Grenfell Inquiry day 87: firefighters call for stay put advice to be changed

It also criticised the inquiry for focusing so closely on the actions of firefighters in its first phase. “By starting with a microanalysis of the emergency response, the [inquiry] risks inflating the significance of anything the emergency services might have done differently in face of the unfolding disaster,” it said. “It cannot explain how the building became a ‘highly combustible death trap’, nor why the [residents] and the emergency services were put in the awful, we say impossible, position of dealing with the inferno that resulted.”

The London Fire Brigade’s (LFB) own closing submission did not address whether it should have foreseen these events but did focus on the fact that while previous fires have spread across cladding, the scale of the Grenfell Tower fire was “unprecedented”.

Rydon, PSB and Celotex, companies which were involved in the refurbishment of the tower, declined to give closing statements on the final day of inquiry.

The companies did, however, provide written submissions which were published by the inquiry online.

Lawyers representing the survivors of the fire and the bereaved also gave closing statements this week.

Some chose to criticise the LFB for its handling of the fire, with Sam Stein QC telling the inquiry that commissioned Dany Cotton and her leadership team “are not fit to run” the service, having “failed to consider the unfolding evidence before this inquiry”.

Others, including the lawyer representing Behailu Kebede, in whose flat the fire started, called on inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick to confirm that the tower refurbishment tower did not meet the required standards.

Lawyer Alice Jarrett gave a closing statement for Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), which managed Grenfell Tower.

She pointed out that a number of other organisations, notably the RBKC, also knew about the materials being used in the cladding that was installed on Grenfell Tower during the refurbishment of the building.

In RBKC’s statement, the council said: “It is well understood in the construction industry that the fact that local authorities have a building control function does not remove the duties on those paid to design buildings.”

In its written closing statement, Rydon questioned whether Mr Kebede stored any materials in his kitchen near the fridge beyond a mop and bucket, and raised the possibility that he may have left his window open.

“The evidence of the residents of flat 16 is that on the night of the fire, there was only a mop/ brush and bucket kept in the corner space,” it said. “The exact nature of the materials that were located in the corner space is highly likely to have a significant impact on the fire’s behaviour in the very early stages, since these materials would have been among the first involved in the fire.”

It added: “Rydon would invite the inquiry to find that, at least, the smaller kitchen window was wide open.”

Meanwhile, Arconic, which provided the cladding, argued that without the failures of other fire safety features of the building, the flammable cladding would not have caused loss of life.

The inquiry has now adjourned and will return for phase two in 2020.