Grenfell Inquiry diary 85: victims’ lawyers attack fire brigade

Danny Friedman QC, also representing the victims, said Ms Cotton’s comments were “woefully ill-judged and defensive”, “insulting” and “brought her and her organisation into disrepute”.

He also accused the LFB control room of “very significant failures”, listing cases of Grenfell residents being given conflicting advice by 999 call handlers.

And Pete Weatherby QC said Ms Cotton’s evidence “comes from an ingrained culture of denial”.

Stephanie Barwise QC argued that residents should have been evacuated as soon as the fire spread to the tower’s cladding, but that the fire service “failed to comprehend that immediate evacuation was the only option and that entire building failure was inevitable”.

She said that Grenfell “represented a health hazard so egregious that it should never have been occupied” and that it was “no exaggeration to describe the tower, as refurbished, as a death trap”.

Ms Barwise also accused Arconic (cladding manufacturer), Celotex (insulation manufacturer) and Rydon (contractor for the refurbishment) of “obfuscation” in its evidence to the inquiry.

Mr Friedman called for the inquiry to “declare” breaches of public law and regulations in its phase one findings.

And he pointed to an “operational gap” between KCTMO and the council on the night of the fire, “potentially facilitated by the current state of our social housing law”.

Earlier in the day, Stephen Walsh QC, representing the LFB, said the service accepted that on the night its “policies, procedures and training were strained to their limits and, in some respects, well beyond”.

And he said that “that the quality of the operational risk information recorded for Grenfell Tower at the time of the fire fell below the standards expected by the brigade”.

However, he maintained that Grenfell was a “unique and singular event”.

He added: “It is a stark fact that one of the largest fire services in the world was severely challenged, in some elements overwhelmed, in the performance of its functions.

“This was not by reason of an insufficiency or inadequacy of the greatest number of resources ever deployed to a fire in residential premises, but by a savage fire that rapidly progressed through a building which, on the evidence of the inquiry’s experts, was fundamentally non-compliant with fire safety requirements in multiple respects.

“This was a unique fire, not just because of its unprecedented scale and rapidity, but also because of the way it behaved.”

Mr Walsh also defended the decision not to alter the ‘stay put’ advice to residents sooner and outlined measures introduced by the LFB since the fire.