Grenfell firm didn’t tell customers about dangers of cladding after 2009 blaze, inquiry hears
Employee says fire shows ‘how dangerous’ polyethene panels can be ‘when it comes to architecture’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Arconic, the company which made cladding for Grenfell Tower, did not tell its customers about the dangers of one of its products following a 2009 blaze in another building because nobody was injured or died, an inquiry has heard.
The president of the firm's French arm, Claude Schmidt, told the Grenfell Tower inquiry his company did not warn about the use of polyethene (PE) panels, despite being alerted to a fire in Bucharest, Romania.
A colleague of Mr Schmidt's told him the fire showed "how dangerous PE can be when it comes to architecture".
They were later fitted on Grenfell Tower in west London, which caught fire in 2017, resulting in the deaths of 72 people.
Mr Schmidt told the inquiry on Thursday he did not think Arconic was responsible for the panels used on the Bucharest building but admitted he was aware of the possible dangers of PE in a fire.
"As far as we knew, there had been no injury," Mr Schmidt said of the 2009 blaze.
Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked: "Is the reason why Arconic took no steps to do anything internally with (the product) because it only affected the outside of the building, there was no loss of life or injury, and it was a widely used product?
"Have I got your evidence right?" Mr Schmidt replied: "Yes."
Mr Millett asked: "Is personal injury really an appropriate measure by which fire safety of (the product) should be judged?"
Mr Schmidt responded: "It is one of the elements with regard to the evaluation, yes."
He added that he did not know why the company did not put out advice to customers about the potential danger of using PE.
He also conceded he did not establish training systems within Arconic about the usage and dangers of PE on high-rise buildings following the Bucharest blaze.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments