Taking responsibility for fire

These questions go to the heart of the culture of how council housing is managed. The final report will no doubt have a lot to say about the way in which the issue of fire safety is handled by landlords of high density dwellings; about the culture of risk and fire safety.

There are some clues emerging about the way in which the London Borough of Southwark has approached fire safety in blocks not dissimilar to Lakanal House.

Other local officials elsewhere in the country whose job it is to deal with housing will no doubt be paying close attention to developments in SE5.

No matter how much Southwark get it in the neck; make no mistake the final report will have national consequences.

In the weeks following the fire I visited a number of estates in Southwark. It remains abundantly clear that many tenants and residents haven't the first clue how fire safety affects them in their tower blocks.

Absence of a widely discussed plan, poor lighting in the communal areas and a complete absence, in some cases, of signage to direct people in the event of fire are just the obvious shortcomings in local attention to fire detail.

As my cameraman put it, how would you get out at night with young children if you were 20 floors up?

Well, actually this isn't the way things are supposed to work. In 2006 a new fire safety regime was rolled out by the government. At the centre of the 2005 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order was the need for a landlord to appoint a "Responsible Person" to look after fire safety issues.

It was supposed to take a year to get everyone used to the regulations. It's becoming clearer by the day that in 2009 there are still huge flaws in the way this regime has been implemented and is being monitored.

Fire safety experts describe it as lackadaisical in some places, downright complacent in others. I'm sure there are numerous examples of excellence; Southwark is not turning out to be one of them.

The "Responsible Person" wasn't to be a broom cupboard attendant, but someone, in the case of a local authority, who reported direct to the Chief Executive; in other words a senior member of management who had proper training.

Earlier this week the London Fire Brigade made public three fire enforcement notices it's slapped on Southwark. These technical documents are not for shrinking violets in the current climate.

All three point to a catalogue of fire mishaps waiting to happen. In short adequate fire prevention measures are urgently needed in three tower blocks housing hundreds of tenants to make them safe in the eyes of the law.

I got wind of issues with one of the blocks a few weeks back. When I asked Southwark at the time if there were still outstanding issues in Perronet House in Elephant and Castle they assured me and other residents that there was no cause for anxiety.

This assurance was given at the same time as negotiating with the London Fire Brigade about what they had to put right; the enforcement notices were the result.

Perhaps they hadn't quite grasped the kernel of the fire safety enforcement notices on the three tower blocks (Marie Curie, Castlemead and Perronet) because the first line of all three states "there is no suitable or sufficient risk assessment carried out". Beats me how you could know there's no problem, if no risk assessment has been carried out.

Anyway, back to that senior management "Responsible Person" that the 2006 changes said was a legal requirement. Well you'd think that person might have noticed these large tower blocks had no "suitable or sufficient risk assessment".

If I were the Chief Executive of Southwark I would be paying particular attention to the way that "Responsible Person" continues to carry out their duties.

That is if such a person exists. I have asked Southwark several times who this person is but they seem incapable of identifying such a public official. I'm told by people close to the Council that in 2006 a new regime in Southwark cleared out the housing department.

Amongst others they released all the compliance officers whose job it was, among other things, to ensure fire risk assessments on buildings were carried out.

This would have been of particular importance when refurbishments were being carried out. Lakanal House remember had its refurbishment process approved and delivered during 2006 and 2007.

The 2005 law states, the compliance officers, should have been replaced by a "Responsible Person". Southwark is so far unwilling to share information about who their "Responsible Person" is.

Perhaps if you're a high-rise tenant in Southwark you should be asking to see the fire risk assessment for your block of flats.

It seems the law is there to protect you but that those responsible for making sure the culture of fire safety is paramount have been less than thorough.