SHEFFIELD CITY Council (SCC) spent over £30,000 on solicitors ‘to look into’ whether it could ‘sue anyone’ in relation to the combustible cladding fitted to Hanover Tower in the city.
In August 2018, the tower was named as one of many nationwide that – once combustible aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding has been removed – revealed a ‘catalogue of fire safety failures […] hidden beneath’, with the British Board of Agrément (BBA) identifying that cladding was ‘not the solid aluminium panels agreed with the contractor’ and was combustible. As a result, Sheffield City Council (SCC) removed both the cladding and the insulation.
Later that year in December, the costs for removing and replacing the cladding were reported to be nearly £4m, which broke down as £455,177 for the cost of removal and £2.8m for building works reinstatement, with ‘no plans to reclaim this money from the original installers’ and extra work including installing new cladding and insulation alongside replacing damaged frame elements and ‘making good’ resealing.
In August 2019, former resident Michael Mullin – who had relatives living in the tower - voiced concern about the report into ‘whether the building was unsafe for a period of five years’, as it had ‘yet to be published […] two years after it was promised’. Mr Mullin carried out two years of research into the building’s fire safety, finding that resident safety was ‘put at risk’ between 2012 and 2017.
This was because SCC ‘didn’t know the specification of cladding panels’ installed, and he also claimed South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (SYFRS) had issued its stay put policy ‘during that time’, which meant ‘lives were put at risk’. He also claimed SCC planned to publish the report in 2017, but it had ‘still not been released’, and that a fire test undertaken in July 2017 showed a fire would spread throughout the building, housing 126 residents, ‘in just six minutes’.
In response, SCC claimed it had not carried out a test on the complete wall system, and was instructed by the government to send ‘any suspected aluminium composite material’ to them for testing, with this failing the test and thus replaced. It did not respond on why the report’s publication had been delayed.
The tower was the only Sheffield block to fail the government’s fire safety tests, with residents having been told to stay put between 2012 and 2017 – the period when it was ‘masked with’ what Mr Mullins said was ‘unsafe cladding’. SYFRS responded by noting that the council had already carried out work to ‘ensure the internal fire resistance between flats was suitable and sufficient’, while inspection officers ‘were satisfied that the compartmentation between flats was satisfactory’.
In January this year, despite having waited for over two years for the report, an objection meant it was delayed further, and it was then reported that residents ‘are still waiting for answers’. In June, hopes were raised after SCC said that it was ‘ready to release’ the report. However, in August SCC had ‘still not given a date’ for its release. Late last month, the report was finally released three years after the investigation
The report found that residents ‘were put at risk by combustible cladding for more than a decade’, and had looked into why the block was ‘different to all other council tower blocks in the city, who authorised it, what, if any, steps were taken to ensure it was safe and why the council’s building control team did not inspect the material when it was put on’.
The report’s delay in being published was ‘partly caused’ by SCC assessing whether it could make legal claims against those involved ‘despite previously stating it would not make claims’, finding that these would be unsuccessful. Emails, planning applications and drawings were studied, but the report said that ‘not all the contemporaneous documentation relating to the build project was held or retained by the council. It is not possible to say with certainty what is missing’.
This includes electronic staff records for those working on the project who no longer work for the council, as well as project management information ‘deleted in 2015’. SCC had ‘partly blamed’ the ‘lack of clarity’ in its decision on this, but ‘numerous emails’ referenced in the report showed officers ‘were aware of ACM being proposed’.
No information was found ‘illustrating if steps were taken’ to check cladding safety before installation, while it ‘is unknown when it was decided to swap’ to ACM, but emails referred to this ‘as early as 2010’. Emails between contractor Lovell Eastern and subcontractors showed there were ‘budget issues’ and efforts to cut costs on cladding, but the report said that ‘cost benefits were incidental to its choice, not the reason for it’.
Subcontractor Alumet said in one email, responding to a question about cost savings’, that ‘on Hanover however, we offered a more economic ACM product because it suited the application better and has strength, flatness, weight and price advantages’. The Star has now reported that SCC spent over £30,000 ‘on solicitors to look into whether it could sue anyone in relation’ to the cladding, with the report itself having ‘implied’ the delay may have been down to this.
The news outlet said that the report featured an implication that ‘part of the reason for the delayed release’ was the solicitors’ review between September 2019 and June 2020, with a freedom of information request having established that this cost £38,049 in 18 instalments to firm Geldards LLP. The ‘bulk’ of information collation, record examination and interviews took place between autumn 2017 and March 2018, then at SCC and contractor Lovell between March 2018 and January 2019.
In the final report, external solicitors were said to have been appointed in February 2019, with the report stating that ‘the council decided an external assessment of the material collected was necessary to consider if there were any grounds for taking legal action against any party’. While this work was being undertaken, the report was unable to be published ‘in order to preserve the council’s legal position in relation to any potential claims against third parties’.
SCC had considered releasing the report in early 2020, but ‘it was decided to wait until the legal investigations were finished’, and solicitors found there was ‘not enough evidence’ for SCC to make a claim against either Lovell or subcontractors, with any claim only for cladding 18m or above, and SCC having ‘not suffered any financial loss on which to base a claim for damages’.
Councillor Douglas Johnson said: ‘It is clear the council consulted its external solicitors a lot. What they were consulted about is a lot less clear - the council had already made clear it was not bringing any legal claims against the original contractors before the solicitors were appointed. So you have to ask for whose benefit this money was spent and who is paying for it?’