This is the second of a three-part series.  See Part 1 here.

The Grenfell Fire Inquiry Panel report was very detailed. However, it was limited in its scope by its terms of reference.

This is probably just as well as it would otherwise have taken considerably longer than seven years to complete, bearing in mind the painstakingly detailed research done.

In my view, though, the seeds of the problem lie further back and are manifest in wider societal attitudes. Otherwise, the various organisations discussed in Part 1 would never have been able to ‘get away’ with what they did.

But where did these societal attitudes come from? Let’s start with

Company law

A limited company is an artificial ‘person’ whose objects and allowable actions are set out in their articles and memorandum of association. Companies vary, but on the whole, companies exist solely to make a profit.

For example, in 1970, the economist Milton Friedman wrote that:

the one and only social responsibility of businesses is to use their resources and engage in activities designed to increase their profits, so long as it stays in the rules of the game and engage in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.

The increase of profits, by the way, is for the benefit of its shareholders and directors. Not for the benefit, for example, of its employees or society at large.

This is starting to change, and some companies are converting to B Corporations or B Corps. The B Corps’ purpose is not limited to making money for itself but to benefit all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and investors.

There are now some 2000 B Corps in the UK, but needless to say, this does not include any of the companies mentioned in the Grenfell Inquiry Report!

The fact that a company in law exists solely to make money for its directors and shareholders, makes it more likely that they will have the sort of culture we see in the companies supplying materials for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.

Laissez faire and Neoliberalism

This section of this blog is going to take us into the murky waters of philosophy and economic theory, but bear with me!

• Laissez-faire means ‘allow to do’ and originates (so I am informed by Google) with a group of 18th Century French economists who believed that ‘government policy should not interfere with the operation of natural economic laws.’
• Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy which originated in the 1930s. We are informed by Wikipeida that it is used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers” and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy.

Another useful definition of neoliberalism is given by Prof Richard Murphy, who defines it as

a political and economic ideology that emphasises the importance of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government intervention in the economy.

He goes on to say that the key principles include the promotion of

1) Free markets: Neoliberalism advocates for the liberalisation of markets, allowing for the free flow of goods, services, and capital. It promotes competition as a means to increase efficiency and economic growth.
2) Privatisation: Neoliberalism supports the transfer of state-owned enterprises and services to the private sector.
3) Deregulation: Neoliberalism calls for reducing government regulations and removing barriers to entry in order to foster competition and innovation.
4) Fiscal austerity: Neoliberals emphasise the importance of fiscal discipline, advocating for balanced budgets, lower government spending, and reduced public debt.
5) Individualism: Neoliberalism places a strong emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the belief that individuals should be free to pursue their own economic interests. As a result it promotes low or no taxes on wealth and views tax havens favourably.
6) Globalisation: Neoliberalism promotes free trade and globalisation, seeking to remove barriers to international trade and investment.

There is also the view that the Market will regulate itself.  This is often the justification rolled out for laissez-faire type policies.  Although Google AI tells me that “some say that it runs counter to practical experience and reflection  … Some say that there is no self-regulating mechanism in capitalism to reduce income inequality.”

So this all sounds to me very like:

• A justification for companies to be allowed to do what they like – and sadly, what they like is often to increase their profits by giving public safety a low-priority
• Government offloading responsibility for running essential public assets and services to the private sector (including foreign companies who have little interest in the safety or otherwise of the British public). Either because they (i.e. the government) can’t be bothered, or because they don’t want to pay for the staff and administration, or both, and
• A low-tax economy which inevitably tends to favour the wealthy rather than the poor – as low tax means that there is less money available to support public services.

Why am I writing about all this in a blog post supposedly about the Grenfell Inquiry report?

Well, it seems to me that many of the problems referred to in the report, are down to a culture in business and government fostered by the ideas and policies of laissez-faire and neoliberalism.

These were, I understand, first introduced by Margaret Thatcher, but have since been enthusiastically embraced by

• The Conservative Party
• Businesses who prefer to operate unshackled by the constraints of regulation and ‘red tape’ (including much of our national press) and
• All those sinister Tufton Street ‘think tanks’ which supported Liz Truss and the policies which crashed the economy in 2022

It’s the ideas and philosophy of laissez-faire and neoliberalism which underlie many of the attitudes and actions (or failures to act) which are so criticised in the Grenfell Inquiry Report.

• Reducing regulation to allow companies to operate unimpeded by the burden of red tape
• Reducing state spending so money is no longer available for the regulatory bodies who should exist to keep us all safe
• Reducing funding for Local Authorities so they are no longer able to afford the in house experts who would formerly have advised Councils (and whose advice could have prevented the dangerous cladding being used in the first place). I discussed this in a post I wrote shortly after the Grenfell fire.

What about the Tenant Management Organisation’s negative attitudes towards the Grenfell residents?

There is something deep in the human psyche which likes the idea that we are superior to other humans.

This reached its unpleasant height in the slave trade, where slave traders and owners often viewed their slave ‘possessions’ as little better than animals. Indeed, their animals were sometimes treated better.

However, this tendency is still manifest today.

• Landlords viewing tenants as ‘scum’ (remember Hoogstraten?)
• Men viewing women as ‘stupid’  (not all men!), and
• The ‘anti-migrant’ views of far-right activists

I am sure you can think of others.

The attitude of the Grenfell TMO towards residents was another example of this type of thinking. It is not, clearly, something that should have been allowed by the Council and its leaders.

And finally

Nothing in this post was directly discussed in the Grenfell Report, but in my view these are the underlying reasons why the conditions which allowed the Grenfell fire to happen developed.

The laissez-faire/neoliberal policies have been developing over a very long period of time. But the damage these ideas and philosophies can do is now becoming clear. Grenfell is just one sad example.

Another I would suggest, is the general malaise which is infecting society. The most serious is the climate crisis and the potential destruction of our living conditions on this planet. Caused largely, I would suggest, by greedy industrialists operating unfettered under conditions created by laissez-faire and neoliberal policies and thinking.

In Part 3, I will have a go at suggesting some solutions.

Picture Credit.

The post Considering the Grenfell Fire Inquiry Report – Part 2: The wider picture appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.

Welcome to our weekly Newsround where we bring you all the latest trending housing news.

Grenfell Inquiry Report published

This was published on Wednesday 4 September and is the final report from this long running (7 years) inquiry.

The report was deeply critical of all involved in the remedial work to the tower, including the suppliers of the dangerous panels, the various regulators, the Government, in particular the Cameron government for its policy of deregulation (which was partly responsible for fire safety failures), the architects and the Local Authority and their tenant management organisation.

The report ended with 58 recommendations, which government is under pressure to implement.  Sir Keir Starmer made a statement to Parliament where he promised to change things so this could never happen again (although he stopped short of promising to implement all the recommendations).

The Grenfell residents are calling for prosecutions but the CPS say that as they need to review the Inquiry Report ‘line by line’ these are unlikely before 2027.

We are publishing a three-part series on the report and situation generally, the first part can be found here.

New appeal is won on rent to rent agreement

A landlord has won an appeal this week in which could affect all rent to rent agreements and rent repayment orders going forward.

Amlendu Kumar has had his appeal against a rent repayment order upheld when a rent to rent company (Like Minded Living Ltd) that he had a contract with changed his Tooting property into an illegal HMO by allowing 5 different individual tenants to live in the property despite a clause in his contract with Like Minded Living Ltd stipulating no more than three individual tenants to live in the property.

Following a landmark case in 2023 only the landlord who receives the rent, the immediate landlord (LML) rather than the superior landlord (Amlendu Kumar) can have a rent repayment order made against them. However as rent was still being paid to LML after the contract ended the courts deemed that Kumar had now become the immediate landlord and he was served a rent repayment order for 60% of the annual rent (£7549.25).

Kumar appealed and won with the Upper Tribunal ruling that the landlord was not liable for the RRO as he did not receive any of the rent payments LML did, and therefore Kumar had a ‘reasonable excuse for unknowingly having control of an unlicensed HMO’. Kumar had no reason to be suspicious of LML as they had been recommended to him by a well known letting agent.

Tenants on a financial knife edge if they fall ill

A stark survey carried out by LifeSearch claims that only 14% of renters would be able to pay their rent for more than three months if they were unable to work.

The survey asked 1000 renters and only 29% would have sufficient funds saved be able to pay their next months rent if they became ill and were not paid from their work.

LifeSearch said that there is now a broader population of renters and renters’ protection is very much in the news but the ‘financial knife edge on which many renters are living has gone under the radar’.

Wales brings in planning consent for short term lets

It is now mandatory in Gwynedd, Wales for owners of second homes and holiday lets to obtain planning permission before changing the use of a property.  A Gwynedd Council spokesperson said

By introducing an Article 4 Direction, the Council will have a new tool to try to control the impact of second homes and holiday accommodation. The change will require owners to submit a planning application for changing the use of residential properties into second homes or short-term holiday accommodation.

Gwynedd Council are the first authority to use these new planning powers introduced by the government. Wales now has three classes of use following changes to the welsh planning framework, these are namely: main home, second home and short let accommodation. Each council can now decide if a change of use requires planning permission on a property to change its use from one class to another.

Call for more councils to seize unlicensed properties

Merton Council in London has seized 18 properties for a 12 month period from a rogue landlord who persistently ignored licensing regulations, and now those councillors are calling on other councils to act and do exactly the same as they are doing to send out a clear message to all rogue landlords and more importantly to protect tenants who are left vulnerable in these situations.

Coventry and Waltham Forest Councils are the only other Councils to have seized properties and Andrew Judge, Councillor in Merton says that other authorities are ‘reluctant to be innovative in their use of these powers’. He added

People in very difficult rental circumstances are often vulnerable and councils need to do their best to offer facilities to shield people from aggressive landlords – and one way is by the exercise of such powers.

Snippets

Landlord couple fined £141,000 over failings at London HMO
John Lewis submits £80m plan to turn Reading depot into rental flats
New app revealed that lets tenants and buyers to rate properties
Council slammed after ‘quietly’ rolling out more landlord licensing
Renters’ campaigners push for ‘under-fire’ landlord MP to resign
Grenfell Tower fire: What happens next?

See also our Quick News Updates on Landlord Law

Newsround will be back again next week

The post Landlord Law Newsround #355 appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry panel has now submitted its report. It is now up to the government and the rest of us to consider it and what it means.

It was an extremely detailed report and did not pull its punches. I hope that Grenfell survivors are satisfied with its findings.

In this series of posts, I want to take a look at the organisations singled out by the report for blame and then in part 2 look at the wider society which made these problems possible. I will then, in Part 3 discuss what we can do about it.

So let’s start with

The companies providing the faulty materials

These were Arconic, Celotex, and Kingspan, and the report states that they had engaged in “deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.

Basically, they knew that their products were faulty but concealed this fact. It also looks as if they targeted countries to sell their shoddy products where regulation and enforcement was poor and where they could ‘get away with it’.

But why was the regulation in the UK so poor that they were able to do this?  I discuss this in Part 2.

The government

There is a clear failure to regulate properly stretching back to 1991 when a cladding fire in Liverpool first drew attention to the fact that unsuitable cladding could cause serious fires.

However, nothing was done after this and subsequent fires. The report is particularly critical of the Cameron Government and its drive to ‘deregulate’. A project taken up enthusiastically by his henchman, Eric (now Lord) Pickles.

David Cameron. Teflon Dave. Sauntering through life with his hands in his pockets, whistling. The damage that he has done to this country –

• Getting rid of the ‘green crap’
• Austerity
• Brexit
• And the obsession with deregulation.

So focused was the government and the housing department in particular, on deregulation and the destruction of ‘red tape’ that, the report finds, they ignored fire safety issues.  Which inevitably led to the Grenfell Fire.

Blame is also placed on the various regulators:

The British Board of Agrément (BBA)

This is a commercial organisation that certifies the compliance of products with the requirements of legislation) whose “procedures were neither wholly independent nor rigorous and were not always rigorously applied.”  The report stating that

“The dishonest strategies of Arconic and Kingspan succeeded in large measure due to the incompetence of the BBA,”

Local Authority Building Control (LABC)

Which issues “certificates verifying the compliance of construction products and systems with the Building Regulations and Approved Documents”.

There was, says the report, “a complete failure on the part of the LABC over a number of years to take basic steps to ensure that the certificates it issued in respect of them were technically accurate.”

The report goes on to say that they “failed to scrutinise properly the claims made for the products by the manufacturers and instead adopted uncritically the language they suggested. In short, it was willing to accommodate the customer at the expense of those who relied on the certificates”.

The National House Building Council (NHBC),

This organisation provides building control services to a large part of the housing construction industry but “failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures”.

The report goes on to say that “It was unwilling to upset its own customers and the wider construction industry by revealing the scale of the use of combustible insulation in the external walls of high‑rise buildings, contrary to the statutory guidance. We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest. “

The Building Research Establishment

This, the report found, was “marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour” although “unprofessional behaviour of some of BRE’s staff was in part the result of a failure to provide them with adequate training in their responsibilities.”

The report goes on to say that “its failure to adhere robustly to the system of checks it had put in place, and an ingrained willingness to accommodate customers instead of insisting on high standards and adherence” led to their reports and certificates being misleading.

Saying also that

“The underlying problem was that the BBA failed to manage the conflict between the need to act as a commercial organisation in order to attract and retain customers and the need to exercise a high degree of rigour and independence in its investigations in order to satisfy those who might consider relying on its certificates. It accepted for inclusion in certificates forms of wording proposed by manufacturers that were wrong and misleading. Its lack of robust processes and reluctance to enforce the terms of its contracts enabled it to become the victim of dishonest behaviour on the part of unscrupulous manufacturers.”

The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (Ukas),

This organisation “did not always follow its own policies and its assessment processes lacked rigour and comprehensiveness “. Even when failings identified opportunities to improve, they were not always taken, the inquiry found, and “too much was taken on trust.”

Overall, this is quite a shocking catalogue of failure. How did we get to a place where this sort of failure was acceptable and seemingly unquestioned, for example, by government?

The Local Authority and Tenant Management Organisation (TMO)

The Grenfell tower block was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and was managed by the TMO.

Both are criticised by the report.

Clearly, there was no love lost between the Grenfell residents and the TMO, who persistently failed to respond to residents’ concerns about safety (or indeed, it seems, anything else).

The report finds that they considered some of the residents to be “militant troublemakers” and

“lost sight of the fact that the residents were people who depended on it for a safe and decent home and the privacy and dignity that a home should provide. That dependence created an unequal relationship and a corresponding need for the TMO to ensure that, whatever the difficulties, the residents were treated with understanding and respect.”

Going on to say that “for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe its basic responsibilities.”

So we have a number of issues here:

• Companies/businesses focusing on profit to the exclusion of everything else
• A Government focused on ‘deregulation’ and the destruction of ‘red tape’ rather than viewing regulation as what it should be – procedures to ensure the safety of the public and the end users of products and services
• Regulators who fail to regulate properly,
• Officials and regulators who do not have proper knowledge and training, and
• An attitude exhibited both by the Local Authority and its TMO, and the supplier, that ‘ordinary people’ do not matter.

I’ll take a look at these issues in Part 2.

Picture Credit.

The post Considering the Grenfell Fire Inquiry Report – Part 1: The persons and organisations responsible appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.