Sadiq Khan has branded “the dismissive treatment” of complaints made by Grenfell Tower residents “a disgrace” in an opening statement to the inquiry on his behalf.
Following the opening of the phase of the inquiry that will examine the actions of the tower’s social housing providers yesterday, opening statements were delivered this morning for the mayor of London, the Fire Brigades Union and the London fire commissioner.
Anne Studd QC, appearing for Mr Khan, issued a stinging criticism of the failure to act on complaints by residents, some of them directly impacting fire safety, in the years before the fire.
“The mayor of London wants to make clear that he regards the dismissive treatment of the tenants of Grenfell Tower when they were making justifiable and as it turned out prophetic complaints to be a disgrace,” she said.
She added that Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) was “everything a tenant management organisation should not be”.
“It was not community based, it was not cooperatively run. It was not representative and it was not responsive to residents needs or feedback,” she said.
Ms Studd quoted several resident witness statements, including one which said: “My impression of the TMO’s attitude towards the tower was that it was social housing and that we, its residents, would get what we were given and be grateful for it.”
She said the inquiry should ask whether the treatment of the tower’s residents demonstrated “institutional indifference” towards them.
It followed opening statements from survivors yesterday, which listed several instances of specific complaints about fire safety being ignored, including in relation to broken fire door self-closers and the malfunctioning smoke ventilation system – both of which were significant factors on the night of the fire.
Ms Studd said the fire had demonstrated the need for a stronger voice for social housing residents and called for “a commission for social housing residents who would give strength to those underrepresented voices”.
Martin Seaward QC, representing the Fire Brigades Union, focused on a specific question relating to the use of the firefighters lift at the tower.
The lift should have been designed so that firefighters could use a key to take over control of its operation, but when this was attempted by officers on the night, the mechanism did not work.
This meant the lift was unavailable for use to transport equipment and effect rescues in the early stages of the fire when lobbies were unaffected by smoke.
Three residents are also believed to have died after attempting to leave the tower in the lift but got stuck in smokey conditions when its doors opened unexpectedly on the 10th floor.
Mr Seaward challenged the view of one of the inquiry’s expert witnesses that the reason the lift failed on the night was due to firefighters using the wrong size of key.
He showed images of the mechanism (below) which showed it had become “caked in builders’ dust and debris” and said investigators found it was only operable after it had been removed and cleaned.
He suggested the mechanism may have become contaminated during the refurbishment, citing witness evidence from Rydon that the lifts had been regularly used to transport building material around the tower.
He noted that the switch was moved during the works to floor two before being reconnected and invited the inquiry to conclude that it may not have been contaminated if it had been “secured or covered during the works”.
He said the conclusion that the mechanism only failed because firefighters used the wrong key was based on “self-serving” witness evidence of those who should have inspected the switch and found it faulty.
Finally, Stephen Walsh QC, appearing on behalf of the London fire commissioner, discussed whether or not risk assessment and enforcement before the fire should have included the external walls of the building.
He said the London Fire Brigade wrote to the government in 2013 to clarify this position and was told it did not.
The government’s Fire Safety Bill, currently passing through parliament, amends legislation to make it clear that risk assessment and enforcement will in future apply to the external walls.
The Grenfell Inquiry will now pause for three weeks and resume on 19 April with oral evidence from the residents of the tower who raised complaints.
It is expected this will be given in person at the inquiry’s premises in west London, drawing to an end the reliance on Zoom hearings which has been in place since February due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Week one: A vivid picture of a broken industry
After a week of damning revelations at the opening of phase two of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week two: What is the significance of the immunity application?
Sir Martin Moore-Bick has written to the attorney general requesting protection for those set to give evidence at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Peter Apps explains what the move means
Week three: Architects of misfortune
This week saw the lead architects for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment give evidence to the inquiry. Peter Apps runs through the key points
Week four: ‘I didn’t have any perception that it was the monster it’s become’
The architects continued to give evidence this week, outlining a lack of understanding of the fire risk posed by the cladding materials and its design. Nathaniel Barker reports
Week five: ‘No adverse effect in relation to external fire spread’
As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry returns from its long absence, Peter Apps recaps the key points from a week of important evidence from the fire consultants to the refurbishment
Week six: ‘I can’t recall any instance where I discussed the materials with building control’
Nathaniel Barker summarises what we learned from fire engineers Exova, architects Studio E and the early evidence from contractor Rydon
Week seven: ‘I do not think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance’
Two key witnesses from contractor Rydon gave evidence this week. Peter Apps recaps some of the key points from a revealing week of evidence
Week eight: ‘It haunts me that it wasn't challenged’
Four witnesses from contractor Rydon gave evidence this week. Lucie Heath recaps what we learned on the last week of evidence before the inquiry breaks for five weeks
Week nine: ‘All I can say is you will be taken out for a very nice meal very soon’
This week the inquiry heard evidence from witnesses at Harley Facades, the sub-contractor responsible for Grenfell Tower’s cladding. Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week 10: ‘As we all know, ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire!’
As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry entered its 10th week, Jack Simpson recaps the key points from a week of important evidence from the refurbishment’s cladding contractor
Week 11: ‘Did you get the impression Grenfell Tower was a guinea pig for this insulation?’
With witnesses from the cladding subcontractor, the firm which cut the deadly panels to shape and the clerk of works which inspected the job giving evidence this was week full of revelations. Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week 12: ‘Would you accept that was a serious failing on your part?’
With the surveyor who inspected Grenfell Tower for compliance giving evidence, this was a crucial week from the inquiry. Dominic Brady and Peter Apps report
Week 13: ‘Value for money is to be regarded as the key driver for this project’
With consultants to Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) giving evidence, attention at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry turned for this first time to the actions of the TMO and the council. Peter Apps reports
Week 14: ‘Did it not occur to you at this point that your budget was simply too low?’
This week, for the first time in phase two, the inquiry heard from Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, the landlord that oversaw the fatal refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Lucie Heath reports
Week 15: ‘Have you ever informed the police that you destroyed documents relevant to their investigation?’
Witnesses from the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) gave evidence for a second week, which began with a shocking revelation about withheld and destroyed evidence. Peter Apps recaps
Week 16: ‘I conclude this was very serious evidence of professional negligence’
This week saw members of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation finish giving evidence, before the inquiry’s expert witnesses took the stand to make some highly critical assessments of the work they had seen before and during the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Jack Simpson recaps
Grenfell Tower: a timeline of the refurbishment
Following the conclusion of module one of the Grenfell Inquiry’s second phase, Peter Apps presents a timeline of the key moments during the fatal refurbishment of the west London tower block
Week 17: ‘It’s hard to make a note about this because we are not clean’
The start of the second module of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase two came with some huge revelations about the companies that sold the products used in the cladding system. Peter Apps reports
Week 18: ‘It was just reckless optimism wasn't it?’
As the inquiry began cross-examining witnesses for the second module of its phase two work, the picture surrounding just how Grenfell Tower ended up wrapped in such dangerous materials became a little clearer. Nathaniel Barker was keeping an eye on proceedings
Week 19: ‘And that was intentional, deliberate, dishonest?’
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry this week heard the shocking story of how the insulation manufacturer “manipulated” official testing and marketed its product “dishonestly”. Peter Apps tells the story
Week 20: ‘We were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to’
This week the inquiry investigated the actions of Kingspan – the manufacturer of one of the insulation products used in the tower’s cladding system. Dominic Brady reports
Week 21: ‘It’s there in black and white isn't it? We see a complete absence of any consideration of life safety’
The story of insulation giant Kingspan’s testing and marketing of its combustible insulation for high rises was unpacked in minute detail this week. Peter Apps reports
Week 22: ‘All we do is lie in here’
In the third week of evidence from insulation giant Kingspan, the inquiry continued to uncover shocking details about the firm’s behaviour both before and after the Grenfell Tower fire. Lucie Heath reports
Week 23: ‘That would have come as an earthquake to you at the time, would it not?’
This week the inquiry took its deepest dive yet into the inner workings of the cladding manufacturer whose product has been blamed for the terrible spread of fire up Grenfell Tower. Nathaniel Barker reports
Week 24: ‘Do you accept that Test 5B was Arconic's deadly secret’
The president of the firm that made and sold the cladding panels installed on Grenfell Tower was asked to account for the apparent concealment of “disastrous” fire tests on the product this week. Peter Apps reports
Week 25: ‘This is quite an incredible list of omissions and missed instances, isn’t it?’
This week the Grenfell Tower Inquiry heard its first witnesses from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) - the testing house which carried out key fire tests on the Kingspan and Celotex insulation products which were later used on Grenfell Tower. Peter Apps reports.
Week 26: 'You were taking an enormous risk, weren't you?'
Week 26 at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was a key moment in understanding how dangerous products used on the tower came to be accepted by industry professionals. Dominic Brady reports
Week 27: ‘What will happen if one building made out [of] PE core is in fire and will kill 60 to 70 persons?’
The most explosive week at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry came not from those who did not attend, as the evidence which would have been presented to Arconic witnesses was displayed in their absence. Peter Apps reports
Week 28: ‘This is a serious safety matter’
This week the Grenfell Tower Inquiry zeroed in on the British Board of Agrément, the body that produced “misleading” certificates which inspired trust in both the cladding and insulation used on the tower. Lucie Heath reports
Week 29: ‘Is it true that Kingspan’s position… was to do its best to ensure that science was secretly perverted for financial gain?’
The final week in this section of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry primarily examined the attempts by insulation manufacturer Kingspan to lobby government after the fire. Peter Apps reports
How the products used in Grenfell Tower's cladding system were tested and sold
As the section of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry examining how the products used in the cladding system were tested, marketed and sold comes to a close, Peter Apps summarises what we have learned about each of the products included in the system.
Week 30: ‘There is certainly a high probability that in the event of a fire the whole building can become an inferno’
The focus of the inquiry shifted this week to the actions of the social housing providers responsible for maintaining Grenfell Tower. Pete Apps recaps what we learned.
Each week we send out a newsletter rounding up the key news from the Grenfell Inquiry, along with the headlines from the week
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters