Kensington and Chelsea Grenfell contractor policy

1 Background
2 Initial ban
3 Extended ban
4 Partial lifting of the ban
5 Related articles on Designing Buildings

[edit] Background

Following the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy which killed 72 people, on June 14, 2017, it was determined that it was the highly combustible cladding and insulation materials, installed during the refurbishment that accelerated the fire’s spread. The building, located in the Kensington and Chelsea Borough of London, was managed by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). Rydon was the main contractor and Celotex, Kingspan, and Arconic supplied the combustible materials

[edit] Initial ban

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report was published in 2019 and found serious systemic failures at the council and KCTMO which included cost-cutting decisions, poor oversight, and regulatory negligence, it also condemned the subcontractors and manufacturers for misleading behaviour and avoidance of responsibility.

In 2021 the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) council imposed an indefinite ban on the contractors and manufacturers involved with the project which included Rydon, Celotex, Kingspan, and Arconic, from bidding on, winning, or being part of any future council contracts, including via sub-contractors or frameworks.

[edit] Extended ban

The Grenfell phase 2 final report, published in October 2024, further highlighted systemic issues within the industry and those involved in the project and criticised the culture of blame that had been exposed by the Inquiry, see also the article: Web of blame.

After the publication of the report (which had also highlighted the council's own failures) RBKC announced in November 2024 that it would strengthen and expand the ban to all companies involved in the project. During a meeting in December 2024, the council leadership formally extended exclusions to include not just the core companies but any associated contractors or products sourced from them, regardless of project type or building height.

[edit] Partial lifting of the ban

On 23 February 2025, Siderise insulation, which supplied cavity barriers used during the renovation, announced a judicial review challenging its inclusion on the banned list. Siderise argued its products did not meet RBKC’s own criteria and no wrongdoing was found in the Inquiry regarding its conduct. At the time RBKC maintained its position and stood by its decision.

Siderise argued in court that the decision by RBKC was irrational and inconsistent with the Council’s own policy criteria and based on a misreading of the Phase 2 Report. It also argued that the ban was inconsistent with the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR15).

Importantly the court decision was not based on alignment with the UK Procurement Act 2023 that came into force a day after the start of the proceedings. The new act gradually replaces the PCR15 and does give greater flexibility for suppliers to effectively be banned, and for them to be added to a national debarment list from future public procurement procedures. But this needs to be done so in response to specific breaches in the law or misconduct and an investigative process has to first be followed in which the supplier is allowed to make representations.

On 17 July the RBKC announced on its website that it was lifting the ban that had been applied to Siderise but retained the rest of the list of companies banned from its procurement. A full updated list of the adopted policy preventing contractors on RBKC building and refurbishment projects from using certain companies as suppliers or subcontractors can be found on the RBKC contractor policy update here. Siderise also announced the update on their website on 17 July 2025 as "Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea removes Siderise from policy decision".

On 11 December 2024 another company on the RBKC list of banned companies, Artelia, challenged their inclusion in the policy announced, saying the company had not been included in the parties identified by the Grenfell Inquiry as responsible for causing or contributing to the fire. The challenge was carried out by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ultra vires the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, irrational and taken pursuant to a procedurally unfair process, Brick Court Chambers said. The claim was listed to be heard in October 2025 but was in the end settled shortly before the trial, with the council agreeing to pay Artelia’s costs. As such further announcement on the RBKC website confirmed that the "policy was withdrawn in relation to Artelia Projects UK Limited on 2 October 2025. This means that the policy does not apply to Artelia Projects UK Limited and it is not a banned supplier."