Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law, but (arguably and sadly not at statute law. Surely it would apply in this case; namely obvious fibs to parliament and its committees. There seem to be, in so, so, many areas of public life where fibs are told (from the top persons down). It is interesting to note how many persons in this sphere who declare that democracy is all, that they would give all for it, but then subvert the vary essential thing that is essential to it; namely freedom of true information!
Innocenta (leaseholders) hurt again. LOts of legal /tech nical changes need to be made, urgentlky, but here's amajor one: Buyers of apartments and houses don't have tge protection of the Consumer Protection Acts. This could be changed really quickly, and be applied for say the 1st 5 years post construction, even if sold / resold not for profit. There was a case for the present law when everything was 'craft' or one off. Buyt those days are long over. There are few grounds for the present exemption from Consumer Protection law. Can anyone say it's relavabnt in our modern, mass standard design / constrution age?
One would like to know why the AJ publishes such poor, un-researched articles as this.
It seems that QEU Hospital had some problems, of drainage etc, presumably now fixed / fixable. Is it the case that Mr Waterson chooses (perhaps imagining hopefully) to project these on the Royal Hospital, implying without substance that it has similar problems. Mr Waterson then seems to use ‘no confirmation of fit for purpose’ to justify his assertions. Sure, major projects (hospitals or otherwise, whether d&b or not) have problems that get fixed (Negatives are harder to prove than positives, and who needs to prove them to Mr Waterson either way?).
Whilst it might suit the purposes of Mr Waterson from his union perspective, does this article meet the required integrity standards of architect or associated professions, or indeed of journalism other than the worst tabloid type? I really don’t think so.
How can pigeon droppings get into an air handling unit? Easy... Sucked in through open access panel to the AHU's innards (filters, heat/cool coils); these are nearly all under (very) negative pressure relative to the plantroom (ie between the outside inlet and the fan). Sometimes, if the AHU's air heating doesn't work well, in winter the access panels are deliberately left open - to suck in warm air from the plant room! The droppings can get stuck onthe ir filters or humdifiers... promoting grwoth in warm & humid conditions. Next thing you know... Not nice.
No I’m not an architect; I’m an engineer who has worked with (and occasionally out of professional necessity, against!) architects. One doesn’t have to be an architect to ‘be discomforted’; it could be a member of the public. All, irrespective of profession, would (or should) be concerned if he / she spotted unsafe construction. But the issue is in general, not about unsafe cladding.
It seems there was a failure in the management / procurement processes. The question is: how far ‘up the chain’ does culpability go? Did (in this case) the CEO know that unsafe cladding had been installed (as a variation to the design?) I doubt it. Would he have sanctioned it had he known? Did/ does he have sufficient technical
knowledge to ask the question? (Tragic events show us that even professionals don’t always ask them...). Surely the responsibility / culpability is with those in the design / procurement process with the position and responsibility; not the CEO. If, as implied, the CEO need to have this details / specialist knowledge, by extension one could ask
‘then what is the point of architects / engineers and their supposed specialist knowledge/training for?; rely on the CEO’.
To equate the CEO’s involvement in the colour of the cladding (at Grenfell or elsewhere) with the cladding fire safety is a false comparison. The former is a choice, driven and selected by aesthetics and public acceptance; the expected fire safety of cladding is surely non-negotiable, and the CEO (and other non-specialists) are entitled to assume professional conduct by those involved, without having to ask