So, I’m going to keep ignoring the ad hominem stuff. Sorry about that.
Choice of material is a maintenance issues. Period. The materials chosen for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower have been known to be unsafe. Fire Safety Experts have warned against their use for years. It is a maintenance issue. Period.
OED defines maintenance is as “The process of preserving a condition or situation”. Historic England defines maintenance work as "“routine work necessary to keep the fabric of a place in good order”. The intention of adding the cladding to the building was to make it look more attractive, and to improve it’s insulation. It was clearly intended as an improvement, and not as maintenance. If you can find a legal or other definition that supports what you say, feel free to post it.
I am also not sure it has been established that the materials used in the cladding were known to be unsafe. Certainly they appear to have been used in a range of other similar refurbishments, and the claim at the minute is that they complied with fire regulations in force when they were installed. This will clearly be an important point for the public enquiry - and if they were known to be unsafe people should be going to prison.
Great, well which of the alternatives would you prefer - run by a private company for the council, or run by the council? I can’t see how either would have represented tenants better? I’m not saying that this Tenant Run Company was good - only that is is seen as the form of organisation which best represents tenants interests. It may not be the case in this instance.
Sure - Cory suggested that the rejection of the amendment on private housing was a factor in this case, which clearly it was not. Given this is with reference to council-owned housing, I’m not sure what relevance Thatcher has particularly. FWIW, the Defective Premises Act 1972, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 both oblige landlords to repair their properties.
