BRE Evidence - Monday 1st March 2021 (1/2)

Name: BRE Evidence - Monday 1st March 2021 (1/2)
Uploaded: 2021-03-01
Duration: 3 h 8 s
Description: Grenfell Tower Inquiry - BRE Evidence - Monday 1st March 2021 (1/2)

1 March 2021 · BRE - Stephen Howard, Counsel to the Inquiry · 3:00:08

▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

Grenfell Tower Inquiry - BRE Evidence - Monday 1st March 2021 (1/2)

Key moments

00:03:19AdmissionOn cement board "simulating" cladding: "That's the first time I've seen that email... I'll conclude that they considered they were simulating the cladding"
00:06:51AdmissionAsked if ever seen cementitious particle board used on high-rise: "I can't recall" - cement boards common but not that specific type
00:12:01ContentiousOn issuing classification despite non-representative test: "What you are testing is a product defined by manufacturer... the classification is just a pass/fail statement"
00:40:09AdmissionOn including Part 2 burn-through data in Part 1 classification: "It was an oversight on my part... I've made a mistake that shouldn't have gone out like that"
00:44:00AdmissionClassification referenced wrong annex (Annex B not Annex A): "That's a mistake... quite a mistake... applies whole set of wrong criteria"
00:50:23ContentiousOn not warning test was 10 years old: "In hindsight we probably should have" put caveat on classification report about age
01:37:03AdmissionOn Kingspan as revenue source for BRE: "Potentially a significant source of revenue... potentially a huge source of income over coming years"
01:38:06ContentiousDenies refusing classification would upset revenue: "It didn't come down to upsetting Kingspan... we have a lot of clients who spend money with BRE"
02:15:59AdmissionOn removing "full manufacturer's details held on file" from classification: "I would have been aware those statements have been removed" - didn't question why
02:21:01AdmissionOn inability to replicate system from documents: "I think there should have been further checks... if it needed to be replicated" could have found details

Full transcript

00:00:10 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr stephen howard who at the time with which we were concerned was employed by the bre

00:00:22 was employed by the bre so my first task is just to make sure that mr hyde can see me and hear me and the rest of us clearly mr howard good morning good morning i can hear you see you good

00:00:33 good morning i can hear you see you good thank you very much um before we resume taking your evidence let me just uh remind you that uh the procedure will be essentially as it was last week on thursday but we better

00:00:45 last week on thursday but we better begin with a little bit of housekeeping uh can you confirm that you're on your own

00:00:50 own in the room from which you're giving your evidence i am on my own thank you can you confirm that you don't have any documents or other materials with you

00:00:59 with you no and can you also confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages i

00:01:11 which is capable of receiving messages i don't have any electronic devices that are capable of very good thank you very much well as last week your legal representatives are in the virtual hearing room although uh they

00:01:22 virtual hearing room although uh they know that they must keep their microphones and cameras switched off unless there's absolutely emergency requires them to intervene

00:01:34 anything you would like to raise before we start uh no thanks all right thank you well we'll have the usual break at about quarter past eleven

00:01:45 past eleven um at this point i'll ask mr millett to continue putting questions to you thank you very much when you're ready mr miller thank you thank you very much mr chairman good morning and good morning members of the

00:01:57 morning and good morning members of the panel and good morning mr howard okay just to ask you first can you hear me clearly okay yes thank you we were discussing together your role in the

00:02:09 discussing together your role in the classification in september 2015 of the 2005 kingspan k15 insulation uh can we look next please at

00:02:20 insulation uh can we look next please at the email kin4047911

00:02:37 this is an email from either meredith uh to david hall and sarah colwell on the 30th of may 2005 and he explains who's going to be at the

00:02:48 and he explains who's going to be at the test the next day he identifies himself uh and others from kingspan uh and then uh if you um go a little bit lower

00:03:01 then uh if you um go a little bit lower uh down the email you could see about two thirds of the way down uh it says cos h data will follow in the morning

00:03:12 cos h data will follow in the morning for the cool therm k15 and the six millimeter cement board that simulates the cladding can you see that

00:03:19 that okay and yes would you agree that that description using the word simulates indicates that the cement board was

00:03:26 board was not truly representative of rain screen clouding at least so far as mr meredith thought well that's the first time i've seen that

00:03:37 that's the first time i've seen that email but on the basis of what's been said there then yes i'll conclude that they considered that not to be uh that they were simulating the clan

00:03:48 that they were simulating the clan insist yes can we look at the s8414 briefly just say that we're we're clear about what's required this is a cel401205

00:03:59 what's required this is a cel401205 please

00:04:03 and i'd like to go to page five in that document

00:04:12 and let's look together at paragraph 2.1 external cladding system and this sits within the part of bs8414 part 1 2002

00:04:24 part 1 2002 which is the terms of the definitions and 2.1 says external cladding system and it's defined as a complete cladding assembly

00:04:33 assembly including for example sheeting rails fixings cavities insulation and weathering membranes or coatings

00:04:40 coatings and then if you look under a little bit further down under principle section three uh it says see the whole thing the external cladding system is applied

00:04:50 applied to a vertical external masonry surface simulating the external face of a building in the form of a main face together with a return wing again you see the word simulating there

00:05:02 again you see the word simulating there and then under paragraph 4.1.1 on page

00:05:08 six

00:05:13 uh it says uh the uh under general under test facility that it says the test apparatus shall be representative of the face of a building and can and shall consist of a masonry

00:05:24 and can and shall consist of a masonry or masonry infill structure with a vertical main test wall and a vertical return wall weighing at 90 degree angles too and one side of the main test wall

00:05:35 one side of the main test wall and then at 5.1 if we go to page 9 under general

00:05:44 it says the external cladding system shall include all relevant components assembled and installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions now when you did your

00:05:57 now when you did your classification report for kingspan in september 2015 were you familiar with these requirements in the uh bs8414 part one standard

00:06:09 in the uh bs8414 part one standard from 19 from 2005. yes yes as at that date how do you ever come across a cementitious particle board used in the real world as a rain screen cladding

00:06:21 the real world as a rain screen cladding panel on a high rise i believe you've come across cement-based balls on cladding system yes cement baseboards on planning systems in general perhaps but

00:06:32 planning systems in general perhaps but my question was a cementitious particle board

00:06:34 board just no more no less than that as described

00:06:38 described cementitious particle board had you ever come across one of those used in the real world on a rain screen cladding panel on a high-rise building uh i can't recall but as i said

00:06:51 uh i can't recall but as i said cement-based balls are quite common on claddages on a high-rise cutting system

00:07:00 how do you ever come across one in real life used

00:07:03 life used above 18 meters cement based bulbs but not specifically of that description huh okay

00:07:10 huh okay now looking at mr heath's witness statement can we please uh i'll show you what he said if we can go to

00:07:22 kin3020709 please page 72.

00:07:33 kin3020709 paragraph 11.11 at the bottom of the page there he says either meredith would have selected the exact materials however the decision to use a

00:07:45 however the decision to use a representative non-combustible cladding panel

00:07:48 panel in the 2005 bs8414 test would have been the result of more general discussions which are likely to have taken place primarily between me either and the commercial team but also as part of wider discussions with the technical team i agreed with the

00:08:00 technical team i agreed with the approach taken in the use of selected panels being as being representative of non-combustible cladding panels so that's what he said but i now want to show you what mr

00:08:11 said but i now want to show you what mr meredith says and the transcript for his error evidence to the inquiry is at day 75 page 69 please

00:08:35 and if we go to line 20 you can see that he says uh obviously perhaps i should back up a little bit uh he's asked by uh leading council line 16 and when you

00:08:49 uh leading council line 16 and when you say a non-combustible board that was available available to who in the market what market that you could buy in the uk market right and then he says at line 20 obviously this wasn't supposed to be a cladding system this

00:09:00 supposed to be a cladding system this was supposed just supposed to be representative of a non-combustible outer layer that's what he says uh and he explains that a little bit further on

00:09:12 that a little bit further on uh at page 75 um sorry day 75 page 59.

00:09:21 we can just go back to page 59.

00:09:27 on that page at line four he says although the bre had suggested that if we tested the non-combustible taddy we will be acceptable for use with all non-combustible cladding systems

00:09:39 non-combustible cladding systems and then he says at page 63 a little bit further on

00:09:46 line 17 he says in answer to the and this is the question

00:09:52 question that the discussion that you thought might have been with sarah colwell about being able to extrapolate from this test might have been with philip hall david hall yes sorry david paul uh and then he goes on this is the final

00:10:05 uh and then he goes on this is the final piece i'll show you page 70

00:10:13 at line 10 he says well the question is so would you accept that as constructed it wasn't representative of a real-life real-world cladding system at the time answer at line 13 no we were just

00:10:25 answer at line 13 no we were just looking we were looking just to put a non-combustible layer on the outside so it could be extrapolated by the bre to apply to many non-combustible outer layers or any non-combustible outer

00:10:36 non-combustible outer layer and then he's asked a bit more you began that answer with no did you in fact mean yes the question i put to you was so would you accept that as constructed it wasn't

00:10:48 that as constructed it wasn't representative of a real-life real-world planning system at the time you said no do you mean no answer it's not directly representative so that was his evidence

00:11:00 so that was his evidence uh question um it looks from this to you except from this at least as a basis that the bre were aware at the time 2005

00:11:12 were aware at the time 2005 that the purpose uh uh of using cement fiberboard cement particle board as the outermost layer

00:11:21 layer was um not to represent an actual cladding system but to be used as the basis for extrapolating systems for multiple use

00:11:36 yes yes so in the light of the fact that the cladding system was simply supposed to be representative

00:11:48 be representative uh in that test how could you justify issuing a classification report because my view at the time is that what you are testing is a product

00:12:01 that what you are testing is a product that is supplied by the manufacturer is defined by the manufacturer if the product sits within the scope of bs8414 we're not involved within the

00:12:13 bs8414 we're not involved within the design

00:12:14 design and on that basis the classification is just a past file statement i was aware at the time that cement-based were being installed and being used in

00:12:25 were being installed and being used in buildings over 18 meters it was on that basis that there is a test report available and the test report is quite clear on what was installed but a pass fail statement against that

00:12:37 but a pass fail statement against that system

00:12:38 system could be issued well you know last answer you say if the product sits within the scope for bs8414

00:12:47 bs8414 i just want to follow that up just a little bit more i've shown you the language quite carefully

00:12:54 carefully within the within the text of bs8414 part one from the time of the test given those

00:13:05 from the time of the test given those passages i've shown you do you accept that you were required to consider whether or not the external wall arrangement as tested in 2005 was a complete system representative

00:13:17 was a complete system representative of a system which would be applied to the external face of a building in the real world

00:13:26 well as i said the report was a full bs-8414 report and that's what i've based my decision on i think in light of the emails and evidence has

00:13:37 in light of the emails and evidence has come to light since which i wasn't aware of then that is an area that i would probably

00:13:46 reconsider

00:13:52 could you not tell at the time you did your classification report that the cementitious particle board as described as the outer layer in the list of components without any further elaboration

00:14:07 without any further elaboration at least pointed in in the direction

00:14:10 of the fact that this was not a representative rain screen system in accordance with bs8414 part one which applied at the time sorry as i said there are boarding

00:14:22 sorry as i said there are boarding systems there's non-combustible boards there's non-combustible systems there's cement-based boards that go out on the external facade systems

00:14:31 systems it didn't strike me that that was particularly unusual

00:14:37 because you're testing a system a whole system comprising a number of separate components did you take an investigation to make sure that each of those components including the

00:14:49 each of those components including the the material forming the rain screen in the test

00:14:57 was one that was being used in the real world

00:15:04 well we're not system designers and most testing or almost all testing is approached from the way of you are testing what is supplied

00:15:15 of you are testing what is supplied if it's within the scope of the standard and i do accept the point that you're making that that forms the basis of what fire test laboratory does but your

00:15:26 fire test laboratory does but your test you say you're testing what is supplied if it's within the scope of the standard

00:15:30 standard but i'm suggesting to you is that in order to be within the scope of the standard and therefore qualify for a test it has to be a full system each component of which

00:15:41 system each component of which corresponds to a product or material being used in the real world on real cutting systems above 18 meters you accept that well i think i've answered i was in at the time

00:15:55 think i've answered i was in at the time and the knowledge i had at the time was cement-based boards were being used on high rise so to be presented with a test report a full test report that says it's a cement-based board and for a

00:16:06 it's a cement-based board and for a pass-fail statement to be uh issued against that at the time i didn't see that as a problem

00:16:15 problem but you see mr howard cement baseball cementitious particle board is a generic description now one more time is why didn't you

00:16:26 now one more time is why didn't you undertake any specific investigations to work out what the cementitious particle board actually was so as to satisfy yourself that it was a material being used in the real world in accordance with the demands of the

00:16:37 in accordance with the demands of the standard

00:16:39 standard because i say it gets back to this issue most testing or the vast majority of testing

00:16:46 testing is based on what you are being supplied and what your client in terms of fire testing submits now if that product is within the scope of the standard and

00:16:59 the scope of the standard and that test rule is not very different to what was uh submitted later on or been tested or been tested previously then i would not have questioned it

00:17:12 then i would not have questioned it but you'd only know this would understand that if you undertake the relevance investigations to make sure you know what it is okay

00:17:22 well as i said it was as a cement-based particle board we was i was issuing a classification which is a pass fail statement

00:17:29 statement against the test room the description was there

00:17:34 but it was only a generic description it wasn't an identification of a particular product or or any more accurate than that was it no it's generic description and you can

00:17:45 no it's generic description and you can therefore tell from the generic description whether it did sit within 8414 or not could you without further investigation

00:17:53 uh well as i said that specific bold no i couldn't tell but cement baseballs and cement baseballs are common on cloud insist now

00:18:05 on cloud insist now did you ask kingspan why they haven't sought a classification for a decade

00:18:13 until they asked in 2015. i i don't think i did directly but there was

00:18:20 was an exchange of emails and i think in one of those emails it just said it hadn't come up or hadn't been requested or had been overlooked or something

00:18:30 something is there a reason why you didn't ask kingspan the direct question why do you want a classification report 10 years after the test no because you need to separate

00:18:43 no because you need to separate if you're requested that sort of paperwork

00:18:47 paperwork or a test report or a contract you're not asking why they need it it's a process in place if i thought it was legitimate to issue a classification report against

00:18:58 a classification report against the test report how that is being used doesn't factor into that does it not are you not can were you not

00:19:09 are you not can were you not interested in why it was that kingspan waited 10 years and then suddenly asked you for a classification report

00:19:18 don't i think the actually i took the explanation of face value that it they had not needed it and they were it was now something that they were looking to source for that product

00:19:33 in in specific terms why kingspan were now seeking this report having not asked for 10 years sorry i missed that by kingspan we're

00:19:44 sorry i missed that by kingspan we're now seeking this report not having asked for one for 10 years

00:19:51 sorry when you start your sentence i think i'm over talking to you can you just

00:19:55 just i'm not catching the first couple of words of the sentence i'm sorry yeah i'm sorry i think that may be my fault let me ask it one more time were you ever told in specific terms

00:20:07 were you ever told in specific terms why kingspan were now seeking this report

00:20:10 report not having asked for it for 10 years no did the fact that a decade had passed since the bs8414 test had been carried out

00:20:20 out cause you any concern

00:20:24 no not in particular can i ask you to look at your witness statement

00:20:36 look at your witness statement at page 56 please paragraph 245.

00:20:48 at page 56 please paragraph 245. you say there for my part i did not see how bre could refuse to provide a classification report test reports such as test reports 220876

00:21:00 test reports such as test reports 220876 do not have a validity period or expiry date

00:21:03 date for testing contracts there's no ongoing review of the system or component parts as such test reports are a statement of fact essentially a snapshot in time mr baker's concern is set out in miss

00:21:14 mr baker's concern is set out in miss garb site's email if that's how i pronounced it above uh relate related to the composition of the test system rather than the age of the report or its validity in this respect however as test report

00:21:28 in this respect however as test report 220876

00:21:29 220876 itself and the word excess is missing test results relate only to the items tested we have no responsibility for the design materials workmanship or performance of

00:21:40 materials workmanship or performance of the product or items tested this report does not constitute an approval certification or endorsement of the product tested and then you refer to section three of the report as well

00:21:52 to section three of the report as well um what

00:21:52 um what was the fact this is my question having shown you that was the fact that there's no explicit validity period or expiry date your only consideration

00:22:02 now what other considerations did you give

00:22:08 give as definitely was a full test report or whether the test report had been issued as an indicative

00:22:17 and whether the tested performance was within br135 lumens was it normal for clients to come

00:22:29 lumens was it normal for clients to come back to you and ask for a classification report

00:22:32 report a decade after the test having been selling the product over that period no it's not normal given that it wasn't normal why did you not

00:22:43 not ask questions about why they wanted it

00:22:49 because

00:22:52 it's not if procedurally i believe that we could do it then there was nothing to invalidate the test report there was nothing to invalidate test data test reports are a snapshot in

00:23:05 test data test reports are a snapshot in time

00:23:06 time and the classification is just past failed state against the test on that basis it's not ongoing approval we are not looking for red validation we are reporting this system

00:23:20 validation we are reporting this system met these criteria this system as described in the test report met this criteria on the day and that was my approach did you ask

00:23:31 and that was my approach did you ask yourself

00:23:33 yourself i wonder why they want this now

00:23:38 um i can't really report i think i probably would have questioned it but you often get requests that are coming from third

00:23:49 requests that are coming from third parties

00:23:50 parties to complete contractual arrangements and things like that it's not something we really delve into because it's got to be a black and white issue

00:23:58 issue of whether the process that you're in undertake is permitted or allowable or it's not a case of the reason for the

00:24:09 or it's not a case of the reason for the client

00:24:09 client like wishing for something or their motivation to change that that's not the approach i take and given that you say you probably

00:24:20 and given that you say you probably would have questioned it to yourself which was my question did you not have any suspicions about what it was that king stan was seeking

00:24:31 what it was that king stan was seeking to do with this report

00:24:37 can we go to bre-402511 please that is the test report issued on the 8th of december 2005

00:24:48 for the test carried out on the 31st of may 2005

00:24:53 may 2005 under bs8414 part 1.

00:24:58 this is the first page just to refresh your memory of it uh it's dated the 8th of december 2005 and it's done under part one as you can see yes yes now let's go to page four and let's

00:25:11 yes now let's go to page four and let's look at the third paragraph together

00:25:16 it says there in the third paragraph under introduction the specification and interpretation of fire test methods is the subject of ongoing development

00:25:29 is the subject of ongoing development and refinement changes in associated legislation may also occur for these reasons it is recommended that the relevance of test reports over five years old should be considered by the user the laboratory that issued

00:25:41 by the user the laboratory that issued the report will be able to offer on behalf of the legal owner a review of the procedures adopted for a particular test to ensure that they are consistent with current practices

00:25:49 practices and if required may endorse the test report

00:25:53 report now if you say paragraph 58 of your witness statement if we can just flip to that please page 13

00:26:06 about this paragraph uh you say there my understanding is that the above phrase

00:26:16 and the above phrase is contained in the question that the relevance of tests and classification reports over five years old should be considered by the user you say my my understanding is that the

00:26:27 you say my my understanding is that the above phrase was generated by the fire test study group which bre is a member of and that it was designed to draw the user's attention to the possibility that the relevant standard

00:26:37 standard may have been revised or updated or that the regulations referring to a particular standard may have changed

00:26:45 can i then take you having shown you that

00:26:49 that to mr clark's witness statement of page 16. that's bre 40 5768 at page 16 paragraph 67

00:27:05 he says uh in response to the same question

00:27:09 question as you can see in question two s above it my understanding of the reasons for this recommendation is that the end user was being warned to consider carefully any changes that might have occurred over that time

00:27:20 might have occurred over that time period in terms of the manufacturing process

00:27:22 process changes in legislation change of ownership or other aspects that might render the information in the report unreliable

00:27:31 do you agree with what he says there not via that statement there are caveats or warnings in the test report but

00:27:41 but that one in particular just refers to a user to

00:27:45 user to validity in the text report in terms of legislation there's other statements in the test report that basically say we're not there's no ongoing monitoring there's no approvals

00:27:57 there's no approvals and things of that nature

00:28:03 when you say not via that statement do you mean not via the statement in the question the relevance of test and classification reports

00:28:14 yes i think there's other warnings in the report that refer to the manufacturing process i think the fire test study group refers specifically to the changes in legislation

00:28:27 so just in general terms do you agree with mr

00:28:31 with mr uh mr clark i'm afraid it's disappeared from the screen but i can ask you anyway do i do you agree with mr clark when he says that

00:28:41 that uh the user should consider the relevance of tester classification reports

00:28:46 reports which are more than five years old because the manufacturing process may have changed

00:28:53 but the manufacture you are totally in the hands of the manufacturer or the test sponsor with any samples that are supplied so

00:29:05 that are supplied so manufacturing processes can change the day after

00:29:09 day after you have tested a product or they can remain the same for decades there are warnings in the report

00:29:17 report that basically draw the user's attention to that test reports are just a snapshot in time of a record of a specific test and what mr clark is saying is that one of the reasons why you have to

00:29:29 of the reasons why you have to uh consider the relevance of a test report that's more than five years old is because the manufacturing process of the material being tested might have changed since then

00:29:40 changed since then that's something that he says you should consider do you agree no i think you should consider it immediately it's not on debate after five years and that is the point

00:29:51 the point that i'm trying to make a test report is a snapshot in time so you need to consider that immediately it's within the hands of the test sponsor or the manufacturer that

00:30:04 they are in control of that did you ask kingspan

00:30:08 kingspan whether the product had changed since it was tested in 2005 when you came to classify it based on the test done in 2005 in 2015 no because that

00:30:19 in 2015 no because that doesn't form part of the process of the test testing classification it's outside the scope of your testing classification well uh it's not outside the scope of

00:30:30 well uh it's not outside the scope of what

00:30:31 what the bre was in itself warning in its own classification report was it

00:30:43 sorry as i said those are standard statements in just a lot of the caveats in the reports are across bre but some of the specific ones from the fire test study group are

00:30:54 ones from the fire test study group are in

00:30:55 in specific reports the issue is that you are totally in the hands of the test sponsor or the manufacturer to ensure that the products that are continued that are

00:31:06 continued that are tested remain so if they change the product in the intervene in time whether it's five years whether it's five months whether they remain the same after 20

00:31:18 whether they remain the same after 20 plus years she's outside the hands of a tesla director when you come to classified 10 years old was it not incumbent on you at least just to ask the question is this the same k15

00:31:29 this the same k15 i'm classifying today that was tested in 2005.

00:31:35 no because i didn't i would have thought that if the changes were being made to k-15

00:31:43 k-15 that um there would have been a program of retests to do that i was on the understanding that in essence the k-15 was the same

00:31:54 that in essence the k-15 was the same that we were dealing with back in 2005 and as it is now why not just check because as i said it's outside the scope of testing you're not doing an ongoing check on the

00:32:05 not doing an ongoing check on the manufacturing process you are in third-party approval but not the test report and the classification for snapchat and time

00:32:17 can we go to bre 40s 5837 please at page

00:32:26 79.

00:32:36 this is fire test study group uk resolution 72 and like this is i think am i right this is what you refer to in your witness statement to paragraph 58

00:32:50 your witness statement to paragraph 58 this is where i understand the statements come to i'm not particularly familiar with this document i mean where the statements come from

00:33:00 come from sorry yes and you're not familiar with the document well let's just um let's look at it then together um it's resolution 72 a cautionary statement could be added to

00:33:12 a cautionary statement could be added to test reports uh agreed by the executive if you look a little lower down on the 6th of october 1993 and implemented on the 1st of december 1993.

00:33:25 implemented on the 1st of december 1993. and it was still valid uh as at the date of this document and it says reason since fire tests are the subject of the continuing standardization process and because

00:33:36 process and because existing standards are the subject of review and possible amendments and new interpretations it's recommended that reports should be considered by the user

00:33:44 user to ensure that the methodology adopted and the results obtained remain valid the objective of the review is to ensure that the marketplace remains equitable by preventing manufacturers with very old or inadequate test reports from

00:33:55 old or inadequate test reports from competing

00:33:56 competing on equal terms with those who have tested in accordance with later possibly more onerous procedures and then there's the resolution um that's set out there and in fact it appears on page 80

00:34:09 there and in fact it appears on page 80 about what should go into reports uh

00:34:14 and i don't think i need to to show you that um

00:34:18 that um do you know um whether that resolutions resolution 72 was still extant as at 2005.

00:34:34 extant as at 2005. so i'm not sure quite understanding the question of that i'm pretty sure that that was in the reports at that time and was a something that bre had agreed to

00:34:47 was a something that bre had agreed to for inclusion in the reports in certain technical areas was it still valid as a 2015 when you came to do your classification report

00:34:58 but the document was still in place so in terms of validity that has i don't believe has been withdrawn so that statement's still there

00:35:10 now the test report that you issued on the 28th of september 2015 was under bs8414 part 1 of 2002 wasn't it

00:35:21 it yeah did you classify to the british standards prevailing at the time of the test in 2005 or to those prevailing at the time of your classification in september 2015.

00:35:36 i can't without seeing the actual classification report is it possible to say that i thought it would have been against the 2002 version well i'm asking if your recollection um

00:35:49 well i'm asking if your recollection um but we can we can certainly uh you can certainly do that um if you go to kin five zeros one three four

00:36:18 uh you can see that that's your uh report if you can we go down please

00:36:29 uh where do you want to go to

00:36:32 uh it'll be about the third party certainly let's go to page three

00:36:44 i'm currently on two uh go down again i'm on page three but is that what you're looking for page four perhaps classification of fire performance in accordance with

00:36:56 performance in accordance with br135 2013 annex

00:37:02 in answer to the question that classification was issued against the standard that the system was tested to which i think is 2002

00:37:13 think is 2002 2002 standard but the there was a revision do you remember there was a revision to the bre to the um british standard in 2015 in the april of 2015.

00:37:24 the april of 2015. did you use the revised standard or did you did you use the original 2002 right um let's um go to page nine

00:37:41 uh and if you look at page nine this is test results you see

00:37:49 and under test results uh you can see a column

00:37:52 column second from the left parameter yes yep and on the left hand column test method and number

00:38:03 and under test method a number you've got bs8414 part 1 2002 yes yes and under parameters you've got four parameters external file spread cavity behind rain

00:38:15 external file spread cavity behind rain screen cavity one internal fire spread insulation layer and then the bottom one internal fire spread burned through see that

00:38:26 fire spread burned through see that and then you've got results in the right hand block the fire spread test results time are all greater than 15 minutes

00:38:37 time are all greater than 15 minutes and the results are all compliant in each

00:38:41 each each of these four boxes yes you see that yes did you

00:38:52 you see that yes did you put that into this report i say that i mean these test results i thought it would have been leader

00:39:03 i thought it would have been leader under your supervision yes i see do you know where she got the internal fire spread burn through parameter from

00:39:17 uh

00:39:20 i don't but that's not applicable to a part one test that's my next point

00:39:31 that's my next point you're right so given that it's not applicable to a part one test what's it doing there uh that has been a mistake did you

00:39:43 uh that has been a mistake did you review this classification report from veda yes

00:39:51 if you review this page yes

00:39:55 how can you account for the fact that it contains

00:39:59 contains burn through data which applies only to a part two test and not a part one test as i think you'll agree

00:40:09 uh it was an oversight on my part okay

00:40:17 i interrupted you we spoke over each other did you want to finish your answer

00:40:23 uh i was just gonna say yeah i've made a mistake that shouldn't have gone out like that

00:40:33 i'd like to understand how that mistake could have come about uh clearly you didn't review this page carefully enough to see that a parameter applicable only to a part two test had

00:40:44 applicable only to a part two test had found its way into a part one test classification had you no can you account for how veda may have made that mistake

00:40:57 um no i can't really i think it's [Music]

00:41:04 [Music] um

00:41:10 did she cut it and paste it do you think from a part two test classification report

00:41:16 yes or the actual base document that you used

00:41:20 used was potentially a part two gestural classification how could she possibly have told that the test produced compliant data

00:41:32 the test produced compliant data for burn through when it would not have produced any data for burn through at all

00:41:41 because in the re

00:41:45 there would be a statement of burn through

00:41:49 through in a part two test so in essence if it burns through the system

00:41:57 system would have been reported that it would have burnt through but not for a part one test no not usually therefore she was putting into this report

00:42:09 into this report data which had never been produced by the part one test done in 2005. you agree a statement's gone in

00:42:20 you agree a statement's gone in that is not addressed or not actually required

00:42:24 required by the part one test that's correct and therefore would it follow that vida's conclusion uh that the data for burn through was compliant

00:42:36 compliant with the parameters and annex b uh was um completely unfounded well it's not

00:42:47 unfounded well it's not completely unfounded because it's not a requirement of part one so that's not something you measure what's actually gone into the report is a statement

00:42:58 statement that is accurate but is not required how did you know or how did she know that it was accurate it burned through if there was no burn through data in the 2005 test

00:43:12 in the 2005 test because because you're sat on a masonry wall

00:43:17 wall quite a heavy block work wall the requirement that is the reason for that statement on a part two test is the likelihood of construction so there is a risk of burn

00:43:29 construction so there is a risk of burn through on the lighter test but the heavier tests or the part one test run animation reward so that is assumed to comply in fact mr howard if you look at the

00:43:42 in fact mr howard if you look at the results box it says compliance with parameters in nxb br 135 2013. could you tell me what relevance annex b has to a test done

00:43:53 relevance annex b has to a test done under bsa414.1 it's not this should be an exo that's a mistake

00:44:00 mistake that's gone through that's quite a mistake isn't it because the whole purpose of a classification report is to classify the tests done in accordance with the

00:44:11 the tests done in accordance with the bs8414

00:44:12 bs8414 methodology to the criteria in br135 this classification report applies a whole set of wrong criteria isn't it

00:44:23 a whole set of wrong criteria isn't it well there's one statement it's referred to the wrong annex and it's included a statement of additional tests and additional assessment that isn't applied to part one but it

00:44:35 that isn't applied to part one but it doesn't

00:44:36 doesn't it's it's not saying it has passed something that it hasn't what it's saying is this isn't the factor that you report on in part one system

00:44:45 system forgive my intervening mr millet there's something i'd just like to clarify mr hard did the original test data for the 8414 test contain

00:44:58 for the 8414 test contain any readings for burn through no well then go on sorry but as i said it's on a masonry wall

00:45:13 but as i said it's on a masonry wall so there's no requirement in the standard to report that no but if the test did not contain any data

00:45:22 data or burn through how can ms gov cyto have put in

00:45:27 put in a result into in the br 135 assessment because it will be a positive it will be in either the part one or sorry in a

00:45:38 in either the part one or sorry in a part two report if you had burned through then that would be reported so i'm okay would you is it possible to rephrase the question well i'm i'm

00:45:51 rephrase the question well i'm i'm at the moment i don't understand how um anyone could include a reading for burn through unless the test on which the document is

00:46:02 unless the test on which the document is based

00:46:03 based contain some data for burn through that's my problem can you help me well as i said i think it was a mistake that's been included when you report on

00:46:14 that's been included when you report on a part

00:46:15 a part two test and you have burn through you would report if it's burned through that it has done so in a particular time if that statement's absent then

00:46:29 if that statement's absent then you would classify against that all right thank you very much yes mr miller

00:46:40 yes

00:46:48 as authors of vr135 did you ask tony baker or sarah colwell for review about whether you should be producing a classification

00:46:59 should be producing a classification report 10 years after the test no why is that because as i've explained it was a procedural issue

00:47:11 issue test reports are a snapshot in time

00:47:15 the classification might in my view was just a pass failure or it's just a past failure statement against the test you con did you not consider it at the time at least to be best practice

00:47:28 time at least to be best practice or tests be repeated every five years no there's no requirement to do that across the test you're not running an approval scheme

00:47:38 scheme your contracts are one-offs all of them now i understand that but my question was did you consider it to be best practice for manufacturers to repeat tests every five years no

00:47:51 repeat tests every five years no the system across europe is similar it's all based there's large numbers of products on the market that based on one-off tests

00:48:03 market that based on one-off tests one of classification reports and that is a mechanism for them to place their products legally on the market

00:48:11 market there's large numbers of products on the market

00:48:15 market that are never retested huge numbers given that as you told us you realized that this was unusual unusual for a manufacturer to ask for a

00:48:27 for a manufacturer to ask for a classification report 10 years after the test i have to suggest you that you should have asked them why they were doing it

00:48:36 you accept that um no because i'm not sure unless for what i could not see a reason

00:48:47 unless for what i could not see a reason not to issue the classification and that is decided we are not monitoring the market in that way as i said there's vast numbers of products on the market

00:48:58 products on the market that are based on one-off tests and one-off classification documents it's not an unusual circumstance at all for a tesla given that this test

00:49:10 at all for a tesla given that this test was done

00:49:11 was done a lot longer ago than the five-year cut-off period recommended cut-off period i have to suggest to you um that it was inappropriate just to continue to classify this report

00:49:23 continue to classify this report without asking kingspan why they needed it

00:49:27 it you accept that no as i said procedurally if we can issue a classification recall we're not a fire test labs are not regulatory bodies

00:49:38 regulatory bodies if it was within if there was technical reasons or whatever not to issue it then fine but from a procedural point of view my view was a classification report is a

00:49:51 was a classification report is a snapshot in time it's a report on a test was there any reason why you couldn't have put

00:50:02 have put a clear caveat or warning on the face of this classification report to draw the reader's attention to the fact that the test had been done 10 years ago

00:50:13 that the test had been done 10 years ago no there's no reason that and you know there's no reason why we couldn't put a clear caveat on the front why didn't you do that

00:50:27 why didn't you do that i think in hindsight we probably should have

00:50:33 i'd like to turn to a different topic which is the bre's relationship with kingspan

00:50:39 kingspan now mr clark told the inquiry in his evidence on day 96 that you had a good relationship with kingston and that's day 96 of page 189 lines 24-25 there's no need to go to

00:50:51 lines 24-25 there's no need to go to that but is that correct would you agree with him yes bre had a good relationship can we go to bre-403531 please

00:51:07 can we go to bre-403531 please uh and uh this is an email sent by over meredith to you and phil clarke on the 20th of march 2014.

00:51:16 2014. copy to steve manchester subject kingspan bs8414 test and this is the day after king's pen test on the 19th of march to bs 8414 part two

00:51:29 to bs 8414 part two on k15 with a trespa hpl rain screen now we've looked at this in some detail with mr clark and we'll come back later to look at it together

00:51:40 to look at it together mr howard i just want to look at the email for a moment can you see that in the first paragraph um mr uh meredith is asking you and mr clark

00:51:49 clark for confirmation of the test results yes

00:51:54 yes yes let's go to the fourth paragraph done

00:51:58 done please which begins with the word phil and he says phil i will get aztec in on monday

00:52:05 monday on monday to start stripping out i would like to be there to witness what was going on behind the cladding although i assume you will be taking lots of pictures of that that area also can you make any

00:52:16 that area also can you make any unofficial comments with regards the falling debris this time compared to the previous test do you remember that email i don't recall no

00:52:26 recall no no what

00:52:30 you don't recall it do you recall perhaps at all what mr meredith meant by unofficial comments

00:52:38 no i'm not clear what he would have been asking his unofficial comments did mr clark to your recollection provide any unofficial comments to mr meredith as he'd requested not on

00:52:51 to mr meredith as he'd requested not on not that i'm aware you no

00:52:59 did you or mr clark answer mr meredith's request for unofficial comments

00:53:05 comments that he's that he's asked for in this email

00:53:09 email no i mean everything on email no i wouldn't we wouldn't have provided unofficial comments you say that is that right were you or

00:53:20 you say that is that right were you or anybody else at the bre in the habit of giving official and unofficial online and offline comments about the results of tests all i can say is i didn't provide

00:53:31 all i can say is i didn't provide any unofficial comments to either on that subject would you agree with me this far that at least looking at this email it looks as if mr meredith certainly thought that

00:53:42 as if mr meredith certainly thought that the position was that mr clark might be prepared to offer an unofficial opinion

00:53:54 yes there's a request in there to make unofficial comments but that doesn't mean

00:54:03 as i said i'm not aware of any unofficial comments being made to either for me well i didn't make any and i'm not aware of anybody else making unofficial comments back to kinsmen my question really is

00:54:14 back to kinsmen my question really is how did you think mr meredith came by the understanding that mr clark or you might give him unofficial comments as he'd ask for

00:54:27 um i'm not sure i know the answer to that i mean it's a statement in an email

00:54:40 i mean it's a statement in an email it's one word in an email and as i said i'm

00:54:45 not sure how i don't know how either would have come to that conclusion did you yourself go back to mr meredith and tell him that the bre did not provide unofficial

00:54:57 the bre did not provide unofficial comments

00:54:58 comments that he had asked for no i'm pretty sure i didn't discuss mr meredith's request with mr clark

00:55:08 sorry i missed that you discuss mr meredith's request with mr clark no i don't think

00:55:20 no i don't think did you not tell mr clark to go back to mr meredith and tell him that he shouldn't be asking for unofficial comments

00:55:28 comments uh i don't believe i've responded in that way

00:55:32 that way not to because it wasn't practice but i don't understand what is meant by unofficial comments you either go on record and that can be verbal or via email

00:55:45 verbal or via email what would be unofficial well why didn't you go back to him therefore and ask him what he meant by unofficial comments and tell him that you don't provide those

00:56:00 uh the email was missed i don't really recall that email i don't recall what um proceeded after that point really

00:56:13 mr clark told us and only for the record this is day 96 page 188 lines one to seven that he didn't correct mr meredith in his understanding as appears from this email but he said that was because

00:56:25 this email but he said that was because it wasn't within his remit to do so because you and mr manchester were senior to him

00:56:34 now he was clearly expecting well is it right or is it fair that mr clark would have expected you to respond as the senior officer

00:56:45 respond as the senior officer to mr meredith's request for unofficial comments

00:56:52 no i think all staff members are required to report inappropriate

00:57:00 responses or requests from manufacturers it's whether that i mean either had a certain

00:57:09 certain way of writing emails and containing stuff within them it's whether it really flagged up as a inappropriate um situation that would require a response

00:57:20 response all staff have a duty and a requirement to report if they're feeling if they've been put in a compromising position

00:57:31 been put in a compromising position did you not think it's important at the time that at least somebody whether you or mr clark should respond to mr meredith's request and tell him that you weren't prepared

00:57:43 and tell him that you weren't prepared to offer unofficial comments i can't recall reading that email in that sort of level of detail i can't recall the email so i can't really say what i was thinking at the time

00:57:55 what i was thinking at the time you see on the face of the documents that we've got we've got a request for unofficial comments and no response either from you or mr clark the absence of a response would tend to suggest

00:58:06 suggest that unofficial comments were something that you were either prepared to give him or at least not prepared uh to resist is that fair no because as i said any comments that

00:58:19 no because as i said any comments that you make

00:58:20 you make would be on the recorders and because they would have to be via verbal

00:58:27 verbal or email and i would expect there would be some

00:58:31 be some evidence of that sort of um behaviour going on

00:58:36 going on as i said either he's

00:58:41 well has a certain wording in emails that i don't that looking back we should have responded to but we didn't at the time as i said i don't really remember that email

00:58:53 don't really remember that email in detail but it's hard to comment right let's go to bre 3018859 please

00:59:11 mailchimp between you and either meredith in april 2015 now and if we go to page two halfway down that

00:59:19 down that email uh chain um we can see the first email of a change sent uh

00:59:26 sent uh to you and phil clark uh on the 8th of april 2015 at 8 30 in the morning can you see that yeah

00:59:38 can you see that yeah and uh he says in the first paragraph there uh i would like to incorporate some additional thermocouple in at level one so we can understand when it fails

00:59:49 one so we can understand when it fails fill out a suggestion so we could understand exactly what's going on at the lower levels perhaps some below and above the fire barrier in the insulation and void see that uh do you think

01:00:03 see that uh do you think well first of all do you recall seeing this email not specifically no it's

01:00:13 do you do you recall thinking at the time

01:00:17 time that it was inappropriate for mr clark to be making suggestions of this kind to a test sponsor

01:00:26 it did i wasn't party to that conversation but to add additional instrumentation during tests is not uncommon so unless i knew the

01:00:37 is not uncommon so unless i knew the context ie

01:00:41 i was asking where could we possibly put thermocouples to get above and below the barrier i wouldn't know but it's not uncommon to add additional instrumentation into tests across the

01:00:53 instrumentation into tests across the board

01:00:54 board or additional filming or radiometers come back to that in a moment did you speak to bill clark or have a communication uh of any other kind with him about

01:01:07 uh of any other kind with him about um his suggestion that this email reflects no i don't recall the conversation can we look at your response then please the next day we just scroll up please

01:01:22 the next day we just scroll up please this is your response to i'm a meredith copied to phil clark 9th of april 2015 at 10 35

01:01:31 and in the last paragraph there you say i take it you have sorted the additional instrumentation between you and phil query for the record we shouldn't include in the report

01:01:42 include in the report why did you write that because it specifies

01:01:46 specifies what you should include in the bs8414 test

01:01:51 test and if they wished for additional data to be

01:01:55 to be reported on then that should be a different document it should have been a separate issue separate processing separate checking and issued separately if you had added

01:02:08 and issued separately if you had added thermocouples into the uh test rig why would you omit the pr presence from the test record because the

01:02:20 because the test stamp well the test standards are quite specific as to what should be in there so on that basis it would be better to report additional

01:02:31 it would be better to report additional thermocouples at a separately now we did change that later on

01:02:38 on um to start including when you get requests for other standards to be included with partners eight four one four but

01:02:45 four but my time the view was that the test reports

01:02:48 reports should be in line with the standard and the data presented in land line with the standard and the additional instrumentation or measurements will be intake and they should be reported separately for the sponsors information

01:03:01 separately for the sponsors information would the addition of further thermocouples have had any effect on the test performance no if the additional data was not to go into the test report how are you planning to communicate it to kingspan

01:03:14 planning to communicate it to kingspan it would just probably have been a series of graphs and a short letter and an excel sheet on a spreadsheet but they wouldn't have formed part of the test record would they

01:03:25 the test record would they yeah they would just sat in the file they'll just sit in the file with the rest

01:03:29 rest of the they would be accessible you could go back to them to see what was done at the time because of your way your thermocouples and your instrumentation works

01:03:40 instrumentation works you you would see you would know it was there because it'd all be on the same test record uh well let's just let's just look at the test standard before i go to that can i just be clear about what you're

01:03:51 can i just be clear about what you're saying

01:03:52 saying are you saying that the test report would basically have two clear parts to it

01:03:55 it one done exactly in accordance with the standard and then another set of data which show the these additional thermocouples so that the reader of the test report could tell exactly what had happened

01:04:06 happened yeah that's what it said that the formal test

01:04:10 test report would identify the addition of the

01:04:13 the extra thermocouples not within the standard

01:04:17 standard no probably not you if they're additional thermocouples you could see it from the test record from the data that's generated in the test file that you probably wouldn't

01:04:28 wouldn't include additional measurements that are outside the scope of the standard within the formal test rule right so the additional measurements that are outside the scope of a standard

01:04:40 that are outside the scope of a standard would then have to be communicated informally okay all test reports but they'd still be communicated but they'd still be communicated in a formal

01:04:54 they'd still be communicated in a formal way with another potential with another project number or a secondary project against that initial one there'd be an email record of them going out

01:05:03 going out as i said it would be on the data set that you'd like download from the loggers

01:05:11 i i think you agree but we'll we'll clarify this by reference to the test standard additional thermocouples are not permitted within the bs8414 test

01:05:22 are not permitted within the bs8414 test standard are they don't specifically request well let's have a look i don't think they specifically exclude them but

01:05:32 them but let's have a look um bs8414 part 1 is at cel40 1205

01:05:41 and what i'm going to show you is the 2007 edition

01:05:47 and let's go to page 6 in that please at paragraph 4.2.2

01:05:53 under external thermocouples

01:05:59 general external thermocouples shall be positioned to a tolerance of um plus or equal five sorry 10 millimeters with the hot junction positioned

01:06:10 positioned 50 equals or more than five millimeters in front of the face of the system under investigation then 4.2 4.2.2 external thermocouples at level one

01:06:20 level one positioned and then you can see the first dash on the main face of the facade in positions on the center line at the distances of 500 millimeters and 1000 millimeters each side of the center line

01:06:31 millimeters each side of the center line five locations on the wing at distances of 50

01:06:35 of 50 150 millimeters 600 millimeters of 1050 millimeters from the finished face of the cladding systems on the main face three locations the figure 2

01:06:47 three locations the figure 2 and figure 2 you'll find on page 8 if we just go to that please and and looking at figure 2 can you see

01:06:58 and and looking at figure 2 can you see the five thermocouples at level one on the front face and the three on the wing yes and let's just go to the 2015 version of this document um which is a

01:07:09 version of this document um which is a bsi

01:07:12 50166

01:07:23 but if you go please to page 11 and look at paragraph 5.6 0.2 well just look at that again for external thermocouples at

01:07:34 again for external thermocouples at levels one and two and again you've got the stipulated number of five locations under little a and three locations on the little b for

01:07:45 and three locations on the little b for the main test wool face and wing wall respectively yes yes and looking at both of those do you agree that there's no room in either of the 2007 or the 2015

01:08:00 in either of the 2007 or the 2015 versions of bs8414 part one for any discretion for the tester to add or subtract thermocouples at will

01:08:12 uh i agree that you can't subtract but i disagree with on the basis of additional thermocouples well we're saying these standards that

01:08:23 well we're saying these standards that you can add thermocouples make six or seven at the front wall or ten on the wing wall but does it say that well it doesn't but ps8414 and other tests

01:08:36 but ps8414 and other tests are often

01:08:40 are accepted in other parts of the world and the jurisdictions in those parts of the world

01:08:45 the world will request other instrumentation now if we don't put the additional instrumentation what you're effectively doing is having to double the repeat the test to add more

01:08:58 repeat the test to add more instrumentation into the system which is not practical we can't really do that

01:09:03 do that secondly it's fairly common on fire test be that

01:09:08 be that duct work fire tests sorry fire doors dampers if additional instrumentation is required or additional videos or additional measurements are required

01:09:22 or additional measurements are required for those to be undertaken if they don't compromise the test

01:09:28 but by adding thermocouples at these locations you're departing from the prescribed parameters of the test standard aren't you yes but you're not changing the end result and

01:09:39 result and as i said it's common you often put across the fire testing field additional instrumentation or additional cameras or

01:09:51 or at the request of a consultant or a jurisdiction in another part of the world

01:09:57 world there's nothing uncommon about that it's nothing unusual was this flexibility in the test apparatus something that you often offered

01:10:05 offered to test sponsors

01:10:09 i don't think it was offered i just don't think any request for additional information instrumentation or cameras would have would have been

01:10:20 cameras would have would have been reviewed

01:10:21 reviewed and if it was considered feasible we would do so well it doesn't i just said

01:10:33 well it was offered it was offered by mr clark and my question again was it common for the bre to make suggestions such as that which mr clark made namely to add thermocouples

01:10:44 made namely to add thermocouples at level 1 or other additional instrumentation outside the parameters of the test methodology prescribed i would say it wouldn't be offered

01:10:55 offered but it wasn't uncommon to put additional instrumentation or cameras in at the request of the client sponsor because they may be submitting the test report to other parts of the world

01:11:06 report to other parts of the world that may need that data or for specific projects

01:11:10 projects right so it was not uncommon if the client sponsor asked for it but you say it wouldn't be offered by the bre

01:11:21 no i think it'd be a general understanding that if it was requested then

01:11:26 then we would try to accommodate but you wouldn't

01:11:29 wouldn't if the request was to do an 8414 test that's

01:11:32 that's what you were contracted to do

01:11:37 so when phil clark made the suggestion am i right in thinking that that was unusual

01:11:47 um it's not something that i've come across personally as to making suggestions to test sponsors is to put additional instrumentation in but it would depend

01:11:58 instrumentation in but it would depend on the contents on content or context of the discussion

01:12:05 would any additional charge be levied on kingston

01:12:09 kingston for using additional instrumentation outside the scope of the methodology uh potentially depending on the level of work involved to instrument

01:12:21 the level of work involved to instrument would you agree that in making the suggestion of adding extra thermocouples at level 1 the bre were providing advice and suggestions to kingspan

01:12:34 it depends on the context of which that discussion took place i'm not clear on the actual exchange at the time

01:12:42 the time it could the request could have been in can we put thermocouples here and we would have accepted doing that as long as it doesn't add considerably to the cost and

01:12:56 considerably to the cost and or compromise the test and i can't see a reason why not

01:13:02 how would making that suggestion uh fit with bre's duties and obligations of impartiality

01:13:14 but i don't understand why that's impartial

01:13:19 impartial or not impartial it's addition of two or three temperature measurements at a point

01:13:29 to for the client to gain more information than what's happened in a level one cavity barrier as i said depends on the context but it

01:13:40 as i said depends on the context but it may have just been an agreement that we could put

01:13:43 could put firmer couples at that location as i said that was fairly common

01:13:48 how could bre remain impartial and yet be making suggestions to a client about the addition of thermal addition of

01:13:57 of thermocouples outside as i said i'm not i wasn't party to that conversation so i don't know the context but but on what you do know do you agree with me that

01:14:09 with me that the bre was uh acting inconsistently with its obligations of impartiality by making that suggestion no as i said additional instrumentation or cameras it's common it's common in

01:14:21 or cameras it's common it's common in all the labs that we're running all the file absolutely but that is i don't think you've understood my question i'll put it one more time do you agree with me

01:14:33 you agree with me but in making the suggestion the bre was acting inconsistently with its obligations of infarctionality no i don't believe that we

01:14:46 no i don't believe that we that is compromises our impartiality

01:14:51 can we go then to bre three four just a minute before we do could i just raise something um mr howard i'm getting the impression from your

01:15:02 from your most recent answers that bre regarded 8414 testing and maybe other testing as in a sense a collaborative exercise

01:15:13 in a sense a collaborative exercise would that be right collaborative in the sense of collaboration between you and the customer

01:15:22 well i'm not sure it's not a collaborative exercise but you're producing a test report or working for a test sponsor on that contract so therefore

01:15:36 on that contract so therefore there's quite strict rules on the information that you pass on but you would provide assistance but without

01:15:47 you would provide assistance but without compromising your impartiality so if they wanted additional instrumentation put in as i said it's across the board this isn't just eight for one for it ductwork testing it's fire doors it's

01:15:58 ductwork testing it's fire doors it's dampers

01:16:00 dampers it's what is not viewed in that way it's not

01:16:03 not viewed as problematic so you would do it and if a client requests assistance to put extra instrumentation in then we would try to do that and that

01:16:14 then we would try to do that and that can produce evidence of other areas doing that right thank you very much yes mr millet mr chairman i'm just looking at the time and i was about to go to another document so perhaps this is a convenient

01:16:26 document so perhaps this is a convenient moment

01:16:27 moment yes all right well we'll have a short break at this point mr hyde um we'll start again at half past

01:16:34 past 11 please and i better remind you hentai please not to talk to anyone about your evidence during the break all right thank you very much thank you we'll see you a bit later on thank you

01:30:04 welcome back everyone uh we're now going back to mr howard who's going to continue giving his evidence uh mr howard can you see me and hear me

01:30:15 uh mr howard can you see me and hear me thank you thank you very much and i hope you're ready to continue are you yes thank you very much well then when you're ready mr millet thank you mr chairman mr howard can we go please to bre

01:30:27 go please to bre 403908 and i'd like in there please to go to page five

01:30:43 now this is uh page five within an email exchange in april 2005 just to help you if we can scroll please to the bottom of page four

01:30:54 to the bottom of page four you can see what this is and it's an email from uh kil kil-pb tech line inquiries uh which is it which is kingspan to

01:31:07 uh which is it which is kingspan to somebody called paul dunphy on the 13th of april 2015 subject forward cool firm k15 inquiry and paul dunphy just so you know is an

01:31:18 and paul dunphy just so you know is an architect

01:31:19 architect working at shepherd robson architects um and it relates to a project called bart's square

01:31:28 and you can see the inquiry on page five if we just go back to that uh it's a facade query form which is a standard document generated by kingspan and it's been filled in

01:31:40 and it's been filled in you see and the insulation to be used is k15 there

01:31:45 k15 there with uh an outer face of james and taylor terracotta rain screen baguettes

01:31:52 baguettes now if we go up to page three please in this document we can see that there's a communication from paul

01:32:00 from paul dunphy age three um on the 13th of april and he asks a question to kingspan kim as discussed we are currently in the

01:32:12 kim as discussed we are currently in the process

01:32:13 process uh of trying to commission a desktop study to see if your kingspan k15 is acceptable for use within a raid screen cladding system at a height above 18 meters and are seeking written confirmation that you're willing to allow

01:32:24 willing to allow the testing authority to use your data in carrying out their study as you've requested please find the technical information relating to the project below if anything is unclear please do not hesitate to contact us

01:32:37 hesitate to contact us and we can see the response to that which comes from adam heath at kingston on uh the 15th of april and he says uh and it's copy to either

01:32:50 and he says uh and it's copy to either meredith and gary johnson dear paul many thanks for your recent inquiry after reviewing your facade query form it appears your proposed detail is very similar to one of our tested arrangements can i ask that you also send us over

01:33:02 can i ask that you also send us over elevations and a section of the proposed detail for our information can you confirm which testing authority you are using and your contact there we can then get in contact to approve the use of our

01:33:13 in contact to approve the use of our test evidence and then on page two we just scroll up a little bit further we can see an email of the 16th of april um towards the bottom of the screen there from paul dunphy back to adam

01:33:25 there from paul dunphy back to adam heath

01:33:26 heath copying in tom lennon can you see yes bre isn't he yes yes and he says adam thanks for the email below

01:33:37 email below please see attached for our proposed details

01:33:40 details with regards to the testing authority we are proposing to use bre uh and we've been in discussion uh with tom lennon copied in our details below tom lennon principal consultant first

01:33:51 tom lennon principal consultant first aid to biari and there it is and then at the bottom of the screen he says hope this helps but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information and if we go to page one

01:34:03 and if we go to page one we can see that there's a further response to this uh from uh tom lennon uh who writes to you um he's on the 20th of april uh a a copy to

01:34:16 he's on the 20th of april uh a a copy to steve manchester and andy russell forward bart's square and then he writes steve i know you've just gone off to belgium but we need to come to a decision as to how we proceed with this this will be potentially a huge source

01:34:28 this will be potentially a huge source of income over the coming years but could also be a huge liability if not managed properly we have to have some very clear rules about what does and doesn't constitute reasonable grounds for an assessment

01:34:39 reasonable grounds for an assessment stroke desktop study we should also draw on available expertise in this area within the fire safety group and you respond to that so we can see from the top of the email

01:34:53 so we can see from the top of the email run at the top of page one on the 20th of april

01:34:58 of april a copy to steve manchester and andy russell agreed i have both testing and assessments flying in from all directions at present plus each test we generate seems to spawn further openings

01:35:10 spawn further openings i think the first job is to get a handle on the number and scope of inquiries now i've shown you the whole of that email run so you have the full context but

01:35:20 but my question is is it right that at the time of the request for the classification report in respect to the 2005 test which is of course mid 2015

01:35:32 which is of course mid 2015 to september 2015 kingspan were in the process of carrying out a major testing program at the bre uh i can't remember the exact

01:35:46 uh i can't remember the exact dates of when tests were done if there was quite a lot of cladding work going on at the time so there were test programs going on

01:35:59 so there were test programs going on but from a personal point of view i had fire resistance testing ongoing cable testing ongoing reaction to fire so i can't remember the exact details of the number of tests

01:36:11 exact details of the number of tests that were performed in that period

01:36:15 no but in general can you remember that as at spring to summer 2015 kingspan were in the process of carrying out a major testing program at the bre

01:36:29 out a major testing program at the bre as i said i can't remember specifically but i would accept that if the data is there in support of that in terms of number of tests do you also recall that um off the back

01:36:41 do you also recall that um off the back of that testing program the bre we're also receiving many requests for desktop assessment reports yes and as tom lennon has said in the

01:36:52 yes and as tom lennon has said in the email we've just seen that based on kingspan's testing at the bre were potentially going to be a huge source of income over the coming years

01:37:03 years yes and is there the reality that kingspan was potentially a significant source of revenue for the bre in 2015.

01:37:16 for the bre in 2015. yes i believe so is it fair to say that you didn't want to upset biari's relationship with kingspan and the

01:37:25 the revenue that it was bringing in or might bring in

01:37:28 bring in by refusing to issue the classification report in 2015. no i mean it's you need as i said to it it didn't come down to

01:37:41 as i said to it it didn't come down to upsetting in spain that wasn't factored in i mean we had cladding wasn't the largest source of income the re is a commercial test laboratory

01:37:54 the re is a commercial test laboratory we have a lot of clients who spend a lot of money with bre you don't wish to upset anyone i'm sure um but in relation to kingspan specifically it was one of the reasons

01:38:06 specifically it was one of the reasons why

01:38:06 why you didn't ask the question why do they want this classification report now 10 years after the test because you didn't want to upset a major client who who off who had the

01:38:18 a major client who who off who had the potential to generate significant amount of revenue for the bre

01:38:23 bre no before i move on i want to take you back to 2009. were you aware that in may of that year 2009

01:38:34 2009 kingspan had obtained a systems approval certificate from the labc for kingspan k15

01:38:42 k15 um i wasn't aware at the time no

01:38:48 do you remember whether you read an nabc certificate at around that time 2009 in respect of k-15 i can't

01:39:02 at this time did you ever come to read such a document i believe so i think it was quite a bit there's been quite a lot of information post

01:39:13 post um grenfell so it's quite hard to determine what what i've read since or what i've read at the time i don't recall in 2009

01:39:24 i don't recall in 2009 reading an labc document can we go to bre

01:39:29 bre 3012252 please

01:39:45 this is an email uh from sarah colwell uh you among others but it's

01:39:56 uh you among others but it's um the one at the bottom of the screen i just want to ask you about first it's from john raybould and it's on the fourth date of the 14th of

01:40:07 it's on the fourth date of the 14th of may 2009

01:40:09 may 2009 to you sarah caldwell and tony baker in reverse order uh the subject is cladding test labc assessments hi folks i've managed to get an labc

01:40:21 hi folks i've managed to get an labc certificate from hertfordshire that says the kingspan k15 insulation can be used in a mixture of insulation thicknesses masonry or steel frame substrates a min cavity gap 50 millimeters with a

01:40:32 a min cavity gap 50 millimeters with a range of brain screen claddings i'm sure that this will be sent to us officially by kingspan when mark stevens gets back from the middle east i'd like to think we've tried to establish some guidelines like i was

01:40:43 establish some guidelines like i was proposing so that we could at least give mark some help with his system configurations also note that this appears to give automatic acceptance for systems over 18 meters let me know

01:40:54 for systems over 18 meters let me know how we want to move forward cheers john and then if we move up to the top email we can see that sarah colwell sends the email i identified earlier to you

01:41:07 the email i identified earlier to you and dr debbie smith and she attaches some documents and you can see from the attachments that the second document she attaches is

01:41:18 that the second document she attaches is the labc

01:41:19 the labc system approval certificate for kingsman cool firm k15 you see that yes i can see the attachment and she says debbie stroke steve

01:41:33 and she says debbie stroke steve we need to discuss this urgently regards sarah

01:41:37 sarah did you have a discussion i can't recall exactly i would imagine there would have been but i can't recall that discussion do you recall

01:41:51 who was or you would say would have been a party to that discussion i can't recall exactly but if there was

01:42:02 i can't recall exactly but if there was a meeting that was addressed from sarah to myself and debbie smith then i influenced i would guess that there was a meeting

01:42:17 on that subject but i can't recall it do you recall anything of what sarah colwell's concerns were about this certificate

01:42:30 i don't i can't recall that you recall what the urgency was well reading down at the email it did seem to be a basically

01:42:44 it did seem to be a basically a broad brush approach to acceptance claudius

01:42:48 claudius do you remember being concerned that kingspan had managed to acquire an nab certificate that gave automatic approvals for use of kingspan k15 over 18 meters

01:43:00 um i think there was concern i could imagine that there would be concern but it would depend on how the basis on which that certificate was issued

01:43:12 issued you remember reading the certificate at the time i don't remember reading a stephen i

01:43:17 stephen i probably did but i don't recall right is it possible to see the certificate uh yes it is uh we'll get to that kin four zero is five seven

01:43:28 zero is five seven zero five i have some questions before we get to it but let's helps you kin four zero is five seven zero five

01:44:06 uh

01:44:10 oh no that's that that's five zero seven five actually what i want it's my fault it's five seven zero five i apologize

01:44:32 kin405705

01:44:37 so there's the system approvals certificate do you think you read it at the time i don't recognize it do you remember whether any action was

01:44:48 do you remember whether any action was taken by the bre is a result of sarah colwell's message that there should be an urgent discussion about what to do about this certificate i

01:44:59 i don't recall what happened after that

01:45:04 do you remember reading this certificate at the time when you received it

01:45:15 as i said i don't recall reading this certificate i probably did

01:45:22 okay so then if you probably did can we go down to page

01:45:28 four

01:45:33 you can see it's from here for sure not hertfordshire as the email says and then if you go please to uh requirement b safety considerations

01:45:45 requirement b safety considerations which are in the middle of page four k15 has been tested in accordance with and you can see there the bs8414 part one and then the pair of bs476 tests

01:45:58 pair of bs476 tests see that there then it says from the results you with me it says from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility

01:46:09 as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame

01:46:16 but when it says from the results of those three tests it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility that was wholly inaccurate wasn't it

01:46:29 yes as as defined by adb no that is inaccurate yes uh

01:46:37 yes uh the fact that it had passed to bs8414 test did not mean that it was a material of limited combustibility did it

01:46:44 no did it not occur to you at the time when you read it or probably read it as you tell us that this certificate certified

01:46:52 certified k15 as a material of limited combustibility and therefore could be used in

01:46:57 used in any cladding system over 18 meters as i said i don't recall reading this

01:47:07 but i mean have bre been specifically asked in terms of their response to this document

01:47:17 well john raybald identifies the fact in his email that i showed you that it appears to give automatic approval for the use of k15 over 18 meters

01:47:28 did that did that not prompt you to look at the certificate and realize or work out why it was that mr raybald was saying that

01:47:39 as i said i can't recall reading that

01:47:44 document specifically but nor do i know i mean has any request gone into bre as to what actually happened whether this was dealt

01:47:55 actually happened whether this was dealt with a complaint or something like that at that time did it occur to you at the time when you read this certificate to the best of your recollection that that statement there

01:48:06 that statement there that as a result of these three tests k-15 could be considered a material of limited combustibility was dangerously untrue

01:48:17 as i said i can't recall reading the document but if presented with that now yes it's untrue it's not representative of the product it's not representative of k-15

01:48:29 product it's not representative of k-15 so that's in terms of approved document but

01:48:33 but you remember whether the bre raised this question

01:48:37 question of this statement that it and its accuracy with the labc at the time or at all i don't recall do you remember whether the bre raised the question of this statement and its

01:48:49 the question of this statement and its accuracy

01:48:50 accuracy with kingston at the time or at all i i don't know i as i said if

01:49:02 i mean would it be possible to request what other correspondence is available to this

01:49:10 to this statement you read this at the time and see mr rabold's statement at the time you would have realized uh that k-15 uh was

01:49:21 uh that k-15 uh was was now um accompanied by a certificate which would allow it to be put on high-rise buildings above 18 meters with a range of different configurations

01:49:36 but as i said i don't recall reading that

01:49:39 that and there may have been a risk but if we've had a meeting the agreed response may have come out from someone else to both the labc and kingsman and i'm not i

01:49:51 and kingsman and i'm not i do not recall what the sequence of events was after that we've seen no documents uh which show that the bre ever took the inaccuracy of this statement up with either the labc or

01:50:03 statement up with either the labc or with kingston does that does the absence of any such communication accord with your recollection

01:50:13 i don't really recall i don't i don't if we'd have seen that documentation i would have thought there would have been a formal response out of bre on

01:50:26 been a formal response out of bre on that phone let me see if i can leave it with you this way if there had been a response either to the labc or to kingspan

01:50:35 kingspan about this statement in this certificate you would have seen it at the time wouldn't you

01:50:42 uh potentially yes but as i said i don't

01:50:50 recall

01:50:54 i'd like now to look please at the content of the br135 report the classification report that was issued for the may 2005 test for k-15 can we start with your witness statement

01:51:06 can we start with your witness statement please paragraph 247 on page 56

01:51:16 uh here that uh for me having cited parts of the test report i've shown you

01:51:29 you say paragraph 247 for me this was simply a matter of looking at the results set out in the test report if whatever system the test sponsor had installed met before met the performance criteria in br 135

01:51:42 performance criteria in br 135 then i did not see how or why bre could refuse to classify it details of the system tested however it was made up would be set out in both the test report and the classification report the classification report would be clear

01:51:54 classification report would be clear about the test standard

01:51:58 which which the test was carried out iebs 8414.1 and the classification would be carried out to the current version of br135 iebr 135 third edition 2013.

01:52:12 of br135 iebr 135 third edition 2013. now just pausing there when you say and i think we need to go back to the previous page page 56

01:52:21 when you say

01:52:25 results in the first line there it was simply a matter of looking at the results um do you accept or agree that that

01:52:37 do you accept or agree that that a classification to br 135 involves looking at more than just thermocouple data doesn't it

01:52:44 it yes um

01:52:48 yes um what if the bre no longer held the original

01:52:51 original test file what would happen then

01:52:57 all the information for the classification report should be laid out in the test report right now we went through this a little bit last week would the fact that the bre no longer held the original test file

01:53:10 held the original test file not be a good reason to refuse to issue a classification report no because you should be able to what's actually put into the public domain

01:53:22 actually put into the public domain is the test report so on the basis of that document you should be able to issue a br 135 there should be nothing in the file or

01:53:33 in the file or this could be entirely transparent on that basis what if you weren't able to verify all the components of the test break would that not be a good reason to

01:53:44 would that not be a good reason to refuse to issue a classification report

01:53:49 no as i said classification report is issued against the test report

01:53:58 what if there are inaccuracies or inadequacies in the test report that if carried across would render your classification report similarly

01:54:10 classification report similarly inaccurate or inadequate if that existed would that be a good reason to refuse to issue a classification report

01:54:20 it could potentially but as i said if the test report has been issued and the test report is considered to be representative of a full test

01:54:32 representative of a full test then as i said classification report is just a pass fail against that test report so the information in the test report if that's accepted

01:54:44 that carries through to the br 135 going back to where we started this morning i just want to ask you that about

01:54:56 about the thing you were classifying can we start by looking at bs8414 uh the test report itself which is br

01:55:07 uh the test report itself which is br e402511

01:55:09 e402511 this is the 2005 test report

01:55:25 and the title of the report is a bs 8414 part 1 2002 test on a phenolic insulated rain screen system note the word system there

01:55:37 word system there now we're going to come back into the report shortly but let's just go to a different document can we go to nhb 401317 please

01:55:58 nhb401317

01:56:03 uh this is a document published by the nhbc

01:56:07 nhbc in january of 2015 and you can just see the date

01:56:10 the date at the bottom of the screen in front of you mr howard i think it's it's there can you see that yes uh there it is thank you and it's entitled

01:56:21 there it is thank you and it's entitled planet 2015 cladding systems can we go to page nine in that document

01:56:32 here we see under the heading cladding systems rain screen cladding system properties

01:56:39 it says there in the first paragraph you see that it says that rain screen clouding is an external jointed skin that prevents

01:56:51 jointed skin that prevents the majority of rainwater from penetrating a wall see that uh and it goes on to say uh the airtight the inner airtight

01:57:02 uh the airtight the inner airtight structure acts as a final barrier against water with any water that does penetrate the outer skin and cladding through joints due to forces of wind surface tension and capillary action being drained away between these two skins is a ventilated cavity where water is drained

01:57:15 cavity where water is drained or allowed to evaporate

01:57:19 and then

01:57:23 it uh it uh goes uh on a page

01:57:31 uh well that that's taken that sorry i'm so sorry that that then goes on underneath um that's you'll see a diagram at the bottom of the page see that

01:57:45 and it's got three bullet points there it's clear from that isn't it that the outer layer the rain screen itself just looking at the first paragraph

01:57:56 paragraph is to stop the majority of rain water from penetrating the wall that's the purpose

01:58:00 purpose of the rain screen cladding forming part of the system do you agree well i agree that that is what that system that document

01:58:12 that is what that system that document says but i don't we fire test the solar systems i don't design we don't get involved in the design of systems in terms of water ingress

01:58:23 no i understand that um do you agree with me that the outer layer used in any bs8414 test which is a full system test should have a

01:58:37 system test should have a should be comprised of a panel which prevents the majority of rainwater from penetrating a wall

01:58:46 i think this comes down to design because a lot of the facade systems can be very open-jointed so i don't

01:58:57 so i don't it's it will come down to the materials properties but i understand from rain screen cladding systems that they are not

01:59:03 not watertight the design of the system is that the water can penetrate what that means in terms of majority i don't know that rain screen systems will allow water to penetrate

01:59:15 systems will allow water to penetrate because they're designed in that way to train

01:59:18 train inventively i don't know what point that you

01:59:25 that you move across the line from majority to but do you agree that in in simple terms the purpose of a rain screen panel is a

01:59:36 the purpose of a rain screen panel is a screen

01:59:37 screen against the rain to some extent yes would you say to some extent to what extent would it not be a screen against the rain

01:59:48 the rain because you can get very it's not my area of expertise but you can get rain screen cladding systems with quite wide joints

01:59:56 joints so you will almost inevitably have water penetrating in through the rain screen cladding system and that is why they're designed as they are to allow drainage down

02:00:09 are to allow drainage down and ventilation to systems it's not my area of expertise but just it's not entirely waterproof rain screen cladding systems not an entirely waterproof outer

02:00:20 systems not an entirely waterproof outer line

02:00:21 line it may not be entirely waterproof because of jointed gaps and matters of that nature but would you expect the material from which a rain screen

02:00:32 the material from which a rain screen panel was manufactured would be water resistant as i said uh yes i think if it's going to be used in an outdoor application

02:00:44 in an outdoor application then yes i would but rain screen cladding systems are not watertight system

02:00:49 system and you wouldn't use a cement fiberboard as the outer layer of an actual building as a rain screen because it's not an adequate screen against the ray but we wouldn't be checking on

02:01:00 but we wouldn't be checking on performance of moisture content on outside lighters to perform a fire test and as i said there are examples of cement based boards that you can use in rain screen clouds

02:01:12 in rain screen clouds and rain screen clouding systems by design and not watertight this wasn't i'm going to suggest to you a rain screen cladding system because it did not have cladding panels which operated

02:01:23 which operated as a rain screen they were just building ports

02:01:29 well as i said i don't we wouldn't check the material properties of the rain screen systems to confirm water penetration or water uptake and unless unless you had

02:01:39 had checked to make sure that the cementitious particle board used in the 2005 test whatever it was was actually effective

02:01:52 was actually effective to repel rain water it wouldn't be a rain screen cladding system that you tested but with those checks are not conducted

02:02:03 but with those checks are not conducted we do not check on the engine we were leaving we would not check on the wind loading performance would not check on the rain performance of the system

02:02:12 system that comes down to the system designer and the test sponsor to make sure that the system that they are testing is representative wouldn't comment on anything other than the fire test

02:02:23 the fire test what if the uh test sponsor came along with an outer rain screen made of paper blotting paper for example would you still go ahead and classify that under

02:02:34 classify that under br135

02:02:37 in accordance with the test methodology under bs8414 i think some of these things need to be looked at but in principle

02:02:50 i think that's a more difficult question from something that's you wouldn't test blotting paper i do think there is a line to be drawn that lab shouldn't comment on design and if you can test to a standard

02:03:02 design and if you can test to a standard and it falls within the scope of the standard then that is the reason for classification and in 2015 mr howard where did you draw

02:03:13 and in 2015 mr howard where did you draw that line

02:03:14 that line my view was that the system was in compliance with bs8414 therefore we could issue a classification on that base i know that was the consequence my question is where did you draw the line

02:03:29 question is where did you draw the line which you referred to a moment ago when you said you wouldn't test blotting paper

02:03:34 paper well you wouldn't test plotting paper but you would classify a test which would use

02:03:38 would use cementitious particle board where is the line to be drawn between blocking paper and the cementitious particle please um i'm not sure that i could

02:03:50 please um i'm not sure that i could i can answer that question currently i think

02:03:53 think things have moved on considerably experience is different i think the system that was classified in my view comply with the

02:04:04 view comply with the vs8414 standard i think if it had been a more fragile system if we got asked to say classify without

02:04:15 we got asked to say classify without a facade at all then that i think i would have taken advice because that's beyond the limits of the standard

02:04:28 who would you have taken advice from possibly

02:04:31 possibly sarah caldwell tony banker debbie smith so i think from that last answer it's right is it that at the time in mid

02:04:43 it's right is it that at the time in mid to late 2015 you did understand that there was a line between what was compliant with the bs8414 standard

02:04:53 standard so far as components were concerned to make up the system and what wasn't that right no it's more a procedural and classification issue really it's

02:05:06 and classification issue really it's whether

02:05:08 whether bre whether we regarded a just a pure insulation test or something with blotting paper on the front as an indicative test and reported

02:05:19 front as an indicative test and reported it accordingly or whether that would be given the status of a full test if it's given the forte status of a test recall then i think my position is it should be classifiable

02:05:32 should be classifiable um i just want to explore that a little bit please you say it's whether the bre regarded it as a pure insulation test

02:05:44 pure insulation test or something with blotting paper on the front just taking it in stages do you agree that the bs 8414 test was a full system test yes it's a system test not a product

02:05:56 yes it's a system test not a product test

02:05:58 test that's a system test and that in order to test the full system the system has to be a rain screen system

02:06:10 yes you are testing a system in accordance with bsa41 and in order to be that system that system has to have a a material or

02:06:22 have a a material or product acting as the rain screen which in fact

02:06:25 in fact does act as a rain screen yes but as i said we would make no checks

02:06:33 checks on other aspects of board performance because what the manufacturer or test sponsor is doing is supplying a product and mark

02:06:42 and mark all we are engaged to do is review the fire performance of that board we wouldn't go on from there and check things like wind loading durability water ingress

02:06:54 wind loading durability water ingress of what the rest of the product on the system was tested mr miller forgive my interruption but uh didn't we investigate this pretty thoroughly last week

02:07:06 thoroughly last week uh we did mr chairman i'm just going it's a precursor to where i'm going next well um perhaps we could go there can we go to page six of the classification report

02:07:26 classification report uh that's a kin four five zeros one three four

02:07:33 k i n five zeros one three four

02:07:53 uh and if we go to page six in that please we'll see a description of the raid screen system

02:08:02 paragraph 2.2 description of product phenolic insulated grain screen system and i'll just read it to you it says uh fixing details cool them k15

02:08:14 uh fixing details cool them k15 zero odp phenolic range screens insulation boards 1200 millimeters by 900 millimeters by 60 millimeters thick we're mechanically fixed to the block work substrate six 1200 by nine hundred by six

02:08:26 six 1200 by nine hundred by six millimeters thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac were mechanically fixed to six hundred millimeters in railing system which was also mechanically fixed to the block work

02:08:37 mechanically fixed to the block work substrate

02:08:38 substrate the cement boards provided the over cladding for the rain screen system a 40 millimeter deep ventilated cavity was created between the cool thumb k15 zero adp phenolic grain screen insulation board and the cement particle

02:08:50 insulation board and the cement particle board

02:08:51 board fast hopping was provided by a ventilated rain screen barrier system comprising of nominal 2.5 millimeters thick graphite based intubation strip bonded to nominal 0.6 millimeter thick

02:09:02 bonded to nominal 0.6 millimeter thick galvanized steel sheet and position 0.5 meters and 4 meters above the fire chamber or both the main face and the wing face

02:09:10 wing face did you take that straight from the 2005 test report or did you redraft it in any way do you think i can't recall that looks like it was taken straight from the test report

02:09:26 right uh were you able to verify all the components of the test rig that you described here

02:09:40 well the description there and it probably needs to be checked back against the test report if the test report

02:09:49 report is if that is the description within the test report then that which is what was used as part of this classification right so you didn't actually take steps

02:10:01 right so you didn't actually take steps to

02:10:02 to go behind the original test report to check the components of the test string no as i said we would issue the process for issuing a classification report is

02:10:14 report is the classification is issued against the test report yes so you didn't just to be clear look at the delivery notes the full set of photographs or the video files no by the time the test report is issued

02:10:27 no by the time the test report is issued it's

02:10:28 it's in place now we we know that the system didn't in fact incorporate a cement particle board manufactured by uac the building board

02:10:39 manufactured by uac the building board in fact used was a cellulose fiber cement board did you know that none right

02:10:52 looking at the description of the fire barriers i've read this to you go back to it please page six

02:11:05 uh it says fire stopping do you see in the fourth line nearly third lineup from the bottom first stop be provided by a ventilated brain screen barrier system

02:11:17 system comprising of nominal 2.5 millimeters thick graphite based in tumescent strip bonded to nominal 0.6 millimeter thick galvanized steel sheet now you say that there can i just show you a document

02:11:29 you a document um in bre 403278

02:11:36 if we can go to that please

02:11:44 bre 403278 this is an email from either meredith 3rd of november 2005 to phil clark copy to david hall and he uh three lines down into that

02:11:58 and he uh three lines down into that asks proposes for the confidential section of the bre promo report rsv ventilated brain screen barrier system comprising of nominal 2.5 into

02:12:10 system comprising of nominal 2.5 into mex

02:12:11 mex lpsk graphite based intumescent strip bonded a nominal 0.6 millimeters said 2 bright spangled galvanized steel sheet complying with bsen

02:12:23 sheet complying with bsen 10142 1991 for base steel bs282989 for the z2 bright spangled galvanizing you see that now mr meredith

02:12:34 you see that now mr meredith told the inquiry that by confidential section he was referring to the bre's file for the test and for our name that's day 75 pages 78 to 80. my question having shown you this is

02:12:46 my question having shown you this is were you aware of this description given by mr meredith when authorizing the classification report

02:12:54 no

02:13:00 so is it right there that you had no idea

02:13:03 idea who the manufacturer of the fire barriers was

02:13:09 um not at that time [Music]

02:13:14 did you have the manufacturer's details

02:13:19 on a file anywhere well as i said the only file that we had access to was a test report

02:13:36 if we

02:13:40 put the 2005 test report and the 2015 classification report up at the same time we just do that bre 40 is 2511 page six

02:13:51 40 is 2511 page six and kin 50134 page six

02:14:13 you can compare the two paragraphs

02:14:24 and uh you could see that in the

02:14:29 version on the right-hand side of the screen see that which is the 2005 test report

02:14:35 report uh in the last

02:14:39 a few words of that paragraph under fixing details the words in brackets say full manufacturers details are held on file those words have been

02:14:49 been deleted or not carried across at least to the description of product in the classification report in 2015.

02:14:58 you see that yes did you notice that those words hadn't been carried across when you authorized the 2015 classification report um

02:15:12 report um i don't recall i mean the classification report refers specifically to a test report so the classification report

02:15:22 report should be read in conjunction with the test report therefore

02:15:29 it's regarded as a summary of the test report yes my question is when you um authorize the 2015 classification report did you

02:15:41 2015 classification report did you notice that the words full manufacturer's details are held on file have not been carried across into the

02:15:46 the 2015 version from the 2005 test report as i've checked the report yes i would have been aware that those statements have been removed yes and

02:15:59 statements have been removed yes and did you ask yourself why that statement had been removed no as i said the classification report the description in the classification

02:16:10 the description in the classification reports a summary so you would expect whoever's reading the classification report if they need the level of detail should go back and refer to the test report

02:16:22 refer to the test report and if they'd done that and ask for the full manufacturer's details held on file what would have happened then it would have been a referral back

02:16:35 then it would have been a referral back to kingspan to provide the details of what was there we wouldn't have entered into

02:16:43 into discussion directly on that test report the reference referral would have been made back to kinsman

02:16:53 why were you issuing a classification report

02:16:57 report without the manufacturers details available as had been the case when the test report had been produced

02:17:13 it's very very common in classification reports especially reaction to fire ones for certain information to be withheld at the request of the test it didn't strike me as anything unusual

02:17:26 it didn't strike me as anything unusual at that time

02:17:30 did kingspan ask you to withhold any information which otherwise would go into the class

02:17:41 which otherwise would go into the class this classification report no so to answer my ask my question again please

02:17:47 please why were you issuing a classification report without the manufacturer's details available as has been the case at the time of the issue

02:17:57 issue of the test report

02:18:01 because as i said it's pretty common practice to for reaction file reaction to fire test reports to have certain items removed

02:18:11 removed now if we were asked that question although we didn't have the test file probably we probably would have been able to come up with those details of what was in that test

02:18:22 those details of what was in that test report

02:18:23 report if we were asked directly as i said issuing

02:18:28 issuing report test reports and classification reports with specific manufacturers details

02:18:33 details is common yes i'm sorry to press you a little bit i'm not quite sure we've got the bottom of this um you could see when you authorized the 2015 classification report that the

02:18:44 2015 classification report that the original 2005 test report referred to a file containing manufacturer's details yes yeah uh when you authorized the 2015 report did you ask veda

02:18:55 report did you ask veda or ask kingspan for this for that manufacturer's details file i didn't no why's that because i'd say it wasn't didn't strike

02:19:07 because i'd say it wasn't didn't strike me that we were doing anything particularly different to test reports and classification reports that are issued on a regular basis we draw in specific bits of information

02:19:20 bits of information the information that information would have been accessible by the manufacturer and ultimately i suspect we would have been able to find it at

02:19:32 we would have been able to find it at the re if

02:19:33 the re if necessary why didn't you simply copy across

02:19:37 across from the 2005 test report into the classification report full manufacturer's details held on file

02:19:45 because the description that the product in a classification pool is usually a summary

02:19:50 summary so there is an element of it refers from the classification report back

02:19:57 back to the test report and i didn't think that statement was considered necessary i i don't know really

02:20:08 really probably that didn't feel that that statement was necessary well every other statement in the fixing details has been copied across more or less copied across uh into

02:20:20 more or less copied across uh into that passage i read you under description of product why wasn't the full manufacturer's details held on file also copied across because as i said the description of product it's a summary document

02:20:32 product it's a summary document and as i said that sort of detail is usually held in

02:20:37 test reports the classification reports refers you to the test report if they've read the test report then there'd have been a statement there of four manufacturers details held on fire you agree that being able

02:20:49 held on fire you agree that being able to confirm the components of the test rig when authorizing the classification report is crucial i think there should have been further

02:21:01 i think there should have been further checks but it's not uncommon to have certain information withheld from fire testing reports it's common

02:21:10 if anybody was going to be using this classification report and the test report to build a cladding system that corresponded exactly with what had

02:21:22 that corresponded exactly with what had been tested and classified they would need to know precisely what the components of the test ring were wouldn't they yes and that could be obtained from the

02:21:33 yes and that could be obtained from the test sponsor which is kingsman

02:21:38 do you accept that it was impossible for anybody to replicate the system tested using these two documents

02:21:50 it would depend on what information is contained within the drawings

02:21:57 drawings you couldn't tell exactly what was on the rig from that description but in conjunction with the test sponsor who knew and if it came to it we could

02:22:09 who knew and if it came to it we could have found out has been demonstrated we could have found out what was actually in that system

02:22:13 system if it needed to be replicated

02:22:27 you accept that it was impossible for anyone to design a compliant building on the basis of this test report and this classification report you wouldn't use a testing

02:22:38 you wouldn't use a testing classification or to solely design a building

02:22:41 building i would say in conjunction with the information provided by the test sponsor which they had were aware that they would

02:22:52 a test system could be um developed and and installed on a building can we look sorry can i sorry to keep interrupting you mr minute but i'm

02:23:03 interrupting you mr minute but i'm rather concerned about this we all understand that bs8414 is a system test yes and as such it simply determines the response of a specific

02:23:15 determines the response of a specific system to

02:23:17 system to the fire test now why is it not appropriate to identify all the components of the system

02:23:28 all the components of the system uh including the manufacturer of those components it is but the manufacture across on the european scale across europe

02:23:40 on the european scale across europe it's there's a framework for testing under the construction products regulation system and under that system manufacturers are permitted to withhold data

02:23:53 are permitted to withhold data and it's common within the test reports now

02:23:57 now bre can provide substantiated evidence of this in terms of the standards that have been referred to but i think but beyond that it's down to the test sponsor to act and provide the additional

02:24:10 to act and provide the additional information so your understanding is that the the manufacturers you put it can decide the extent to which the products

02:24:20 products used in his system are identified

02:24:25 a lot of testing especially reactions of fire they can put in states that essentially

02:24:34 it's not adequately specified and that is

02:24:37 is fairly common across reaction to fire testing

02:24:42 testing all right thank you that's helpful i didn't realize that

02:24:46 yes mr miller

02:24:57 yes mr miller mr chairman we may have to revisit that with the witness uh at a later point um can i ask you whether you were aware

02:25:08 can i ask you whether you were aware that by the time the 2015 classification report was issued

02:25:13 issued k-15 had undergone a number of major changes

02:25:17 changes now

02:25:21 did you know for example that in september 2006 um new technology

02:25:32 in relation to the introduction of perforations to the foil facings of k-15 that had come into k-15

02:25:44 come into k-15 no i wasn't aware of any modifications to the product be aware that between the were you aware that the k-15 that had been tested in 2005

02:25:56 had been tested in 2005 uh had no perforations in the foil facings whereas that being sold after 2006

02:26:01 2006 did no i wasn't aware of any changes to k-15

02:26:10 was that something that you would expect to be told by kingspan when asking you to classify k-15 based on the 2005 test

02:26:24 in 2015. yes i think yes there should have been a declaration in place

02:26:32 in place to say if we were going to do that there should have been a manufacturer's declaration to say nothing nothing had changed right you say there should have been a manufacturer's

02:26:43 should have been a manufacturer's declaration in place was that a formal step that bre required of its clients when asking to classify a product based

02:26:55 a product based on an earlier test no

02:27:00 so when you say there should have been a manufacturer's declaration is that something you've ever seen before as of 2015 had you ever seen such a declaration before that we'd asked for statements in effect um

02:27:14 we'd asked for statements in effect um the products had not changed following um

02:27:21 when requested come in for change of name i don't not you wouldn't usually ask for that sort of declaration against the test report because the test reports a statement of fact and

02:27:33 the test reports a statement of fact and at a specific moment in time if they're asking for modifications to the test report or classification report classification letters then you would start asking for that

02:27:44 then you would start asking for that sort of

02:27:46 sort of declaration

02:27:51 you say classification report letters what are those there's a when you classify to class o it's issued as a letter it's not necessarily classification

02:28:03 necessarily classification the european system for testing is a defined report in a defined format um cladding 8414 is a defined format as

02:28:15 cladding 8414 is a defined format as defined by br135 but for class 0 you would just issue a separate classification letter and at what point when issuing a classification letter

02:28:26 classification letter would you ask for a declaration that nothing could change in the product only if we were following e-golf procedures and they were requesting things like a

02:28:37 and they were requesting things like a change of name re-badging off the test report

02:28:47 are you aware that in october 2020 the ps8414 test and br 135 classification reports were withdrawn by kingspan because k15

02:29:01 were withdrawn by kingspan because k15 that had been tested was an entirely different product what was being sold in the market after 2006. the first i heard of that was when the letter was

02:29:12 letter was issued by kingsman and is that fact not something that you should have checked expressly with kingspan before proceeding to issue classification report in september 2015.

02:29:25 classification report in september 2015. as i said test reports across the fire industry

02:29:29 industry in my experience as snapshots in time there's on no no ongoing monitoring the testing whatsoever there's no contract in place we do not do any surveillance

02:29:40 surveillance my view at the time is we were issuing a classification report against the document

02:29:44 document test report we wouldn't there are the responsibilities on the manufacturers for test reports and classification reports that it's sits

02:29:56 that it's sits within there's no surveillance there's no auditing of what goes on i understand that but given the lapse of a decade was it not the obvious question to ask

02:30:06 to ask i didn't expect to be asked to issue a classification report if the product had changed

02:30:11 changed no that's not my question or other it answers to a different question let me ask the question one more time uh given the lapse of a decade was it not the obvious question to ask

02:30:22 to ask very simply can you confirm this problem

02:30:27 no it wasn't because of the view that i had of test and classification reports you are the classification report is a statement of past fame

02:30:38 of past fame there's no ongoing validity it was a statement of past fail against that test it's no endorsement of future

02:30:45 future manufacturing it's a statement of past failing against that test now can we then turn to the test carried out in march 2014

02:30:56 out in march 2014 by kingspan uh on a system incorporating a trespa uh rain screen over k-15 insulation

02:31:07 uh rain screen over k-15 insulation the test i think we've seen documents relating to it earlier was carried out on the 19th of march 2014 now at that time march 2014 is it right you were the

02:31:19 march 2014 is it right you were the business group manager yes and would you therefore have had oversight

02:31:25 oversight of the test program at that time yes and i think you attended this test didn't you there was two trespa tests on

02:31:38 there was two trespa tests on different dates it was it depends on which test we're now talking about because it was too probably right let's go to your witness

02:31:50 probably right let's go to your witness statement to see if we can clear that page 43 paragraph 195.

02:32:02 and the question is question seven which is going

02:32:05 is going we need to go up the screen a little bit please

02:32:09 please if you go screen see question seven test report two nine three nine four zero dated 26 june 2014 a copy of which

02:32:20 zero dated 26 june 2014 a copy of which is attached to your reference was approved and signed by you the test sponsor was kingspan insulation right

02:32:27 right and the system tested to bs 8414 about 1 2005 on 19th march 2014 incorporated kings

02:32:34 kings incorporated k-15 and at 195 you just go down the page uh you say in answer to the question who was present during this test both from the bre and the test sponsor

02:32:46 the bre and the test sponsor i understand the following people were present from bre phil clark harry granados tomlin and myself so we can take it that you did attend this yeah yes i did there was two

02:32:58 yeah yes i did there was two hence yeah all right and if we go back a little bit please up the screen of paragraph 193 we can see that you say there

02:33:09 we can see that you say there uh that the text was in the middle of the paragraph deemed to be terminated prematurely due to flames off the top of the rig see that

02:33:20 that yeah and then you go on to say as such the test system could not be classified to be r135 this was disputed by kingspan who disagreed with bre's interpretation of

02:33:31 disagreed with bre's interpretation of bsa414 in this respect we are treated this as a formal complaint and maintain his unwillingness to classify the system to br 135.

02:33:42 now

02:33:45 is it right just just tracking through the history as briefly as i can summarize it that uh kingston disagreed and took the point um that paragraph 8.5 of bs8414 part

02:34:00 um that paragraph 8.5 of bs8414 part two because this is a part two test uh only applied during the third first 30 minutes of the test

02:34:09 yes i i understand that that was their objection

02:34:13 objection the point in which they wish to contest the result and then the bre considered that to be a formal complaint and the formal complaint procedures were um invoked yes now let's go

02:34:26 um invoked yes now let's go to uh bre 3015608 please

02:34:35 this is an email

02:34:40 in may 2014 if you go down to page two you can see the one i want

02:34:51 is an email from tony miller chat bottom part of the screen emailed from tony miller 21st of may 2014 to bre quality group and you are one of the people copied in

02:35:02 and you are one of the people copied in on that email you see that yes

02:35:08 and it's also copied to t randall at fennick elliott uh who i think were kingspan's lawyers at the time weren't they

02:35:19 at the time weren't they i wasn't aware of that i'll take it from me

02:35:25 in the second paragraph you can see that mr miller chat refers to a meeting that took place on the 9th of may and he says that a recent meeting dated friday night may between your mr stephen howard mr tony baker oh

02:35:37 your mr stephen howard mr tony baker oh mr ivan meredith and myself we confirmed we still wish to receive the test report according to the test standard bsa414 part 2 2005. i would also like a classification against br135

02:35:50 against br135 and then he goes on to say points verified at the meeting include full draft test report to be supplied at the earliest opportunity the test was valid and according to all the needs of the standard

02:36:02 the needs of the standard uh video evidence from the rearward cameras was not was requested interpretation against the br135 criteria is not limited to the bre bre has proposed an amendment to the

02:36:13 bre has proposed an amendment to the standard to reap to define the test duration of 60 minutes and then questions underneath that mr philip confirmed on the day of the test it was not terminated before

02:36:24 test it was not terminated before t plus 60 minutes was reached this has been retracted definition of the test duration it is our contention that the full test duration is variable between t plus 30 minutes and t plus 60 minutes this is evidenced in the

02:36:36 plus 60 minutes this is evidenced in the standard b 3.4 and the r135b2

02:36:42 now does his uh record thus far and that there are there's more of it over the page but thus far does that correspond with your recollection of the meeting

02:36:58 um some aspects do others do not

02:37:06 i mean the the second line the test was valid and the call did all the needs of the test stand before that was being well depends on what he meant by that i don't really know at all events do you

02:37:18 i don't really know at all events do you recall the basic point which is that at that meeting king span uh made it clear that they wanted a test report

02:37:27 report but from the bre yes did they explain why they wanted a test report

02:37:35 report uh the inference was that they were going to take it to someone else to obtain a br135 classification you said that was the inference did you

02:37:46 you said that was the inference did you ask the question why do you want a test report given that it was terminated early

02:37:51 early no because the they're entitled to a test report

02:38:04 it's contractual we contracted to conduct a test the test had been conducted we were contracted to issue a test report right but it looks from the first bullet

02:38:18 right but it looks from the first bullet point

02:38:18 point that that point had to be verified at this meeting full draft test report to be supplied at the earliest opportunity if you were contractually bound to produce one not standing that had been it had been terminated why was this even on the

02:38:30 terminated why was this even on the uh up for discussion because it's quite common

02:38:34 common if you had a test that doesn't complete or

02:38:39 or [Music]

02:38:40 [Music] fails to recruit basically to ask whether a test report is required if the test report is if the test sponsor requires a test report you're respected of the result you're

02:38:52 you're respected of the result you're obliged to issue that test now you said a moment ago your evidence that the inference was that they were going to take it to someone else to obtain a br 135

02:39:03 someone else to obtain a br 135 classification was that your inference as you put it at the time

02:39:10 the time well the question was was br 135 exclusive to bl e and i think the answer to that is no it's not exclusive to brm

02:39:21 it's not exclusive to brm it's a classification report i'm just trying to understand what you mean in your evidence when you say the inference was they were going to take it to someone else to obtain a br 135 classification

02:39:33 135 classification did you suspect that they were going to take the test report and go and get a br 135 classification from somebody else yes because you were refusing to do one

02:39:45 refusing to do one yes who would produce one what sort of person would produce one well another test laboratory could produce it but

02:39:56 produce it but classification reports are not exclusive to laboratories now they are the public domain document a consultant could produce it

02:40:19 go please to bre four zeros four nine eight zero

02:40:28 because i think your inferences you just described it is actually reflected of the time

02:40:35 the time this is bre-404980

02:40:48 this is bre-404980 this is an email from uh you to dr debbie smith and richard hardy on the 26th of may 2014.

02:41:00 and

02:41:07 if you go uh to the yes that's right if you

02:41:21 uh to the yes that's right if you look at the first paragraph you say there were flames over the top of the rig at around 43 minutes this in our view means the test at that point is terminated and if you do not run for the full 60 minutes you cannot be classified against

02:41:32 minutes you cannot be classified against the r135

02:41:34 the r135 kingspan insulation are contesting the interpretation the email was sent for info really i suspect that they will get a another to offer a classification against the test report

02:41:46 does that

02:41:49 email reflect your view at the time or the inference that you've described just now

02:41:54 now that is what i understood was going to happen with that test right now the bre report did prepare a report for the test and

02:42:05 did prepare a report for the test and they sent it through to kingspan in early july do you remember that yes and let's look at that we go to the email first it's bre three zeros

02:42:16 zeros five one five seven three five

02:42:32 and it's an email from you to robbie scott

02:42:37 scott and if you look a little bit lower down the page you can see there's an email from you to either meredith

02:42:43 see that uh 2nd july 1453 i'm a meredith kingspan planning report but the report of the recent test i'm aware you need a response

02:42:53 response to other issues raised in emails and the report itself is at bre3015736 we just go to that

02:43:13 is this the uh test report that you sent mr meredith on the second of july yesterday

02:43:22 yesterday and it's dated the 26th of june 2014 and it bears the number two nine three nine four zero just note that number please for the time being two nine three nine four zero

02:43:34 nine four zero uh and i think if you look at page two you'll see you authorize this report

02:43:40 that's your there's your name and signature now can we go to bre three that's bra3018037 please

02:43:51 three that's bra3018037 please you go to page four

02:43:57 this is an email from bill clark on the 16th of january 2015 a little bit later

02:44:06 later uh and you could see that he says to america

02:44:10 america who is another client i think of the bre

02:44:15 and he says in the first uh

02:44:30 paragraph he says there uh good morning amber i hope you're well

02:44:39 uh i'm sorry i lost the reference to that uh

02:44:43 that uh like page four i'm so sorry this should be page four i think you might need to scroll up a little bit in this document

02:44:59 and uh if you go

02:45:03 up the page a little bit please

02:45:07 i'm looking for the email of the 16th of january which i think is the bottom of the screen my screen seems to be jumping about a bit i apologize uh that's the one i want

02:45:18 bit i apologize uh that's the one i want it's

02:45:18 it's an email for phil clark the 16th of january 2015. good morning amari i hope you're well i would suggest that you discuss the issuing of a report mr howard as we do not issue bs 8414 reports of

02:45:30 as we do not issue bs 8414 reports of the system did not complete the if the system did not complete the test requirements i'm happy to draft a quick letter report showing the data which steve may be able to forward to you now i know you didn't see this at the

02:45:41 now i know you didn't see this at the time

02:45:42 time necessarily but um when mr clark says we do not issue bs 8414 reports if the system did not complete the test requirements was phil clark stating the formal policy

02:45:54 was phil clark stating the formal policy of the bre no i don't believe so

02:46:00 why did he say it then do you know i don't

02:46:04 don't if you run a test and the client requests

02:46:08 requests a test report whatever that test result is

02:46:12 is my understanding is that the contractually obliged to issue

02:46:17 right so mr clark is telling mr mr miss america something which wasn't correct is that right when he says

02:46:28 right when he says that the bre doesn't issue ps8414 tests if the system doesn't complete the test requirements yes i don't believe that that is correct why would he say it

02:46:41 why would he say it i don't know but as i said contractually bre

02:46:46 bre or any test lab you are contractually obliged to issue a test report well let's go back then to the email run we were looking at before which is um may 2014 so a little bit

02:47:00 which is um may 2014 so a little bit earlier in time bre 30 is 15608 please 15608

02:47:09 i broke off halfway through that email to come into this later one but let's get back to it if you go a little bit further down the page um to the bottom of page two and onto the top of page three

02:47:20 onto the top of page three you can see that after the further bullet points um and i think we need the next page page three please top of page three you can see that in the

02:47:32 the third paragraph down it says this issue you see that yes this issue is of such significance to kingspan's business that we have consulted with our lawyers who have confirmed that in their view bre's current position cannot be

02:47:44 bre's current position cannot be justified

02:47:45 justified we recognize the influential position bre hold and do not wish to contradict its views

02:47:50 its views however our conviction is such that we may have no other option

02:47:56 due to the fact that king spam were getting their lawyers involved perhaps involved influenced the vre's decision to issue a ps8414 test no beca and that is the reason once the

02:48:09 no beca and that is the reason once the complaint has got to that stage we've got independent qa department it was raised as a complaint there was visibility of what we were doing

02:48:22 no this was even throughout the qa and compliance department there's no suggestion that we shouldn't issue a test report my position is whether a test passes or fails

02:48:33 fails we've been paid to issue a test report and that is what we were contracted to do

02:48:37 do there wasn't a position where bre would refuse to issue a test report based on test performance or i am not aware of it mr clark's evidence that it was very

02:48:49 mr clark's evidence that it was very unusual it was very unusual for the bre to issue a test report where the test had been terminated early it is unusual because but it's not unheard of it's

02:49:02 but it's not unheard of it's it's unusual because for the most part the way you conduct the testing they don't want the full test report for um a failed test clients don't generally

02:49:14 um a failed test clients don't generally want that

02:49:16 want that so it's offered and often you will close a contract with just a simple letter but that won't be the only example of bre offering a test report on the test at the time but he also i think

02:49:29 the test at the time but he also i think indicated in his evidence that he was very uncomfortable uh when uh the vre agreed to produce a report a test report for this test notwithstanding that has been terminated early

02:49:40 early but as i said the contractual position is

02:49:43 is run the test and as part of that you produce a test report then it doesn't say on the basis if the test passes it's a

02:49:54 on the basis if the test passes it's a test report yes it wasn't the impression one got from his evidence he wouldn't be uncomfortable about producing a test report if in fact it was something that the vre was contractually obliged to do anyway would he

02:50:05 anyway would he can you comment on that well all i can say is a statement that we don't issue or we didn't issue test reports for fails test is incorrect

02:50:17 fails test is incorrect or as i as i'm here that's not my understanding and the qa this complaint was under the scrutiny of our qa department and others and

02:50:27 and there's no mention in there that we should not issue a test report there's nothing within our procedures to say we shouldn't issue a test report against a file test

02:50:44 is it the position that is if the client doesn't ask for a report and the test fails then you don't issue a test report pretty much don't you so it's only if

02:50:55 pretty much don't you so it's only if the client asks but you do yeah and there's other examples of that within both cladding and other areas but you say it's very rare not unheard

02:51:06 but you say it's very rare not unheard of but very rare for a client to ask for a test report where the test has been terminated early i think rare is too strong a word it's not common we do not routinely issue test reports

02:51:18 we do not routinely issue test reports against

02:51:20 against failed tests because the clients don't usually require them and they don't need to do anything with them at that point what they're looking for is a test that passes as i said it's there are

02:51:32 as i said it's there are other examples of tests of final move issue reports and your inference or guess at the time was that they were going to go off and ask another test house

02:51:43 ask another test house classified the test to br 135 from the question that we were asked were there any one good issue of br 135 then yes that was my

02:51:54 issue of br 135 then yes that was my impression given that the test had been terminated early was it your view at the time that it couldn't be classified under br 135

02:52:05 couldn't be classified under br 135 yes and therefore when you suspected that kingspan wanted the test report so that they could go off and get it classified by somebody else to be r135

02:52:17 else to be r135 and did that not alert you to something that something might be wrong

02:52:24 it did and as i said it was raised within bre

02:52:30 others could see the complaint progressing but ultimately

02:52:38 there's a difference of opinion as to whether the test should have been run or should have been terminated or whether the test met the requirements of br135 and other

02:52:49 met the requirements of br135 and other people

02:52:52 are quite within their rights to express a different opinion

02:53:03 we don't see you anywhere saying to that well we don't agree with you but the view you're taking uh about test failure is a terrible view so

02:53:14 about test failure is a terrible view so by all means get a second opinion you don't say that anywhere in the documents we've seen no what actually happened you agreed way forward because it comes down to it because the king's fan position was it

02:53:26 because the king's fan position was it was it was an interpretation of bsa414 test standard so the resolution proposed was to go back to the committee that

02:53:39 back to the committee that um issued the document or is responsible for drafting and get a definitive determination from the drafting committee at the standard as as to whether they

02:53:50 standard as as to whether they viewed the test as a pass or as a fail or whether

02:53:55 whether they agreed with kingspan's position

02:53:59 position or whether they agreed with the pres but that was

02:54:02 that was to go back to the bs committee for review

02:54:09 sorry i'm going to ask my question again it's right that we don't see anywhere in the documents you advising kingspan to go and get a second opinion for you no

02:54:22 and if in fact you were of the view at the time that the point being run by kingspan about why you should produce a test report or why why early termination wasn't a failure was a tenable view

02:54:34 was a tenable view um as a professional impartial testing house you would have said to them well of course

02:54:38 of course that's our view but go and get a second opinion

02:54:41 opinion my question is why didn't you do that we did

02:54:45 did but that second opinion would have come from the bs draft again committee of 841 to get a definitive statement as to the interpretation of the standard at

02:54:56 the interpretation of the standard at that point well let's see how this progresses can we go to bre four zeros three five nine seven please

02:55:10 this is uh an email from robbie scott to you and phil clark on the 12th of june 2014

02:55:22 on the 12th of june 2014 and he asks the question which bit is inconclusive and you need to see the email immediately right i'm so sorry i'm on my system uh if you look at the screen the top email uh is an email of the 11th

02:55:35 the top email uh is an email of the 11th of june

02:55:36 of june i've gone down sorry we're jumping around i think the system's a bit jumpy could you go down to the bottom of the screen there's an email from robbie scott

02:55:43 scott 11th of june 2014. you and phil clark hi steve strakefield following the investigation meeting last friday please find my summary attached

02:55:54 find my summary attached i'm proposing to set up a meeting with you both at the earliest opportunities i feel this complaint is inclusive i would not i would advise not to send out the test report until we have resolved the complaint

02:56:08 and then you i think respond uh on the 12th of june if we scroll up please

02:56:15 please next day and you say which bit is inconclusive yes kingspan straight planning not passing etc you see that yes

02:56:26 did you write that there's your words yes

02:56:31 yes uh i'm just trying to to work this out because what bit is inconclusive is that your question to robin yes and the bit underneath it ds kingspan uh

02:56:42 and the bit underneath it ds kingspan uh cladding not passing is that did you write that or was that his embedded response

02:56:47 response no i wrote that i see you wrote that okay what does that mean

02:56:58 what it actually means is to debbie smith

02:57:02 smith just to put the email in context because did you have a large volume of emails we had a large volume of emails at bre

02:57:13 we had a large volume of emails at bre and it was just a note to debbie to give a reminder to say the email below is of regarding king's fan cladding and the outstanding complaint against

02:57:25 and the outstanding complaint against them i see i see because this was this was a reminder to her who'd seen this is that how is that how it works it was

02:57:36 is that how is that how it works it was literally

02:57:36 literally just to say david was extremely busy they're all busy it was just a note on the line to say just as a bit of an aid memoir to say this is what this email exchange is about

02:57:47 about right now we haven't been able to find a record of any response from mr scott to your question what bit is inconclusive uh is that right did you respond to him

02:57:59 uh is that right did you respond to him by email do you remember i don't think i ever got a response back from

02:58:04 from robbie or stephen phillips or the qa department can we go to bre-405596

02:58:15 bre-405596 mr chairman this is probably the last document for lunch rude

02:58:23 and we can see from this

02:58:26 which is an internal bre document that is part of the complaint file you see that

02:58:38 you had it seems that you had a meeting with mr scott or is this right uh on the 11th of uh

02:58:50 or is this right uh on the 11th of uh uh on the uh fourth of uh november 2014. is that right that's not a form i'm

02:59:03 is that right that's not a form i'm particularly familiar with right do you remember that just looks like a database download do you remember having a meeting with robbie scott

02:59:15 meeting with robbie scott that about this inclusive

02:59:20 i don't know you don't

02:59:25 always determine we'll break there if that's convenient to you to you and we'll come back to this yeah i think that's a good point thank you very much well now

02:59:34 well now um mr hyde we're gonna have a break now so we can all have some lunch we'll resume keys at two o'clock and again no talking about your evidence over the break all right all right thank you very much thank you

02:59:46 all right thank you very much thank you see you at 2 o'clock thank you very much

03:00:07 you

↩ All hearings