The RICS' Arms-Length, Self Regulatory Model of Regulation is a Broken Solution in a Broken Market. Yet They Still - "Do Not Support A Return To Prescription." (54)
To: The Leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretary / The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and to The Home secretary:
Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up (54)
54) The RICS' Arms-Length, Self-Regulatory Model Of Regulation Is A Broken Solution In A Broken Market Yet They Still - "Do Not Support A Return To Prescription."
Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid,
"If it's broken don't fix it," would seem to be the guiding philosophy behind the RICS' approach to regulation.
With the cache of a Royal Charter, The RICS stand at the pinnacle of the dysfunctional / broken (rigged) property market, yet are unable to force their Members from doing anything or refrain from doing anything.
They don't actually regulate their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms but leave their, "appointed" company - Ombudsman Services:Property - to sort out the inevitable carnage. Their appointed executives in turn talk about, "A Broken Solution in a Broken Market" whilst nearly 90% of property complainants said they'd been treated unfairly by the RICS, "appointed" Property Ombudsman.
And yet no-one asks why. Why?
The Guardian tells us:
Grenfell review condemns 'race to the bottom' in building safety practices
Dame Judith Hackitt proposes new regulator as she blames ‘indifference and ignorance’ for poor building standards
Grenfell Tower in west London. Photograph: David Mirzoeff/PA
A government review into the Grenfell Tower fire has concluded that indifference and ignorance led to a “race to the bottom” in building safety practices with cost prioritised over safety.
The government’s reviewer of building regulations has proposed a new standards regulator in the wake of the fire but does not want ministers to ban combustible materials such as those which spread the fire last June which claimed 72 lives. Dame Judith Hackitt published her long-awaited report into building safety failures on Thursday, outlining a strategy which will anger survivors, architects and MPs, who had all called for an outright ban of flammable insulation and cladding products, which are currently being stripped from hundreds of high rise homes in England and Wales. There has been widespread outrage at the conduct of parts of the construction industry and the bodies charged with regulating it, but Hackitt said a new building regulations system – focused at first on buildings of 10 storeys or more – should place faith in that industry.
In, "The Future Of Building Control" RICS state at: Statute v guidance, "There are commentaries, too, on the functional nature of the Building Regulations and the perceived confusion this creates, compared to the previous, more prescriptive regime. We understand this, but while we support more clarity we do not support a return to prescription."
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, was the Grenfell Fire really the result of a, "perceived confusion" and doesn't this tragedy highlight the shockingly negligent, wholly irresponsible and totally outdated nature of, "light-touch," "arms-length" RICS regulation?
She said the new system should put the onus on the “construction industry to take responsibility for the delivery of safe buildings rather than looking to others to tell them what is or is not acceptable” and said “it will be important now for industry to show leadership in driving this forward”.
This is like asking the Kray Twins to provide the leadership to enforce law and order in the East End of London.
The Future Of Building Control continues with, "The freedoms for innovation and flexibility in a functional system far outweigh the perceived confusion, which could be overcome with more education rather than a return to prescription." (www.rics.org/uk/news/news-insight/comment/the-future-of-building-control)
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, wasn't the Grenfell Fire an appalling example of the freedom for innovation and flexibility so shamelessly touted by the RICS?
Q. Mrs Leadsome, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, what on earth is, "functional" about a system that results in the deaths of 72 people?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, what in the way of, "more education" is the RICS - with the cache of its Royal Charter - suggesting could have prevented the Grenfell Atrocity?
Hackitt said people did not bother to read regulations and when they did, they did not understand it. She said concerns were ignored during the building process because “the primary motivation is to do things as quickly and cheaply as possible rather than to deliver quality homes” and that some builders use the ambiguity of the regulations to “game the system”.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, the RICS say they cannot force their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms to do anything or refrain from doing anything even if their Members and (Un)Regulated Firms breach RICS Rules and Regulations. Why has RICS a Royal Charter when it can't - or won't - regulated its own Members and (Un)Regulated Firms?
She also said people in the industry did not know who was in charge and that enforcement was patchy and penalties were so small as to be ineffective.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, isn't this state of lawless anarchy directly attributable to the RICS approach to, "light-touch," "arms-length" regulation?
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, is this what is meant by the expression, " A Broken Solution In A Broken Market?"
Labour, the Royal Institute of British Architects and Grenfell survivors have all called for combustible and limited combustibility materials to be banned altogether. Later, Hackitt, responding to media questions, said she would support the government banning combustible material as long as it was alongside wider reforms. Asked if she would agree with James Brokenshire, the housing secretary, if he announced a ban she said: “If he were to say that I would be supportive.”
As is the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sandra Ruiz, whose niece died at Grenfell, said this week she feared that not explicitly banning combustible cladding was a way to minimise disruption to the building industry and ran the risk of further failures.
“If her thought process is to make these materials difficult to be used then why not just ban them?” she said. “Seventy-two people died. Take them away completely and don’t run the risk again.”
We wholeheartedly agree.
Shahin Sadafi, chair of Grenfell United, said: “Worrying that a fire like Grenfell could happen again is something that keeps many of us awake at night. When we met Dame Judith Hackitt we asked her for an outright ban on combustable cladding. We are disappointed and saddened that she didn’t listen to us and she didn’t listen to other experts.
“The cladding on the Grenfell Tower was deemed to be limited combustibility, but it cost 72 lives. It must be banned. We need to hear from government a clear promise that these dangerous materials will never be used on homes again.
“This isn’t just about cladding – the whole system of building regulation is broken. The industry has too much influence over regulation and testing, desktop studies are totally flawed, profit is valued more than people’s safety, and residents are left powerless. All of this must change.”
We agree.
The Labour MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, described the review as a “betrayal and a whitewash”. He added: “It is unthinkable and unacceptable that so many people can die in a disaster like Grenfell and one year on flammable cladding has not been banned. I will continue to stand with the Grenfell families and will continue to call for an outright ban on any combustible materials.
Well said David Lammy.
Hackitt’s 156-page report said the problems that had emerged after Grenfell were “most definitely not just a question of the specification of cladding systems, but of an industry that has not reflected and learned for itself, nor looked to other sectors”.
She cited four recent cases that she said showed “deep flaws in the current system”. These were the lack of records about whether essential safety work had been carried out at the Ledbury estate, the failure of a 30-minute fire door, a fire spreading between wooden balconies on another block and a major car park fire in Liverpool that almost encroached on a block nearby.
There has been widespread concern that the building regulations are so complex and confusing that they can be “gamed” by builders, designers and building owners, which has led to combustible cladding being used.
Hackitt said her goal was to strengthen regulatory oversight during the design and construction process and said that there should be a more effective testing regime for products and systems.
However, she stopped short of banning controversial desktop studies, which can be used to justify using certain materials without a fire test. She said she wanted desktop studies rather than fire tests to only be carried out by qualified people, which she said would effectively stop unregulated fire engineers paid by builders or building owners from declaring systems safe.
The new regulatory framework must address the fact that “residents often go unheard, even when safety issues are identified”.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, the victims of Ombudsman Services - and thus RICS - broken solutions also go unheard. Why?
The new regulator will be called the Joint Competent Authority and will be made up of local authority building standards, fire and rescue authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. It will be independent of the building owner.
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Brokenshire and Mr Javid, when RICS appoint a company - Ombudsman Services:Property - to resolve disputes that arise from its failure to adequately regulate but are involved in the effective resolution of disputes, where is the independence in that incestuous relationship?
At Grenfell Tower, which was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the building regulations were checked by RBKC’s building officers and the same thing happened on dozens of other buildings clad in combustible material nationwide.
There will also be tougher penalties. She found that enforcement action against breaches of building regulations had fallen 75% in the last decade and that no prosecutions can be brought after two years. She wants this to be extended to six years.
Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, said: “It is disappointing that Dame Judith has stopped short of recommending a ban on combustible materials and the use of desktop studies, both essential measures to improve safety.
The government should nevertheless act without delay to introduce a temporary ban on the use of combustible materials on complex and high-rise buildings and until we have a regulatory and testing system which is fit for the 21st century.”
The victims of the RICS / Ombudsman Services' Broken Solution In A Broken Market need a public inquiry into why their customer journey was a car crash waiting to happen.
Yours sincerely, Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458. The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment