Firms involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower have expressed "no trace of responsibility" for the catastrophic fire, despite experts saying the work failed to comply with building regulations, an inquiry has heard.
The second phase of the investigation into the disaster opened on Monday and will consider how the high-rise block came to be wrapped in flammable cladding, which phase one found was the main reason for the rapid spread of flames.
Counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC said in his opening remarks:
With the sole exception of RBKC (Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea), not a single core participant involved in the primary refurbishment of Grenfell Tower has felt able to make an unqualified submission against its own interests. With that solitary exception, Mr Chairman, one finds in those detailed and carefully crafted statements no trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened at Grenfell Tower.
Mr Millett told chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick he should bear in mind a conclusion reached in the first part of the inquiry, that work "did not comply with certain key aspects of the building regulations".
The lead architect for the refurbishment, Studio E, said it "did not have any knowledge that the products used on the tower were unsafe" and called itself a "conscientious, ethical, and responsible" firm.
In a statement to the inquiry, it said:
Product manufacturers produced materials and testing data which had the effect of misleading designers to consider that their products were safe. Studio E considers that it acted as would be expected as a reasonably competent architect in its position", the firm added, saying it "hopes that this investigation establishes why so many professionals and building control departments across the country considered these materials to be suitable for use.
The second stage of the investigation comes after a member of the inquiry panel resigned, after she was linked to a charitable arm of the firm which supplied the tower block's deadly cladding.