On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 6/30/2017 10:09 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.


One source said they were welded steel pipes (perhaps seam welded with
BSP taper fittings?). Should have been fairly fire resistant compared to
soldered copper, at least until the fire really got going.

Dave Plowman wrote:

On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Yes, as early as the morning after the fire, "gas pipes" in stairwell
were being mentioned by residents.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

That seemed to be the preferred scheme from several options, not seen
anything which said it was definitely the one chosen.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water?

Could easily be mistaken.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

Even if they were water pipes, and the work wasn't completed, then there
could be firestopping that was missed.

In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would
help.

Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system
for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned
ones.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:35:44 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Roland Perry remarked:
In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire
- showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And
loads of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what
are claimed to be cast iron

Sorry; welded steel.

pipes taking gas into individual flats from the communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central*
system. If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it
would help.

Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system
for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned
ones.

--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would
help.

It would indeed. But the then the cladding was apparently changed later
too.

Of course it's possible that both were installed - the central system
for the housing association flats and boilers for the privately owned
ones.

Ah - never considered that one. I'd have thought the cost of installing
individual units to a few flats where none existed before likely very
high. Different if doing the entire block.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 10:59:11 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One resident interviewed early on mentioned the work done in her flat
not being anywhere near the standard of the show flat - and
specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown in. Ie very
untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers on the
K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

That's likely to be a housing association tenant, so the private vs
rental division I mentioned looks less likely.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:59:11 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot
water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/07/2017 10:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:59:11 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been
thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.

The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot
water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.


The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.
As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

In message om, at
17:02:42 on Sun, 2 Jul 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the
fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

This is what I don't understand. One resident interviewed early on
mentioned the work done in her flat not being anywhere near the standard
of the show flat - and specifically saying her boiler had just been
thrown
in. Ie very untidily installed. But then no mention of individual boilers
on the K&C site. Just of a new communal system.
The plot thickens. Today it is reported that tenants of neighbouring
properties are having their rent suspended because they don't have hot
water, the central plant having been destroyed in the Grenfell fire.


The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.

The core wasn't designed to stop fire arriving through the windows on
almost all flats on all floors simultaneously. That's a problem with the
cladding.

As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

If you have an erroneous preconception about the truth, then you are
doomed to think that.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/07/2017 17:02, dennis@home wrote:
however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

Err, no it didn't.

A deadly combination of non-fireproof cladding plus
PIR insulation that was assumed to be fire-resistant
(but wasn't because the temperature exceeded its
limitations) plus poor detailed installation (vertical
'tunnels' at each corner and along the sides) plus
tenants who may have interfered with the fire door
entrances to their flat, plus possibly the ones
in communal spaces, all contributed to the inferno
by setting the inside of the building alight too.


I suspect that if rockwool insulation had been used,
and all internal fire doors were working, then
the fire would have been dramatic from outside but
stayed on the outside.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The plot will continue to thicken..

however it is quite easy to see that the cladding destroyed the building

*but*

the poor design/maintenance of the core killed the people.

That means pretty well every tower block is a deathtrap, then.

To my thinking, it's likely to be the modernisation that made it so
dangerous. Basically, for whatever reason, the escape route became
unusable too quickly.

The enquiry may say so if and when it reports.
As I see it the enquiry is just an exercise in avoiding the truth.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

replying to dennis, Russell Hurley wrote:
You are completely right. Cladding is a scapegoat.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1220838-.htm

On 30/06/2017 10:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:09:25 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would help.

Each flat had a heat interface unit (HIU) installed, in simple terms
these are heat exchangers; the primary side is connected to the communal
heat source (heat pump and gas fired boilers in this case), the
secondary side is connected to the apartment radiators. There is also
provision for instant hot water which is provided much like it would be
with a combi boiler. Heat meters work out the amount of heat used by
measuring the flow rate and temperature difference between the flow and
return. I am guessing the gas was for cooking.

See link below for more information:

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-...nuary_2015.pdf


snip


--
Dazza

gremlin_95 wrote:

See link below for more information:

http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/board-...nuary_2015.pdf

Wonder what else is in there?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inurl:kctmo.org.uk/files

Grenfell specific :

"the new smoke extract system has been commissioned and is fully
operational"

"Rydon will be fitting vents to the ducts at all the points where the
gas mains run in the building; this
work is compulsory and will take about two hours. They will need access
to your flats"

Not Grenfell specific:

"following fire risk assessments,
the TMO had been working in partnership with the borough
on ensuring that leaseholder doors were compliant following
the programme for replacing tenants’ doors"

"It was queried whether any of the non-compliant fire doors
were in tower blocks, and this was confirmed".

In message , at 21:32:28 on Mon, 3 Jul 2017,
gremlin_95 remarked:

A picture has re-surfaced, that was posted online right after the fire -
showing a boiler apparently just inside a flat's front door. And loads
of copper *hot water* pipes. Also another picture showing what are
claimed to be cast iron pipes taking gas into individual flats from the
communal areas.

The former was one of the list of possible solutions to delivering
refurbished heating in the original feasibility study, and some sources
suggest the option chosen was a new heat-pump assisted *central* system.
If anyone has access to records of what was actually chosen, it would help.

Each flat had a heat interface unit (HIU) installed, in simple terms
these are heat exchangers; the primary side is connected to the
communal heat source (heat pump and gas fired boilers in this case),
the secondary side is connected to the apartment radiators. There is
also provision for instant hot water which is provided much like it
would be with a combi boiler. Heat meters work out the amount of heat
used by measuring the flow rate and temperature difference between the
flow and return. I am guessing the gas was for cooking.

Thanks, I think that explains it completely.
--
Roland Perry

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

a protected zone is a nice safe place for a gas supply pipe if it wasn't for
leaks that is .......

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident
of the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up
the stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not
by any pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating
system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in
fact not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might
well compromise that, if badly done.

every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in
the common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were
open front and back ....

A four storey block might well have been fine with that cladding too. And
any fire appliance can likely reach its windows anyway.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:47:05 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ ..."
wrote:

[snip]

every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

As it happens, I live in such a building and the gas mains in the area
are being replaced at present. I had a meeting with the SGN project
engineer on Wednesday. The riser in the close is made of steel and is
to remain. The cross pipes are made of copper and apparently require
to be replaced if the gas supply is interrupted but this is not needed
if it is not.

The project engineer explained that a surface mounted pipe is regarded
as safer as it reduces the risk of any escaping gas entering a void.

We have doors front and back but I think the assumption is that that
there is still plenty of ventilation. Why would a pipe in the close
present a greater risk than a pipe within an individual flat anyway?

On Friday, 30 June 2017 10:47:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

I think Edinburgh closes were traditionally closed, at least in the better class of buildings, with multiple bell-pulls at the front door and a rod mechanism for opening the door from upper flats. Glasgow were traditionally open.

I have lived in closes which still had the remains of gas lighting points in the close.

Owain

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Friday, 30 June 2017 10:47:10 UTC+1, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
every traditional four storey tenement in scotland had the gas supply in the
common stair .....worked fine for years but then again closes were open
front and back ....

I think Edinburgh closes were traditionally closed, at least in the better class of buildings, with multiple bell-pulls at the front door and a rod mechanism for opening the door from upper flats.
Yep, you have described my grandparants flat in Forest Road when I was
a lad.


--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Because they all had gas cooking. It was also stated by some people that
pipes also ran out and through walls without any kind of mitigation of fire
blocking systems. If there were gas pipes inside the cladding then this has
surely to be a very very bad thing.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident of
the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

--
*Time is fun when you're having flies... Kermit

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Arrived in my email inbox an hour ago:

- - - - -
Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all rented homes
(...)
Speaking today in the House of Commons on the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body.
(...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must be immediate reform to electrical safety.
- - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some research
before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

In message , at
13:42:23 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017, remarked:
- - - - -
Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all rented homes
(...)
Speaking today in the House of Commons on the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson Wera Hobhouse MP called on
the Government to introduce compulsory electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the case of
social rented homes, by the council or managing body.
(...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must be immediate reform to electrical safety.
- - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some research
before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at
13:42:23 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017, remarked:
- - - - - Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all
rented homes (...) Speaking today in the House of Commons on the
Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson
Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory
electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the
requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the
case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body. (...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must
be immediate reform to electrical safety. - - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.


However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In message , at 09:43:44 on Thu, 13
Jul 2017, charles remarked:

- - - - - Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all
rented homes (...) Speaking today in the House of Commons on the
Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson
Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory
electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the
requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the
case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body. (...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must
be immediate reform to electrical safety. - - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.

However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.

If it includes looking up the serial number to see if it's on a recall
list, and then whether the repair has been done, that's a step in the
right direction.

Much earlier in the thread there were plausible examples given of how in
effect PAT-testing criteria would catch a lot of risky equipment before
it actually burst into flames.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
If it includes looking up the serial number to see if it's on a recall
list, and then whether the repair has been done, that's a step in the
right direction.

Much earlier in the thread there were plausible examples given of how in
effect PAT-testing criteria would catch a lot of risky equipment before
it actually burst into flames.

I really wouldn't be too sure with domestic appliances. Any checks are
restricted to external ones. Do you really thing a TV that bursts into
flames is due to a faulty mains lead?

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 10:17:55 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:43:44 on Thu, 13
Jul 2017, charles remarked:



However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.

If it includes looking up the serial number to see if it's on a recall
list, and then whether the repair has been done, that's a step in the
right direction.

Who's fault would it be if the person renting owns the appliance rather than
whoever rents the property. Also many fires are started from faulty chargers etc...
So if such a test revealed that a person has dangerous chargers would they be taken away, would the owner have to buy new complient ones who'd ensure this?
Is it teh job of teh govenrment the person renting or the landlord ?



Much earlier in the thread there were plausible examples given of how in
effect PAT-testing criteria would catch a lot of risky equipment before
it actually burst into flames.

In most cases it wouldn't, a visual check would be more likely to find serious faults.

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at
13:42:23 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017, remarked:
- - - - - Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all
rented homes (...) Speaking today in the House of Commons on the
Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson
Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory
electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the
requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the
case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body. (...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must
be immediate reform to electrical safety. - - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.


However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.

Quite. And cost a great deal. And would the average person on here want a
stranger poking around their house testing every electrical appliance?

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 10:50:47 on Thu, 13 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.


However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.

Quite. And cost a great deal. And would the average person on here want a
stranger poking around their house testing every electrical appliance?

Works OK for gas. And no-one said *every* appliance. You could start
with white goods in the kitchen.
--
Roland Perry

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:00:10 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at
13:42:23 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017, remarked:

- - - - - Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all
rented homes (...) Speaking today in the House of Commons on the
Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson
Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory
electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the
requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the
case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body. (...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must
be immediate reform to electrical safety. - - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.


However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.

Quite. And cost a great deal. And would the average person on here want a
stranger poking around their house testing every electrical appliance?

Trouble is like everything in this country it would soon morph into an exercise in taking what you've got and extracting money on very iffy grounds. Wrong colour earth conductor? We'll take that and destroy it Sir, can't have dangerous goods can we.


NT

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
13:42:23 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017, remarked:
- - - - - Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all
rented homes (...) Speaking today in the House of Commons on the
Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson
Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory
electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants.

The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the
requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in
the case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body. (...)
"Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there
must be immediate reform to electrical safety. - - - - -

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.

The costs of doing thorough checks on all wiring and appliances on a
frequent enough basis to be of use would surely be horrendous? And if a
dodgy appliance is found, what do you do about it? Stick a 'do not use'
label on it? Or replace it with a new one? At whose cost? Even if say a
dodgy appliance was found and removed, what's to prevent the tenant or
whatever simply buying a used untested one? Or even a new one which isn't
well designed?

And why just rented homes? Some of the flats in the Grenfell tower were
privately owned.

Of course fire prevention is important. But the more important thing is to
contain any. And make sure emergency exits are up to the purpose intended.

--
*Wood burns faster when you have to cut and chop it yourself.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 10:49:00 on Thu, 13 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the
country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous
serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.

An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend
two fires in a tower block per day.

The costs of doing thorough checks on all wiring and appliances on a
frequent enough basis to be of use would surely be horrendous? And if a
dodgy appliance is found, what do you do about it? Stick a 'do not use'
label on it? Or replace it with a new one? At whose cost? Even if say a
dodgy appliance was found and removed, what's to prevent the tenant or
whatever simply buying a used untested one? Or even a new one which isn't
well designed?

All of these issues are not insurmountable when it comes to gas
appliances.

And why just rented homes? Some of the flats in the Grenfell tower were
privately owned.

The same rules ought to be applied to every flat in a communal building
such as Grenfell.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The costs of doing thorough checks on all wiring and appliances on a
frequent enough basis to be of use would surely be horrendous? And if a
dodgy appliance is found, what do you do about it? Stick a 'do not use'
label on it? Or replace it with a new one? At whose cost? Even if say a
dodgy appliance was found and removed, what's to prevent the tenant or
whatever simply buying a used untested one? Or even a new one which
isn't well designed?

All of these issues are not insurmountable when it comes to gas
appliances.

Think most of us have many many more times the number of electrical
appliances than gas ones.

And a gas appliance is easier to test anyway. It is simply not practical
to examine a TV etc to see if it may burst into flames in the future.

--
*I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Roland Perry wrote:
jgh remarked:
Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

Gas safety checks are annual, not every five years.
Trading standards "fit for sale" legislation already exists to cover fridges
Landlord's safety checks would not cover tenant's appliances.

There's already something that covers electrical tests of tenanted properties,
can't remember the details just now, but I think it's more along the lines
of not doing tests makes you culpable in event of a problem, doing tests
shows you've gone to appropriate lengths to avoid problems. So, any reasonably
sane landlord does it anyway.

In message , at
07:38:51 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, remarked:
Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some
research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.

What research topic did you have in mind?

Gas safety checks are annual, not every five years.
Trading standards "fit for sale" legislation already exists to cover fridges
Landlord's safety checks would not cover tenant's appliances.

There's already something that covers electrical tests of tenanted properties,
can't remember the details just now, but I think it's more along the lines
of not doing tests makes you culpable in event of a problem, doing tests
shows you've gone to appropriate lengths to avoid problems. So, any reasonably
sane landlord does it anyway.

Are you saying that Grenfell's landlord wasn't reasonably sane to allow
ten year old untested butane filled fridge/freezers when that class of
appliance is a known risk?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:33:51 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Are you saying that Grenfell's landlord wasn't reasonably sane to allow
ten year old untested butane filled fridge/freezers when that class of
appliance is a known risk?

The landlord's insurance co. could pick this kind of thing up.
Tenant questionnaire plus sample inspection could verify risks.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:46:29 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:09:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

On Newsnight yeaterday, a Grenfell estate resident (but not a resident
of the tower) said that there were unprotected gas pipes running up the
stairwell. This was also mentioned earlier by residents. But not by any
pros I heard interviewed.

Based on other comments, I thought initially they had gone over to
individual heating systems in each flat - hence the need for new gas
pipes. But it seems this is wrong - it had a new communal heating
system.

So why the need for new gas pipes to all the flats? Or are they in fact
not gas but water? A layman might well not know the difference.

Sadly, running any new services through a fire protected area might well
compromise that, if badly done.

Whoa !!!!!

Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ????? !!!!!!

I wondered this too but when I raised the point previously someone
said it was only for certain types of building.

In message , at 10:46:29 on Fri, 30 Jun
2017, Jethro_uk remarked:

Wasn't gas for high rises banned after Ronan Point ?

Only for ones using that particularly vulnerable style of
prefabrication.
--
Roland Perry