Summary
Here’s a summary of day 10:
- Behailu Kebede, in whose Grenfell Tower flat the fire broke out, has been scapegoated by the media and wrongly blamed for failing to raise the alarm. His lawyer described as a “nasty lie” false reports that he packed a bag before leaving. “He left the flat barefoot, without his flat or car keys,” Rajiv Menon QC said.
- Menon urged the inquiry to issue a statement to exonerate Kebede from blame. “It’s important to say that he is a significant witness and not a criminal suspect,” he said.
- A series of lawyers for companies involved in the refurbishment have denied they were responsible for the fire but pledged their commitment to cooperate with the inquiry. Arcponic, the firm which made the cladding, admitted it was combustible, but said this was legal and not uncommon.
- A lawyer for Kensington and Chelsea council said it had become the public face of those responsible for the disaster. But he pointed out there were a huge number of companies involved with more direct responsibility. A lawyer for the TMO which managed the homes pointed out that the council signed off the refurbishment of the block.
- CS Stokes, the firm which carried out the last fire risk assessment on the block, said it urged the contractors to provide details of the cladding to be used, its lawyer said. “The cladding should not have contributed to the spread of the fire as fast at it did,” he said.
- London Mayor Sadiq Khan has written Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry, backing calls to change the venue of the inquiry. Khan’s lawyer said the current cramped venue at Holburn bars was preventing some participants from attending.
- Leslie Thomas QC, who represents another group of the bereaved and survivors, warned that if his clients were not allowed to ask relevant questions the inquiry risked being seen as a “whitewash”. He also claimed the failures of management of Grenfell stemmed from the way social housing was stigmatised. “This attitude and stereotyping is what allowed the cost cutting and the use of deadly materials to become normalised,” he said.
- Michael Mansfield QC, representing other survivors and relatives, called for the inquiry to make urgent recommendations this summer to ensure that tower blocks are safe. He claimed the fire was foreseeable and said the government’s failure to implement the coroners recommendations after the Lakanal house fire in 2009 was a betrayal of the jury and coroner.
- Mansfield also called for the imposition of a regulator on the construction industry to over turn its “non-compliance mindset”. And he attacked the government-backed red tape initiative for regarding safety as a “hindrance to profit making.”
Last up today is Anne Studd QC for the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. She says: “The testaments of the bereaved and survivors are stark reminders of the need for each and every one of us with a role at this Inquiry, in whatever capacity, to work rapidly, tirelessly and with transparency to ensure that appropriate lessons are learnt to prevent any reoccurrence of the devastating events of 14th June 2017.”
The mayor has written to Moore-Bick backing calls for a more suitable venue for the inquiry. The venue is eroding the number of core participants able to attend the inquiry, Studd says.
The mayor would like the inquiry to highlight the role of individual firefighters and police officer in helping others. He also wants it highlight the way the community came together after the fire. He invites Moore-Bick to consider giving the mayor a coordinating role in the aftermath of such disasters, given the council’s failure to provide welfare and support.
Khan also backs calls for a ban on combustible cladding, Studd says.
In closing Studd says:
It is imperative that either in the course of these hearings or elsewhere, those bearing culpable responsibility for the circumstances that allowed this tragedy to occur are held to account, and that through the Inquiry’s work, we can ensure that nothing like the awful events at Grenfell Tower can ever occur in our country again.
That concludes the inquiry for today.
Jason Beer, a lawyer for the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government begins his statement.
The department recognises that the fire uncovered widespread failure in the fire safety of high rise buildings, he says.
In response to Michael Mansfield’s call for urgent recommendations, he says “the department is not waiting for the conclusions of this inquiry before taking robust action where that is necessary in order to secure the safety of the public or where improvements can be made.”
Next up is Charles Gibson for Celotex the company that made the polyethylene insulation used in the cladding panels.
He says that Celotex manufactures and distributes insulation products, some of which were used at Grenfell Tower. He says they have sought to comply with the inquiry’s directions.
He affirms Celotex’s commitment to full, objective, and transparent engagement with the inquiry.
Updated
James Leonard begins reading a statement for CS Stokes, which carried out the last fire risk assessment before the fire.
The fire risk assessments by CS Stokes were provided to the TMO, he says. “The fire risk assessment is always available for the London Fire Brigade to audit as the enforcing authority,” Leonard adds.
He points out that the Stay Put policy was in place before the company’s involvement. It relies on designed and maintained internal compartmentation of the building. It should not be thought of as guidance that should be used in all circumstances when a fire occurs.
The Grenfell fire spread with unexpected speed, Leonard said.
LGA advice are the Lakanal House fire sets out the need for a plan B when the Stay Put policy needs to be abandoned, Leonard says.
Leonard says: “This inquiry will have to consider whether any LFB contingency plan for managing evacuation from GT would ever have contemplated the need for a full or even staged evacuation so quickly.”
If the spread of the fire had been anticipated a Stay Put strategy would never have been seen as appropriate in the first place, Leonard says.
Leonard argues that the cladding was not under the remit of CS Stokes’ fire safety order.
The cladding was not visible at the time of the assessment in October 2014, Leonard says. The contractor was told by CS Stokes to provide details of the future cladding used. It promoted the active consideration of the cladding system used, even though it was not legally obliged to do so. The cladding should not have contributed to the spread of the fire as fast at it did, or compromised the internal compartmentalisation of the block or the Stay Put policy in the way it did, Leonard says.
The inquiry is taking a brief break until 3.15pm.
The inquiry hears from Stephen Hockman QC, representing Arconic, the company responsible for making the cladding panels involved in the refurbishment.
The core of the panel was “obviously combustible” Hockman confirms.
The supply of the panels was entirely lawful and not uncommon, he says. The company is a relatively minor participant in the UK market.
Assessment of compliance with the building regulations was not the responsibility of the manufacture of one component of a building. This has to be done by a contractor that has an overview of the building, Hockman says.
Anyone assessing the fire compliance of the building would have to take into account the stay put policy that assumed a fire could be contained, Hockman adds.
The insulation for project had significant for the fire spread, but Arconic was not responsible for chosing this material.
The white infill panels between, also highly combustible, were not chosen by Aronic.
He adds: “We fully understand the enormity of the task facing the Inquiry, and look forward to playing our part in it.”
Inside Housing’s Luke Barratt notes what Hockman failed to address.
He finishes by pointing out other elements of the cladding system, like the insulation and the infill panels, that were combustible.
— Luke Barratt (@lukewbarratt) June 6, 2018
He doesn't address the report by Dr Luke Bisby that the panels manufactured by Arconic were the primary cause of the fire spreading up the facade.
Updated
Next the inquiry hears from from James Ageros QC and Alice Jarratt who are representing the TMO.
“No words can express the feelings of sorrow felt by all staff associated with TMO for what occurred at Grenfell Tower,” Ageros says.
He adds:
TMO is essentially a managing agent operating mainly in the public sector. It dealt with the full range of matters that go with the management of largely social housing stock: these included repairs and maintenance, rent collection, communal issues such as anti-social behaviour and environmental matters.
The council has since taken over the management of the homes, he points out.
A key driver of the refurbishment was to make the block more energy efficient.
The TMO had no in-house expertise in construction and design, Ageros says. TMO’s role was that of client in the refurbishment. It monitored the programme against the budget, he says.
He adds: “Studio E was engaged at a very early stage as architect and lead design consultant. It, in consultation with other construction professionals, identified materials to be used in the cladding.”
Rydon was appointed as the principal contractor for the recladding and installation of the windows. CS Stokes were appointed as fire safety consultants. The TMO also had bimonthly fire safety meetings with the London Fire Brigade during the project.
The council’s building control officers singed off the project in July 2016.
The TMO appreciate that the issue of complaints will be an important topic of the inquiry, Ageros says.
Why combustible cladding was used will be considered by the inquiry with great care. It was identified for use in 2012 and viewed by a number of bodies including those responsible for fire safety and building control.
He points out that similar material has been used on around 300 other blocks in the country.
He adds:
TMO supports the Inquiry’s thorough investigation into how these materials came to be used by contractors at Grenfell Tower and so widely throughout the housing sector.
Also, how the current systems of building regulations and fire safety, which Dame Judith Hackitt found to be ‘not fit for purpose’ were not reviewed prior to this date.
Finally, TMO supports a thorough investigation into the nature and implementation of the stay put policy in relation to high rise buildings and, crucially for Phase 1, on the advice residents were told by the London Fire Brigade, given as events unfolded on the night 14th June 2017.
Maxwell-Scott says the TMO was a “vanguard” organisation that took advantage of legislation in 1993 giving tenants the right mange their homes. A poll of residents in 2014 found they wanted the TMO to continue managing their homes.
We hopes this inquiry provides justice for the living and a lasting tribute to the dead, he says.
It is not desirable or possible to turn black the clock and return building and housing services back in-house to council control, Maxwell-Scott says. He points out the TMO drew up the Grenfell Tower refurbishment with the contractor Rydon. But this does not mean the council did not have responsibilities.
It is easy to forget that the whole point of the refurbishment was to benefit the residents of Grenfell Tower, Maxwell-Scott says.
The council funded the refurbishment project, he says. It was considered by the councils cabinet on three occasions when they increased the budget from £6m, to £9.7m to £10.3m. These were not decisions of a council intent on doing the job on the cheap, he says.
The council monitored the way the TMO managed the refurbishment, Maxwell-Scott says.
The refurbishment project was not controversial or high-profile, he says.
The council was involved in the colour of the cladding and the way it was fixed to the building, because this was a planning issue, the inquiry is told.
An building control official from the council issued a certificate of completion for the refurbishment. Based on what is now known failures to meet building regulations will emerge as part of the inquiry, Maxwell-Scott admits.
The officials who work in building control are not designers of the project they approve. The contractors are responsible for the project, he points out.
The inquiry resumes with James Maxwell-Scott QC representing the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. He describes the fire as “terrible tragic disaster which much never be repeated”.
Maxwell-Scott says the council is totally committed to helping to ensure that such a fire never happens again and to be open and fully co-operative with the inquiry.
He cites an example of where the council has alerted the inquiry to documents this week.
He says the council notes that the last months’ review of building regulation by Dame Judith Hackitt found the current system is not fit for purpose.
The council is portrayed in the media as the public face responsible for the disaster, Maxwell-Scott notes. It understands this, he says.
The inquiry will subject the inquiry to intense scrutiny. This is how it should be, the council’s lawyer says.
He accepts that the council played a “leading role” in the decision to refurbish Grenfell Tower. But he points out that a huge number of organisations were involved.
He said there was unspoken and at times spoken assumption that the fire could only have taken place in a borough with such divisions of rich and poor areas. But there was nothing unique about the borough, he says claiming the fire could have happened anywhere.
This afternoon’s session is about to resume.
The stream of this afternoon's session is live: https://t.co/AgD7wCEqbU
— Grenfell Inquiry (@grenfellinquiry) June 6, 2018
While we wait for the inquiry to resume it is worth pointing out that Behailhu Kebede’s lawyer attacked the latest issue of the London Review of Books for perpetuating a “nasty lie” about his client.
Andrew O’Hagan’s 60,000-word article about the fire is partly taken up with the way tower became a “progenitor of myth” in the media. But according to Rajiv Menon O’Hagan’s piece peddled one of the most hurtful myths about Kebede, in whose flat the fire started.
O’Hagan, who spent almost year researching his article, wrote: “Some of the other neighbours were woken up by knocks at their doors and they too came out. One of them noticed that Mr Kebede had packed a suitcase; it was standing in the hall, as if he was prepared to leave after raising the alarm.”
In his statement today Kebede’s lawyer said:
He did not pack a suitcase and leave with it after raising the alarm, a nasty lie that was first reported in the days after the fire and sadly continues to be peddled nearly a year later. Most recently in a lengthy article called the Tower published in the 7 June 2018 issue of the London Review of Books.
In short Kebede did exactly what Grenfell fire resident who discovered a fire in their flat were told to by the fire action notice posted outside the lift: he telephoned the fire brigade on 999 and informed the operator that there was a fire at flat 16 Grenfell Tower. He left his flat promptly, shutting the door behind him and he used the stairs to go down the exist the building. Indeed he went further to his enormous credit he also made sure that everybody else on the fourth floor had been warned about the fire and only when he believed that nobody else was left on the floor did he himself leave and make his way downstairs.
Behailu Kebede, in whose Grenfell Tower flat the fire broke out, has been scapegoated by the media and wrongly blamed for failing to raise the alarm, the inquiry into the blaze has been told.
On the 10th day of its hearings, Rajiv Menon QC, who represents Kebede, gave a detailed account of events in the early hours of 14 June last year when the fire started in his kitchen in flat 16.
Kebede, who is originally from Ethiopia and had lived in the tower for 25 years, was woken by a fire alarm. He immediately got up to find smoke coming from behind his Hotpoint fridge freezer. He did not see any flames.
“He grabbed his mobile phone and called 999,” said Menon. He had to ring several times before connecting to an operator. At the same time he banged on all his neighbours’ doors on the fourth floor, shouting that there was a fire. “He left the flat barefoot, without his flat or car keys.”
Summary
Here’s a summary of the day 10 so far:
- Behailu Kebede, in whose Grenfell Tower flat the fire broke out, has been scapegoated by the media and wrongly blamed for failing to raise the alarm. His lawyer described as a “nasty lie” false reports that he packed a bag before leaving. “He left the flat barefoot, without his flat or car keys,” Rajiv Menon QC said.
- Menon urged the inquiry to issue a statement to exonerate Kebede from blame. “It’s important to say that he is a significant witness and not a criminal suspect,” he said.
- Leslie Thomas QC, who represents another group of the bereaved and survivors, warned that if his clients were not allowed to ask relevant questions the inquiry risked being seen as a “whitewash”. He also claimed the failures of management of Grenfell stemmed from the way social housing was stigmatised. “This attitude and stereotyping is what allowed the cost cutting and the use of deadly materials to become normalised,” he said.
- Michael Mansfield QC, representing other survivors and relatives, called for the inquiry to make urgent recommendations this summer to ensure that tower blocks are safe. He claimed the fire was foreseeable and said the government’s failure to implement the coroners recommendations after the Lakanal house fire in 2009 was a betrayal of the jury and coroner.
- Mansfield also called for the imposition of a regulator on the construction industry to over turn its “non-compliance mindset”. And he attacked the government-backed red tape initiative for regarding safety as a “hindrance to profit making.”
Mansfield gives examples of possible early recommendations. They include the installation of sprinklers and fire extinguishers on tower block floors. He also calls for the provision of torches and masks to help people get out of burning blocks.
Other recommendations include automated fire and smoke alarms and a public address system.
And he asks whether aerial support could be provided for helicopters on the roof of tower blocks.
On the Stay Put policy he says there is confusion about whether it is still in place. He says Moore-Bick has an opportunity to clarify the policy now, so that residents of tower blocks know whether to stay or leave in the event of a fire.
The inquiry breaks for lunch and will resume at 2pm.
Mansfield says the Grenfell Tower fire was “foreseeable”.
He says there are remarkable similarities between the Grenfell Fire and the fire at Lakanal House, in south London in 2009.
It started with a fault in an electrical appliance.
The detailed narrative verdict delivered by the jury determined that the fire spread up into flat 79 through the panels under the bedroom windows of flat 79, the aluminum frames having been distorted by flames from flat 65 creating gaps. These gaps permitted smoke to be pushed back into flat 79. This led to rapid and extensive smoke logging. The composite panels were replacements carried out during refurbishment.
The coroner criticised stay put policy and called for national guidelines from the government.
The failure to implement this was a betrayal of the jury and the coroner, Mansfield says.
He cites this passage from the Lakanal coroner.
Awareness that fire can spread downwards and laterally and above and adjacent to afire flat, and that insecure compartmentation can permit transfer of smoke and fire between a flat and common parts putting the lives of residents and others at risk.
Mansfield also cited the 2016 fire at the 18-storey Shepherds Court, in west London. The assistant commissioner of fire safety, Dan Daly warned that the panels used on the block were a contributory factor to the way the fire spread.
The inquiry hears Daly’s warning to councils:
“I am drawing this fire to your attention to highlight the external spread of the fire that occurred. My predecessor Assistant Commissioner Steve Turek wrote to housing providers in March 2009 about a variety of matters.... One of those was replacement double glazing and the associated replacement of spandrel and filler panels on the external faces of blocks of flats with floors above 18 metres in height. In this case we believe such panels were a contributory factor to the external fire spread.”
“In the light fires that have occurred I would urge you to consider carefully your arrangements for specifying, monitoring and improving all aspects of future replacement and improvement to building facades Contracts for the provision and installation of replacement elements of building facades including insulation, replacement double glazing and associated spandrel and infill panels must ensure compliance with ALL parts of Part B if they are to secure safety...”
Unless there is a change in mindset from the construction industry nothing will change, Mansfield says.
Moore-Bick should nudge and encourage the firms involve to disclose more, Mansfield.
He calls for an independent regulatory body to oversee the construction industry. This would challenge the mindset of non-compliance, he says.
The removal of combustible cladding on 306 high rise tower blocks across the UK is too slow, Mansfield tells the inquiry.
He points out that the £400m needed to replace the cladding is coming out of the social housing budget.
Meanwhile new high rise residential buildings are still being constructed.
In that context it is of A1 importance that non combustible material should be used on such blocks, Mansfield says.
There should be an urgent moratorium on the use of combustible material on high rise blocks.
Mansfield sets out possible early recommendations in three areas.
The first is to challenge the compliance mindset.
Second is identifiable safety measure that can be recommended now.
Third is the stay put policy.
Mansfield attacks the Red Tape Initiative which met on the day of the fire to discuss cladding. He describes this group of group “grandees” as intent on dismantling EU regulations considered a hindrance to profit making.
The group zeroed in on the Construction Products Regulation: regulation intended to harmonise the quality of construction materials, including external cladding across the European Union, to ensure safety. This was regulation designed to limit the generation and spread of fire and smoke - regulation that has direct relevance for fires such as the one at Grenfell Tower.
Such was the thinking of the dominant power brokers, during the dying embers of Grenfell Tower. In this atmosphere, safety regulation was sneered at as “red tape folly;” and dismissed as “expensive” and “burdensome.” Put simply, the prevailing orthodoxy was one of profit before safety.
He attacks the arrogance of the group and says it graphically illustrates that the mindset still exists today. It is reflected in the reticent responses so far from the companies involved in the refurbishment, Mansfield says.
Mansfield calls for early safety recommendations
Michael Mansfield QC, also representing the G10 group of bereaved, survivors and residents reminds us that Theresa May set up the inquiry to ensure that no stone was left unturned.
He calls for urgency and reminds Moore-Bick of his hope to have an interim report published by the Easter that has just passed.
Delay risks kicking the report into the long grass, Mansfield says.
The public should not have to wait for recommendations that are obvious during the first phase of the inquiry. He urges Moore-Bick to reconsider the division between parts one and two of the inquiry so recommendations can be made at an earlier stage.
This will help those who have remained silent so far to reconsider, Mansfield claims.
The most obvious concerns could form recommendations as early as this summer. This is vital for the safety of the nation, he says.
This is an imperative, Mansfield says. He cites the example of the Taylor report into the Hillsborough tragedy and the sea change of all seater stadiums introduced in time for the following season.
• This block was amended on 7 June 2018 because an earlier version referred to Mansfield as representing “bereaved, survivors and relatives”, rather than “... residents”.
Updated
Thomas say one of the survivors he represents was Elpidio Banifacio a blind elderly man who lived on the 11th floor.
On the night of the fire when his relatives rang 999 four times thye were told to tell him to get out if he could.
He could not as it was. Let us reflect upon what that means, he was condemned to die.
Thomas called for panel members on the inquiry to reflect the ethnic make up of the tower.
The public and our clients have a right to know that the deaths in the fire were not in vain, Thomas says.
He ends as he began with a quote from Martin Luther King:
Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals
The inquiry pauses for a break
Thomas describes the Grenfell block as a “vertical village” of people who make a valuable contribution to society.
He said the victims included architects, a carer, a chauffeur, a contract managers, and a chef.
He says:
The concept of a vertical village we suggest is apt because it simply means what we remember from a bygone age of an old fashioned ‘community’.
Thomas also says the legacy of the inquiry should be a “zero-risk approach to fire safety in tower blocks”.
Specifically he asks why some of the residents with disabilities were allocated flats on the top floors of the block. And why there were no fire hoses long enough to extend to the upper floors.
And he raises the charged issue of whether the refurbishment of the block was an attempt to gentrify the area.
“The question must be asked whether the refurbishment was simply about beautifying the tower, it not lost that the building in its previous form may have been considered an eyesore to some of the wealthier residents in the borough. It is a legitimate question to ask whether the money spent on the tower was not for the residents but for some of the more wealthy people living in the borough, so that the tower was more aesthetically pleasing to them.”
Thomas urges the inquiry to recommend enshrining in law the right to adequate housing.
He says:
More than anything the Grenfell Tower disaster was a profound breach of the universal human right to an adequate home.
There can be little doubt that had the residents of Grenfell Tower been able to directly enforce their rights to an adequate home in court then at least some of the fire risks that now we know were present on 14 June 2017 would have been identified and rectified before they came to pass with such awful consequences.
Thomas claimed that Shah Ahmed, chair of the leaseholders associations asked the council to conduct a full health and safety audit of the Grenfell Tower two weeks before the fire.
The inquiry will be perceived as a whitewash if the bereaved families can’t ask questions of the authorities.
Thomas claims the failures of management of Grenfell stemmed from the way social housing was stigmatised.
Social housing outside the private sector was important for all people particularly for people of colour, because market choice for people of colour was limited due to discrimination, Thomas says citing his own family background,
The stigma of social housing needs to be debunked, Thomas says.
He adds:
The Inquiry knows that the occupants of Grenfell Tower and the estate of which it was part were mixed and as varied as the population of the great city in which we all live. A significant number of people owned their own homes. But the perception was there: council housing is for those who fail in life. People who need to be managed, not embraced or admired. Desperate people without the agency to improve their lives: the destitute, the disenfranchised, vulnerable and voiceless. Descriptions not of people themselves, but of what society has done to them. This attitude and stereotyping is what allowed the cost cutting and the use of deadly materials to become normalised.
Leslie Thomas QC, representing in the inquiry’s jargon G10 of the BSRs (bereaved, survivors and residents) urged the inquiry to expose wrong doing.
We want the inquiry to focus on the refurbishment, cladding, inadequacy of the safety measure and “gross mismanagement of the building by the TMO” and treatment of residents by the “corporates”.
He acknowledged there may be criticism of the fire fighters, but these are not the primary issue.
Those responsible should hang their heads in shame, Thomas says.
Thomas says one of his clients described the block as “death trap that looked like a pretty private block”.
He adds: “As for the corporates, silence speaks more than thousand words”.
Attempts to obscure the truths will be met with unwavering resistance, Thomas says.
The state has allowed a culture of corporate immunity to take root, he claims. The inquiry should mark the beginning of the end to this culture.
• This block was amended on 7 June 2018 because an earlier version referred to Mansfield as representing “bereaved, survivors and relatives”, rather than “... residents”.
Updated
Menon backs Imran Khan QC’s claim on Tuesday that institutional racism could have been behind the failures of Grenfell Tower.
23 different countries were represented among the bereaved, he points out. It was political as it gets, he said. The fire must speak truth to power.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the inquiry, briefly intervenes after someone from the public gallery shouts out backing Menon. He also stops people applauding Menon’s statement when it finished.
Updated
Kebede bought the Hotpoint fridge freezer new. It had not been repaired or tampered with. The fire was accidental and Kebede bears no responsibility for the fire or its spread, Menon says.
He points out that each year there are 300 fires involving fridges or freezers.
The cause or origin of the fire is not the key question, the issue is how it spread so quickly, Menon says.
Kebede hopes for the inquiry are similar to the other survivors and bereaved families. He hopes it will deliver real justice for the victims and real accountability for those responsible for the refurbishment, Menon says.
The fire was entirely foreseeable, Menon adds. He hopes the inquiry will make a statement to make it clear that he was blameless for the fire. The inquiry needs to set the record straight, and thank him for raising the alarm. This will stop the racist slurs against Kebede.
Menon cites a Guardian comment article questioning the need for a public inquiry. He rejects this.
Kebede did not hesitate in contacting the police on the night of the fire, Menon says.
He has cooperated fully with the police as a witness. He is not a criminal suspect, Kebede lawyer.
After the fire, Kebede was subjected to a campaign of harassment by the media. He and his friends were offered cash for their stories. He refused.
The media intrusion has had serious consequences for Kebede and his family. The police suggested witness protection. He felt “terrified” by the prospect of giving oral evidence to the inquiry, Menon said.
There has been a renewed interest in Kebede since his emergency call was played to the inquiry, Menon says. He appealed to the media to leave Kebede alone.
Kebede loved living in Grenfell Tower after moving to the UK from Ethiopia, and the strong bonds with neighbours, the inquiry heard.
But he hated the refurbishment of the block and the disruption this caused.
'Nasty lie' to report Kebede packed a bag before fleeing fire
Rajiv Menon QC, representing Behailu Kebede, in whose flat the fire started, begins by saying that Kebede had been living in flat 16 for 25 years when he was woken by a fire alarm.
He acted quickly and banged on bed room doors of his neighbours on the fourth shouting “fire fire”.
All he had on him were his clothes and phone. He left without his shoes or wallet or car keys.
It was “nasty lie” to falsely report that Kebede packed a suitcase before leaving, Menon said.
Welcome to day 10 of our continuing live coverage of the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire.
Today is due to start with an opening statement from Behailu Kebede, in whose fourth floor flat the fire started. It will be presented by his lawyer, Rajiv Menon QC.
The inquiry has already heard Kebede’s upsetting phone call to the emergency services to raise the alarm about the fire. Parts of his statement were used in an account by a fire expert of how the fire started, which was presented to the inquiry on Monday, but this is the first time inquiry will hear directly from Kebede, via his lawyer.
An outline of Kebede’s statement [pdf] says it will explain why “he bears no responsibility, directly or indirectly, for the fire”.
It says it will also discuss the way he was hounded by the media after the fire and the impact on him of this “false and intrusive reporting”. Kebede will claim that the tower became an increasingly dangerous place to live and that the fire was “an entirely foreseeable catastrophic event waiting to happen”.
With a total of 10 opening statements, today’s schedule is the most packed this week.
This is the provisional schedule for the week commencing 4 June. https://t.co/xSJwKxjoCZ pic.twitter.com/hIaj2QZ0V1
— Grenfell Inquiry (@grenfellinquiry) June 1, 2018
They include statements from Kensington and Chelsea council; the tenant management organisation (TMO) that ran the tower; several of the firms involved in the refurbishment of the block; and the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
Most of the organisations involved have already submitted statements ranging in length from a page in the case of Celotex [pdf] , the firm that manufactured the combustible insulation used in the cladding of the block, to 10 pages from Arconic [pdf], the US company that made the panels.
Arconic’s statement claims its panels were not responsible for spreading the fire, despite expert evidence to the contrary. Celotex expressed “its deepest sympathy to the families of all those who lost their lives as a result of the fire”.
It is unclear whether more details will be given when the statements are read out. The inquiry is due to begin at 10am.
