Jump to content

Grenfell Cheat? You Decide


Recommended Posts

Carl Stokes is a name I will remember for a very long time.

He was Grenfell Tower's fire risk assessor and had decieved the client to get the contract by fraud and lies. He made up letters as 'post nominals' ie to put after his name. The qualifications didn't even exist.

His CV was a work of fiction and the quality of his work appears poor and clumsy.

Did his sloppy work and lies kill anyone? That is for the Inquiry to determine, but he certainly has a case to answer re his fraudulent behaviour. 

If I sound angry it's because I bloody well am. Grenfell was on my ground when operational. I knew FFs there and I went past the job when it was still going well to reach my job as a competent fire safety consultant 

I do have letters after my name, and like other professionals,  I worked hard to achieve that status. I work hard and with integrity.

OK I have missed things on inspections and I have made mistakes,  but I have never defrauded anyone or worked beyond my capabilities to fill my wallet.

The guy  is a cheat. He accepted he isn't on the IFE register although implying he was by adding IFE eng after his name. He argued he didn't intend to deceive as if anyone would have asked, he would have come clean. Well that's alright then.

He has damaged the reputation of my industry and by default, my reputation.  But the worst thing, he may be protected by an immunity given to some witnesses at the inquiry. Total injustice 

Read this and weep for the victims

  • Like 1
Link to post

I have now listened to over 6 hours of his cheating, lying and smugness. Its really tough going. I have made notes as I couldn't believe what he was saying..sadly, neither could anyone else!

But he is not alone with his dodgy dealings as evidence has emerged about his dealings with the TMO (landlords)

The TMO offered three contracts for tender. 1 each for low, medium and high risk premises. Each contract duration was a year, after which time a review would be carried out to see if the contractor would keep the job

He won the medium risk contract despite not fulfilling all of the criteria and leaving some parts (like the Quality Assurance part) incomplete. At the end of the year, there was no review. His contract rolled over with no review, no competitive tendering- in fact no conversation. and did so six times!!!!

The TMO then awarded him work on the low and high risk premises. There was no procurement process, they were just handed to him. Its clearly laziness or corruption.

Then the Inquiry unravelled a meeting Mr Stokes had with a TMO manager (who managed giving out the contracts). He met with her and then provided a report detailing staff training requirements, two months before he had submitted his tender for the medium risk buildings. 

The QC asked if he remembered that meeting...He didn't. The QC asked why he was working for the TMO before being awarded any contract or even applying through the tendering process......He couldn't remember 

He earned £250,000 before the Grenfell fire and it all feels a bit unsavoury how he come to get the contract

I would not suggest anything he did or didn't do contributed to that fire or the deaths, but he was a little confused about what constitutes a Type 1 and Type 3 fire risk assessment in a block of flats. That is very basic knowledge for anyone engaged in this type of work and quite worrying if that points to his level of competence - although to be fair, it could have been nerves.

Lastly at the beginning of his evidence he said he was a subcontractor for a large and well respected company V. It was V who he sent his dodgy CV to and that had the initial contract for Grenfell.  He was asked about the details of this contract by the QC.... and couldn't remember much at all. "Were you a self employed contractor or staff?" as the QC more than once. The idiot said he was a contractor

Then we saw a statement from the boss of V - a well respected professional and author of FS books. He pointed out Stokes was an employee on set hours and had provided his P45 from Oxfordshire F&R. 

What a complete bell end 

Link to post
  • 1975  Military service. 
  • 1986 Royal Berkshire FRS operational
  • 1994 Oxfordshire FRS as Fire Safety Officer
  • 2009 Retired and became an employee of a FS Consultancy 
  • c2016 set up as soul trader 
  • 2021 confirmed as a  know-it-all-know-nothing-wrong-un

(I told you I took notes!!)

 

Link to post

Although he never had any employees, or partners he traded as  C.S. Stokes & Associates, because he thought that sounded better!

So will he be prosecuted under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006...

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant: 

  • made a false representation 
  • dishonestly 
  • knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading 
  • with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

Link to post

@Kinmel I hope you are right, but I fear he may be one of those exempted for further legal action 

I have no idea what on earth that means in practical terms

But you could argue that if his dishonesty didn't directly or indirectly lead to the fire and resulting injuries or deaths, is there a public interest in this prosecution? (just playing devil's advocate)

However, in the manner to how he was appointed and retained without review by the TMO (with very little process or scrutiny, and without supplying information required by the tender brief) .... and working for the TMO before he even bid for the contract........ that really does smell rotten and involves potential impropriety of £250,000 plus of public funds. That is worth a closer look 

Link to post

They are exempt from legal action based on their statements to the Enquiry.

However, most of the Enquiry's evidence is document based, millions of emails, letters between parties etc.

Stokes wrote to many people on his official letterheading which included his false post-nominals and there is plenty of evidence of that outside the enquiry.

Being retired and spending many hours in my workshop, I invariably have the hearings on in the background and it is amazing how much evidence is circular.

You wrote in 2014, his report in 2016 says, the expert evidence in 2018 shows......  it is amazing how the barristers make so many connections across a mountain of documents.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, Messyshaw said:
  • 1975  Military service. 
  • 1986 Royal Berkshire FRS operational
  • 1994 Oxfordshire FRS as Fire Safety Officer
  • 2009 Retired and became an employee of a FS Consultancy 
  • c2016 set up as soul trader 
  • 2021 confirmed as a  know-it-all-know-nothing-wrong-un

(I told you I took notes!!)

 

That was a much more detailed answer than I expected ! 🤩😂 thanks ! 

  • Haha 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...