Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Facts:- The manufacturers made claims that it could used above 18m. Suppliers reiterated that. It was even listed in the product selector part of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) website. The design of how the insulation was to be used was bad, regardless of what type was used. I looked at the plans. No fire barriers between the window frames and the insulation.
From the Celotex website.
On the face of it, no reason to suggest it was the wrong product to use.
|
It wasn't the wrong product to use. It. Quite simply wasn't.
Quote:
It is only when you read in further in another document you get this.
As for the suggestion of cost cutting being a factor, I also checked and compared prices. For one supplier as an example the FR5000 in the original plans would currently cost £755.32 for 23.04sq m but the RS5000 that was used(confirmed by the manufacturer) is £1282.65 for 23.04sq m. That is 70% more.
|
Nothing indicating that the cladding was :
Illegal
Didn't meet standards
Wasn't adherent to building refs
The fact that a lesser specification panel was used than originally specified is totally irrelevant. The other panel would only have been suggested at the behest of the client.
Then it would have been ensured that it met all the standards and regulations.
This is also not a class war as Corbyn would like to promote. This cladding will have been used universally.
This why the current testing regime is helping no one.