WTF Sh*t's F*cked Up and Bullsh*t - a "Who Cares" thread for news

[Tigger]

Couldn't the same be said, though, of the leaseholders, who signed the leases that make them responsible for replacing the cladding?

Compare the suffering between a business in loss vs many bankrupt individuals. Making those people suffer is the greater evil.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Compare the suffering between a business in loss vs many bankrupt individuals. Making those people suffer is the greater evil.

The problem, as I understand it, is that everyone behaved perfectly correctly at the time of each transaction, in full compliance with the fire safety regulations in force at the time. Everyone -- leaseholders, the freeholder and the original property developer -- relied on the government's construction regulations and (I assume) on the safety certificates issued by the local authorities.

Why do you want the freeholder to be liable, as opposed to the original developer, the local fire safety inspectors or the government who approved the defective regulations in the first place?

 

[Tigger]

The problem, as I understand it, is that everyone behaved perfectly correctly at the time of each transaction, in full compliance with the fire safety regulations in force at the time. Everyone -- leaseholders, the freeholder and the original property developer -- relied on the government's construction regulations and (I assume) on the safety certificates issued by the local authorities.

Why do you want the freeholder to be liable, as opposed to the original developer, the local fire safety inspectors or the government who approved the defective regulations in the first place?

I don't. I just see that the people who are the least to blame in this situation are the ones who are left carrying the can, they will be destroyed while the businesses and government will not even feel the bump as they steamroller on over those ruined lives.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I don't. I just see that the people who are the least to blame in this situation are the ones who are left carrying the can, they will be destroyed while the businesses and government will not even feel the bump as they steamroller on over those ruined lives.

I feel sorry for them, too. But I don't see that inventing new liabilities and thus bankrupting the freeholder (who seems to be an individual working through a private trust, which is the normal way for large private investors to hold real property) helps anyone. Nor would it survive challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Nor, come to think of it, am I sure that it's a good idea to hit the local council with the costs, so that leaves central government and the taxpayer.

 

[Govi]

Everyone involved in the decision to allow the cladding material to be used on more than two elevated floors would be liable under the laws in most American States. The manufacturer specifically advised against cladding higher than two stories.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Do they have the makings of what would here be a class-action lawsuit? How can the tenants be charged for a decision they didn't make?

Everyone involved in the decision to allow the cladding material to be used on more than two elevated floors would be liable under the laws in most American States. The manufacturer specifically advised against cladding higher than two stories.

This would be enough to make a class action lawsuit here, (IANAL).

The closest thing we have to this is condo ownership and it’s not a model we apply to housing for poor people. I just can’t help but feel these folks have a claim against somebody.

If I thought I was buying in a place where I’d become liable for every dumb decision of a condo manager, I’d try to have insurance against it, or I’d stay out.

 

[danielravennest]

Couldn't the same be said, though, of the leaseholders, who signed the leases that make them responsible for replacing the cladding?

When I bought my house here in Atlanta, I had it inspected beforehand, and an adequate inspection report was a condition of my purchase offer. The inspection disclosed some mold in the basement drywall, and we negotiated a split on the removal costs, before the purchase was completed.

In US real estate, sellers are required to disclose any defects in the property they are aware of, or they can be sued for damages later, and independent property inspections are a regular part of the purchase process. Is this not a part of UK property transactions? While the apartment towers may have been compliant when built, standards change over time through experience.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

When I bought my house here in Atlanta, I had it inspected beforehand, and an adequate inspection report was a condition of my purchase offer. The inspection disclosed some mold in the basement drywall, and we negotiated a split on the removal costs, before the purchase was completed.

In US real estate, sellers are required to disclose any defects in the property they are aware of, or they can be sued for damages later, and independent property inspections are a regular part of the purchase process. Is this not a part of UK property transactions? While the apartment towers may have been compliant when built, standards change over time through experience.

No, it's not. However, as a regular part of the transaction the buyer's lawyers will send the seller's lawyers a standard list of questions about the property, which should disclose any defects of which the vendor is aware.

However, the problem seems to be that people (including the authorities) discovered that insulation using this particular forum of cladding is a dangerous defect only after the Grenfell fire. So it was as big a shock for the for the affected buildings' freeholders as it was for the leaseholders to learn that this sort cladding is firetrap.

 

[Tigger]

No, it's not. However, as a regular part of the transaction the buyer's lawyers will send the seller's lawyers a standard list of questions about the property, which should disclose any defects of which the vendor is aware.

However, the problem seems to be that people (including the authorities) discovered that insulation using this particular forum of cladding is a dangerous defect only after the Grenfell fire. So it was as big a shock for the for the affected buildings' freeholders as it was for the leaseholders to learn that this sort cladding is firetrap.

Oh I think it was a bigger shock for the leaseholders, what with them discovering that they live inside a firework. The worst the freeholders face is a financial loss, the worst the leaseholders face is a screaming death in the agony of fire.

Also given that the makers of the cladding expressly advised against using the cladding on buildings over 10m in height because of fire risks I really don't think the end result was all that much of a shock

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

However, the problem seems to be that people (including the authorities) discovered that insulation using this particular forum of cladding is a dangerous defect only after the Grenfell fire.

In the US and Europe the cladding was only allowed to be used up to two stories, because it was combustible. It had already been implicated in fires in several countries, including Britain. The British government and Alcoa (who knowingly marketed it for inappropriate use in the UK) should be 100% on the hook for this failure of regulatory controls.

Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Also given that the makers of the cladding expressly advised against using the cladding on buildings over 10m in height because of fire risks I really don't think the end result was all that much of a shock

In the US and Europe the cladding was only allowed to be used up to two stories, because it was combustible. It had already been implicated in fires in several countries, including Britain. The British government and Alcoa (who knowingly marketed it for inappropriate use in the UK) should be 100% on the hook for this failure of regulatory controls.

Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety

However, the fact remains that -- for obvious reasons -- manufacturers' recommendations don't override statutory requirements when it comes to product safety.

The problem is that everyone acted in good faith and in accordance with building regulations at the time, and I don't see how a court could be asked, presumably on the grounds that it regrets the leaseholders' plight, to create some retrospective liability on the freeholder or anyone else because it turns out that the regulations were inadequate.

If you want to make a case that the government should step in to help the leaseholders, as it would after a natural disaster or unforeseen accident, then I would agree. But I don't see how the freeholder (who I'm not sure is the developer) can be held responsible when he's acted in good faith and followed all the appropriate regulations.

 

[Govi]

In most jurisdictions in the US, construction businesses regularly press for variances or even permanent changes to the code to allow them to pursue some change in construction materials/methods. When that happens and results in a Grenville-style disaster, with loss of life and property, who is liable? The change seeker? The change grantor?

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

However, the fact remains that -- for obvious reasons -- manufacturers' recommendations don't override statutory requirements when it comes to product safety.

The statutory requirements establish a minimum standard. Architects, builders, and contractors are expected to impose stronger requirements when appropriate. Even if the government can't impose fines I think there's absolutely cause for a civil lawsuit against Alcoa and professional sanctions against the architects who specified that cladding.

Blindly working to rule is not "good faith".

 

[Tigger]

The statutory requirements establish a minimum standard. Architects, builders, and contractors are expected to impose stronger requirements when appropriate. Even if the government can't impose fines I think there's absolutely cause for a civil lawsuit against Alcoa and professional sanctions against the architects who specified that cladding.

Blindly working to rule is not "good faith".

If Alcoa's information in the rest of the world advises against use above a certain height because of flammability and they specifically alter their information for the same product but for the UK market it means they are fully aware of its flammability and deliberately taking action to hide it.

The people selling and using these products have a responsibility for the products they sell or use. If I build a wall to the best of my ability and it falls on someone and kills them - I'm to blame. If I make or use a building cladding material which I know to be highly flammable and advise most of my clients not to use it in certain ways because of its flammability but specifically do not advise one group of clients the same way, and that material catches fire and kills everyone then I am somehow not to blame?

 

[Kaimi Kyomoon]

Well it seems everyone took a risk when they did everything. The original builders and sellers are off the hook. The Freeholders will find it cheaper to cut their loses than to do the modifications and the lease holders have more or less suffered a natural disaster. (?)

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

A Latino Marine veteran was detained for deportation. Then ICE realized he was a citizen | Washington Post

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The statutory requirements establish a minimum standard. Architects, builders, and contractors are expected to impose stronger requirements when appropriate. Even if the government can't impose fines I think there's absolutely cause for a civil lawsuit against Alcoa and professional sanctions against the architects who specified that cladding.

Blindly working to rule is not "good faith".

Possibly so, but I struggle to believe that an English court would hold that any civil liability attached to parties in the dispute who had followed all their necessary legal obligations. "The architects and developers should have realised that the government safety regulations were inadequate" wouldn't, at least in my opinion, be at all successful as an argument in court.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

You just can't make up this sort of stuff!

Man treated in hospital after injecting himself with own semen to treat back pain

 

[Govi]

You just can't make up this sort of stuff!

Man treated in hospital after injecting himself with own semen to treat back pain

If I read the story correctly, he's not a Florida Man. How can that be?

 

[Free]

Dead Newborn Baby Found in Amazon Warehouse in Bathroom Trash Can

Phoenix police and fire officials found a dead newborn baby girl at or near full term in an Amazon (AMZN, +0.36%) distribution center at 8:30 p.m. on Dec. 16. Responders were called to the scene with a report of “a deceased infant in the women’s restroom located inside the secured facility,” the Phoenix Police Department said during a briefing.

[...]

An Amazon spokesperson said in a statement, “This is a terribly sad and tragic incident. We are working with local authorities to support their investigation. The safety and wellness of our team is our top priority.”

Horrible, but why do company spokespeople always sound they're trying to hide the truth, even when it's likely the company is not in any way at fault?