Arconic Architectural Products SAS · building safety · public inquiry · criminal investigation · product safety
What did the Grenfell Tower Inquiry find about Arconic's cladding panels, and has anyone been charged?
As of 30 October 2026, no charging decision has been announced. The Metropolitan Police submitted files on 20 companies and organisations and 54 individuals to the Crown Prosecution Service in late September 2026, and the CPS is reported to have committed to decisions before June 2027, but the sources reviewed do not name the organisations or say whether Arconic is among them. The Inquiry's Phase 2 report (September 2024) found that Arconic deliberately concealed the true extent of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form. Arconic says AAP did not sell an unsafe product or conceal information, and an inquiry cannot determine civil or criminal liability.
Last verified 30 October 2026. United Kingdom
The record at a glance
| What was alleged? | The Grenfell Tower Inquiry found that from 2005 until after the fire Arconic deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of using Reynobond 55 PE panels in cassette form, especially on high-rise buildings. It also found that Arconic caused the BBA to make statements in a certificate that Arconic knew to be false and misleading.1 |
|---|---|
| Who made the claim? | Grenfell Tower Inquiry (Chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick), 4 September 2024 |
| How did Arconic respond? | Arconic's position is that its subsidiary Arconic Architectural Products SAS (AAP) sold aluminium composite material as specified in the design process, that the product was safe to use and legal to sell in the UK, and that AAP did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customer or the public. It acknowledges AAP's role as one of the material suppliers to the refurbishment, says AAP cooperated fully with the Inquiry and will continue to engage with further legal processes, and says AAP has, with other parties, made financial contributions to settlements for those affected and to a restorative justice fund.2,3,4 (the subject's position) |
| Was there an official finding? | The Grenfell Tower Inquiry made findings of fact in September 2024 that Arconic deliberately concealed the true extent of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form. These are findings of a statutory inquiry, which has no power to determine civil or criminal liability.1,7 Arconic Architectural Products SAS supplied the aluminium composite material sheets used to make the rainscreen for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, which the company acknowledges.2 |
| Was liability determined? | No, liability was not determined. No court has determined civil or criminal liability of Arconic Architectural Products SAS in the sources reviewed. The Inquiry's findings are not determinations of liability under section 2 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Police files on unnamed organisations and individuals are with the CPS, and no charging decision had been announced as of 30 October 2026.5,7 |
| What changed later? | As of 30 October 2026, the CPS is considering police files on 20 organisations and 54 individuals, with charging decisions reported as due before June 2027.5,6 |
| When was this checked? | 30 October 2026 |
What was alleged?
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry found that from 2005 until after the fire Arconic deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of using Reynobond 55 PE panels in cassette form, especially on high-rise buildings. It also found that Arconic caused the BBA to make statements in a certificate that Arconic knew to be false and misleading.1
Made by Grenfell Tower Inquiry (Chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick) on 4 September 2024.
What did Arconic say?
Arconic's position is that its subsidiary Arconic Architectural Products SAS (AAP) sold aluminium composite material as specified in the design process, that the product was safe to use and legal to sell in the UK, and that AAP did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customer or the public. It acknowledges AAP's role as one of the material suppliers to the refurbishment, says AAP cooperated fully with the Inquiry and will continue to engage with further legal processes, and says AAP has, with other parties, made financial contributions to settlements for those affected and to a restorative justice fund.2,3,4
"We reject any claim that AAP sold an unsafe product"
Arconic (company statement), 4 September 2024. This is the subject's own account, not a finding.
What do independent records show?
Phase 2 Report, Volume 1, Executive Summary paras 2.19 to 2.27
Grenfell Tower Inquiry, 4 September 2024
The Inquiry found systematic dishonesty by those who made and sold the rainscreen panels and insulation products. On Arconic it found deliberate concealment of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form, a deliberate strategy to keep selling the product in the UK on the basis of a fire performance statement Arconic knew to be false, and that Arconic caused the BBA to make false and misleading statements.1
Operation Northleigh update, submission of files to the Crown Prosecution Service (as reported)
Metropolitan Police Service, 30 September 2026
The Met said it had submitted files on 20 companies and organisations and 54 individuals for the CPS to consider offences including corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, health and safety offences, fraud and misconduct in public office. The Met said the CPS had committed to charging decisions before the tenth anniversary of the fire in June 2027.5,6
What was established?
- The Grenfell Tower Inquiry made findings of fact in September 2024 that Arconic deliberately concealed the true extent of the danger of Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form. These are findings of a statutory inquiry, which has no power to determine civil or criminal liability.1,7
- Arconic Architectural Products SAS supplied the aluminium composite material sheets used to make the rainscreen for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, which the company acknowledges.2
Distinctions that matter here
- A public inquiry finding is not a criminal conviction or a civil judgment.
- A file submitted to the CPS is a request for a charging decision, not a charge.
Was liability determined?
No, liability was not determined. No court has determined civil or criminal liability of Arconic Architectural Products SAS in the sources reviewed. The Inquiry's findings are not determinations of liability under section 2 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Police files on unnamed organisations and individuals are with the CPS, and no charging decision had been announced as of 30 October 2026.5,7
What remains unresolved?
- The sources reviewed do not identify which companies or individuals are the subject of the files on 20 organisations and 54 individuals sent to the CPS.
- The CPS charging decisions are pending.
- Arconic says AAP has contributed to settlements for those affected. The terms of those settlements were not researched for this entry.
What is the current status?
As of 30 October 2026, the CPS is considering police files on 20 organisations and 54 individuals, with charging decisions reported as due before June 2027.5,6
As of 30 October 2026. Next known step: 14 June 2027 CPS reported commitment to make charging decisions before the tenth anniversary of the fire.
Timeline
- Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report is published, with findings about Arconic.1
- Arconic issues a statement rejecting claims that AAP sold an unsafe product or concealed information.2
- Met Police reported to have submitted files on 20 organisations and 54 individuals to the CPS.5,6
Sources
- Grenfell Tower Inquiry (published on GOV.UK), Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report, Volume 1 (Overview and Executive Summary), 4 September 2024 · document record Government, parliamentary or audit document
- Arconic, Arconic Statement in Response to the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 Report, 4 September 2024 · document record Filing or formal statement by the subject
- Arconic Architectural Products SAS, Arconic Statement (Grenfell anniversary statement) · document record Filing or formal statement by the subject
- Housebuilder, Grenfell material firms respond to criticism in report, 4 September 2024 Independent reporting
- Local Government Lawyer, Met Police submits Grenfell files to CPS for charging decisions, 30 September 2026 Independent reporting
- LexisNexis, Met submits Grenfell Tower investigation files to CPS for charging decisions (LNB News 01/10/2026), 1 October 2026 Independent reporting
- legislation.gov.uk, Inquiries Act 2005, section 2 · document record Court, legislation, official register or regulator record
Revision history
- 30 October 2026: First published after source verification.
Related: Arconic Architectural Products SAS, building safety, public inquiry, criminal investigation, product safety, United Kingdom. To submit a document or request a correction, see right of reply.