The distrust, dislike and anger of the Grenfell Tower landlords towards its residents led to “a serious failure… to observe basic responsibilities”, an inquiry report has concluded.

The chairman of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, said some occupants regarded Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) as a “bullying overlord” and a “toxic atmosphere” was “fuelled by mistrust on both sides”.

The report concluded the KCTMO “lost sight” of the fact that residents “depended on it for a safe and decent home”, and it regarded some as “militant troublemakers”.

Former Tower resident Edward Daffarn told the PA news agency that he knew the report was “not going to be a Poirot moment where a murderer will be revealed and in fact all the suspects were carrying the knife”.

He said: “I don’t think any recommendations will ever go far enough.

“I think we are at a very significant moment in the Grenfell journey.

“We’ve waited seven years for change and it hasn’t come – this report needs to be a catalyst for change, we need to make sure these recommendations are enacted, are enacted without delay.”

Mr Daffarn added: “I’m not confident that all the recommendations are going to be implemented, but if they were and if the construction industry changed, and if the social housing regulation Bill is fully enforced, and people in social housing are treated better than they were before the fire, there will be some sort of legacy.”

Despite the findings, the report concluded that the inquiry had seen “no evidence that any decisions directly affecting the design or execution of the refurbishment (completed in 2016) were affected by racial or social prejudice”.

Sir Martin’s report said KCTMO was also “unduly concerned with reducing costs” of a refurbishment between 2012 and 2016.

He said Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Council’s oversight of KCTMO’s performance was “weak”, adding that “fire safety was not subject to any key performance indicator”.

The report concluded: “The absence of any independent or rigorous scrutiny by RBKC of the TMO’s performance of its health and safety obligations, and in particular its management of fire safety, was a particular weakness.”

The leader of RBKC, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, apologised “unreservedly and with my whole heart”, adding: “We failed to keep people safe before and during the refurbishment and we failed to treat people with humanity and care in the aftermath.”

Addressing the relationship between Grenfell Tower landlords and residents, the report said: “We have concluded from all the evidence that, from 2011 to 2017, relations between the TMO and many of the residents of Grenfell Tower were increasingly characterised by distrust, dislike, personal antagonism and anger.

“Some, perhaps many, occupants of the tower regarded the TMO as an uncaring and bullying overlord that belittled and marginalised them, regarded them as a nuisance, or worse, and failed to take their concerns seriously.

“For its part, the TMO regarded some of the residents as militant troublemakers led on by a handful of vocal activists, principally Edward Daffarn, whose style they found offensive.

“The result was a toxic atmosphere fuelled by mistrust on both sides.”

Mr Daffarn previously said he was hopeful of vindication for those he said had been painted as “rebel residents” who were “difficult” in their dealings with the RBKC and KCTMO.

Edward Daffarn leaning against a rail
Activist resident Edward Daffarn was said to have been regarded as a ‘militant troublemaker’ (Lucy North/PA)

Asked if he felt vindicated following Sir Martin’s findings, Mr Daffarn said: “Completely. The TMO have been called out for what I’ve always described them as – a mini-mafia, a non-functioning organisation.

“Although Sir Martin didn’t use those terms, every other term that he used would describe them in that way.

“They were not fit to manage social housing. They never were fit to manage social housing.

“We tried to get a warning out about them – we failed to do that, and as a consequence 72 lives were lost.”

Sir Martin’s report continued: “In the end however, responsibility for the maintenance of the relationship between the TMO and the Grenfell community fell not on the members of that community, who had a right to be treated with respect, but on the TMO as a public body exercising control over the building which contained their homes.

“The TMO lost sight of the fact that the residents were people who depended on it for a safe and decent home and the privacy and dignity that a home should provide.

“That dependence created an unequal relationship and a corresponding need for the TMO to ensure that, whatever the difficulties, the residents were treated with understanding and respect.

“We have concluded that the TMO failed to recognise that need and therefore failed to take steps necessary to ensure that it was met.

“However irritating and inconvenient it may at times have found the complaints and demands of some of the residents of Grenfell Tower, for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe basic responsibilities.”

Commenting on KCTMO’s approach to the refurbishment, Sir Martin said: “One conclusion that emerges clearly from the evidence is that the TMO was unduly concerned with reducing costs.

“From the outset the TMO was struggling to keep the project within budget.

“As the costs rose, it was dependent on the council for additional funds and from time to time they were made available, but still the TMO looked for reductions in the costs of the project rather than to go back to the council for more money.”

The report added: “Although the TMO was anxious to keep the cost of the refurbishment down, and although some of the decisions taken to achieve that end were ultimately responsible for the tragedy, we saw no evidence that any of those responsible for them was aware of their potential consequences.”