Grenfell Tower Refrigerator Maker Adequate Security Checks, did not work assembly claims

Unlock the editor’s digestion free

FT editor Roula Khalaf, chooses his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The producer of the HOTPoint refrigerator, which flames the fire in Grenfell Tower, could not control adequate security tests before the destructive flame of the London apartment, Kensington and Chelsea claimed.

The court documents determined the details of a claim that brought to the venture of the local authorities to Europe, earlier, Wider judiciary against companies Eight years ago, 72 people are responsible for the fire.

Kensington and Chelsea, criticized by a social survey last year, have been sued by a number of companies to a number of companies up to more than 358 million pounds since World War II.

On June 14, 2017, the fire spread a 24-storey building quickly, because during the renewal of the tower due to burning covers, the investigation was found.

However, the compilers with the Assembly, the companies with burning companies will also be accused of the frame of the refrigerator on the fourth floor. Materials with materials, Kensington and Chelsea, which are the “fire and easy burning” materials on the device, said in a legal document.

Previously, the local government, Beko Europe, which caused the refrigerator under the hotpoint brand, but the company’s interaction details were not previously announced.

West London Borough, Kensington and Chelsea management, which is designated to manage the housing, including Grenfell, brought the allegation along with the management organization.

David Turner KC and Clare Dixon KC’s lawyers represented the bidders, claimed that the company could not take the materials used in the refrigerator against the fire standards.

Materials – especially plastic support, foam and polystirol, were properly tested, they allegedly allegedly claimed in court documents.

Bidders protect that the company has violated the legal duty in 1994, as it is called the refrigerator-freezer. They also brought a claim for negligence.

This was not to be open to the supply of plastic leaders, and / or not resistant to the spread of fire and / or burning fire, and / or the supply of the fire, a manufacturer and / or refrigerator.

Defense documents should still be given by the court.

Whirlpool said: “Whirlpool Corporation argues and defend the trial brought by Kensington and Chelsea royal pipe.

Beko and the law firm did not meet the appeals to the comment, listed as the representation of the work.

Listed in New York, the Whirlpool, last year, has completed a contract with the Turkish-centered archael, and the two companies’ European Europe.

Whirlpool, public survey, said it is impossible to determine the cause of the fire. The company suggested that the fire was caused by a burning cigarette end of a higher window than a building.

However, the former trial of the former appeal, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, “evidence is not leaving for the fact that the fire is in a whole cooling freezer,” he said.

The survey did not create the “exact nature of sin, and Muror-Bick said that this kind of catastrophic consequences of a common household device would be less important.”

His request “Determined many failures of a large enterprise, institutions and individuals in many years.

Several companies have been found in the reconstruction of Grenfell, reported that a structural sound concrete building “death trap” of a structural sound concrete “.

Kensington and Chelsea, a number of suppliers, subcontractors and other companies claim that the actions in the high court in parallel, each contribution to the disastrous progression.

The local authorities himself was among the bodies criticizing the investigation, including the loss of information.

The Council accepted the survey last year and apologized for the end. The Council said this made significant changes in their activities since 2017.

In a statement, the Council said: “We have given legal proceedings to a number of companies that continue to pay a share of expenditures against the public bag of these parties.”