The Grenfell Tower Free

Unlock Free

Roula Khalaf, publisher of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The Hotpoint Fredreezer fridge manufacturer blamed the fire in the Grenfell Tower did not carry out appropriate security tests before the Kensington and the Chelsea Council has stated.

Judicial papers show details of a demand that local authority has contributed against Beko Europe, previously as part of Whirlpool, as part of wider litigation against companies He is responsible for the fire eight years ago that he killed 72 people.

Kensington and Chelsea, who was himself last year criticized by a public investigation, demanded several companies in the High Court for a total of £ 358 million after the worst fire disaster in the United Kingdom since World War II.

The fire of June 14, 2017 spread rapidly through the 24 -storey building largely due to the flammable coating installed during a tower renovation, found the investigation.

However, the Council states that, as well as the companies involved in the reform, the fridge-freezer maker on the fourth floor where the combustion began to blame. The apparatus contained materials that could “fire and burn -easily,” Kensington and Chelsea said in a legal presentation.

The local authority had previously said that he was pursuing legal claims against Whirlpool, now Beko Europe, which caused the Fridrom-Freezer virtue of the Hotpoint brand, but the details of his claim against the company have not previously been revealed.

The West London Borough has filed a lawsuit alongside the Kensington and Chelsea Income Management Organization, which he designated to manage his home, including Grenfell.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs, led by David Turner KC and Clare Dixon KC, argue that the company did not properly prove the materials used in the Fridrom-Freezer model against applicable fire standards.

If the materials, in particular the plastic support, the foam and the polystyrene, had been proven properly, would have failed, they alleged in the judicial roles presented this year.

The plaintiffs maintain that the company violated its legal duty in accordance with the 1994 Security Security Regulation, as the Fridrom-Freezer was not “safe”. They have also filed a complaint with negligence.

“It should have been evident for any designer, manufacturer and/or reasonably competent supplier of the fridge of the fridge that the plastic support was not resistant to ignition and/or the propagation of the fire,” says the legal claim.

The defense documents of the case must not yet be submitted to the court.

Whirlpool said in a statement: “Whirlpool Corporation will strongly dispute and defend the procedures presented by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It would not be advisable to comment on the ongoing litigation.”

Beko and the Cooley’s law firm, which are represented as a representative in the case, did not respond to comments applications.

Whirlpool, listed in New York, ended an agreement with Arçelik, based on Turkey, last year to combine European European National Apparatus companies, creating Beko Europe.

Whirlpool told public investigation that it was not possible to determine the cause of the fire. The company suggested that the fire could have originated from one end of cigarette burning from a window above the building.

However, the president of the investigation, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a former Judge of the Appeal Court, said that “the evidence, considered as a whole, leaves me, without a doubt, that the fire originated in the great free of the fridge.”

The investigation did not establish the “precise nature” of guilt, and Moore-Bick said that this was “of less importance than establishing how the failure of a common domestic apparatus could have had such disastrous consequences.”

His research identified “many failures of a wide range of institutions, entities and individuals for many years.”

Several companies involved in Grenfell’s reform, which the report said had transformed a structurally solid concrete building into a “death trap,” was found to blame.

Kensington and Chelsea are demanding a number of suppliers, subcontractors and other companies in parallel actions of the High Court, arguing that the alleged failures of each contributed to the catastrophic progression of fire.

The local authority itself was also among the bodies that the investigation criticized, included through the failures of the control of the building.

The Council said that last year he accepted the findings of the investigation and apologized without reservation. The Council said he had made significant changes in his operations since 2017.

In a statement, the Council said: “We have issued legal procedures against several companies, in accordance with the continued commitment of the Council to ensure that these parties pay a part of the expenses incurred against the public portfolio.”