The refrigerator manufacturer has not operated in Grenfell Tower

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Kinsington and Chelsea claimed that HotPoint Fridge-Freezer team blamed the Grenfell Tower for adequate safety tests before the destructive fire in the London apartment block.

Court papers put details of the lawsuit filed by the local authority against Beko Europ The broader litigation against companies He takes responsibility for the fire eight years ago, 72 people were killed.

Kensington and Chelsea, which was criticized last year by a public investigation, sued a group of companies in the Supreme Court for a total of 358 million pounds in addition to the interest in the wake of the worst fire disaster in the United Kingdom since World War II.

The investigation found that the fire on June 14, 2017 quickly spread in the 24 -storey building due to the flammable cladding that was installed during the renovation of the tower.

However, the council claims that in addition to the companies participating in the renewal, the refrigerator maker in the apartment on the fourth floor where the fire began is also the blame. Kinsington and Chelsea said in a legal file that the device has contained materials that can “subscribe to fire and burns easily.”

The local authority previously said that it was following legal claims against Whirlpool, which is now Beko Europe, which made Fridge-Dreezer under the HotPoint brand, but the details of its demand against the company have not been revealed before.

The West London region brought the lawsuit alongside the Kensington and Chelsea administration, which was appointed to the housing shares management, including Grenfell.

Lawyers who represent the demands, led by David Turner KC Claire Dixon K. argue.

If the materials – especially plastic support, foam and polystyrene – were tested properly, they would have failed, they have claimed in the court papers presented this year.

The owners of the claims confirm that the company has violated its legal duty under the electrical equipment regulations (safety) for the year 1994, as the fridge freezer was not “safe”. They have also submitted a demand for neglect.

“It should have been clear to any designer, factory and/or supplier from the unique refrigerator.

Defense documents in the case were not submitted to the court.

“Whirlpool is daring and is strongly defending the procedures that the royal town has lifted in Kensington and Chelsea. It will not be appropriate to comment more on continuous litigation,” Wrilboul said in a statement.

Beko and OP FIRM COOLY, which was included as being represented in the case, did not respond to the comment requests.

Whirlpool, listed in New York, ended a deal with Arçelik in Türkiye last year to integrate the European local bodies of the two companies and create Beko Europe.

Wrilbul told the general investigation that it was not possible to determine the cause of the fire. The company suggested that the fire arose from the end of the burning cigarettes that were thrown from a higher window in the building.

However, the investigating head of the investigation, Sir Martin Moore Beck, the former court judge, said, “The evidence, which is seen as a whole, is undoubtedly left that the fire arose in the large refrigerator.”

The investigation was not proven by the “exact nature” of the error, and Moore Beck said this “is less important than proving how the failure of the joint local devices could have severe consequences.”

Its achievement has determined “many of the failures of a wide range of institutions, entities and individuals over many years.”

Several companies participating in the renewal of Grenfell, which the report said, has been structurally transformed into a “sophisticated death trap”, was found wrong.

Kensington and Chelsea sucks a group of suppliers, subcontractors and other companies in the parallel Supreme Court procedures, on the pretext that the alleged failures by each of them contributed to the progress of the catastrophic fire.

The local authority itself was also among the bodies criticized by the investigation, including through the failure to control the buildings.

The council said last year that before the results of the investigation and apologized without reservation. The council said it had made major changes in its operations since 2017.

In a statement, the council said: “We have issued legal measures against a number of companies, in line with the commitment of the continuous council to ensure that these parties pay a share of the costs incurred against the public portfolio.”