The key figures criticised by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Several individuals have faced criticism in the Grenfell Inquiry’s final report over their role in the disaster.

They include figures from both local and central government accused of repeated failures in their duties.

Below are the key figures criticised by name in the inquiry.

– Lord Pickles, communities and local government secretary, 2010-2015

Sir Martin said there was a “wealth of material” to show Lord Pickles was an “ardent supporter” of deregulation and “the pressure within the department to reduce red tape was so strong that civil servants felt the need to put it at the forefront of every decision”.

Lord Pickles himself told the inquiry he would have regarded it as “ludicrous” if civil servants thought the drive for deregulation covered building regulations, but Sir Martin said documentary evidence supported claims by officials that deregulation was “a dominant influence within the department”.

He said it was “not uncommon” for the building regulations and standards division to receive emails thanking them for their efforts in meeting Lord Pickles’ “ambition on deregulation”.

The report said: “In the years that followed the Lakanal House fire the Government’s deregulatory agenda, enthusiastically supported by some junior ministers and the secretary of state (Lord Pickles), dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded.”

It concluded: “The failure to foster a culture in which concerns could be raised and frank advice given represents a serious failure of leadership on the part of ministers and senior officials.”

During the inquiry itself, Lord Pickles provoked outrage from survivors after giving the wrong figure for the number of people killed in the disaster, saying 96 rather than 72.

Following publication of the report, Lord Pickles said: “I welcome the recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry. I particularly welcome the call for greater transparency and co-ordination within government.

“I thank the Inquiry Team for their diligence in a detailed examination of the Grenfell fire and hope the lessons learnt ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

“My thoughts and prayers are with the survivors and their families.”

– Brian Martin, principal construction professional, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

Brian Martin had been the civil servant in charge of building regulations for fire safety for 17 years by the time of the fire, including the guidance in Approved Document B, the official fire safety guidance for the construction industry.

Sir Martin’s inquiry found he had been given “too much freedom of action without adequate oversight” and repeatedly failed to bring fire safety risks to the attention of his superiors.

The report said: “It is not clear how Brian Martin was chosen to be the official with day-to-day responsibility for the Building Regulations and Approved Document B, why he was allowed to remain in that position for so long, or why he was allowed to wield so much influence over the department’s response to developments.”

He also played a role in shutting down the Building Research Establishment’s investigation into the fire after barely a month, citing concerns about the cost of an investigation.

The inquiry accused him of making “misleading statements” to the Lakanal House inquests and providing “disingenuous” advice to then-housing minister Don Foster after the inquests concluded in 2013, in which he “set out to give the minister to understand that the coroner’s concerns were in fact groundless”.

– Carl Stokes, fire assessor, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO)

A former firefighter, Carl Stokes was responsible for carrying out fire assessments for the whole of KCTMO’s estate.

The inquiry found he had been “allowed to drift into” his role, for which he was not qualified.

The report said: “He had misrepresented his experience and qualifications (some of which he had invented) and was ill-qualified to carry out fire risk assessments on buildings the size and complexity of Grenfell Tower, let alone to hold the entire TMO portfolio.

“As a result there was a danger that fire risk assessments would not meet the required standard.”

The report said Mr Stokes’ methods for carrying out fire risk assessments “suffered from serious shortcomings”, including often failing to check whether the TMO had taken action to respond to identified risks.

London Fire Brigade (LFB) officers had also expressed concerns about his competence, but KCTMO “continued to rely uncritically on him”, making the danger “more acute”.

Grenfell United, representing some of the bereaved and survivors, said it was “a damning indictment of this country that amateurs, like Carl Stokes and Brian Martin, can pose to be experts, putting countless lives at risk and taking the lives of our loved ones”.

– Robert Black, chief executive, KCTMO

It said: “That failure was all the more serious because there were chronic and systemic failings in the TMO’s management of fire safety of which the board should have been made aware.”

During the inquiry, retired judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick heard Mr Black waited two hours before forwarding a list of residents to firefighters on the night of the blaze, saying his organisation had no role in emergency planning.

Mr Black quit as KCTMO chief executive on June 30 2017, 16 days after the fire.

– Nicholas Holgate, chief executive, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

Describing Mr Holgate as “reluctant to take advice” from those with more experience, Sir Martin said he was “not capable of taking effective control of the situation and mobilising support of the right kind without delay”.

He resigned on June 22 2017, eight days after the fire.