Harley Facades: The role of the cladding subcontractor in Grenfell fire

Cladding subcontractor Harley Facades “failed in many respects to meet the standards expected of a reasonably competent cladding contractor”, the Grenfell Inquiry phase 2 report said today.Harley did not have a formal contract to work on the refurbishment of the tower, so its exact legal responsibilities are murky.However, it designed the cladding system and bought cladding materials for the job, which completed a year before the 2017 blaze.Its failures meant that the firm bears “a significant degree of responsibility” for the fire”, the inquiry report concluded.The report said that Harley “did not concern itself sufficiently with fire safety at any stage of the refurbishment and appears to have thought there was no need for it to do so, because others involved in the project, and ultimately building control, would ensure that the design was safe.“It failed to ask the kind of questions about the materials being considered that a reasonably competent cladding contractor would have asked.”The firm was “induced” to buy Arconic’s Reynobond 55 PE aluminium composite material (ACM) cassettes partly by its existing relationship with Arconic and cladding fabricator CEP Architectural Facades, “with which it was able to negotiate a favourable price”, the report said.In addition, Harley’s staff were unaware of Building Regulations and guidance related to fire safety, and did not understand the underlying testing regime, the inquiry found.Although Celotex RS5000 had not been specified as an insulation material, Harley accepted it for use on the tower without enquiring in any detail whether it could be safely used “and did not ask any other members of the design team that question before doing so”.Its design for the cavity barriers was incomplete and did not comply with the guidance in Approved Document B, the inquiry found.More Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report coverageConstruction industry shake-up recommended by Grenfell Inquiry report‘Casual and complacent’: Grenfell report’s damning verdict on Rydon‘Dishonest’: The verdict on Grenfell’s cladding manufacturers“Serious and longstanding failures”: The role of government and regulators