The Aziz case highlights the woeful state of regulation. From hospitals to social services, police to building control, regulations on safeguarding children (Rotherham), building safety (Grenfell), media bias (Ofcom/GB News) are, at best, parking tickets, and in general, optional.
There is simply no accountability. The chances of any regulation breach resulting is prosecution are small. The punishments for doing so, ineffectively small to deter potential offenders.
We simply must impose much more accountability. Breaches that threaten life and limb should result in huge fines, invocation of the Proceeds of Crime act and bans on having control over companies or institutions. It is only the threat of ruin that will make these avaricious oligarchs think twice.
You're literally more likely to be punished for using a mobile whilst driving (stupid, dangerous) than you are for allowing people to sleep in a flammable building for a decade, having done everything possible to avoid responsibility for your decision.
Yet again, London Centric delivers. Yet again, Asif Aziz is at the center. Quelle surprise.
It is the same old story and the contrast exposed here is staggering. Grenfell occurred nine years ago, prompting a wave of legislation supposedly designed to make high-density buildings safe. Yet, while thousands of ordinary leaseholders are being held hostage by bills running into the tens of thousands to remediate cladding, this major property developer was able to evade accountability and keep an intolerable fire risk hidden in plain sight for nearly a decade.
As somebody who manages a shared freehold in London, dealing with the fire inspection industry has increasingly felt like (for the rest fo the property industry) paying a financial ransom—this is a sector that has effectively turned post-Grenfell safety compliance into a lucrative cash cow. But while shared freeholders are squeezed for every penny by rigid, box-ticking surveyors, a billionaire developer can simply demand and receive multiple rewrites to scrub a draft report of its caveats and warnings.
For me, the real next question here is the works of Clarke Banks. If they compromised their independence on this high-rise building for Azis, how many other buildings have they done the same for? What is their professional integrity? The entire property sector is a self-regulated industry and this, excuse the pun, is a smoking gun.
LondonCentric keeps publishing exposés like this. What we need now is a politician—whether it is the Mayor of London, a local London MP, or the Housing Minister—to step up and treat the evidence uncovered by London Centric as an actionable brief. It is time for a formal inquiry into the fire safety inspection industry, a complete audit of Clarke Banks' historic reports, and genuine statutory penalties for developers who manipulate safety data for economic gain.
I saw two Wayve (which I have been calling Waymo in my head, victim of the lapsus) vehicles yesterday, in two different parts of the city. One of them was on the move with a driver behind the wheel, and the other was parked, though the weird and slightly obnoxious equipment on its roof and around it was somehow still active and loud. It was empty, though a bag of sweets and a bottle of soda were traces of a probable human driver, unless self-driving cars need a sugar boost nowadays. I see them quite often around, which I'm not sure how to feel about (or how taxi/Uber/etc drivers do either).
Sadly I've moaned about this before.
The Aziz case highlights the woeful state of regulation. From hospitals to social services, police to building control, regulations on safeguarding children (Rotherham), building safety (Grenfell), media bias (Ofcom/GB News) are, at best, parking tickets, and in general, optional.
There is simply no accountability. The chances of any regulation breach resulting is prosecution are small. The punishments for doing so, ineffectively small to deter potential offenders.
We simply must impose much more accountability. Breaches that threaten life and limb should result in huge fines, invocation of the Proceeds of Crime act and bans on having control over companies or institutions. It is only the threat of ruin that will make these avaricious oligarchs think twice.
You're literally more likely to be punished for using a mobile whilst driving (stupid, dangerous) than you are for allowing people to sleep in a flammable building for a decade, having done everything possible to avoid responsibility for your decision.
"Due to the UK’s unreformed property transparency laws, the owner is obscured by a trust and we’ll never know who stumped up the cash."
How is this not reformed in 2026? Different rules for the dirty wealthy.
I want more on the secret olive story that you are quite clearly sitting on😂
and an update on the Subway cornichon shortage while we're at it :)
Yet again, London Centric delivers. Yet again, Asif Aziz is at the center. Quelle surprise.
It is the same old story and the contrast exposed here is staggering. Grenfell occurred nine years ago, prompting a wave of legislation supposedly designed to make high-density buildings safe. Yet, while thousands of ordinary leaseholders are being held hostage by bills running into the tens of thousands to remediate cladding, this major property developer was able to evade accountability and keep an intolerable fire risk hidden in plain sight for nearly a decade.
As somebody who manages a shared freehold in London, dealing with the fire inspection industry has increasingly felt like (for the rest fo the property industry) paying a financial ransom—this is a sector that has effectively turned post-Grenfell safety compliance into a lucrative cash cow. But while shared freeholders are squeezed for every penny by rigid, box-ticking surveyors, a billionaire developer can simply demand and receive multiple rewrites to scrub a draft report of its caveats and warnings.
For me, the real next question here is the works of Clarke Banks. If they compromised their independence on this high-rise building for Azis, how many other buildings have they done the same for? What is their professional integrity? The entire property sector is a self-regulated industry and this, excuse the pun, is a smoking gun.
LondonCentric keeps publishing exposés like this. What we need now is a politician—whether it is the Mayor of London, a local London MP, or the Housing Minister—to step up and treat the evidence uncovered by London Centric as an actionable brief. It is time for a formal inquiry into the fire safety inspection industry, a complete audit of Clarke Banks' historic reports, and genuine statutory penalties for developers who manipulate safety data for economic gain.
I wish I could like this comment x 1000.
Well done for becoming part of literary culture
I saw two Wayve (which I have been calling Waymo in my head, victim of the lapsus) vehicles yesterday, in two different parts of the city. One of them was on the move with a driver behind the wheel, and the other was parked, though the weird and slightly obnoxious equipment on its roof and around it was somehow still active and loud. It was empty, though a bag of sweets and a bottle of soda were traces of a probable human driver, unless self-driving cars need a sugar boost nowadays. I see them quite often around, which I'm not sure how to feel about (or how taxi/Uber/etc drivers do either).
You'll mainly see Wayve around Kings Cross, etc, as their depot is around the back of egg nightclub.
Also, just much more subtle than Waymo, who have got for the full 'techno hat laser' setup on their vehicles.
Speaking of olives was there ever an update on the Subway cornichon shortage? Why they couldn't just use gherkins is beyond me...
Pret. And yes I have doubts.
I apologise for getting the chain wrong (just shows my anti Subway bias)