A WARRINGTON firm was one of a number of organisations that ‘badly failed’ residents of Grenfell Tower, an inquiry chairman said.

A long-awaited report into the deaths of 72 people in a fire at the west London tower block has been published today, Wednesday, more than seven years after the blaze and following a public inquiry.

Flames ripped through the 24-storey residential building in the early hours of June 14, 2017.

Inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick concluded that the devastating fire was the result of “decades of failure” by government and the construction industry to act on the dangers of flammable materials on high-rise buildings.

The tower block was covered in combustible products because of the “systematic dishonesty” of firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, the inquiry ruled.

Sir Martin also called out “deliberate and sustained” manipulation of fire-safety testing, misrepresentation of test data and misleading of the market.

The seven-volume, near-1,700 page final report of the inquiry into the disaster laid out in damning detail how those in positions of responsibility had not heeded or acted on warnings from earlier fires.

Sir Martin said: “The simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable, and those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years, and in a number of different ways, by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants.

“They include the government, the Tenant Management Organisation, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, those who manufactured and supplied the materials used in the refurbishment, those who certified their suitability for use on high-rise buildings, the architect, Studio E, the principal contractor, Rydon Maintenance Ltd, and some of its sub-contractors, in particular, Harley Curtain Wall Ltd and its successor Harley Facades Ltd, some of the consultants, in particular the fire engineer, Exova Warringtonfire, the local authority’s building control department and the London Fire Brigade.

“Not all of them bear the same degree of responsibility for the eventual disaster, but, as our reports show, all contributed to it in one way or another, in most cases through incompetence but in some cases through dishonesty and greed.

Exova, which has a base on Holmsfield Road in Howley, was appointed as the fire safety consultant on the renovation of the tower in 2012 – five years before the disaster in June 2017.

In his statement, Sir Martin said: “The Tenant Management Organisation did instruct Exova Warringtonfire to produce a fire safety strategy for the refurbishment, which should have included advice on the effect of the overcladding and the compliance of the external walls with functional requirements of the building regulations.

“Exova produced three versions of a fire safety strategy, but each version was stated to be a draft and was incomplete, because it did not deal with that particular question, which it said would be covered in a future issue of the report.

“It was clear, therefore, that the fire safety strategy was incomplete, but no one asked Exova to finish its work, nor did anyone provide it with details of the proposed cladding to enable it to do so.

“Exova itself failed to ask for the missing information or to complete the work it had been instructed to carry out.

“The failure to obtain a final report was probably critical, because, if Exova had considered the proposed cladding, it should, and probably would, have identified the fact that the insulation and rainscreen did not comply with the statutory guidance, or more importantly, the building regulations.”

A statement on the Warringtonfire website reads: “On the publication of the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, our thoughts remain with all those people who have been affected by the devastating events of June 14, 2017, including those who tragically lost their lives, their loved ones, families and friends.

“Exova acknowledges the report and the inquiry’s comprehensive and significant recommendations, including those related specifically to its role during the refurbishment.

“We are grateful to the inquiry for completing this detailed piece of work.”