Façade safety, product transparency, and why reform still matters
Chartered Engineer, James Groves shares how a recent project has highlighted just how fragile trust in construction product manufacturers can be, why reform remains critical, and why a year on from the release of the Phase 2 Inquiry report not enough has changed and valuable lessons have not been learned.
Within an FRAEW carried out by a third-party Fire Engineer one of the recommendations was to carry out a BS 8414 test to address project-specific concerns about a façade system on an existing building which presented open state cavity barriers in both the horizontal and vertical orientation. Replicating the arrangement and materials of the built wall type, including original cavity barrier provision was critical and required a combination of façade engineering and fire engineering expertise. That’s where BB7 came in.
Our scope was to design the rig, select materials and barriers, set the design and pass/fail parameters, oversee the specialist contractor undertaking the build and analyse the systems performance . BB7 were selected for this exercise due to our unique fire and facades capability.
We were able to locate O&Ms to inform the rig design and CAD details were produced for review by the team, Simultaneously, we started investigating the materials used for the build. We worked closely with our Client and the building management to obtain samples of the building and undertook chemical and fire testing at several facilities to ascertain whether materials behaved similarly and could be used in the test. This worked well with the PIR insulation and a batch was delivered to site. Issues arose when we attempted to source the Open State Cavity barriers. At first, the manufacturer was responsive and delivered a batch of barriers to the test facility which were installed in the first iteration of the rig. This is when doubt arose on whether this product was reflective of the one supplied to site.
During the investigation process, trust broke down in the construction product manufacturer. The manufacturer of the cavity barriers provided written assurances that the product supplied for the rig matched those installed on the building. In reality, this proved to be false.
1. The manufacturer could not identify the correct product used originally.
2. They misrepresented the specific build-up of their barrier and sought to conceal that the manufacturing process had changed over the past decade resulting in a significant difference of a critical component.
3. Their advice changed on an almost daily basis, reducing confidence and reliability. In one scenario we received a letter stating “our barriers have never been made like that” in response to a photograph from a barrier sample from the time of construction. When this was found to be false another letter was issued: “well it doesn’t make a difference”.
4. They maintained this line of communication until samples were gathered from site to evidence the discrepancy .
5. When challenged, they attempted to withdraw, issued aggressive communications, and even tried to blame the original contractor.
6. Threatened legal proceedings when their products were chemically analysed in a professional laboratory on the basis that we were trying to expose their patent, when in reality we were trying to demonstrate that there was no parity between samples on the building and what they had supplied.
They finally acknowledged that their product was made in a certain way and produced the correct barriers for the test, albeit under protest. They insisted on having a representative to oversee barrier installation and witness the test. This process led to over 6 weeks of delays, at a cost of nearly £50,000 for our Client on top of the test costs already incurred.
The outcome? A £250,000 BS 8414 test was at risk of not proceeding, and the residents of the building looked set to remain in an uncertain situation which could impact on their safety. All because a manufacturer was not transparent or honest. Ultimately this could have led to over £30m in remedial works that were not necessary to achieve the required level of safety.
Despite the seriousness of the issues uncovered, reporting the matter to the Building Safety Regulator did not result in further regulatory engagement from the BSR underscoring the gap that still exists between identifying risk and achieving meaningful accountability.
The Grenfell Inquiry was deeply critical of product manufacturers and their role in undermining fire safety. Yet this case shows that lessons are still not being learned. The government’s Green Paper on Construction Products Reform rightly identifies the urgent need for stronger accountability, transparency, and regulatory oversight in the sector.
Manufacturers must understand that building safety depends on absolute accuracy in product information. Without it, projects stall, costs escalate, and most importantly lives are put at risk. Complacency has no place in life safety products. It is time to ensure that integrity in product testing, certification, and disclosure is non-negotiable.
Only then can we rebuild trust and deliver the safe buildings the public deserves.
By James Groves MEng (Hons) CEng MIFireE
Director of Fire Assurance and Risk Management
Profile: James Groves is a Director at BB7 a Chartered Engineer (CEng) and Member of the Institution of Fire Engineers (MIFireE). He holds an MEng in Civil Engineering and has extensive experience across the building lifecycle, from fire design and engineering through to fire strategy implementation and risk management in operation.
