BRE witness evidence on access to test files, BS8414 testing procedures, and fire test certificate processes
00:00:09 welcome back everyone we're going to carry on hearing evidence from mr clark this afternoon it's not good afternoon are you there can you see me and hear me yes i'm here sir i can see and hear you
00:00:21 yes i'm here sir i can see and hear you good thank you very much and you're ready to carry on i hope i'm indeed yes thank you very much in that case mr millet when you're ready thank you mr chairman mr clark i want to backtrack a little bit
00:00:32 bit uh and just ask you about uh your access to documents at the bre before you made your witness statement and then we'll come back to kingspan can i ask you please to be shane day 95 of your transcript
00:00:44 of your transcript which was your evidence yesterday
00:00:50 and i'd like to get a page 75 in your evidence there
00:01:09 and at the top of the uh well in the middle of the page i was i was actually asking you questions about the test file
00:01:20 questions about the test file and at line 15 that you say i i ask you rather as you see can you explain why you didn't provide copies of the documents from which you got this information when you provided your statement and
00:01:33 when you provided your statement and that's a reference to paragraphs 148 and 149 about what information you had available to you and you say uh at line 18. i believe they are
00:01:43 they are i'd be very surprised that they're not in there everything you had was what was issued
00:01:47 issued to me by the inquiry then at line 22 you say i'm no longer a bre employee so i was reliant on what was being sent to me
00:01:58 was being sent to me and then if you go over the page please um to line 20. uh you say i'm and i'm asking you again
00:02:11 uh you say i'm and i'm asking you again about documents you say at 9 20 i can't recall i understood they came from the inquiry i was issued a packet of stuff maybe i'm not certain who they came from
00:02:24 and then a little bit over the next page you say
00:02:27 you say at line uh three um on four when i'm asking you where you got the documents you used to compile the paragraph in your
00:02:38 to compile the paragraph in your statement about what documents you had you say i thought they'd been disclosed from the inquiry then if i can ask you get
00:02:45 get one please to page 182 of the transcript from yesterday page 182 i'd like to show you at line 14 page 182
00:02:58 14 page 182 914 uh question can you explain where they were filed or where they were kept or at least why they weren't on the test file
00:03:07 test file uh and uh you say this no and one of the things you need to be aware of is that post the fire at the tower all of the systems that both paper and electronic were locked down at the bre so i had no access to any files on any
00:03:20 so i had no access to any files on any of the systems so anything that i was given i was reliant on the bre to provide me that was your evidence yesterday now mr clark we have received today a letter
00:03:31 mr clark we have received today a letter from the bre's solicitors field fisher which
00:03:38 may be made available to core participants in due course but i just want to put to you what they say and they say this first of all at the time that mr clark prepared
00:03:50 mr clark prepared his statement and that was in july 2019 uh it's right isn't it that the bre was represented by a different firm
00:04:04 and is it right they say that it is um that to allow you to prepare your witness statement you attended the bre's site
00:04:12 site yes um i
00:04:15 yes um i did for about one or two days maybe they say it was a three-day period um yes that's probably right yes they also say that you are unaccompanied by
00:04:27 also say that you are unaccompanied by bre's legal representatives um that is correct yes were you accompanied by anybody um
00:04:37 yes my ex-colleague angela richards came in occasionally but um i was
00:04:46 um i was yes i was given access to what i needed predominantly right um who arranged the the access was it was it bre's lawyers or did you arrange
00:04:58 was it bre's lawyers or did you arrange it um
00:05:00 it um i think it was bre themselves i think who's the main contact point the bre who afforded you that access um dr debbie smith right
00:05:11 um dr debbie smith right uh and phil fisher tell us that you were provided with access to any hard copy and electronic material held by the bre that you considered was potentially relevant to your witness statement and you wish
00:05:23 to your witness statement and you wish to review is that correct um that is correct yes but as i alluded to i think this morning what had happened was for some reason um and i don't know who
00:05:36 for some reason um and i don't know who made the decision that they moved a lot of the files from their original positions and in doing so made searching extremely
00:05:49 and in doing so made searching extremely difficult
00:05:51 difficult so i essentially got what i could in that period and and may not have necessarily picked everything up because it wasn't necessarily in the
00:06:03 because it wasn't necessarily in the places i thought it would be but just to be clear
00:06:07 be clear when you told us yesterday in your evidence that you were reliant on what was sent to you you were issued a packet of stuff and material was disclosed by the inquiry
00:06:19 material was disclosed by the inquiry and you had no access to files after the fire on any of the systems um that's not true is it if field fisher's letter this morning is correct as you've confirmed um
00:06:32 as you've confirmed um yes no i i neglected i forgot that i understood i went down there but what i meant was i had because i was only there i could only review certain amount of stuff i
00:06:43 only review certain amount of stuff i think
00:06:43 think while i was there i looked at some of the
00:06:47 the test videos and basically use them to ask the questions the inquiry have put to me in that regard mr clark the impression
00:06:59 in that regard mr clark the impression you gave from your evidence yesterday which i
00:07:02 which i read out to you in detail from the transcript gave the impression that you were responsive only to the material the bre had pulled together and sent to you
00:07:13 sent to you and that's not true is it in fact you went to the bre yourself and was afforded full access to whatever you asked for um
00:07:24 yes in that i was very reliant on them trying to find things for me um that's a package of material no
00:07:35 that's a package of material no i was originally sent a package of material sir why did you when answering my questions yesterday about the source of the of the um documents that you used to compile your statement why didn't you
00:07:46 compile your statement why didn't you tell us
00:07:47 tell us that um so far from simply being sent a pack of material and being reliant on documents disclosed to you
00:07:55 to you in fact you had had a three-day access at the bre to any documents that you wanted to see why didn't you tell us that um because you hadn't asked the question
00:08:06 um because you hadn't asked the question of that
00:08:07 of that and i'm being asked questions that span almost a decade and a half of
00:08:18 a decade and a half of complex and very detailed material which in reality three days is scratching the surface when you told the inquiry yesterday on oath at
00:08:29 oath at page 182 of the transcript that you had no access to any files of any of the systems
00:08:36 systems that's not correct is it you were afforded three days roving access unsupervised by a lawyer at the bre
00:08:47 um yeah that's that's not holy correct because the the point is yes i had access um i don't disagree with what you say i had access
00:08:59 disagree with what you say i had access to it but
00:09:00 to it but not holy access because what happened was
00:09:03 was every time i went to a place where i thought the information would should be
00:09:10 be because it had been moved it was no longer there and it was um the bre had to search for documents that i thought were relevant and on occasions they couldn't find them
00:09:22 occasions they couldn't find them in the time i was there why didn't you just tell us all about yesterday rather than giving us the impression that you were
00:09:28 were you were sent documents um that's what you said i was sent documents
00:09:36 documents yeah i i just forgot i've gone their heads
00:09:39 heads i've never been in this situation i don't know what's relevant i'm i'm here sitting answering questions that you're asking um and forgotten the fact that you've made a three-day visit
00:09:51 made a three-day visit to the bre three-day visit to the bre at a time when you were no longer employed there
00:09:56 there um no i hadn't forgotten but it didn't come up in the questions you were asking so
00:10:01 so it's i'm i'm reliant on the questions you asked me sir
00:10:07 it wasn't um for any malicious reason other than it didn't come up in the in the way we were talking and i didn't see much of it i'll put it one
00:10:19 i didn't see much of it i'll put it one more time
00:10:20 more time when you told the inquiry uh that poster fire
00:10:23 fire all the systems were locked down and i had no access to any files on any of the systems
00:10:28 systems that was false wasn't it that was fun probably when i said that i meant while i was still working for bre i think i i didn't necessarily mean
00:10:39 necessarily mean um when i was preparing my statement maybe i was misspoke there oh that was that's not the case uh because the next sentence i read was so anything that i was given
00:10:50 i read was so anything that i was given i was reliant on the bre to provide me and this is in the context of my asking you about the material that you use to collate your statement
00:11:01 you use to collate your statement i'm putting it to you that you've given false evidence to the inquiry about this um it's not false evidence yeah it was a
00:11:12 yeah it was a foresight something that i can't explain it was i forgot when you were asking the question that i had been there how could you conceivably have forgotten a three-day visit and a troll through
00:11:24 a three-day visit and a troll through all the materials in order to prepare your witness statement for this inquiry that's not um
00:11:32 it was you you asked me a question i answered it as i remember at the time i didn't necessarily think that was pertinent
00:11:40 pertinent um it's it's not there to mislead or or convey anything else other than um as i answered the time um and if if i should have answered to
00:11:51 um and if if i should have answered to that then i can only apologize for not answering
00:11:54 answering in that way and it wasn't wasn't to mislead or anything other than that during this three-day visit mr clark did you see stephen howard um only to say hello
00:12:08 um only to say hello you say only to say hello do you see mr howard
00:12:12 howard uh yes
00:12:16 no just as i said only to say hello said hello how are you um and that was it uh did you discuss why you were there uh no i didn't discuss anything with
00:12:28 no i didn't discuss anything with stephen howard after all you left in december 2017. sorry i missed the first part of your question yes did you discuss why you were there
00:12:40 did you discuss why you were there um i did directly i think dr debbie smith may have informed him that i was coming but i didn't discuss directly with her as far as i can remember did you talk to
00:12:52 as far as i can remember did you talk to debbie smith when you were there i did yes what did you say to what was the conversation about [Music]
00:13:00 [Music] just usual pleasantries
00:13:04 and she then sort of let i had an office next to hers um they'd arranged for a computer i
00:13:15 um they'd arranged for a computer i think
00:13:15 think which had limited access to the drives um and then she was basically said if there's anything you need um you need to talk to angela richards
00:13:26 um you need to talk to angela richards who is the liaison there with me
00:13:32 so she knew why you were there did you discuss
00:13:35 discuss with her the substance of the questions that you were being asked by the inquiry for which purpose you were there oh no i didn't know did you see tony baker while you were
00:13:46 did you see tony baker while you were there um
00:13:48 there um not that i recall no when you were reviewing the documents over this three-day period were you alone or were you accompanied by anybody um predominantly alone
00:14:02 um predominantly alone predominantly uh the name of angela uh richards that's so she was um there was a document that i couldn't find she was doing the search
00:14:13 find she was doing the search arranging the searches with it and uh on that point were you reviewing the documents in electronic form
00:14:25 yes i was indeed yes electronically yes now uh fieldfisher have also told us um that
00:14:38 it is likely that the chelation exercise could exercise a collation of all the documents
00:14:46 documents um that you um
00:14:49 that would have been needed for your exercise
00:14:52 exercise of review were completed before you prepared your witness statement which was signed on the 15th of july 2019 as we've established is that right i think that's correct yes
00:15:03 is that right i think that's correct yes yes i think my understanding is they did a troll
00:15:06 a troll by by name and they used keywords i think a keyword search
00:15:14 search so by the time you came to do your review of the electronic documents uh a collation do you you accept that a collation exercise had already been done by the bre uh yes that was correct i think yes
00:15:29 and and that i think was the what uh when i said i i received a pack i think that's what i was referring to right what i received as part of that exercise yep
00:15:43 did you review any hard copy documents um
00:15:46 um [Music]
00:15:49 [Music] i think i may have seen the hard copy file of the seletex report of the set of the cellotex or the test file
00:15:58 file the test file yes that's correct sorry i've missed the first bit again test file we've been talking about that's correct yes and you said you had access to the drives what does that mean
00:16:11 access to the drives what does that mean um so the way the the data was stored um we had two main drives so predominantly the video and
00:16:23 predominantly the video and any data would be kept on a drive which was
00:16:27 was specific to the burn haul which was called the s drive and any files that were
00:16:38 and any files that were um not video files and data like the msds sheets etc were kept on what we call our v the v drive um under a
00:16:49 the v drive um under a um i think it was called anvil or something like that um but as i said post the fire that seemed to have been
00:17:01 post the fire that seemed to have been moved so i think it may have not necessarily brought back as much information on the search potentially you were given free access to these drives for you
00:17:13 drives for you i was given access to the drives but as i say that all of the data didn't always seem to be there that i was expecting
00:17:22 now let's get back to the evidence we were on before the lunch break uh do you remember that after the
00:17:29 after the naked test in november 2014 kingston carried out a further test on k-15
00:17:35 k-15 in may 2005 31st of may 2005. i remember that yes and let's go to um kin308
00:17:47 to um kin308 page five please
00:17:56 i have the reference again please mr miller
00:18:01 miller 20713 at page five
00:18:14 20713 at page five this is an internal report from the 7th of january 2008 uh in which either meredith of kingspan explained in respect to the 2005 test
00:18:27 explained in respect to the 2005 test his views and if we go to the second paragraph sorry mr miller do you mean 2005 you said 2008 uh yes it's a report of 2008.
00:18:39 uh yes it's a report of 2008. okay and just to make uh that good if you like i can i can show you um
00:18:48 you um earlier pages in it no no no it says msk metsec that makes sense that i was right about that at least um the second paragraph it says this in 2005 kingspan tested to the new british
00:19:00 2005 kingspan tested to the new british standard formerly known as fire note 9 vs 8414.1
00:19:05 vs 8414.1 and based on the advice of bre we use the non-combustible board as cladding as the bre
00:19:11 the bre stated if you test with the non-combustible cladding then you could state your system works with all non-combustible cladding systems after successfully passing this test the bre move the goal posts
00:19:23 bre move the goal posts and stated that we could only say that our system works with that specific non-combustible board however the test result met the criteria the bsa414.1 and br135 and is a very useful document when
00:19:35 and is a very useful document when securing specifications for facades above 18 meters where the substrata is masonry the reason
00:19:41 reason for this shift in the bre's opinion is that they are still learning about this test
00:19:46 test and kingspan were one of the first to test a ventilated rainstream construction now i put that before you mr clark let's now look at what mr meredith
00:19:57 now look at what mr meredith says about it uh can we go to page sorry day 75 please page 58
00:20:10 i'll take this quickly because it's a short a short question
00:20:18 uh
00:20:22 if we go to the bottom of page 58 um the question there is did you have discussions with the bre about how that test might be used prior to it being carried out answer the
00:20:33 prior to it being carried out answer the bre were learning as we were learning every test we performed they would send many people to watch it because they were still agreeing their ex rules their of the page their scope of application
00:20:44 application so there were no firm rules to say if you tested in this configuration it would be acceptable for use in these scenarios
00:20:49 scenarios so although the bre has suggested if we test with a non-combustible cladding we will be acceptable for use with all non-combustible cladding systems question who was it who suggested that
00:21:00 question who was it who suggested that within the bre answer i believe it was sarah colwell etc goes on like that and there's also a reference to that at page 53 63. um
00:21:12 63. um do you were you aware at the time may 2005 or perhaps later of this conversation um no i wasn't aware no do you agree that
00:21:25 no i wasn't aware no do you agree that any suggestion that testing with one non-combustible cladding would mean that you could use any non-combustible cladding defeats the whole purpose of
00:21:36 cladding defeats the whole purpose of classification to bl-135 in the first place um yes i would agree yes um it's something i would don't i don't think
00:21:48 something i would don't i don't think sarah would say that's because the test is intended to be system specific isn't it it is yes it's a system test doesn't
00:21:57 doesn't did you yourself give any advice to the effect described in the note we've just seen
00:22:02 seen right um in 2005 no i was um primarily a technician at that point in terms of the cladding i never had any discussions in terms of
00:22:13 i never had any discussions in terms of interpretation or anything along those lines did the bre give advice
00:22:18 advice initially at least to king to kingspan that the use of non-combustible boards as the putative rain screen material meant that any non-combustible material could be used
00:22:30 non-combustible material could be used as either meredith recorded in the name we've seen um that's not a conversation i've ever heard had
00:22:38 heard had in those regards no no i wouldn't right now it's right isn't it that the may 2005 bs 8414 test used a cementitious particle board as the outer face
00:22:50 the outer face uh yes i think i believe that's true yes that's recorded in the test report isn't it
00:22:54 it yes the uca board
00:23:00 sorry could you say that again please uca board i think it was described as yes uh now you're aware that kingspan say that it was a or are you aware this is a
00:23:11 was a or are you aware this is a question i should say are you aware that kingspan now say that it was a cellulose fiber cement board um i have heard that yes
00:23:19 yes yes um i i don't know where they got that from in in the light of the time that's passed um yes i had heard that
00:23:32 um yes i had heard that you you in your answer a moment ago and there may have been a little confusion because of over speaking you say uca board i think it was described as where was it described
00:23:43 where was it described as uca board i think that was um i see i've seen an email that mr meredith sent me to how he described it
00:23:54 meredith sent me to how he described it i see so this is evidence at the time is that right yes there's an email which where he's he describes what the board is called and the the fire break details as far as
00:24:05 and the the fire break details as far as i
00:24:06 i recall right now let's go to kin 405079 please
00:24:23 this is a photograph
00:24:27 of the bs8414 part 1 system uh as tested are you able to remember looking at this photograph
00:24:38 photograph and particularly the gray outer boards we can see there what you believed it was at the time um no
00:24:49 um no in reality when you look at these boards it's very difficult to tell what they are
00:24:54 are from the front because that tends to be sort of quite homogeneous and it's in its form they they put like a slurry of concrete a cement
00:25:05 slurry of concrete a cement um over the top you can only really tell what they're like from either looking at the edge or the back of the board so that doesn't really give you much indication and sometimes with these boards you almost
00:25:16 sometimes with these boards you almost have to break them to see what they are right can you explain how there could have been confusion perhaps at the time between cementitious
00:25:27 perhaps at the time between cementitious particle board and a cellulose fiber cement board
00:25:33 so what did you clark call the first board
00:25:40 so the the difference between the two boards
00:25:43 boards is they're both cementitious but one will have probably something like glass fibers in whereas the other one will have the equivalent of wood chips
00:25:55 equivalent of wood chips um i probably at the time in 2005 was probably less aware of the difference than i am now
00:26:08 what a record made of what this material we could see here was when it arrived at the bre's premises
00:26:16 premises i think um i've seen some drawings which were done by my colleague david hall and he described it as non-combustible board
00:26:24 board was there something like a delivery note from which a product could be identified not that i can recall with this passage of time though
00:26:35 though would it would that have been the system
00:26:40 um would there have been a system uh whereby the precise product uh was delivered and signed for very much in the same way that we saw in
00:26:52 very much in the same way that we saw in 2014 with the certex components i think um i i i would imagine that would be but not again not a formal system right
00:27:07 but not again not a formal system right so as before it would have probably arrived somebody would have signed for it and then given the delivery note to the client
00:27:17 at that time was there a system of retaining on a file or in some kind of record keeping the precise identity of the material which we can see there um yes again i think at that point the
00:27:31 um yes again i think at that point the the test files were in operation yes
00:27:38 what did you think this board was um
00:27:43 if i it's such a long time i my understanding was it was a non-combustible cement um
00:27:55 particle board of some type of some type i can't
00:27:58 i can't recall well enough to differentiate between whether it was a fiber or a chip board type do you remember having any discussion about the nature of this
00:28:09 any discussion about the nature of this item no none at all no do you think this was going to be another indicative test as had been carried out in the november of 2004 or was this going to be a full bs-8414
00:28:23 or was this going to be a full bs-8414 test
00:28:24 test that anybody using it would seek to replicate when building their cladding system um i think um at that time i wouldn't have been aware of what the ultimate end use would
00:28:36 aware of what the ultimate end use would be
00:28:37 be um one of the things we would do i suppose is if if the client said i wanted to do a test if it passed it may then turn into a
00:28:48 if it passed it may then turn into a full test so we would essentially test it on the understanding that if it did
00:28:56 did pass it could be used to as a full full test so it would be treated
00:29:03 treated in such a way that it was a full test yes it wasn't an indicative test if that's what you mean right now mr meredith said in his evidence and i'll just give the reference day 76 page
00:29:15 i'll just give the reference day 76 page 207
00:29:16 207 at line 22 that this kind of board was not traditionally suitable for the outer based layer of a cladding system would you agree with it um from experience yes i i would think it
00:29:29 from experience yes i i would think it would be very not unusual yes did it occur to you to ask yourself why it would be that kingspan were testing kingspan k15 using a non-combustible
00:29:42 kingspan k15 using a non-combustible cement particle board as the rainscreen material
00:29:45 material if it wasn't traditionally suitable for the outermost layer of atlantic system um at that point of time no it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask that question my
00:29:54 my my role wasn't to ask those types of questions it was to assist and deliver the deliver the test right what about mr or ms cole mrs
00:30:05 right what about mr or ms cole mrs colwell was there any discussion about that topic that you're aware of at the time um i i don't recall such conversation no not at all no
00:30:16 conversation no not at all no let's look at some of the correspondence surrounding the report can we go please to bre 40 3278
00:30:32 this is a series of emails between you david hall and mr meredith either meredith at kingspan from the 3rd of november 2005. we looked at this one
00:30:43 we looked at this one earlier on if we can go to page 2 please at the bottom you can see that there's an email uh from either meredith uh to david hall and to you mr clark
00:30:54 uh to david hall and to you mr clark on the 27th of october 2005 and you can see from it that either meredith was chasing a test report you see that yes report yes
00:31:06 you see that yes report yes yes this was five months after the test do you know why a draft report had not been issued by that stage um
00:31:14 um [Music]
00:31:17 [Music] no i have absolutely no idea whatsoever it's quite a long gap isn't it
00:31:25 um without knowing what else was going on
00:31:29 on at that period of time i i don't know um i know
00:31:33 i know possibly around that time we were working on the rose park care homes thing project so it could have been to do with that i think maybe i i i can't recall
00:31:44 that i think maybe i i i can't recall such a long time ago at any rate if we can go to the top of page two
00:31:51 we see an email the following day and i'm sorry we need the bottom of page one just to pick up the the date and the time stamp uh 28th of october so it's the next day
00:32:02 uh 28th of october so it's the next day back to either meredith copper to david hall and then if we flip to the top of page two you say you see you can say either the report is in its final iterations and should be signed off any day now i must apologize for the delay getting
00:32:14 must apologize for the delay getting out to you in terms of the video i can give you a new copy which will come out with the report the only outstanding info which would be abuse and which should be included in the report is details for the internet firefighter
00:32:25 is details for the internet firefighter stop that you used if you could let me have the info i would include it so you can see you apologize for the delay there uh and said it should be ready any day
00:32:36 uh and said it should be ready any day in fact the report wasn't issued until the 8th of december 2005. was it um i think that's correct yes so you have to wait an hour five weeks why
00:32:47 you have to wait an hour five weeks why was that
00:32:49 was that oh again i've no idea um at this time this wasn't my primary role it was a job i was doing as along other things as well and there were um
00:33:01 were um i think there were other projects going on as well i i without seeing what i was doing the time i don't particularly know you could see that you asked him to provide the details of the intune
00:33:13 provide the details of the intune essential fire stop that had been used in the test uh did the bre not have its own records of that
00:33:20 of that um only as far as was photographic and it was really to describe what it was what it should have been called and how what its brand name was
00:33:39 how what its brand name was right so does that tell us that you've done a test uh and couldn't identify this component other than from a photograph and from the branding
00:33:52 photograph and from the branding it wasn't um my recollection is that mr meredith meredith brought it with him um and there were no um identification identification marks on the product it
00:34:04 identification marks on the product it was essentially just uh um two bits of metal with some inch investment in between it wasn't marked up
00:34:11 up with a manufacturer or anything like that as far as i can remember was there a system in place whereby
00:34:18 whereby uh the the message fire stop was taken from mr meredith logged identified clearly
00:34:25 clearly before being uh and uh uh and then photographed before being used on the rig
00:34:31 rig um at that time probably not now so again is this uh even then a system whereby the client would bring their own component in and you would just use it without logging it
00:34:44 you would just use it without logging it um yes because they were reliant on deliberate we were reliant on them to deliver this sample so to a certain extent yes
00:34:55 i mean even at this stage and what's coming across from this evidence is that you placed a great deal of trust on the client i can use that word
00:35:07 to to to
00:35:12 bring in the right components and to bring to your attention any particular nature or feature of those components is that fair uh i think that's fair yes
00:35:24 is that fair uh i think that's fair yes why did you place such trust in your clients given that you were you were carrying out what was supposed to be a rigorous robust and impartial test
00:35:35 robust and impartial test um
00:35:38 at that time i don't know because it wasn't the thing i was involved with necessarily so the the higher level stuff was involved was done by other people
00:35:51 why wasn't the bre skeptical of every client that crossed his threshold
00:35:57 threshold given its role as a testing house to a british standard in respect of uh fire safety um i think they
00:36:09 um i think they they they were and are um it depends when you say we're skeptical it's like um [Music]
00:36:19 [Music]
00:36:19 i don't know how far down the line you go
00:36:23 go it clearly states in the in bre's terms and editions is that the rig is um to be provided to bre and we have no
00:36:35 to be provided to bre and we have no say in how that's put together and what they use and it's incumbent on them to provide us that with that information um i think one of the things you said earlier was
00:36:46 earlier was um to what degree do we say to clients do this do that and essentially that was the thing is if you get into that stage where you're telling the client what to do you're you're
00:36:57 the client what to do you're you're going into the um the realms of um consultancy i'm not suggesting that you should be telling the client what to do on the contrary
00:37:07 contrary what i'm suggesting to you i'm really asking actually i'm not suggesting anything i'm just asking you why it was there was some trust between the bre and its client given your role as an impartial
00:37:18 given your role as an impartial robust and uh ruthlessly independent testing house um that's a question i can't
00:37:24 can't answer given that at that time um i think that's yes it's probably a question for someone else right um very well uh go to the top of
00:37:38 right um very well uh go to the top of this email thread on page one please
00:37:45 uh mr meredith responds to your question as you can see on the 3rd of november 2005
00:37:54 2005 and he says phil with regards to the ventilated cavity barriers please use the descriptions below for the test report
00:38:00 report he sets out some details there uh and do you accept that it's it's a quite a generic description of the ventilated rain screen barrier
00:38:13 of the ventilated rain screen barrier the the first line 2.5 millimeter graphic uh graphite um yes it's very generic yes yes and then there's a more detailed description below
00:38:25 description below identifying them as promising barriers for the confidential section of the bre report you see that i do yes um what did you take the
00:38:36 i do yes um what did you take the reference to the confidential section to me um
00:38:42 i didn't think there was a confidential section
00:38:45 section i don't know what he means by that did you go back and ask him um at that point no i had no reason to here was an email to you which is giving you information to be used in what he thinks is going to be a
00:38:57 used in what he thinks is going to be a confidential section of the bre report why didn't you go back and tell him there isn't a confidential section do you want me to publish this information or not why didn't you ask him that question
00:39:08 him that question um at the time it wasn't in my remit to last that i was
00:39:16 never occurred to me to ask that question well if if he was saying something or proceeding on an assumption that you could tell was erroneous uh why wasn't it your job to go back and just correct him and say
00:39:28 go back and just correct him and say well there isn't a confidential section now what do you want me to do with the information um i've no ideas it's far too long ago to even remember
00:39:39 it's far too long ago to even remember what my thinking was at that time mr meredith told us in his oral evidence day 75 page 80 lines 4-7 that he meant the bre test file when he
00:39:50 he meant the bre test file when he referred to the confidential section is that how you understood it at the time um
00:39:56 time um no i i no
00:40:01 no i i no that's not how i understood it did you think at the time that this rig with its cementitious particle board and these components on it that he's identified even generically would have been representative of a real
00:40:13 would have been representative of a real life 18 meter plus build um at that time i'd had although i'd worked with the research for the
00:40:24 for the um initial testing this was probably the first or s the first of a few rain screens were done at that point so my knowledge my personal knowledge
00:40:36 my knowledge my personal knowledge wasn't sufficiently well advanced to say whether it was representative or not so i couldn't answer that question just taking a step back then in the logic were you aware at the time at the very
00:40:48 were you aware at the time at the very least of
00:40:49 least of the fact that a a test to bs 8414 part 1 to br 135 criteria
00:41:00 to br 135 criteria was a full system test which if passed applied only to a full suspending system to exactly that buildup
00:41:11 um i don't know if my understanding of bl-135
00:41:16 bl-135 at that time was sufficient to make that um the connection um because as i say i wasn't dealing with
00:41:27 wasn't dealing with 135 and and compliance to that right but then let's ask the question a bit more
00:41:35 bit more generally were you not aware at all that um if a system on the rig of the bre passed a bs-8414 part one test
00:41:48 passed a bs-8414 part one test uh that test could only be used to approve a full system which corresponded exactly
00:41:59 a full system which corresponded exactly with the system as tested and not any system which was different from it the basic principle did you understand that
00:42:07 that um
00:42:10 i can't recall exactly at 2005 i would say probably yes in in general terms but
00:42:22 did it occur to you at the time therefore that the system described in the 2005 report was completely unrepresentative of any rain screen planning facade that would be typically installed
00:42:33 be typically installed on a tall building um
00:42:39 probably from from experience yes it's wonder but um i'm sure you're going to come on to it later but i don't think this system has ever issued a br135
00:42:52 ever issued a br135 so there was no other reason to treat it other than just a test a standard test report for a client um that they requested
00:43:02 requested what was the purpose of the test there
00:43:09 right let me start again what was the purpose of the test then if not at least to try to achieve classification to br 135 um you can undertake an 8414 test and
00:43:23 um you can undertake an 8414 test and not
00:43:23 not necessarily request a br135 for it [Music]
00:43:29 [Music] it would be i don't know if the system changed
00:43:33 changed i have a feeling now if you undertake an 8414 test you get if it passes you get an uh br135 as a matter of
00:43:43 matter of course i think back in 2005 i don't know whether that was necessarily the case i wasn't in a position to write though so i can't definitively answer
00:43:55 so i can't definitively answer that that's possibly again something for somebody who some someone like the likes of tony or stephen howard but i think in 2005 that you didn't necessarily always get a
00:44:07 you didn't necessarily always get a pr135
00:44:14 you say that you probably did realize that this
00:44:18 that this test configuration did not reflect a build in the real world was that to your web looking at it obvious to kingspan at the time
00:44:28 the time um
00:44:32 i think the fact that they delivered something like they wanted testing it must have related to something that they were seeing them in the market um the problem is i've as i say i'm not a facade engineer i've
00:44:45 as i say i'm not a facade engineer i've i haven't been out and looked at numerous buildings and i don't didn't at the time understand what they were selling into and what the market they were selling into and how that represent that system
00:44:57 and how that represent that system represented what they were selling
00:45:02 now i showed you over meredith's 7th of january 2008 report and i read the passage out to you um particularly about uh where the bre moved the goal posts
00:45:14 uh where the bre moved the goal posts and then stated they could you could only say that our system works with that specific non-combustible ball you remember that did i read you i can get back to you yes i remember that yes yes i've seen that statement before
00:45:26 yes i've seen that statement before yes um is he right is he right that the bre initially told kingspan that the test could be used in a variety of systems and then as he put it move the goal
00:45:37 and then as he put it move the goal posts
00:45:39 posts um i i can't say as i think i said earlier that's never a conversation that i was party to so if
00:45:46 so if if that was the case he would have had that with senior members of staff not me
00:45:52 so does it follow from that to your way of looking at it kingspan would always have known from the word go that the system test they did was all but useless on the basis that nobody built rain
00:46:03 on the basis that nobody built rain screen cladding systems using cement particle boards as a rain screen um [Music]
00:46:12 if if you wanted to apply for a 135 then potentially yes i think you're correct yes now
00:46:21 yes now in paragraph 87 of your statement which is a page 21 you tell us that you were present at that test
00:46:30 that test is that correct um i think from recollection i was yes you also say that it's highly likely that uh sarah colwell richard colwell and david hall would also have been present yes that's
00:46:41 would also have been present yes that's that was
00:46:42 that was pretty um standard at the time right and there's no written record of who was there do you know why that is um i think until i introduced the signing sheet they weren't written
00:46:54 signing sheet they weren't written records necessarily at that point right what prompted you or allowed you to remember the fact that you were present at this test um did you see a document
00:47:09 no primarily because i think most of the tests i was there i recall i do recall the test
00:47:15 the test right let's go to bre 40s 5621 page 61 please
00:47:27 these are david hall's notes of the test
00:47:39 these are david hall's notes of the test and uh we can see this is a manuscript document so let's take it slowly uh you can see that uh he notes times down the very far left-hand column
00:47:50 the very far left-hand column and then uh other times or time marks in the second column from the left and then some comments and you can see the date in the top right hand corner 31.0505
00:48:01 right hand corner 31.0505 can i just clarify something if that's okay i think the numbers on the far left-hand side appear to be my writing right i see thank you that was a question i had uh but
00:48:15 that was a question i had uh but so did you add those numbers uh presumably after
00:48:23 mr uh created this document yes i think i did right okay um [Music]
00:48:31 [Music] and just help me it's right isn't it the bsa414 requires records to begin at least five minutes before ignition of the fuel source uh that is correct yes
00:48:43 that is correct yes uh and is it right that the timings in the right hand column in other words the second column from the left are times from the start of observation so the zero would be um start of the
00:48:55 so the zero would be um start of the logger so that's minus five in essence yes and the left hand column reflects the time from ignition uh yes and that's clear isn't it because the zero at the top logger started
00:49:06 the zero at the top logger started and then it was as you get five minutes uh ignition yes yes uh and then you put zero at that point yes that's correct yes so these
00:49:18 point yes that's correct yes so these times are
00:49:19 times are supposed to be exactly five minutes apart yes yes yes and these are the timings do you accept which should have been used in the report
00:49:30 used in the report yes uh yes that's correct let's look at the report um let's go to bre four zeros five seven six nine page 105
00:49:41 the precursor to the reports and correspondence this is an email first of december 2005 from david hall to you uh and uh you can see
00:49:53 uh and uh you can see uh that
00:49:59 uh that at the bottom of the page i think we'll start with that one phil where is the revised report which was due to be with me today
00:50:05 me today as we discussed yesterday wednesday i need it on my desk first thing monday morning is kingspan and getting very indignant about the delay we have to get the report to them immediately if we are not to completely piss them
00:50:16 if we are not to completely piss them off and lose their custom your response next day uh sorry dave i was doing a job with steve then went home early not feeling well i'm still at home feeling a bit better but still flu-like
00:50:27 flu-like i'll work on it from here any about it for you to look at i'm happy it can go out monday and then he comes back to you on the fifth three days later phil sorry to push but i'm getting my
00:50:38 phil sorry to push but i'm getting my ass kicked too dave do you know why they had been such a lengthy delay in issuing the report um if you look at paragraph
00:50:50 um if you look at paragraph two that appears to mean i was off i think potentially at that point i was doing some um off-site work with my colleague steve manchester
00:51:01 manchester um i used to also go off-site and do um i wouldn't so i think i was doing a project with southern water um
00:51:12 a project with southern water um so i may have been off site for a couple of weeks i think at that point if that's the right time that's that's the only steve i know who i would have been working with at that period of time
00:51:24 period of time what were the consequences of losing kingspan
00:51:27 kingspan as a customer had been um they were quite a large customer but not necessarily the largest customer but um like any organizations you don't want
00:51:39 um like any organizations you don't want to
00:51:40 to annoy your clients six months delay because we're now early december the test has been done at the end of may that's correct yes so this is a pretty
00:51:52 that's correct yes so this is a pretty it's not really surprising that kingston were getting um indignant um
00:52:00 yeah i don't i don't necessarily think that was an an unexpected delay there were occasions where things would take a long time with other projects and but yeah you're right i i suppose they
00:52:11 but yeah you're right i i suppose they were
00:52:12 were was then rushed out because of mr hall's um very clear signal to you about uh the consequences um i don't think rushed out would be the
00:52:24 um i don't think rushed out would be the case no
00:52:25 case no how much preparation did you dial on the report before the beginning of december and this email exchange um oh well i can't recall it was such a long time ago
00:52:36 long time ago i've done thousands of reports and jobs since then i wouldn't know is it normal to leave a test report for six months after the test before you
00:52:47 for six months after the test before you see again
00:52:48 see again um occasionally yes i i must i think i remember at that point i was
00:52:55 i was quite heavily loaded with lots of other jobs so
00:52:58 jobs so i i must admit i was taking on more than i should have been really and it was affecting some of the delivery times for stuff
00:53:06 stuff it looks from what we've got but you didn't do anything on the report um got a boot up the back side from your boss at the beginning of december and then got the report together over a
00:53:18 and then got the report together over a matter of days issuing it on the 8th of december is that what happened um i can't call and even if it was it went through the
00:53:29 and even if it was it went through the due diligence process anyway so regardless of what was done in in three months or two days it still went through the
00:53:36 the same due process and was checked by others so again um other people had sight of it and had they
00:53:44 they had any questions they would have pushed them back to me to get rectified let's go to bre402511 this is a copy of the test report
00:54:03 and you can see from the bottom right hand corner that it's dated the 8th of december 2005 and has a test number two two zero eight seven six an important number keep that in your
00:54:14 an important number keep that in your mind two two zero eight seven six and
00:54:21 and if you go to page six please you can see the description of the test build up
00:54:28 build up under the heading description of product then third item down fixing details can you see that uh yes and if you read down it it refers
00:54:39 and if you read down it it refers uh to a number of uh different uh components and then four lines uh down
00:54:52 uh down sorry i'll start at the beginning um you can see 60 millimeters thick cool therm k15 uh which were 1200 millimeters times 900
00:55:03 uh which were 1200 millimeters times 900 millimeters was mechanically fixed to the block work substrate
00:55:08 substrate 1200 millimeters times 900 millimeters times six millimeters thick semantical thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac were mechanically fixed at 600
00:55:19 were mechanically fixed at 600 millimeter centers to an aluminium railing system also mechanically fixed to the block work substrate etc i don't think i need to read out the rest of it
00:55:31 you can see that a reference to the cement particle boards yes yes
00:55:39 and then a little bit lower down it says fire stopping was provided by a ventilated rain screen barrier system comprising of nominal 2.5 millimeter thick graphite based intune message
00:55:51 thick graphite based intune message strip
00:55:51 strip bonded to nominal 0.6 millimeter thick galvanized steel sheet positioned um 0.5 meters and 4 meters above the fire chamber on both the main face and the wing face full manufacturers details are held on
00:56:04 full manufacturers details are held on file
00:56:05 file but that then repeats that what is it the generic description of the fire barriers that mr meredith had given to you um it does yes indeed
00:56:17 um it does yes indeed do you know why the more detailed description identifying promisil as the brand or manufacturer not used as mr meredith had set out in some detail in his third of november
00:56:28 some detail in his third of november 2005 email um to go to the confidential part of the report
00:56:35 report no i don't particularly um i have seen um not specifically other 8414 reports but i've seen other reports
00:56:48 8414 reports but i've seen other reports that have been issued even even in the last sort of five years where
00:56:53 where details of what the manufacturer has of the product is is actually not declared
00:57:01 declared so i don't think it was necessarily unusual um and i think there are even um provisions within the um report where it says about um
00:57:14 report where it says about um details that the client class is confidential i i may be mistaken on that but that's my understanding certainly the manufacturer's details are concerned you do say at the end of this paragraph as i've just read to you full
00:57:26 paragraph as i've just read to you full manufacturers details are held on file my question really is what
00:57:31 what why was why did the details of the promise have to be held on file and not not put in the fixing details so that someone could see it um i don't know the answer to that question
00:57:43 i don't know the answer to that question because without knowing what those were without being able to have the manufacturer's details available up front uh the system can't be replicated can it
00:57:54 be replicated can it um no but you don't my understanding is that the 8414 report isn't
00:58:01 isn't a isn't the menu to how to build a system
00:58:07 well that that's an interesting way of putting it would you accept that the list of components needs to be replicated uh in order for any uh system
00:58:19 uh in order for any uh system to have
00:58:23 to have in order for the system to satisfy the regulation yes i i would say um more in the in the pr 135 then i would probably say more in
00:58:34 135 then i would probably say more in that yes i would agree and
00:58:38 i've i've seen as i say lots of the 13501 documents and small flame tests where none of this information is declared and um and it still states even then even
00:58:50 um and it still states even then even today
00:58:51 today that this information is held on file i'm i'm not certain as to why that is um sometimes i think it's it should be declared more often but um at this time i don't require don't
00:59:03 um at this time i don't require don't understand why that that was asked right well let's um let's look at bs8414 part one from 2002. bre 408 5769 please
00:59:17 bre 408 5769 please this is a document you exhibit yourself to your witness statement mr clark yes let me go to page 11. well let's start with page one because that's what it is and you could see bs8414 part 1 2002
00:59:33 and you could see bs8414 part 1 2002 and if you go to page 11 clause 9 test report it says the test report shall include the following information c a full description of the cladding
00:59:45 c a full description of the cladding system together with details of materials and components used see that i do yes yes i imagine that you must have been familiar with this british standard when
00:59:56 familiar with this british standard when producing
00:59:57 producing this 8th of december test report um yes yes therefore you must have knew that the bre was required under the british standard to provide a full description of the
01:00:08 to provide a full description of the cladding system together with details of materials and components used yeah um yes although
01:00:18 at this time there were templated documents
01:00:21 documents for the for the test report and again um
01:00:30 i think had there been um any issue from a senior member of staff necessarily they would have said no hang on you need to change this and describe it more fully
01:00:41 describe it more fully and and that wasn't that wasn't done do you accept that full details of the cavity barriers required by clause 9c paragraph 9c of this british standard
01:00:52 paragraph 9c of this british standard were not provided in the report which was to be made available to clients um it doesn't say it doesn't say the name of the
01:01:03 it doesn't say the name of the manufacturer it says full details together with details and materials components used it doesn't say the matter of fact you have to say who the manufacturer is
01:01:16 no but you didn't even set out the full details that mr uh mr meredith has provided you you summarize them um
01:01:32 do you accept that this uh report and this description of the cavity barriers was not compatible with the requirements of bsa414 part one
01:01:45 the requirements of bsa414 part one um
01:01:49 in hindsight probably yes but as i say it went through the signing process and if anybody in a senior position had any issues they would have sent it back and
01:02:01 would have sent it back and made me change it can we go back to the test report then please at page six it's bre 402511
01:02:17 you can see as i showed you there was a reference to cement particle boards in the third line have you any reason to think that that was a misdescription of the product actually used in the test
01:02:29 um no i don't think so you don't think it's a mistake for cellulose fiberboard no cement particle board um
01:02:41 no cement particle board um and now
01:02:45 um now reading that i would say
01:02:50 cement particle board to me from my knowledge now would would um contain cellulose fibers
01:03:00 yes
01:03:07 well maybe there's nothing in it but if there was any distinction any real an important distinction between cement particle board and cellulose fiber board um
01:03:18 and cellulose fiber board um if there was a distinction and in fact cellulose fiberboard was used in and not cement particle board then this description would be wrong wouldn't it um
01:03:29 um i would say cellulose fiber and cement particle are the same if you had you if it had said it was um cement fiberboard because my
01:03:41 cement fiberboard because my understanding is there's three types of board so sorry two types of boards so cellulose
01:03:50 board and cement particle board i would say are the same material cement fibre board which i think has glass fiber binders in it is a different
01:04:01 fiber binders in it is a different material that's my understanding at any rate did i have a meredith ever ask you to correct this report in that respect
01:04:08 respect no now going back if we may please to the
01:04:12 the handwritten record of the test bre40 is
01:04:24 5621
01:04:30 uh
01:04:34 that sounds i think not it's an interesting looking document but i'm not sure it's a document i want i want to bre four zeros five six two one
01:04:55 age 61.
01:05:08 age 61. and we've now established whose writing is whose
01:05:12 is whose uh which are the timings that would be used in the report which should be used in the report um
01:05:25 i would say the left-hand column right so the ones you added yes yes and let's do a comparison can we put
01:05:33 put the report at page 10 pre four zeros to eleven at page ten next to this document so keep this document on the screen
01:05:44 document on the screen and have up at the same time bre40 is two five one one at page ten
01:06:01 now let's just look at it and do you accept first of all that this uh page
01:06:08 page on the right hand side of the screen is section 5.1 from the test report of the 8th of december 2005. uh yes i do yes we're heading visual observations right let's look at the timings and let's compare in the bre report
01:06:22 let's compare in the bre report the tip of the flame is said to have reached four meters at 10 minutes you see that yes um flames are four meters high yes yes um and that's within
01:06:36 yes um and that's within that that's with a five minute time delay the actual time the flame reaches um four meters is five minutes yes yes yes
01:06:48 yes yes yes yes so flame arrow four meters right what was the source of the timings in the report um i think um i had looked at this
01:07:00 think um i had looked at this and i think this is uh what appears to have happened is the the first couple of from up to 427 was correct i think
01:07:12 up to 427 was correct i think yes um and and then the antennas being transposed across um some of these as well in in it may be
01:07:24 um some of these as well in in it may be um in the past if the timings weren't exactly correct um i think they would what rewatch the video on occasions um so these times might change but that
01:07:37 um so these times might change but that that's
01:07:38 that's the five and ten minutes is uh is a type of appears to me to be a type of typographical error which is then being perpetuated through the rest of the report and hasn't been picked up i i see
01:07:51 and hasn't been picked up i i see so is this right that in the ten minutes in the test report should read five minutes yes yes and then that five minute delayed version is is
01:08:02 delayed version is is that inconsistency it then runs through the printed report isn't it it appears to be yes
01:08:06 to be yes the printed version is wrong to that extent yes it is yes i agree yes right
01:08:17 now that shows doesn't it that the flames were at four meters by five minutes not ten minutes yes um according to david hall's record
01:08:28 yes um according to david hall's record yes yes that's correct it's not critically important when you're doing a test in order to satisfy br135 criteria no
01:08:39 br135 criteria no uh this this test was never issued at the r135
01:08:43 the r135 yeah i appreciate that but it was actually ten years later but that will come to that later in the story yes what are you doing when you're issuing a test report is it not absolutely critically important to get the timings of the progress of the fire
01:08:54 the timings of the progress of the fire correct
01:08:55 correct and not out by five minutes um it is yes and and clearly this hadn't been picked up by myself or by um the person who did the the sanity check on it
01:09:08 sorry i missed that
01:09:11 um i have no idea it's 15 years ago i have no idea because it is remarkable is remarkably slapdash isn't it that the visual observations and the
01:09:22 it that the visual observations and the time
01:09:23 time progress of the fire up the rig was out by five minutes in the final issued version of the report um yes it should have been
01:09:34 um yes it should have been correct yes you're right
01:09:38 it should have been corrected it's slapdash careless i wouldn't say it was careless um yeah it should have been corrected and and nobody's ever
01:09:49 and nobody's ever drawn it to our attention and it's um it's
01:09:52 it's not correct when did you first realize it was not correct [Music]
01:10:00 [Music] um
01:10:02 um when did i i think i think something was asked when the one of the bsrs had pointed something out and that's when it was uh in the opening statements i see that during well the opening
01:10:15 i see that during well the opening statement for module two of this inquiry that's correct yes right
01:10:22 and you've got no explanations sitting there today standing there today of how this error came about no i i i reviewed it and and the only conclusion was it's it's
01:10:33 and the only conclusion was it's it's instead of following down the two columns
01:10:35 columns it's inadvertently moved across to the right and
01:10:38 right and and it's gone that way and it's not being picked back up you say it wasn't picked up on a peer review
01:10:45 review this error originated with you yeah but i didn't peer review it so it was repair peer reviewed by somebody else
01:10:52 else of course but this error originated with you
01:10:55 you well then yes you test this error that's the whole idea of peer reviewing is that people pick up errors that people have made well um that may be mr clark do you accept as a fact that this error
01:11:07 accept as a fact that this error originated with you um yes if
01:11:13 um yes if if i wrote that then yes yes i wrote that
01:11:16 that who else sorry
01:11:21 yes i would say yes now i want to ask you some questions about your correspondence with kingspan uh relating to classifying this test to
01:11:34 uh relating to classifying this test to br 135
01:11:36 br 135 in 2005. can we go to your witness statement please at page 27 go to paragraph 111
01:11:53 you say there and i'll show you the question before we look at your answer question five v was there any request from the test sponsor before 2015 the bre to produce a
01:12:04 sponsor before 2015 the bre to produce a classification report to br 135 in respect to the system tested on the 31st of may 2005 when if so please explain as far as you're able when a classification report for this system was in fact produced
01:12:15 for this system was in fact produced until 2015. that's the question and you say from mr meredith's email dated 25th november 2005 which i've referred to above
01:12:26 above it appears that a discussion about classification to be r135 was contemplated but um you go on to say i do not know whether any discussion took place or if it did why the period of time
01:12:38 it did why the period of time between the tests being undertaken and the formal request for a br 135 classification report was so long now you refer here to this email of the 25th of november 2005. let's look at that bre four zero is
01:12:51 let's look at that bre four zero is three
01:12:51 three two eight two please page two
01:13:04 two eight two please page two uh you can see at the top of that page that mr
01:13:08 that mr meredith emails you and you need to think i'm sorry about this the very bottom
01:13:13 bottom of page one to see that it comes from either meredith you see that yes we've flipped back to page two
01:13:20 page two 24th november 2005 to you copy to david moore and sarah caldwell is this the email you're referring to in your statement i believe it is yes and the text says
01:13:32 i believe it is yes and the text says uh subject bs8414 part one test data how are you getting on with the test report does this get automatically assessed in accordance with bre-135 or is that something we need to look at
01:13:43 or is that something we need to look at separately regards either meredith
01:13:48 and we can see that here comes the response
01:13:51 response or internal discussion bre 403282 same email run second email on page one please
01:14:07 on the 29th of november at the bottom of that page you can see that you write to either meredith and say i'm a i'm very sorry for the delay in your receiving the report it's been written and what's signed off should be
01:14:19 written and what's signed off should be with you at the beginning of next week i'll include a new copy of the test video for you as well in terms of your question about br135 this is the question for sarah to answer i'll speak to her and get an answer for you
01:14:32 uh and he responds so thanks phil it's the video of the indicative we're after not the most recent one as soon as the report is ready could you please email me a copy and pdf format looking forward to receiving the report
01:14:45 looking forward to receiving the report uh
01:14:47 uh now you say in the email you're sending to him
01:14:51 to him that the question of classification is one for sarah colwell i will speak to her and get an answer for you
01:14:57 for you did you speak to her um i think i say later on in the statement that i can't recall specifically um sarah was quite good at if seeing if
01:15:08 um sarah was quite good at if seeing if she was cc then she was quite good at reading her emails that she was coping into um i would be very surprised if i didn't
01:15:16 didn't um but i don't i don't remember the terms of the conversation and what she
01:15:22 said we go to bre 403280 please this is sarah colwell's message to mr meredith herself on the 29th of
01:15:33 29th of november 2005. uh uh and she says either biari br135 can be considered at the same time we will need to look at the design details to see how
01:15:45 to look at the design details to see how it can be covered i will chase the report from this end you know what sarah corwell meant when she said
01:15:54 she said can be considered at the same time we'll need to look at the design details to see how it can be covered what does she mean by that um this is the first time i've seen this
01:16:06 um this is the first time i've seen this email so
01:16:07 email so um
01:16:11 did sarah will have a discussion with you before sending this email no no she was a senior staff and uh right um i can interpret it if you like
01:16:22 right um i can interpret it if you like but
01:16:22 but um well it could help maybe that it may have limited value but what can you tell us about it um so if she sent that to me and said
01:16:34 um so if she sent that to me and said the re
01:16:35 the re bl-135 could be considered at the same time
01:16:38 time um we need to look at the design um so that that to me would say that she would
01:16:45 would look at it and say whether she thought it complied with the requirements of the r135
01:16:51 r135 i'm not certain which means by the second part of the sentence um but obviously it meant that she would give it some consideration right mr chairman i've got three or four more
01:17:02 chairman i've got three or four more questions on this line before it might be an appropriate movement all right well keep going mr millett um can we go to kin40s 5156 please
01:17:21 this is an email from either meredith uh to sarah colwell
01:17:28 uh on the 24th of march 2006 subject facade test assessments for kingspan stroke powerpoint slides
01:17:40 kingspan stroke powerpoint slides sarah i hope all is well further to our meeting last month have you progressed with the k-15 assessment to bre-135 we could do with this asap please let me know predicted time frame and costing
01:17:53 know predicted time frame and costing were you aware of any such discussions about um assessing k-15 to br 135 um no
01:18:03 135 um no no again i think this is the first time i've ever seen this email um and and at that time i i didn't deal with 135 it was done by other people right you followed from
01:18:15 by other people right you followed from that that you were not at the meeting to which mr meredith refers uh no no was there any discussion between you and sarah cola in relation to classification of k-15 to br 135
01:18:28 classification of k-15 to br 135 uh not that i ever recall no you know why no classification report was issued as
01:18:33 as mr meredith had requested in 2005 2006 um
01:18:40 2006 um i have absolutely no idea as i say it wasn't something i dealt with um i don't know who was dealing with it and who she would have passed on to but um and i have no idea it came a surprise
01:18:52 um and i have no idea it came a surprise to me
01:18:54 to me in the event do you accept as as a fact that no
01:18:57 that no br 135 classification was issued in respect of this test until 2015. uh that is my understanding yes that is correct yes sure is that a
01:19:08 that is correct yes sure is that a convenient moment yes if that suits you mr millen it's a good point we'll uh have a break now mr clark just a short one for uh until about uh 3 35 i think that'll be about right please
01:19:21 35 i think that'll be about right please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're on the break and um we'll see you in 15 minutes or so thank you
01:19:30 you thank you very much 3 35 and please
01:34:58 welcome back everyone uh mr clark uh welcome back are you able to see me and hear me clearly i can see you and hear you say yes thank you very much well then mr milit when
01:35:09 you very much well then mr milit when you're ready thank you very much mr chairman uh mr chairman and mr clark together um i should just tell you that it's uh um most unlikely that i'm going to finish
01:35:18 finish my questions for mr clark this evening uh and i'm going to have to ask you mr chairman to invite mr come back tomorrow uh if it's not inconvenient to finish his evidence
01:35:29 his evidence you you heard what mr militz says i'm sorry about that because i know that it's
01:35:34 it's inconvenient for most people who come to give evidence not to finish when they are told they are likely to finish so i hope that's not
01:35:42 not going to make life too difficult for you no sir that's uh that's no problem at all
01:35:46 all all right well that's good thank you very much indeed yes right mr minute on you thank you very much and thank you mr mr clark um now can i please ask you to go to kin four zero
01:35:57 four zero five seven sorry five one seven nine k i n four zero five one seven nine
01:36:11 k i n four zero five one seven nine this is an email from iva meredith to kilpb technical services dated thursday the 8th of june 2006
01:36:22 and it's entitled what's lurking behind your facade and it says please note the k-15 what's lurking behind your facade which seems to be a piece of promotional
01:36:33 which seems to be a piece of promotional literature um and uh what mr meredith says is that it's been withdrawn by the marketing department partly because it's considered not a good sales tactic
01:36:45 good sales tactic to highlight the fact that you don't need class not below 18 meters
01:36:50 and it also says the bre have complained about the use of the word approved and certification in our text these are privileges that would cost us an extra 20 000 pounds 20k he says uh therefore when referring
01:37:03 20k he says uh therefore when referring to this test method please use the following text kingspan coolthorne k15 has been successfully tested to be s8414 part one and when assessed in accordance with bre-135 is acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the english
01:37:15 meters in accordance with the english scottish and irish building regulations now let's look at the flyer he refers to it's kin405134
01:37:33 there it is what's lurking behind your facade uh and it's dated the first of january to 1996. um were you aware of this flyer at the time so first half of
01:37:45 time so first half of uh first part of 2006. um i don't think i've ever seen this before no right
01:37:56 now the flyer says
01:38:01 uh if you look a little bit down you scroll down please uh you'll see that it says um
01:38:12 uh you'll see that it says um in the red letters kingspan cool phone k15 rain screen board has not only been tested by the building research establishment bre and awarded certification to bs 8414
01:38:25 and awarded certification to bs 8414 2002
01:38:26 2002 but has also been assessed and approved in accordance with dr-135 now that wasn't true was it uh clearly not
01:38:34 not no so that's a very incorrect statement um if we go back to his email of the 8th of june 2006 please kin four zero is five
01:38:44 five one seven nine i showed you this i'll just show it to you again he says uh the bre have complained you see in the second sentence yes
01:38:55 you see in the second sentence yes about the use of the word approved and certification in our text um do you know who at the bre had issued that complaint um no i don't i'm afraid no
01:39:07 um no i don't i'm afraid no were you aware of that complaint um i wasn't no it was a common practice at the time for the bre to review manufacturers product literature um
01:39:21 i'm unsure it was something i never got involved with so i can't definitively answer i would be i would be surprised if they didn't if they saw stuff and
01:39:33 didn't if they saw stuff and um was picked up by people they wouldn't refer it back to someone or other but i don't know whether it was common practice if we had anybody who did it particularly
01:39:44 anybody who did it particularly in a systematic way was it correct that the bre would have charged another 20 000 pounds to issue a classification report for this test um to br 135
01:39:58 um to br 135 yes um i doubt it very much no i thought so how much would it have cost do you think oh um i've no idea i i would expect maybe no more
01:40:11 no idea i i would expect maybe no more than
01:40:11 than a couple of thousand pounds maybe i've i've no idea that was just a guess something on my head right um i want to turn them to the subject of kingspan sotech metsec testing in 2007
01:40:23 sotech metsec testing in 2007 to 2008 under bs 8414 part 2 of 2005. can i go to ask you to go to page 78 of
01:40:34 can i go to ask you to go to page 78 of your witness statement please
01:40:41 [Applause]
01:40:44 and on that page you can see towards the bottom of the page question 12 it's got a long question that i'll show to you it says during the period 2005 to 17 did you
01:40:55 during the period 2005 to 17 did you have any involvement with any other tests to bs8414 or classification to pr135 of any system incorporating either k15 and or rs 5000 if say please
01:41:07 either k15 and or rs 5000 if say please give full details of the nature of your involvement please also identified by date and report number where possible any such tests or br 135 classification reports
01:41:17 reports in respective tests to bs 841 for incorporating k-15 or rs-5000 please ensure that you include any and all tests in which you had any involvement including any tests which were terminated early and or where no test
01:41:29 terminated early and or where no test report was produced now that's the question that you were asked if you go to page 79 of your statement
01:41:37 statement paragraph 328 you say you were involved in numerous tests on systems incorporating k-15 including as follows and you set out five of them you see that
01:41:48 five of them you see that and uh you could see that you set out uh the
01:41:51 the sotech test report at sea uh you see that yes i do um do you remember being
01:41:58 being involved in a test to bs 8414 carried out on the 20th of december 2007. sponsored by kingspan sotek and bersht alpine metsec
01:42:10 alpine metsec um i do indeed yes yes can we get into kin40s 8847
01:42:25 this is an internal report produced by iva meredith of kingspan date of the 7th of january 2008 parts of which i've already shown you can we go to page two
01:42:42 can we go to page two uh and um under executive summary it refers
01:42:46 refers to test method bs8414 part two
01:42:51 and in the third paragraph uh project stakeholders you see that i do yes uh run jointly between so tech met second kingspan little cost split three ways
01:43:03 little cost split three ways uh and then under test witnesses um towards the bottom of the screen it says john egginton sotech james galio metsec tony baker lpcb
01:43:14 tony baker lpcb sarah caldwell biari phil clark bre so um is it right you were there uh yes that's correct yes you're right but tony baker lpcb and sarah coleman bre also attended
01:43:27 and sarah coleman bre also attended um i can't recall directly but if that's what um iva says then probably he's correct yes do you know why all three of you attended um
01:43:39 attended um my i think i ran the test um i don't know why sarah and tony were there specifically um
01:43:52 tony were there specifically um i think tony may have been there because i think um the overall plan of the project for sotech was to get a red book listing so that's possibly why tony baker was
01:44:03 so that's possibly why tony baker was there on
01:44:05 there on as a witness for that scheme and a red book listing can you just explain to people what that is so red red book listing is run under the um
01:44:14 um lps lost prevention lpcb sorry loss prevention certification board it uses essentially the the 8414
01:44:25 it uses essentially the the 8414 test as the basis but it has um additional protocols that you have to adhere to
01:44:32 adhere to um to it's based around insurance loss as opposed to life safety so it's got some additional requirements is it right to
01:44:44 additional requirements is it right to say that in late 2007 there was significant interest at the bre for its employees or executives to attend uh
01:44:53 attend uh tests uh under bsa414 part two um i wasn't aware of such a an undertaking being um given
01:45:04 an undertaking being um given do you remember anything specific about the performance of the system tested on the 20th of december 2007. um yes it felt quite catastrophically i think oh catastrophically
01:45:17 think oh catastrophically um if we can go back to mr meredith's report
01:45:20 report at page two you can see uh on page two he has a heading construction from inside to out and that's very near the bottom of the screen
01:45:31 screen you can have that in the middle of the page thank you and we we can see that he sets out there the components of the tested system yes yes uh and the outer cladding
01:45:42 yes uh and the outer cladding that's uh used in the test is identified as
01:45:45 as uh a sotek 1.5 millimeter aluminium cassette
01:45:49 cassette rain screen tagging you see that yes that's correct yes and you can see that the insulation you see uh was it's halfway down the list k15 100 millimeter
01:46:01 list k15 100 millimeter new technology yes uh yes i can see that jess yes uh did you spot the fact
01:46:12 uh did you spot the fact or did you know the fact that what was being used in this test was new technology um until the the inquiry got the answers from mr meredith and
01:46:23 got the answers from mr meredith and others i wasn't aware of what new technology was there was no discussion uh at all at the time about what k-15 was going up on this test
01:46:34 was going up on this test no no none at all and if we go further down page two we can see that towards the end of that page
01:46:41 page mr meredith has recorded the heading result
01:46:45 result and then he sets out some comments under it and he says by 17 minutes the top fire barrier had breached and the raging inferno moved up to the top thermocouples and pushed them past 600 degrees
01:46:56 pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria of br135
01:47:02 you see that i do yes and if you go to the top of the next page please page three you can see that he says the phenolic was burning on its own
01:47:14 the phenolic was burning on its own steam and the bre had to extinguish the test early because it was endangering setting fire to the laboratory is that a fair description of what you saw at the test um i agree with the fact that it was
01:47:28 um i agree with the fact that it was burning at its under its own steam i don't think it was necessarily endangering the lab but it was never in a position where it was going to pass so the decision was to terminate
01:47:41 pass so the decision was to terminate right um i think that was taken by me right and moving down page three there's a section which starts uh comments uh it's not in bold
01:47:54 uh comments uh it's not in bold um you'll have to go down a little bit further on the screen uh but there it is about a third of the way down the screen in front of you it says comments from the bre you see that uh yes yes
01:48:05 you see that uh yes yes and um it starts with the official line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure however unofficial comments it was
01:48:18 however unofficial comments it was apparent that the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame is apparent and the core continued to burn with the flame source had been extinguished they stated that they did not remember the product performing like that last
01:48:29 the product performing like that last time
01:48:31 time uh now first question on that is uh whose comments were those um i
01:48:42 um i can't recall but that may have come from sarah colewell
01:48:47 i may have commented um on how badly it had burned over the surface
01:48:55 surface but i can't remember directly who who said what
01:49:00 said what looking at unofficial comments which i've just read to you do you remember who those came from um i don't know why he's differentiated
01:49:11 i don't know why he's differentiated comet
01:49:12 comet official and unofficial there's no such thing um it's it's but i would say again probably sarah colwell um tony baker may have made a comment
01:49:23 made a comment having seen some of the other tests i may have made a comment did you have any discussions yourself with mr meredith after or during this test
01:49:34 or during this test um not that i'm aware of specifically no other than sort of general chit chat maybe i think well we've heard some general chit chat before during the general chit chat
01:49:47 before during the general chit chat did you say any words to him uh along the lines of or um with the gist of the words we see after unofficial comments in that
01:49:59 after unofficial comments in that paragraph
01:50:00 paragraph um i did actually watch the video back the other day and one of the things that um was was unusual with that test as it burnt round the corner
01:50:12 burnt round the corner which was unusual so we may have pointed that out to him um but i i can't recall any direct conversations on on that test specifically no you can't recall any conversations my
01:50:24 you can't recall any conversations my question was a bit more precise i think did you say any words to mr meredith
01:50:30 meredith along the lines of what is said in the paragraph that starts however unofficial comments um [Music]
01:50:37 [Music] i don't recall saying them no you don't recall
01:50:40 recall but you can't rule it out can you um i can't walk down there but i don't recall now he's he says official line unofficial comments uh you said there's no such thing as
01:50:52 uh you said there's no such thing as official and unofficial comments um clearly he's got that from somewhere can you explain why mr meredith would have thought that he was being given an official line and an unofficial line
01:51:05 an official line and an unofficial line um
01:51:05 um i think that seemed to be a way from what i've gathered of either he seemed to com compen i'd say the word compartmentalized things right i mean did you have a
01:51:20 things right i mean did you have a an aside an offline a a quiet one-to-one chat with him along the lines of the unofficial comments no no that's that's not what we did at the already know
01:51:33 why would the official comment or disregard
01:51:37 disregard the fact that it's official but why would the comment there it's a system failure
01:51:41 failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure um what was the point of the test if not to identify where the failure in the system was um yeah i wholeheartedly agree i don't i
01:51:54 um yeah i wholeheartedly agree i don't i don't know why he's differentiated that because as you say it is a system test yes you can't separate out one individual item in that regard um in the unofficial
01:52:06 item in that regard um in the unofficial comments you can see in the last sentence that he's recorded that bre stated that they did not remember the product performing like that last time was there a con was there a discussion
01:52:18 was there a con was there a discussion about the performance of the product last time whatever product that was
01:52:25 that was um
01:52:26 um [Music]
01:52:28 [Music] i can't specifically recall no assuming that this was k-15 do you not remember any discussion about a comparison between how k-15 performed in this test burning under its own steam and had it
01:52:39 burning under its own steam and had it performed under any earlier test um no because in reality um this was what did you say there's 2008 i think did you say
01:52:51 2008 i think did you say um the tests themselves to a certain extent were treated as individual tests um
01:53:00 i think from looking at the the video it was as i said earlier it was probably pointed out how it had gone around the corner which was quite unusual um and how it had continued to burn but
01:53:13 um and how it had continued to burn but other than that i can't remember any other
01:53:15 other specific conversations we we we've seen and
01:53:18 and you've confirmed that as an observation of the test the phenolic uh continued to burn after the farmers extinguished do you remember that being worse
01:53:30 do you remember that being worse performance than the performance of the k-15 the subject of the may 2005 test for example
01:53:38 example um side by side yes they were completely different yes did you have any discussion uh about the comparisons between the may 2005 test and the metsec
01:53:50 and the metsec december 2007 test with mr meredith um i can't recall it just direct discussion no now let's look at what mr meredith said in his evidence
01:54:01 at what mr meredith said in his evidence please it's page sorry day 75 page 160 to page 161.
01:54:14 day 75 page 160 and i'd like to pick it up with you please at line 15. mr meredith is asked by leading council was anyone at the bre at this time aware that the product tested on 20th of
01:54:26 that the product tested on 20th of december 2007 was a different one from the product that had been tested in 2005 and mr meredith's answer was i think i might have discussed this with phil clark
01:54:36 clark you know because i was looking to see you know i was looking to see his opinion on what he thought really and i needed to glean as much information from him as possible i was quite open with him right when you say i might
01:54:48 open with him right when you say i might have discussed it how sure are you you did discuss it and then there's a pause and then if we go to the next page he says i'm sure i told him something about our new technology and our ovens
01:54:59 about our new technology and our ovens along the way okay yeah question other than phil clark was there anyone else at the bre that you remember discussing or informing of that and then he gets his answer
01:55:13 of that and then he gets his answer um he clearly records a conversation with you about the subject matter he's been asked about and you can see his answer does his recollection accord with your recollection
01:55:24 recollection mr clark um the only thing he ever said was he um had changed or got new ovens but that was the only thing he ever said to me
01:55:36 was the only thing he ever said to me um i don't know the process that they go through
01:55:40 through and to me it made it didn't make any sense as to what it or i had no understanding of what the implication was was it right that he was looking to you uh for what you thought about the test
01:55:54 uh for what you thought about the test um i don't think so no no you sure there was no discussion about the differences in performance between the 2005 and 5 tests and the 2007 test
01:56:05 the 2005 and 5 tests and the 2007 test um
01:56:10 i think um i think there was something was said about how
01:56:16 about how how it was burning over the whole surface about that that's about all i can
01:56:19 can ever recall um nothing else more than
01:56:26 that and did mr meredith tell you that the product tested in december 2007 was the diff was a different product
01:56:37 was the diff was a different product from the one that had been tested in may 2005 no never no looking on at day 76 of his evidence can we please go to that day 76 page 169.
01:56:56 day 76 page 169. and i want to pick it up at line 12 9 12. i want to ask you by this time had kingspan discussed with anyone else at the bre the differences between the sold product and the tested
01:57:07 between the sold product and the tested product i think you said yesterday that phil clark was aware that you were trying out different products is that right answer i was talking to phil about that's why we were making improvements to the material that's why i was asking
01:57:18 to the material that's why i was asking for his candid answers his on and off record comments with regards to what he thought of the product was he aware that what you tested in 2005 was not what he was selling after that
01:57:29 that i think he was i noticed he was i think he might have spotted the facing was different
01:57:33 different and i might have confirmed that to him as well
01:57:39 as well but and then questioned was there anyone sorry essentially to the untrained eye you know it's a pink foam the foil facing is not going to be nobody else is going to notice it's any
01:57:50 nobody else is going to notice it's any different
01:57:51 different it's only within kingspan formulation that the differences are apparent
01:57:56 did you discuss that with anyone else at the bre at any time those differences the bre would certify our isa 9000 so they were coming into the company four times a year to look at our formulations however i don't think we discussed it
01:58:07 however i don't think we discussed it directly with regards to k-15 no the question is do you remember any conversation at any stage with mr meredith about changes to the k-15 product
01:58:18 k-15 product before and after 2006. uh no i don't know no after the foiled face of the product or to the composition of the phenolic foam itself no no the only the only thing i ever
01:58:30 no no the only the only thing i ever remember one was one day he asked me to retain a piece to be sent up to um one of the other departments of the lab and that was the only thing he'd ever
01:58:41 and that was the only thing he'd ever said
01:58:43 said because i know occasionally they would do some some comparative testing for them but that was all he ever ever said right is this as a difference of recollection or are you positively
01:58:54 of recollection or are you positively denying conversation along the lines that he recalls um i'm denying it right do you think he's making it up or he's just misrecollecting um i think he's misrecollecting the only
01:59:07 um i think he's misrecollecting the only the only thing i've said earlier is that he he mentioned they were changing the oven
01:59:12 oven to do something with drying times but that's the only thing he ever said to me did you yourself spot the fact that the phaser of the product was now different um
01:59:25 was now different um no you didn't notice at the time of the 20th of december 2007 test that the phaser was now perforated no because the president hadn't operated in the 2005
01:59:38 president hadn't operated in the 2005 test
01:59:39 test no sorry um the tests 2005 and this medtech one would be treated as wholly separate tests there would be no comparison between the two
01:59:50 comparison between the two tests um and there would be no way that i would have known that no
02:00:00 well you say they're wholly uh separate tests and the comparison between the two tests
02:00:10 that would only be the case if in fact you knew that the product was different if the product you thought was the same product um then the tests were comparable at least to some degree yes but it's bre
02:00:23 at least to some degree yes but it's bre doesn't go out their way to say um you did a test in 2005 you've done a test now
02:00:29 test now how do they compare well that wasn't how it worked
02:00:32 it worked no but given that you could see how the foil
02:00:36 foil sorry you can see how the performance was different uh i take it that there was
02:00:43 was there any observation about whether or not well let me ask it this way did you investigate why it was that the um the product k15 was was burning so much worse during
02:00:55 was was burning so much worse during this test
02:00:56 this test than in the 2005 test um no i didn't know
02:01:01 know why is that um it's wasn't my job to do that
02:01:07 that now uh
02:01:12 you see that mr meredith told us that he was asking for your on and off record comments as we've seen day 76
02:01:20 day 76 page six nine and i showed you that um do you accept that um i don't ever remember having any conversation about on or off the record
02:01:32 conversation about on or off the record comments or no right and let's go to kin403693
02:01:51 and this is an email of the 9th of january at 2008. uh it's the second email down on the screen you can see from uh i'm a meredith to sarah colwell and
02:02:04 uh i'm a meredith to sarah colwell and you
02:02:05 you subject help exclamation mark test possibility indicative idea quick thoughts needed thanks you see that and he and he opens the email by saying further to yesterday's viewing of the carnage
02:02:16 viewing of the carnage could you please send the dvd to the address below as soon as possible as you can imagine there are many senior persons in ki wishing to view it now
02:02:27 wishing to view it now is did you understand that to be a reference to the viewing of the recording of the test carried out on the 20th of december um i could are you okay if i carry on
02:02:38 um i could are you okay if i carry on reading because i don't recall this email right of course you can see that uh
02:02:50 uh he
02:02:53 covered okay yeah um
02:02:58 sorry i think you had a question sorry well it covers a lot of topics my only question to you
02:03:05 to you was is this a reference to the viewing of the recording dvd of the test carried out on the 20th of december 2007. um given that was probably just before
02:03:17 um given that was probably just before we closed down i'd probably expect it would be yes yeah we wouldn't have probably tested by the 9th of january i doubt yes now mr meredith has described the viewing as
02:03:30 the viewing as carnage that's his word would you agree with the sense of that um yes
02:03:38 um yes yes and the subject of the type of the email as i've showed you is help test possibility indicative idea quick thoughts needed thanks did you note that that was the title of
02:03:49 did you note that that was the title of the email when you received it um i don't there's nothing in here um that sparked my memory it may have been that i read it quickly
02:04:00 it may have been that i read it quickly and because it was primarily to sarah i didn't deal with it in that regard because there's other things to do with possibility of doing sbis which was
02:04:12 possibility of doing sbis which was outside my reunits right well you read clearly read the text because you spotted that it was about sbi
02:04:18 about sbi now i've seen it here straight economy the other possibility to do sbi has just seen that line yes i see but you know i mean i'm assuming that you read it when you when you received
02:04:29 you read it when you when you received this email let's go on to the next paragraph he says having spoke to john do you see that second spoke to john he's still keen to work with us however we need to work out where we
02:04:40 however we need to work out where we went wrong having cross-referenced with previous tests it would seem there was more fire spread from the insulin however please don't quote me on that and the cavity barrier may have failed slightly
02:04:50 slightly you're off the record and on the record comments may prove helpful so you could see from this email that he was saying that you'd made off the
02:05:01 he was saying that you'd made off the record and on the record comments yes just his terminology i don't know why he keeps using that there's no such thing we'll come back to that in a moment um before we come to
02:05:12 that in a moment um before we come to those
02:05:12 those we're going to ask you about he says in the line before there was more fire spread from the insulin it with earlier tests do you agree uh
02:05:23 it with earlier tests do you agree uh yes it was um it spread across the whole of the
02:05:27 of the face yes and then let's go to the last two paragraphs of his email on uh this page and it finishes on the second page but
02:05:38 and it finishes on the second page but let's just go to the last two paragraphs on page one he said could i just point something out actually
02:05:44 actually of course i think in the as it is where there's the the paragraphs that says as there are several chests up coming um it said it's important to get to the bottom of this we've just installed new
02:05:55 bottom of this we've just installed new ovens
02:05:56 ovens at pembridge so the curing process is greatly improved that i think was the only thing he had ever said to me in terms of um my understanding about
02:06:07 in terms of um my understanding about them installing new ovens that's the only only thing i can recall so the ovens point was first made in this email but not at the test itself
02:06:16 itself um i think so yes potentially yes and the only thing he ever said was it was to do with the clearing times and as i don't know the process and how it's made it didn't mean anything to me
02:06:27 made it didn't mean anything to me and then if you look at the pronouncement paragraph on page one please together he says this in your opinions would it be possible to quickly write a couple of bullets as to your official opinion in respect of the
02:06:38 your official opinion in respect of the failure
02:06:39 failure now his opinion his reference to your opinions there is clearly uh an opinion from each of you and sarah culver yes um
02:06:51 yes um [Music]
02:06:52 [Music] yes i would say where you said your your opinions yes yes so you were clearly being asked as you understood it at the time for your own
02:07:00 own opinion by way of a couple of bullet points
02:07:03 points um as to your official opinion in respect of the faith is that right um reading it that way i would say that's probably what he was after yes
02:07:12 after yes yes and did you understand by that that he also thought that there was an unofficial thing
02:07:20 uh this is no this is his terminology there's no such thing as unofficial and going back to where we were a moment ago in the second paragraph in the last sentence
02:07:29 sentence uh he says you're off the record and on the record comments may prove helpful now it's clear from this as a document that he has clearly got the idea that the bre
02:07:42 got the idea that the bre uh either had made or would make off the record
02:07:45 record and on the record comments separately yes
02:07:48 yes um that's his perception but that's not what what the re does now no um first of all how do you think he came by the understanding
02:07:59 the understanding that the bre might give off the record and on the record comments [Music]
02:08:06 [Music] um
02:08:07 um i don't know i think i i think knowing over the way i did he sort of compartmentalized things in
02:08:15 things in in certain ways without that actually being what was said it may be that he the way he reported it back
02:08:25 back meant that he could say in one way the other but in terms of anything that was said between sarah or him would be official and we've seen a response to
02:08:37 official and we've seen a response to this email did you ever write to him and say by way of response uh well i'm sorry mr meredith but we don't do
02:08:46 don't do off the record and on the record comments um i don't ever recall answering this email and i think sarah sarah colwell would have done um giving
02:08:57 sarah colwell would have done um giving any comments on performance was out of my remit so i wouldn't have answered that question did you see any email from sarah colwell in which she corrected his perception
02:09:08 in which she corrected his perception that the bre was prepared to give off the record and on the record comments um i've never seen an email like that no why didn't you correct his misapprehension as to what
02:09:19 correct his misapprehension as to what the biari were and were not prepared to do in this respect um because at the time that wasn't my role to do that well you're being told here by a client
02:09:31 well you're being told here by a client for your off the record and on the record comments and your opinions in respect of these matters he's actually asked you for that it wasn't the most obvious thing to do immediately to go back to him and say i'm terribly
02:09:43 to go back to him and say i'm terribly sorry i but we that's not something we can do
02:09:46 can do um that necessarily wouldn't come from me that it was addressed to sarah who was
02:09:51 was a senior member of staff in the organization and it's um i wouldn't ever send something out without putting it past her or ex
02:10:02 without putting it past her or ex allowing her to um clear that up it was it was addressed to her and and what you need to understand is that at this time iva had a tendency to use a scattergun
02:10:14 iva had a tendency to use a scattergun effect
02:10:15 effect in terms of who he sent emails to um it's this thing about cc and whoever we think is pertinent and he always seemed to just copy me into stuff
02:10:26 seemed to just copy me into stuff whether it was relevant to me or not you see we've seen no response from you correcting him about his apprehension as to what the pre prepared to do in this respect and we've seen no response from sarah conwell
02:10:38 seen no response from sarah conwell either to that effect about a suggestion mr clark that mr meredith's apprehension his understanding about the bre's willingness to give on the record and off the record official and unofficial views
02:10:50 official and unofficial views uh was justified because otherwise he would have corrected it um let's say i i wasn't in the position there to
02:10:57 there to correct clients in that regard he addressed the email to sarah colwell who is a senior member of staff and um i would not write things and i think
02:11:10 um i would not write things and i think you've seen in another email in in my um my statement that i would refer things to sarah so the fact he copied her in
02:11:22 to sarah so the fact he copied her in sorry addressed it directly to her meant that um
02:11:26 that um i thought she would answer that question it wasn't me to correct him my job in that way did you have a conversation with sarah colwell about his request for opinions from both of you each of you
02:11:37 of you each of you as to your official as opposed to unofficial comments uh and and say to her that he should be corrected
02:11:44 corrected um not like i recall no no it wasn't in at that time it wasn't in my remit to ask those type of questions well and it never has really let's look at the last paragraph
02:11:56 at the last paragraph uh he says go back to the email please bottom of page one he says that
02:12:03 okay to come back up again kin403693 page one last paragraph as we are getting some pressure from a certain manufacturer questioning the performance of our product
02:12:14 the performance of our product i need to be confident that the bre would not write it was the fault of the flame spread on the insulin from our discussions i understand the official statement would speed would be system failure
02:12:26 would speed would be system failure i will not quote you on this i just need to be confident that when we say the material has the ability to pass however whether it does or does not can boil down to the system and then over the page
02:12:38 your help much appreciated
02:12:44 so you you were clearly being asked weren't you for an unofficial line from you to him to give him the assurance that even though there might be a system
02:12:55 that even though there might be a system uh failure officially he wanted to know whether in fact k-15 could still pass um from reading that paragraph then
02:13:06 um from reading that paragraph then that seems to be the way he was angling it yes but um knowing sarah as long as i have she would have never written an email
02:13:17 would have never written an email which would confirm what he had requested what was the upshot of his request for opinions along these lines
02:13:26 lines um i have absolutely no idea let's move to april 2008 another test was carried out to bs 8414 part two in early april 2008 on a system
02:13:39 two in early april 2008 on a system incorporating k-15 wasn't it um can you remind me which test that was yes it was the one suddenly do you remember it it was the one in conjunction with satellite and metsec
02:13:51 in conjunction with satellite and metsec again right another another k-15 sorry with soda
02:13:55 with soda yes um i understand there was yes yes uh now do you have any records of it or do you have you seen any bre records of that test
02:14:07 any bre records of that test um i think as a consequence of something from the inquiry i was issued some dvds about um a month ago
02:14:20 about um a month ago maybe um and i think on there it had the second test on it uh let's look at either meredith's report about it which is a kin403698
02:14:34 report about it which is a kin403698 can i just clarify something actually when this program was put together i think it was as you say it was a joint um collaboration between kingspan metsec
02:14:46 um collaboration between kingspan metsec and sotech so sotech to me to my mind with a client in the job um i think iva had agreed that sotek would part funds the tests
02:14:58 that sotek would part funds the tests and then i think after if i recall correctly after this the first test failure um he agreed with john to do the second test so it was outside this scope of the original test
02:15:11 outside this scope of the original test i think
02:15:13 i think can we go to either merida's report on this test which is a kin403698 this is an internal kingspan report uh
02:15:26 this is an internal kingspan report uh which i
02:15:27 which i don't expect you to have seen uh dated the 4th of april 2008. if you have seen it let me know if we go to the second bullet point on page one we can see what mr uh meredith records
02:15:40 we can see what mr uh meredith records there
02:15:41 there and he says this the second attempt met sec so tech cool firm failed the bs-8414 part two test by 160 seconds
02:15:49 seconds to meet br 135 the top level thermocouples must not exceed 600 degrees for 15 minutes following the first
02:15:56 first level thermocouples exceeding 200 degrees
02:15:59 degrees i held a lengthy post-test meeting with just kingspan and the senior fire technicians s colwell n mcdonald and p clark to ascertain whether a 160 second
02:16:10 to ascertain whether a 160 second improvement is possible see that i do see that yes um were you present at this test um i think i was present at the test but i don't
02:16:21 i don't recall a meeting i can't ever recall having a meeting with norman mcdonald [Music]
02:16:30 [Music] um
02:16:32 um sorry i missed that i'll just ask you whether you were present at the test i was present at the test yes was there a coldwell presence at the test um
02:16:43 i can't recall directly no uh is n mcdonald norman mcdonald no that is norman mcdonald jess um i think at the time
02:16:55 um i think at the time he would undertake um assessments of building products um to do with um fire resistance um what they call x-app
02:17:08 um what they call x-app um extension of application assessments and that type of thing i think he primarily worked for lpcb
02:17:17 now as you can see i think you've already jumped to it but let me put it to you mr meredith records the fact that he held a lengthy post-test meeting with just kingspan and the senior fire
02:17:29 with just kingspan and the senior fire technicians and identifies you there p clark which i'm assuming it's you yes yes
02:17:38 who could have been relevant to this test no
02:17:41 test no no do you agree that such a meeting took place
02:17:45 place um i don't recall it as i say i i i can not ever recall having a meeting with
02:17:53 with norman mcdonald present do you deny that a meeting
02:17:57 a meeting with mr meredith took place after this test in april um i can't deny it but i don't
02:18:08 um i can't deny it but i don't recall it can you explain why this wasn't referred to in your witness statement
02:18:12 statement um which i don't ever recall having that meeting
02:18:16 meeting right
02:18:20 now if that as mr meredith is recorded here
02:18:26 here uh if it's correct that there was a lengthy post-test meeting to ascertain whether
02:18:30 whether a 160-second improvement is possible that would have been the giving advice by the bre to a manufacturer as to how to improve the tested system
02:18:41 to improve the tested system do you agree um
02:18:46 i would agree yes if if what he said is correct
02:18:50 correct i would agree yes can we then turn to march 2014 a later kingspan test some years on uh and you deal with this in your witness statement at um paragraph 208 at page 51.
02:19:03 um paragraph 208 at page 51. can we please go there
02:19:14 and the question you're answering is question 9a who was present during this test
02:19:18 test both from the bre and from the test sponsor
02:19:22 sponsor and just to help you a little bit more this is the test done on the 19th of march 2014 uh using range screen comprising trespa hpl remember that
02:19:35 hpl remember that um i think there were two is this the one with the black face or the red face
02:19:42 i remember yes yes we can go we can go back to the um the earlier part of the uh we can get a paragraph oops 206
02:19:56 just to give you the context for this
02:20:05 if you look at question nine test report two nine three nine four zero dated 26th of june and 206 you say this test which took place
02:20:16 206 you say this test which took place on 19th march 2014 is that with kingspan as the test sponsor involved a transfer range screen the kingsman k15 insulation material yes i've got a feeling this was the one that was disputed yes
02:20:28 that was disputed yes right now let's go to bra403531 please
02:20:38 uh excuse me isn't it here's an email from i'm a meredith to you and stephen howard dated the 20th
02:20:50 to you and stephen howard dated the 20th of march 2014 so the day after the test yes uh yes yes and he starts gents i trust all is well
02:20:58 well uh and he asks for when the thermocouple data will be available and if you go down to the last line of the fourth paragraph
02:21:05 paragraph of mr meredith's email um uh he says uh phil i will get as taken on monday to start stripping out
02:21:16 stripping out i would like to be there i would like to be there
02:21:19 be there to witness what was going on behind the cladding
02:21:22 cladding although i assume you will be taking lots of pictures of that area also can you make any unofficial comments with regards to falling debris this time compared
02:21:30 compared to the previous test
02:21:36 did you provide any comments with regards to the falling debris this time in comparison to the previous test um not that i'm aware of now
02:21:47 um not that i'm aware of now again can you help us as to how it had come about that mr meredith was still in 2014 under the impression that he could ask you for unofficial comments
02:21:56 comments uh comparing one test with an earlier one
02:22:00 one um no it's just he has this recurring thing
02:22:04 thing in his head he had some very strange ideas sometimes no i can't yes it was recurring maybe because you never corrected him is that a possibility
02:22:16 that a possibility um
02:22:16 um [Music]
02:22:21 yeah i suppose so yeah you look at it that way but why why would i correct him i'm there on behalf of
02:22:27 behalf of the re and um when we don't give unofficial comments that's not something that we've ever seen you say to him though in response to these recurring requests
02:22:38 to these recurring requests um
02:22:39 um [Music]
02:22:41 [Music] it's not my job to to correct him the the email here is cc'd in copy directly to it stephen howard who is a senior member of staff
02:22:53 is a senior member of staff and to stephen manchester as a senior member of staff um all many grades above me and none of them have corrected it and if they don't deem it fit to correct him then it's
02:23:06 deem it fit to correct him then it's outside my remit of my job to correct him mr clark this paragraph is addressed specifically to you
02:23:15 to you that's why it starts with the word phil uh
02:23:18 uh yeah yes yes um that that's particular paragraph but if mr howard and mr manchester read this they were within their right to say
02:23:31 they were within their right to say um sorry mr howard you cannot ask phil clark
02:23:34 clark these for these unofficial comments because no such things exist if that's the way you wanted it and um it's not my place to to say to a client
02:23:45 it's not my place to to say to a client you don't
02:23:46 you don't get unofficial comments it is when you're being asked for them isn't it um
02:23:56 potentially in hindsight yes but um did you have a conversation with mr howard or mr manchester about going back to mr meredith and and putting him right at last
02:24:07 last uh i recall no no i got to suggest you that
02:24:11 that these recurring requests for unofficial comments unofficial comparisons between these tests and previous tests um recurred and precisely because they were the kinds of comments you kept giving him
02:24:22 kinds of comments you kept giving him and he he wouldn't have kept asking unless you had kept giving them um we never spoke to either in that way i don't i don't understand why he keeps asking them
02:24:35 um it's just his terminology i think why did you or anybody else that we've seen never explained to mr meredith that it would be inappropriate for the bre to provide any unofficial comments
02:24:48 provide any unofficial comments um because as i've already explained i don't know where anybody else has never done that as i explained to you
02:24:57 you given the role i had it wasn't my role to correct him in that regard did mr howard uh have anything to say about this request from kingston for unofficial comments
02:25:08 unofficial comments um i'm i've never had a conversation with him
02:25:12 with him along that lines no so to your way of thinking
02:25:16 thinking he got this email did it not surprise you that he didn't pick up the phone to you or send you an email and say what's all this about unofficial comments
02:25:26 stephen howard um that wasn't the way steve worked um steve had quite a good relationship with kingspan he may have spoke to him directly
02:25:38 directly about it but it didn't surprise me that he didn't reply necessarily no given the subject matter of the unofficial comments why why would steve manchester or stephen howard
02:25:50 manchester or stephen howard have thought that this was their business you ran the test it was your business to make uh whatever it was your you would have known what comparison was what could be made between these tests
02:26:03 what could be made between these tests uh they would surely just have left it to you
02:26:05 to you to respond to mr meredith particularly since he had addressed this comment specifically to you um isn't that right no because
02:26:16 um isn't that right no because i i was the tester and and you you alluded earlier that some of the comments i made you perceive them to be as um giving consultancy
02:26:30 um giving consultancy and in this regard i would comply i would say that potentially was given a consultancy and it wasn't in my remit i was i was only doing the testing
02:26:41 doing the testing um it's right isn't it that this tested system couldn't be classified to be r135 could it
02:26:49 could it um yeah if it's the one i'm thinking of it was disputed yes and and they bre refused to classify classify it yeah that's correct you covered that at paragraph 237 of your
02:27:01 covered that at paragraph 237 of your statement
02:27:02 statement uh is that right you can see that if it's the red trust but then yes yes you go to page 58 just to be clear
02:27:27 thank you
02:27:32 uh you say my recollection which is supported by my review of the test video footage
02:27:37 footage is that i inform the test sponsor of the potential for flaming above the test facility
02:27:42 facility having occurred at 24 minutes 11 seconds due to excessive flaming over the surface of the wing wall however this flaming subsequently reduced as a note at 24 minutes 21 seconds
02:27:53 seconds records flames over the surface of the panel's die back now i i'm going i i would like to take you through some of the footage
02:28:05 to take you through some of the footage of that test but given the hour mr chairman i'm not going to be able to completely other questions i have for mr um mr clark tonight um do not have very far to go with him
02:28:18 um do not have very far to go with him probably an hour or an hour and a half more but depending on how we go with the video footage right well would it be better to uh do that tomorrow if you would if that's convenient to you
02:28:29 if you would if that's convenient to you and to mr clark yes and um would it be safe to tell mr clark that he ought to be free by lunchtime tomorrow
02:28:40 tomorrow yes i anticipate so it will depend i suspect upon what um what further questions we find for him overnight but of course yeah the normal run of these things i doubt that that will um
02:28:52 that that will um take up too much time to uh say yes well there you are mr clark that's the best indication i'm afraid we can give you
02:28:59 you no that's fine sir i'm here at your disposal well that's very good thank you very much well we'll call a halt uh to the day at that point um please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence
02:29:10 about your evidence over the break and uh we'll look forward to seeing you at ten o'clock tomorrow please
02:29:16 please okay so thank you very much thank you very much good thank you talk tomorrow then please
02:30:19 you