Grenfell Families Lodge Complaint with Architect Regulator

Relatives of three individuals who perished in the Grenfell Tower blaze are backing a formal complaint submitted to a regulatory body concerning the architects implicated in the building’s renovation. The Good Law Project submitted this complaint letter to the Architects Registration Board (ARB), alleging that Studio E acted negligently in its capacity and should face accountability. A prior public inquiry determined that the architectural practice Studio E carried “a very significant degree of responsibility for the disaster” that occurred in 2017, claiming 72 lives. The ARB stated that it initiated formal investigations following the conclusion of the inquiry’s second phase, but refrained from disclosing specifics of these investigations. Studio E is currently undergoing liquidation, and the BBC has sought to contact its representatives for a statement. On Monday, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) joined the Good Law Project in delivering the letter. The Good Law Project expressed its hope that if the complaint is successful, it would establish a precedent, allowing other occupants of structures with hazardous cladding to lodge complaints against their architects with the ARB. The organization further noted that the families of Amna Mahmoud Idris, Amal Ahmedin, and three-year-old Amaya Tuccu-Ahmedin, all of whom perished on the 19th floor of Grenfell Tower, endorsed the group’s initiative and provided a statement. This statement conveyed that while the architects “may be held to account today… we, the bereaved families, will have to live with their mistakes for the rest of our lives”. Their full statement declared: “These architects were responsible for the architectural safety of our and our families’ homes. “Yet none of their partners or employees had the relevant knowledge, experience or skills needed to work on a high-rise cladding project.”They let us and our loved ones down.” The Good Law Project also indicated that its letter received backing from the Grenfell Community Campaigners. Bekah Sparrow, a legal manager at the Good Law Project, commented: “It’s been seven and a half years since the fire and those architects are still on the register, we haven’t seen any action from the regulator at all.””We’re really hoping the registration board takes robust action. In practical terms they can issue a reprimand, fine, suspension – they can even strike architects off the register,” Ms Sparrow added. “We’ve got unsafe cladding up and down the country, so many people living in unsafe buildings and we need them to know, architects to know, that the registration board does take action when there’s information in the public domain that seriously questions whether things have gone as they should have done.” Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the FBU, stated: “One of the things we’ve said from day one is that the Grenfell Tower tragedy represents a complete failure of regulation in this country in terms of building safety, and that’s at the heart of everything that went wrong.”If anyone reads the findings of the report and the evidence given in the inquiry, there was a complete failure in terms of the planning of that redevelopment, how it was done who was allowed to do it – and that needs to be challenged.”I think the architects are exposed in the evidence that was heard at the inquiry and in the findings of the inquiry as a firm who had no experience or knowledge of that type of work… and they need to be held to account for that, and the regulation of architects needs to be better enforced.” An ARB spokesperson confirmed that subsequent to phase two of the inquiry, formal investigations commenced “into whether any architects involved in the refurbishment of the tower might be guilty of a disciplinary offence under the Architects Code”.”The investigations must be conducted properly if they are to be effective, and can be complex, particularly when they take place in the background of potential criminal proceedings which must not be prejudiced,” the spokesperson further explained. “It is ARB’s policy to not comment on the detail of investigations until or unless they reach a public hearing of our professional conduct committee, so that the committee can make an independent decision based on the evidence available.”