You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
The organisation responsible for managing Grenfell Tower failed to replace a tenant’s faulty fire door installed after the building was refurbished, the inquiry into the disaster heard today.
Key points from today’s evidence
Sener Macit, who was 57 at the time of the fire on 14 June 2017, lived in Flat 133 on the 16th floor of Grenfell Tower with his wife Hanife.
He told the public inquiry that he recalled “several fires” at Grenfell Tower before it was refurbished in 2016 – which “were all contained within the flat” they started in.
In written evidence submitted to the inquiry, Mr Macit said the tower was fitted with fire alarms in its communal areas which would alert residents to fires and allow them to seek firefighters’ advice – but that these did not sound on the night of the fire.
“Had the fire alarms gone off, we would have known that there was a fire in the tower sooner and it may have saved some people’s lives,” he said.
And he revealed that a new fire door fitted to the front of his flat in the refurbishment “jammed” after a few months.
In response, a Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) worker removed the “automatic closing mechanism” from the door.
Mr Macit said: “I asked him if he was going to replace the mechanism. The handyman told me that he would not be replacing it because it wasn’t possible to replace just the mechanism.
“He said that the whole door would need to be replaced in order for it to automatically close. He told me that there was nothing wrong with the door.
“What I assumed he meant by this was that it would cost money to replace the whole door, when only the closing mechanism needed to be replaced.”
The worker told Mr Macit that other tenants also had front doors which didn’t automatically close and that “it was not necessary” for the door to do so.
Mr Macit also told the inquiry that a group of tenants had considered legal action after their flats were left damaged by power surges months before the fire.
On 14 June, he said that “unbelievable” smoke which smelled of burning plastic filled the corridor outside his flat in just five minutes, preventing Mr Macit and his wife from leaving more than once for fear of choking.
“Thick black smoke” also came into his flat, where the couple lay on the ground for 40 minutes with wet towels on their faces waiting to be rescued.
Eventually, Mr Macit said a 999 operator told him: “Sir, no help can get to you. Please try and get out of the building.”
He said the operator “sounded as if she was about to cry when she said this” – and that she told Mr Macit it was he and his wife’s “only chance”.
He described leaving his flat as flames burst through the windows and set light to the walls and curtains, and stepping over bodies – including a teenage girl – while trying to escape.
And he recalled encountering two firefighters on the 10th floor, one of whom “was swaying as if he was about to lose consciousness” who did not acknowledge the couple despite Mr Macit “shouting at them for help”.
“A whole community has been destroyed,” Mr Macit concluded of the fire.
Earlier in the day, the inquiry also heard from Alemishet Demissie, who lived in Flat 94 and was left trapped there with her friend by the fire after they had held a Bible club earlier in the evening.
She said smoke “gradually” poured into her flat despite trying to block the doors with wet quilts.
And she described being told by a 999 operator: “Leave the flat or you are going to die” at around 2.40am.
However, Ms Demissie said she and her friend “simply gave up” after seeing the smoke outside her flat, because they felt no one was coming and they could not leave.
“We changed our prayer topic from hoping to be rescued, to praise and thankfulness for the lives that we had led when flames appeared at window,” she said.
Firefighters arrived at her front door at around 3am and led them downstairs to safety in a “confusing and difficult journey”, Ms Demissie said.
A total of eight witness statements, including Ms Demissie’s and Mr Macit’s, were published by the inquiry team today.
The hearing continues.
Closing statements
Day 85: victims' lawyers attack the fire brigade
Further expert evidence
Including some additional evidence from emergency call handlers, bereaved and relatives
Day 84: further evidence from survivors and relatives
Day 83: swift evacuation of tower possible if residents alerted
Day 82: initial fire was extinguished but then returned to the flat
Day 81: overheating fridge-freezer most likely cause of fire
Day 80: fire doors installed did not match product tested
Day 79: resident advised to stay put despite fire in flat
Day 78: insulation and cladding material below required standard
Day 77: molten plastic spread blaze down tower
Day 76: 'stay put' should be dropped when fire spreads across floors
Other witness evidence
Police, ambulance, gas suppliers, council, TMO and call room operators give evidence
Day 75: call room operators give evidence
Day 74: further evidence from TMO officers
Day 73: TMO boss failed to pass information to firefighters
Day 72: fire finally extinguished when gas switched off
Day 71: further questions over stay put advice
Day 70: the police evidence
The bereaved, survivors and relatives’ evidence
Day 69: video shows smoke billowing through fire door
Day 68: KCTMO removed self closing mechanism and never replaced it
Day 67: gaps in cladding fixed with duct tape
Day 66: 'don't fix broken system with a sticking plaster'
Day 65: survivor dragged disabled man down nine floors to safety
Day 64: KCTMO 'did not replace broken fire door'
Day 63: foam insulation inside cladding 'exposed' says survivor
Day 62: father gives harrowing account of son's death
Day 61: council’s management organisation slammed for faulty electrics
Day 60: stay put advice ‘led to deaths’, residents say
Day 59: residents describe problems with new windows
Day 58: survivor describes how daughter saved his life
Day 57: firefighter evidence ‘a slap in the face’, says survivor
Day 56: relations with contractor were ‘toxic’
Day 55: resident 'never happy' with stay-put advice
Day 54: tenant gives evidence about housing association
Day 53: stay put advice 'felt like trap'
Day 52: resident saved by son's phone call
The firefighters’ evidence
Day 51: firefighter feared encouraging residents to jump
Day 50: the LFB commissioner
Day 49: fire chief reveals frustration over lack of building plans
Day 48: internal fire spread 'bigger story' than cladding
Day 47: fire officer considered evacuating crews over building collapse fears
Day 46: 'we were improvising' senior firefighter admits
Day 45: firefighter urged for abandonment of 'stay put' policy
Day 44: firefighter recalls radio signal difficulties
Day 43: call hander 'uncomfortable' with insisting residents stay put
Day 42: residents only told to leave if they called fire brigade back
Day 41: breathing equipment delay 'hampered rescues on upper floors'
Day 40: chiefs told firefighters to abandon policy
Day 39: firefighters reveal dramatic rescue of children
Day 38: firefighters issue aplogies to families
Day 37: council 'unable to provide tower plans'
Day 36: QC defends inquiry process
Day 35: Javid would welcome interim recommendations
Day 34: water from hose 'too weak' to reach the flames
Day 33: 'oh my god, we've been telling people to stay put'
Day 32: further fire fighter describes lack of equipment and low water pressure
Day 31: 'incredibly difficult' task of recording information outlined
Day 30: struggle to maintain control over rescue operation described
Day 29: fire service 'overwhelmed' by survival guidance calls
Day 28: 'the building beat us'
Day 27: firefighters 'forced to abandon plans to reach roof'
Day 26: poor signage hindered rescue efforts
Day 25: water pressure left firefighting equipment 'like garden hose'
Day 24: decision to abandon 'stay put' explored
Day 23: TV images 'could have assissted' rescue effort
Day 22: description of hectic scenes in the control centre
Day 21: account from the fire service 'nerve centre'
Day 20: firefighter describes 'huge volume' of calls from trapped residents
Day 19: firefighter 'given no training on cladding fires'
Day 18: evacuation would have been 'huge catastrophe'
Day 17: firefighters describe access and lift issues
Day 16: scenes of carnage likened to 9/11
Day 15: firefighters recount trauma of survival guidance calls
Day 14: firefighters describe spread of blaze
Day 13: firefighters recall radio difficulties
Day 12: "it was like a war zone"
Day 11: questions raised over fire fighters' radios
Day 10: watch manager emotional under questioning
Day nine: lead firefighter 'not trained in stay put policy'
The expert reports: authors give evidence to inquiry
Day eight: where the fire started
Day seven: what was in the cladding?
Day six: the cause and spread of the fire
Day five: expert highlights key issues
Day four: firefighters defend response to fire
Day three: council and contractors appear for the first time
Day two: lawyers for the survivors make their case
Day one: expert evidence released on cladding and stay put
The commemoration hearings
30 May: Grenfell Council 'recognised it should not house disabled victim above four storeys'
29 May: Anger on day six of the Grenfell Inquiry
25 May: Grenfell families 'forced to live in chimney with stay put policy'
24 May: Grenfell family complained about father being housed on 17th floor
23 May: Tributes to children on third day of Grenfell hearings
22 May: Emotions run high as Grenfell bereaved shown footage of the tower burning
21 May: Grenfell victims share tributes as inquiry opens