB) made their opening statements.

It has been said the “stay put” policy is only a strategy that firefighters are supposed to follow. It was questioned whether it was in the public interest to “expect fire services to develop operational policy on the presumption that buildings such as Grenfell Tower are inherently unsafe.”

FBU lawyer, Martin Seaward, said that the refurbishment of Grenfell was the reason as to why the fire spread everywhere, referring to the Grenfell Tower as: “a highly combustible death trap”.

It is clear to see from the initial hearings that establishing definitive answers to the questions raised will be a long and complex process. Over the coming months more evidence will be heard and considered. The inquiry is expected to last some time with the second stage not beginning until next year when discussions will take place relating to the build-up to the fire, including the decision by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to refurbish the building.

Author Petia Georgieva is a Solicitor in the Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury departments at Duncan Lewis. Petia undertakes and assists in various and complex cases involving serious injuries, including cerebral palsy and birth injuries; misdiagnosis claims/delay in diagnosis including cancer claims; and GP claims including delay in diagnosis/referral. Contact Petia on 0203 114 1243 or petiag@duncanlewis.com.

Duncan Lewis Personal Injury Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Personal Injury Solicitors have extensive experience representing clients who have sustained injuries as a result of accidents. Our no win no fee personal injury solicitors are proud of their reputation for being caring and considerate in their dealings with personal injury.

Family members can call us for advice on making a claim if someone close to you has been injured and is still recovering in hospital.

For expert legal advice call our Personal Injury solicitors on 0333 772 0409.