Fire brigade failed us, say Grenfell survivors
Families claim ‘stay put’ advice meant some victims lost crucial opportunity to escape
A GROUP of Grenfell Tower survivors yesterday accused the fire service of strategic failures which they claim contributed to the death toll in the blaze.
Survivors questioned the time it took for London Fire Brigade to withdraw advice for residents to “stay put” in their flats and await rescue rather than evacuate.
The Daily Telegraph has learnt that the advice was abandoned at 2.47am, almost two hours after the first emergency call was made at 12.54am on June 14 last year.
The survivors and victims’ relations are well aware that problems with the design and refurbishment of the tower block, including the use of flammable cladding, caused the fire to spread at an alarming rate.
The fire broke out in a fourth floor flat and soon engulfed the building, with dense plumes of black smoke filling corridors and the only staircase.
Firefighters established a base on the fourth floor and ran rescue operations and are believed to have saved more than 65 people. But some survivors say the tower should have been evacuated immediately. Seventy-two people died in the fire.
The Grenfell inquiry, which opened this week with the commemoration of victims, will begin hearing evidence next month, including from London Fire Brigade. The evacuation strategy and the “stay put” advice given to residents will come under scrutiny, including the procedures on the night for reviewing it.
Flora Neda, 53, who along with her son was one of only two survivors from the top floor but whose husband died, said: “If the fire brigade had evacuated straight away, everybody would have got out alive. The fire brigade knew the fire is very huge and they could not control it. At least if they had told us you must save yourselves I am sure most other people would have been alive.”
Nabil Choucair, 43, who lost his mother, sister, brother-in-law and three nieces, said: “Without doubt they should have changed the ‘stay put’ order earlier. You have had somebody on the outside knowing what is going on and somebody inside obviously saying this fire is bigger than we can cope. The fire was getting bigger and bigger and they should have changed their strategy to tackle it.”
Sepideh Moghaddam, a disabled single mother who escaped with her son, then aged two, and who watched the horror unfold, said: “Of course it’s not just the fire brigade’s fault. There’s the council, the TMO [Tenant Management Organisation], but the fire brigade is very important. They could have saved more lives.
“There are a lot of us who have these questions. Many of us are afraid to even speak about it.”
The criticism comes at a potentially difficult time for fire services.
Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service was forced to apologise in March after a report into the emergency services’ response to the Manchester Arena bombing disclosed that the fire service played “no meaningful role” in the aftermath of the attack because they arrived two hours late.
Fire crews were held back because of fears of a further terrorist attack and because firefighters’ safety could not be guaranteed. There is no suggestion
that firefighters at Grenfell did anything other than risk their own lives to save others. A number of firefighters suffered from the effects of smoke inhalation on the night.
The brigade said it was unable to comment ahead of the inquiry and while the police investigation continued. But a spokesman said the “stay put” advice remained in place except for buildings in the capital with cladding similar to that used at Grenfell.
The advice is key in fighting fires in residential blocks where a fire is isolated and does not spread. But in the case of Grenfell, where a £10million refurbishment had compromised fire safety, the blaze spread rapidly.
A senior official with the Fire Brigades Union told The Telegraph that firefighters on the ground had realised swiftly that Grenfell was no longer safe for residents. But rather than order an evacuation down a single narrow staircase that was becoming choked with toxic smoke, the strategy was changed to “stay put and await rescue”. Official sources suggest 67 residents were rescued in the course of the night.
Dave Sibert, the FBU’S fire safety adviser, said: “There was no fire officer who thought after the first 10 minutes that anybody could remain safely in their flat. ‘Stay put, you can remain safely in your flat’ was scrapped after 10 minutes.”
It was unclear what difference an earlier evacuation order would have made, he said, and some people who were rescued might not have survived, while some who died might have got out alive, given the conditions.
A mass evacuation policy – a sort of “every man for himself ” advice – would have discriminated against the disabled, the elderly, young children and the infirm, he pointed out. Mr Sibert added: “It is not a fair system to say there has to be a simultaneous evacuation because it is saying if you are fit and able you will survive but if you are even slightly a bit vulnerable you will be injured and killed.”
The FBU has called on the inquiry to treat firefighters as victims and expressed concern that police interviews had not been properly understood by investigators. At a preliminary hearing, lawyers for the FBU said that firefighters had “been unhappy” with written statements produced by police after lengthy video statements and proposed that firefighters should be allowed a further meeting conducted by their own solicitor to go through statements to clarify their evidence.
The FBU has raised concerns that Grenfell inquiry’s “terms of reference… are too narrow” and wants “senior politicians held to account and the whole fire and rescue service scrutinised”.