Building regulations leave tower blocks prone to disaster – but residents can fight back

Chalcots Estate in Camden is covered in the same cladding as Grenfell Tower was. Image: mattbuck/Wikimedia Commons.

It has been one year since a fire tore through Grenfell Tower in west London, resulting in the deaths of 72 people. The rapid spread of the fire revealed, among other things, a catastrophic regulatory failure. Systems which should have designed out fire hazards and prevented the spread of the fire had been repeatedly compromised.

As the causes and traumatic consequences of the event are still being unravelled, it remains vital that we hear from the bereaved, the survivors and the local community. Their voices, which have in the past gone unheeded, must be listened to by authorities, as they seek to allocate responsibility and ensure that this never happens again.

The tragedy has also had an impact beyond Grenfell, on everybody who lives in high rise accommodation, as well as the owners and managers of these blocks. It is difficult, and possibly dangerous, to believe that the regulatory failings at Grenfell Tower were exceptional. Indeed, similar cladding, failed compartmentation and other safety risks have since been identified in hundreds of other tower blocks.

Cutting corners, ticking boxes

In her review of building regulations, Dame Judith Hackett said that “the mindset of doing things as cheaply as possible and passing on responsibility for problems and shortcomings to others must stop”. And since Grenfell, many local authorities, fire authorities and landlords have taken action to ensure residents’ safety.

But both public and private tenants are still exposed to risks, resulting from a culture that values box-ticking over competency, performance and quality, when it comes to complying with building regulations. In a report for housing charity Shelter, which I authored together with David Cowan, Edward Kirton-Darling and Edward Burtonshaw-Gunn, we found that the law regulating standards and safety in housing is piecemeal, incoherent and outdated.

Reforming the law is necessary – but it is not enough. Tenants must be able to hold the state to account for breaches of housing standards, building regulation and fire safety requirements. Here are some of the legal routes tenants can take, to improve health and safety in their buildings.

Outdated and inadequate

When a person wants to take legal action about housing conditions, their starting point is the Landlord /7 Tenant Act 1985. Unfortunately, Section 8 of the act, which relates to fitness for human habitation, has a rental limit which has not been updated since 1957. You cannot use the section if you pay more than £80 annual rent in London and £52 elsewhere. It hardly needs saying that very few properties qualify.

Section 11 of the act imposes some obligations on landlords to repair when the rental agreement is for seven years or less. While this applies to most assured shorthold tenancies, it requires that there is disrepair. So, for instance, damp and mould, or exposed asbestos which have not yet caused structural damage would fall outside of this law.

Following Grenfell, the government indicated that it will support Labour MP Karen Buck’s Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, which addresses problems with the law. But it still relies on tenants having the financial and emotional resources required to take action.

What’s more, tenants expose themselves to the risk of eviction when they take legal action. The Deregulation Act 2015 provides limited protection from revenge evictions – this bill alone is not enough to redress the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants, when it comes to health and safety in the home.


Empowering residents

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System – used by environmental health officers to assess health and safety risks caused by problems in the home – might be more useful to the residents of tower blocks. Environmental health officers have a range of enforcement tools available, to require an owner to address serious risks. This system takes the burden of enforcement off the resident, and places it on the state instead.

But even this route has problems: tenants can’t trigger enforcement actions themselves, and the law doesn’t offer the same protections to the tenants of social housing, because local authorities can’t take action against themselves. These problems can be overcome with some imaginative legal thinking, for example by providing routes for redress via the housing ombudsman or the First Tier Tribunal (Property) Chamber.

Above all, residents must be given rights so that allegations of breaches of building regulations or flawed fire risk assessments are taken seriously. At the moment, people whose lives are put at risk by inadequate compliance with the regulatory framework have no means of taking action to ensure things are put right. It is disappointing that the current version of Buck’s bill has dropped the clause that would at last have imposed civil liability for breach of building regulations, which would have made it much easier for residents to hold contractors and others to account.

The ConversationUntil these issues can be addressed, information such as fire risk assessments should be made available to residents. Basic knowledge about how fires spread would help residents to understand, for instance, the importance of self closures on doors. People should be clear about who they can complain to, and what action will be taken.

Regulators need to avoid complacency and box-ticking in regulatory compliance. Empowering those who have most to lose by minimalist approaches to health and safety has to be the way forward.

Helen Carr, Professor in Law, University of Kent.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

How the rise of anti-crime politics caused lasting harm to Black Americans

"I see an awareness that has developed in the Black community in the last 10 years or so about how deeply racist the criminal justice system has become," James Forman Jr. says. (David McNew/Getty Images)

The police killing of George Floyd, and the protest movement that emerged from it, has reinvigorated a national conversation around reinventing criminal justice policy in the United States.

At the same time, reports that violent crime is rising in many US cities have resurrected talk of the much-disputed “Ferguson effect,” a theory put forward by law enforcement professionals, and some researchers, who argued that police slowdowns in the wake of the first wave of Black Lives Matter protests resulted in elevated rates of violent crime. President Donald Trump is trying to weaponise this narrative, paired with images of federal officers clashing with protesters in the streets of Portland, to wage a 1968-style backlash election campaign.

“People who want to mobilise a lock-them-up style of either policing or prosecution have tried to weaponise those short-term increases,” says James Forman Jr., professor of law at Yale Law School. “Criminologists will say you have to be very, very cautious about short-term movement [in crime statistics]. We don't know whether or not what we're seeing right now [with violent crime increasing] is going to sustain itself. But the fact is, it's here and people are talking about it.”

In 2018, Forman won the Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction for his book Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America. Drawing on his experience as a public defender in Washington, DC, he traced the emergence of anti-crime politics in late 20th century Black communities. Forman showed how newly empowered Black politicians fought for policies they believed would protect and uplift Black Americans, but inadvertently contributed to mass incarceration. 


CityMetric recently caught up with Forman to discuss crime trends, where he sees reason for hope in this moment and how the Black political class’s attitude toward crime and punishment has shifted since the latter part of the 20th century. 

This interview has been edited and condensed. 

There is talk right now about a resurgence of crime and violence in American cities. We saw similar, more localised concerns after the initial 2015 Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. Do you fear this could reinvigorate the kind of politics you describe in your book among segments of the Black community and political class?

I fear that it could be reinvigorated nationally and also in the Black political class. Look at the political conversations that are happening in Atlanta right now, for example, a city that also has seen a short-term uptick in crime as it is a site of a lot of protests about George Floyd and Breonna Taylor on the national level, as well as Rayshard Brooks and Ahmaud Arbery more locally in Georgia.

I think that you can already see in some of the language of the local elected officials this idea that we have to be very careful about pulling back. [They are saying] “while the protesters may make some valid points, we can't risk returning to the ‘80s and ‘90s.” Those decades really traumatised the United States, and particularly traumatised Black communities. There's a deep fear about returning to the levels of the violence that we saw in the crack years.

You write a lot about class divides among Black Americans, where middle income and elite Black people don't suffer as much from extremely punitive policies. They also have closer ties to the politicians who are creating these policies. There are very specific groups of people, even in marginalised communities, whose voices are heard.  As a result of these dynamics, you write about Black politicians fighting for things like mandatory minimum prison sentences or against decriminalising marijuana. Is there still that disconnect between those who suffer the most from criminal justice policies and those who are actually heard in political discourse?  

Let me just say a caveat, that when we talk about class divisions in the Black community it's important to hold two truths in our head at the same time. Bruce Western and others have shown the way in which class, educational status, income can dramatically reduce the likelihood of being hardest hit by the criminal system – namely incarcerated. Middle class and upper middle class Black people get some measure of protection. It's also true at the same time that Black people of all classes are worse off relative to their class counterparts in the white community. 

One area where class is least protective is policing and police stops. The police do not know how many degrees you have. They don't know how much money you have in your bank account. I want to be very clear that in making this point about class, I'm not making the argument that race or racism don't matter in this context. 

In terms of how it plays out now, I see an awareness that has developed in the Black community in the last 10 years or so about how deeply racist the criminal justice system has become. Twenty or 30 years ago they had a consciousness, but there's levels of understanding. Many of the people I write about in the book wanted to promote the interests of the Black community. They weren't motivated by indifference or callousness. When presented with mounting evidence of how awful this system has been in Black lives, they're reconsidering and recalibrating. 

Lots of former elected officials have said to me some version of “I didn't know at the time and I appreciate that you showed us in our full complexity. I appreciate that you showed the pressures we were under. If I had known then what I know now, maybe I would have been less quick to go along with some of these harsh measures.” 

The second thing that has affected the Black political class has been the emerging movements, led by Black people in particular and led by young people. They not only educated leaders, but pressured them and made them understand that there is a political cost. If you're not moved by the moral argument, then you'll be moved by the political argument. You'll be moved by the people protesting outside the office of District Attorney Jackie Lacey in Los Angeles, for example, where Black Lives Matter LA has held, I believe, a year of consecutive protests against a Black district attorney who has had really some of the worst practices.

From what I can tell, she's been pressured by the movement to change some of her positions on important issues like prosecution of low-level drug offenders, for example, and the aggressiveness with which she prosecutes police officers for acts of violence.

What do you make of the calls to defend or even abolish the police?

What I find so compelling about abolition, initially in the prison context and extended to the police as well, is that it shifts the conversation and forces us to go through experiments in which we imagine what it would take to build that world. I think that exercise is very important, because it pushes us further than we are naturally inclined to go. Cultivating a broader imagination is an incredibly important part of this work, because as you know from my book, often it was lack of imagination that caused people to fall back on [punitive policies]. 

That's what caused D.C. Councilmember David Clarke to call the police rather than public health experts when he was overwhelmed with letters about heroin addicts in public space. He was anti-drug war, but he couldn't imagine responding to a call for help with heroin addicts with anything other than police. That's a very common move from even really good and progressive people. 

People who are for defunding, for abolition, are absolutely right about reinvesting that money into alternative structures that support communities. But the reinvestment part doesn't follow naturally from the terms. We might want to come up with a term that captures the new stuff we want to do. I think that's particularly important because one of the reasons Black communities have ended up supporting more police is that Black communities have always wanted their fair share of the resources.

Then, the evidence suggests the United States has too many police officers doing prophylactic, preventative, or stop-and-frisk style policing. The style of policing that leads to district level harassment, pulling people over for no reason. But we have too little investment in the parts of police departments that investigate unsolved crimes. I'm talking about the investigator or the detective who comes to your house after there's been a robbery, an assault, a rape, or homicide. 

As compared to European countries, in the United States we actually underinvest in those parts of our police departments. Jill Leovy’s book Ghettoside shows this in dramatic detail. She describes an LAPD that's stopping and frisking Black drivers wantonly and yet the homicide detectives are still relying on a fax machine and the fax machine is broken. They have to go with their own money to Staples to buy a printer. Meanwhile, other aspects of the department are kitted out in this ridiculous riot gear that makes them look like they're in Fallujah. 

That under investment is particularly damaging to Black communities because we're disproportionately victimised by crime. Because of racism and this allocation of resources, the police are less likely to respond in Black communities. The kids I used to work with in the charter schools in DC, we talk about no snitching, but one of the reasons they would never call the police after they'd been victimised by crime is they would say, “They're not even going to come. You're wasting time.” 

I did a Q&A with Jill Leovy too and her argument is one I've struggled to articulate in our present moment. She argues the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence in low-income Black neighbourhoods, because investigations of violence are deemphasised and crime victims or their loved ones often take retribution into their own hands.  But right now, establishing or preserving the state's monopoly on violence isn't an appealing talking point. 

Yes, this is another thing nobody's talking about. Whatever we're going to do instead of the police has to be accountable to the public. The best, most direct way to have accountability is to have the individuals be public employees. As long as we have 300 million guns in this country at least some of those state employees are going to themselves be armed. It's unreasonable to ask them to do the job without it. Not as many need to be armed as are armed now, but some of them need to be. But they can't be hiding behind union contracts or civil service protections which make it impossible to remove even the worst performing, most abusive officers. 

We can not call them police if we want to. That's semantic, but maybe symbolism matters. But those people have to be state employees. They can work with community-based nonprofits, but there are also communities that don't have as robust of a nonprofit network, and they deserve protection too. These [community] groups have to be accountable to the state and, when they don't exist, the state has to be there. 

Progressives get all the points I just made when it's applied to education. The notion that things be public and accountable to the state is understood when it comes to schools. It's exactly why so many people on the left are opposed to charter schools, because they say they don't have public accountability. They want these things to be a state function. But this point about the difficulty in removing this entirely from the hands of the state is, I think, one that liberals and progressives understand from other contexts.

Jake Blumgart is a staff writer at CityMetric.