I'll say no more

But if they approved the installation because to the best of their knowledge it was safe then they do have a defence. The manufacturers and installers claimed it was safe and the landlords can only go by what the experts say, otherwise nothing would get built. If the landlords are forced to pay then they'll have to go after the manufacturers and installers to recover the money. It would be better if the government forced the manufacturers and installers to pay all the costs directly; they're the ones who have been `gaming' the system. The regulators are at fault too because they allowed the gaming to occur - they allowed real world tests to be replaced with predictions based on what manufacturers thought would happen in a fire.Stanley wrote: ↑17 May 2018, 03:42...Too many private tenants are threatened with enormous charges and in my opinion it should be tested in law whether the landlords can get away with this. After all presumably they approved the installation in the first place so it is their responsibility. Saying they didn't know it was dangerous is surely no defence?
What a monstrosity! Trawden Forest Council spending money on this relic! Should have gone to the same place as your 7.5" Belco chuck! [comment removed]Stanley wrote: ↑18 May 2018, 03:51 That's the argument put forward by the woman who produced the report on cladding. I feel sorry for her because I think she has done a good job and put her finger on the real problem, the Building Regs are not fit for purpose. The problem she has hit is the gap between a technical assessment and a simplistic solution that can be understood by lay-people. Her mistake was to assume that her expertise would be deferred to.
Well done Trawden forest Parish Council. They have restored the cast iron urinal on Skipton Road!
![]()