Camberwell fire solicitor battled to stop similar tragedy
The pictures were unbearable.
To wake yesterday to the horrific news of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, to hear eyewitness reports of children trapped in blazing flats and mothers waiting for a rescue that never came, brought back appalling memories for me.
This disaster has parallels with an earlier fatal fire in a block of flats where six people, including two small children and a baby, lost their lives, at Lakanal House in Camberwell, south London, on July 3, 2009.
I was the solicitor for the bereaved families and at the inquest I saw the immeasurable pain and grief on their faces as the details of the deaths were read out. Some things are too dreadful to be forgotten.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy has parallels with an earlier fatal fire in a block of flats where six people, including two small children and a baby, lost their lives, at Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009
I was the solicitor for the bereaved families and at the inquest I saw the immeasurable pain and grief on their faces as the details of the deaths were read out. Some things are too dreadful to be forgotten
Yesterday’s news reports made me distressed and angry that apparently nothing has been learnt from Lakanal House.
The only consolation for those families, mourning the loss of their loved ones, was that their deaths might at least ensure that such a fire could never happen again.
Instead, it seems many of the same mistakes have been repeated, and more have died in similar, unimaginable conditions.
For me, it is deeply frustrating. As a campaigning human rights lawyer, I want to help prevent future disasters. If the recommendations of the inquest had been implemented and if the Lakanal House fire had been taken seriously enough, this new tragedy should have been prevented.
Until yesterday, the Lakanal House blaze was the country’s worst tower block fire. It began with a fault in a TV on the ninth floor and spread in minutes throughout the maisonettes, which had been built in 1958.
Six people had followed the advice to remain in their homes on the 11th floor. They were Dayana Francisquini, 26, and her children Thais and Felipe, aged six and three; Helen Udoaka, 34, and her three-week-old baby Michelle; and designer Catherine Hickman, 31.
Within an hour and a half, all of them were dead. At one point during the ten-week hearing, we heard a transcript of the 999 call made by Catherine. For more than 40 minutes she was on the line with the operator, becoming increasingly agitated as choking smoke filled her apartment.
The Lakanal House fire began with a fault in a TV on the ninth floor and spread in minutes throughout the maisonettes, which had been built in 1958
Six people had followed the advice to remain in their homes on the 11th floor. Within an hour and a half, all of them were dead
All the women had been urged to stay where they were, in accordance with the ‘stay put’ policy. Both yesterday and in 2009, some people survived because they ignored the rules and fled. But in both cases, that was a difficult, dangerous undertaking, and may have been impossible for other residents
Her last words described how the flames were at her door, and that something had fallen on her. Meanwhile, Dayana and Helen were seen frantically waving at their windows, while their husbands were below. They then retreated with their children to huddle in a bathroom where they died of smoke inhalation.
All the women had been urged to stay where they were, in accordance with the ‘stay put’ policy.
The theory is that tower block apartments are constructed as self-contained units, sealed off by fire-resistant materials, and that a blaze in one should not spread easily to the others. It is called ‘compartmentalisation’.
Residents who stay calm and keep their doors tightly shut ought to be able to rely on rescue within the hour. But if the firewalls do not hold, that ‘stay put’ advice can become a death sentence.
Both yesterday and in 2009, some people survived because they ignored the rules and fled. But in both cases, that was a difficult, dangerous undertaking, and may have been impossible for other residents.
At Grenfell Tower, the single fire escape reportedly became blocked. At Lakanal House, there was no proper fire escape.
At Grenfell Tower, the single fire escape reportedly became blocked. At Lakanal House, there was no proper fire escape
In both cases, there had been recent renovations. It is too early to say whether lack of fireproofing in the refurbishment at Grenfell Tower contributed to the tragedy, but this possibility will have to be investigated
It baffles me that in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – one of the richest areas on Earth, where properties can sell for many millions of pounds apiece – the local authority apparently could not afford to install a proper sprinkler system
In both cases, there had been recent renovations. It is too early to say whether lack of fireproofing in the refurbishment at Grenfell Tower contributed to the tragedy, but this possibility will have to be investigated.
At Lakanal House, the compartmentalisation was fatally breached by sub-standard building works and materials during the renovation.
Suspended ceilings had been constructed, creating tunnels along which the flames could rush.
Those carrying out the renovations are required to comply with building regulations that are supposed to guarantee compartmentalisation and fire protection.
Regular fire safety risk assessments are required to be carried out and there should be fire brigade inspections that should spot breaches.
Sprinklers could be another factor. The Lakanal House coroner recommended that every local authority should install them in their tower block flats, but Eric Pickles, then minister for communities, failed to make this a legal requirement: he merely suggested it would be a good idea.
The trapped, some of whom are still inside, were heard begging for their lives while waving white towels, torches and mobile phones
A man (circled) looks from a window as smoke pours from a fire that has engulfed the 27-storey Grenfell Tower in west London
It baffles me that in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – one of the richest areas on Earth, where properties can sell for many millions of pounds apiece – the local authority apparently could not afford to install a proper sprinkler system.
Our building regulations may also not be adequate. We should not be allowing combustible cladding that can spread fires. A promised government review of the regulations after Lakanal House did not happen – an indication of the lack of priority given to health and safety.
After the Lackanal House fire, there was a lack of urgency in investigating and calling to account those responsible. It was only in February this year that Southwark council was fined in a prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive for breach of health and safety laws because of the lack of fire protection in the block.
The bereaved families waited four-and-a-half years for the inquest. It was originally to be a public inquiry, before being downgraded. Then we suffered interminable delays while the Crown Prosecution Service debated what charges to bring against Southwark. In the end, it brought none.
A body bag on a stretcher is wheeled away from a tower block that was severely damaged by the worst fire of its kind for years
Terrified residents trapped in a burning tower block were forced to knot bed sheets together to form makeshift ladders or jump from the 27-storey building in a desperate bid to escape the flames
The truth is that we do not value our social housing highly enough. Tower blocks may be largely unloved, but they are home to poor families who are suffering from a housing crisis about which the Government has done little.
In Kensington alone, never mind the rest of London, there are many more high-density blocks of flats farmed out by the local authorities to private management.
These management companies are carrying out public services for social housing tenants but want to make profits. Local authorities are allowed to farm out their responsibilities to them.
In this situation, saving money can all too easily assume a higher priority than safety. It appears the residents of Grenfell Tower were well aware that their building was a fire trap.
Emergency services are still running through falling debris including glass and its controversial cladding continues to rain down
The 27-storey Grenfell building, which was built in 1974 but refurbished last year, has an average of six flats per floor lived in by council tenants and a smaller number of private owners or tenants
Grenfell Tower is in one of London's most diverse communities and this group sit on the pavement outside a temporary aid centre nearby, some of whom were in tears
There was an active action group that issued numerous warnings to the building’s private management company, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation.
All our warnings fell on deaf ears,’ the action group said yesterday. ‘We predicted that a catastrophe like this was inevitable and just a matter of time.’ Why were these residents not listened to?
Fire is a constant hazard in buildings like these. For a start, the tenants are often poor and cannot afford to get their electrical appliances regularly overhauled. Initial reports suggest yesterday’s fire started with a faulty fridge.
And it is increasingly common for there to be fire risks even with new appliances. In more than one instance recently, tumble-driers have been recalled because of inbuilt faults.
People need to be armed with much better information and encouraged to carry out checks for themselves. There need to be fire safety drills, as there are in offices, and more information about fire safety given out.
This fire should never have happened, if earlier lessons had been learnt. We fought so hard to prevent this from happening again. It seems the authorities did not hear.
Until they listen, more people will die in needless blazes. It seems unthinkable. But the unthinkable has already happened.