Haunting photographs reveal Grenfell Tower nonetheless standing immediately

The Grenfell Tower fire on June 14, 2017 has been described as one of the UK’s worst modern disasters, having claimed the lives of 72 residents and left several others homeless. 

The 24-storey, 120-apartment block in Kensington, west London, was engulfed in flames at around 1am after a kitchen on the fourth floor caught alight. 

The fire quickly made its way up the highly flammable Aluminum Composite Cladding (ACM) on the outside of the building which was built in the 1970s but recently renovated. 

By 3am, much of the building had gone up in flames with the fire eventually being extinguished on June 15 – almost 24 hours later. 

Haunting pictures show the tower as it stands today, while others show the historic block before the devastating tragedy and in the days and months after. 

Today the tower has been made into a memorial for the tragedy, with a huge plastic sheet wrapped around the building emblazoned with a green heart and the words ‘Grenfell, forever in our hearts’. 

The area is still considered a crime scene by the Metropolitan Police and therefore is still being used as part of its investigation, however it is unknown when the building is due to be demolished. 

A report published earlier today found that almost every organisation involved in the refurbishment and management building was somewhat responsible for the ‘decades of failure’ which contributed to the tragedy. 

‘Unscrupulous’ manufacturers involved in the renovation of the 67-metre-tall tower a year earlier – including covering it in highly combustible cladding – were admonished for ‘systematic dishonesty’ and for ‘misleading customers’.

Architects demonstrated a ‘cavalier attitude’ to fire and safety regulations, while contractors and the cladding specialists did not properly concern themselves with the matter either.

Grenfell United, which represents some of the families, said Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s findings made it clear their lawyers were correct to tell the inquiry that corporate bodies, such as Kingspan, Celotex and Arconic, were ‘little better than crooks and killers’.

Sir Martin, who today completed his 1,600-page inquiry report into failures in the build-up to the fire, said: ‘None of those involved in the design of the external wall or choice of materials acted in accordance with the standards of a reasonably competent person in their position.’

He criticised successive Governments, local council the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) who owned the tower, the tenant management organisation (TMO) who managed Grenfell, and those who manufactured and supplied the materials used in the refurbishment.

He also hit out at those who certified their suitability for use on high-rise residential buildings, the architect, contractors and some of its subcontractors.

He said: ‘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.

‘The failings can be traced back over many years and our efforts to get to the bottom of what went wrong and why, account for the length of our report and the time it has taken us to produce it.’

Criticising the RBKC, he said: ‘Authorities’ response: those who lost their homes as a result of the fire were badly let down by the organisations that should have provided the support they desperately needed.

‘The primary responsibility for that lay with the council … in the event, it failed to put in place suitable plans.’

He said local voluntary organisations ‘filled the gap’ helping those most in need.

The final hearing of the second phase of the inquiry took place in November 2022, with families having previously spoken of their long wait and continued fight for justice.

The report’s findings are expected to ramp up pressure on police and prosecutors to make speedier progress on getting people before the courts – something many bereaved and survivors have said must happen for justice to be served.

In May, the Metropolitan Police said their investigators need until the end of 2025 to finalise their inquiry, and prosecutors will then need a year to decide whether charges can be brought.

It means victims and their families will likely have waited at least a decade to bring those responsible to account in a UK court.

Bereaved and survivors have described that wait as ‘unbearable’.

Frank Ferguson, head of the Crown Prosecution Service special crime and counter terrorism division said: ‘Our team of specialist prosecutors will then carefully review the file but do not expect to be in a position to make any charging decisions until the end of 2026.’

According to the update from police and prosecutors earlier this year, the mammoth police investigation into the fire has already generated 27,000 lines of inquiry and more than 12,000 witness statements.

A total of 58 individuals and 19 companies and organisations are under investigation for potential criminal offences, and more than 300 hours of interviews have taken place.

Potential offences under consideration include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office, health and safety offences, fraud and offences under the fire safety and building regulations.

Sir Martin’s first report, into what happened on the night of the blaze, ruled the tower’s cladding panels broke building regulations and actively helped spread the blaze.

And he criticised those he felt contributed to that – cladding manufacturers Arconic, Kingspan, whose insulation product made up around 5 per cent of the insulation in the tower block, and Celotex, who made the majority of the insulation boards used in the refurbishment.

He said French firm Arconic ‘deliberately concealed’ from the market the true extent of the danger of using Reynobond 55 PE – aluminium panels containing a plastic filling, that were repeatedly used by councils due to its relatively low cost.

The inquiry found Arconic was ‘determined to exploit what it saw as weak regulatory regimes’ in the UK by continuing to sell this product, despite knowing it performed much worse in a fire than a superior, modified version it also manufactured.

Instead, it allowed customers in the UK to continue buying the unmodified version, and failed to pass on the information about its performance.

He said the fatal choice of combustible materials for the cladding of Grenfell Tower resulted ‘from a series of errors caused by the incompetence of the organisations and individuals involved in the refurbishment’.

But he also pointed the finger at industry body the British Board of Agrement (BBA), who he accused of incompetence for failing to carry out proper checks on building products used in the refurbishment before issuing compliance certificates.

Sir Martin accused successive governments of an at-times ‘complacent and defensive’ attitude to safety, while the response to the tragedy from Theresa May’s own administration and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea local council in the immediate aftermath was ‘muddled, slow, indecisive and piecemeal’.

Sir Martin said both the council – which owned the tower – and the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) which ran it showed a ‘persistent indifference to fire safety’, particularly that of its many vulnerable residents.

But he reserved some of his most powerful criticism for those responsible for firms involved in the refurbishment.

His first report, into what happened on the night of the blaze, ruled the tower’s cladding panels broke building regulations and actively helped spread the blaze.

And he criticised those he felt contributed to that – cladding manufacturers Arconic, Kingspan, whose insulation product made up around 5 per cent of the insulation in the tower block, and Celotex, who made the majority of the insulation boards used in the refurbishment.