Grenfell Tower Inquiry - BRE Evidence - Wednesday 3rd March 2021 (1/2)
00:20:29 good morning everybody welcome to today's hearing as always i'm joined
00:20:35 joined by my fellow members of the panel miss estefan
00:20:38 estefan and mr akbar good morning good morning everyone and today we're going to hear from another witness from bre
00:20:51 another witness from bre mr tony baker and i think the next step is to check that mr baker is there and that he can hear me and see me good morning mr baker good morning i can hear you and see you
00:21:02 morning i can hear you and see you although the screen is on it's not on full screen at the moment right well we'll deal with that straight away
00:21:08 away if you look at the top right hand corner of your screen you may have a button which says view okay yeah got that if you press that it'll offer you full screen okay yeah that better yeah that's fine
00:21:21 okay yeah that better yeah that's fine thank you
00:21:22 thank you very good now uh you should have on the screen in front of you um the words of the affirmation which i understand you're willing to make
00:21:33 has that come up
00:21:36 yeah very good could i ask you then please to make the affirmation by reading the words on the screen i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare
00:21:47 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth very good thank you thank you very much indeed now um there are one or two small matters we
00:22:00 um there are one or two small matters we have to deal with before you actually start
00:22:03 start answering questions can i ask you please to confirm that you are alone in the room from which we're giving your evidence i am alone yes thank you uh can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials
00:22:14 have no documents or other materials with you
00:22:15 with you i have no documents or anything else that
00:22:19 that might be no good thank you and can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you that's capable of receiving messages
00:22:30 capable of receiving messages i can confirm that mobile phone and other
00:22:33 other uh implements in equipment is in another room
00:22:37 room very good thank you very much now um you may like to know that your legal representatives are following the hearing they're in the virtual hearing room and can follow the evidence
00:22:50 and can follow the evidence they have the ability to intervene if they think it urgently necessary but apart from that i've asked them to keep excuse me microphones and cameras switched off and we have a another
00:23:02 switched off and we have a another method by which they can contact our council if they think something needs to be picked up all right but they are there looking after your position um i hope we're not going to
00:23:13 position um i hope we're not going to have any problems with sound or vision if we do
00:23:15 if we do we'll have a short break while the technicians iron them out um we're going to have a short break partway through the morning and the afternoon the morning break will come at
00:23:26 afternoon the morning break will come at around 11
00:23:27 around 11 15 um and i might as well mention this now in case i forget later on it's very important that once you've started giving your evidence you don't discuss your evidence or
00:23:38 you don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with it with anyone else including of course your lawyers all right absolutely i i will try to remember to remind you remember to remind you of that when we
00:23:49 remember to remind you of that when we get to the breaks but if i forget to do so
00:23:52 so please bear it in mind now um is there anything you'd like to raise or questions you'd like to ask before we start no thank you right well if you're ready to go then i'll invite this grange to put some
00:24:04 i'll invite this grange to put some questions to you yes ms grange yes thank you mr chairman yes mr baker good morning thank you very much for attending the inquiry today it's very much appreciated
00:24:15 it's very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding anything that i'm asking you in the course of the questions please just ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way
00:24:25 way if you feel you need a break at any point please let us know and can you try and keep your voice up and also
00:24:31 and also don't just nod or shake your head so that the transcribers get a clear record of your evidence now you've made three witness statements to the inquiry i just want to take you through those
00:24:43 i just want to take you through those if we could go to your first witness statement that's at bre405774
00:24:56 this is your first witness statement and if we go on and look at page 26 we can see that it's dated the 12th of july 2019
00:25:07 july 2019 and is that your signature yes it is yeah
00:25:10 yeah and have you read that statement recently i have and are the contents of that statement true
00:25:16 true they are yes and if we go now to your second statement that's at bre three zeros three two two six one
00:25:28 three zeros three two two six one here we have that second witness statement and if we look on page eight
00:25:35 there we have the date the 11th of september 2020 and again is that your signature it is yes
00:25:41 yes and have you read that second statement recently i have and are the contents of that statement true yeah
00:25:50 true yeah and then your third witness statement now bre 3035303
00:25:59 there's there's the third statement and if we go
00:26:02 if we go to page five
00:26:05 we can see there the date is the 15th of october 2020 and again is that your signature it is yes
00:26:13 yes and have you read that third statement recently i have and can you confirm that the contents of that are true they are yes and have you discussed the
00:26:24 they are yes and have you discussed the contents or the evidence that you're going to give to us with anybody before coming here today no okay let's start with some questions then about your background and your roles and
00:26:35 your background and your roles and responsibilities if we pull up your first statement again
00:26:41 bra405774 at page one at paragraph two you tell us in the first lines there that you were a a test technician
00:26:55 that you were a a test technician an engineer with the british standards institution between 1979 and 2004 so you spent a long time with the bsi yes that's correct yes and
00:27:07 yes that's correct yes and you tell us that your role covered product safety and performance tests for a range of products and is it right that a particular specialization of yours during that time was
00:27:17 was lift safety devices that's correct yes towards the end of that those years yes yeah and you then joined the bre the british research
00:27:28 joined the bre the british research establishment in 2004 is that correct that's correct yeah you see you tell us that at the beginning of paragraph
00:27:35 paragraph four and you began your role as this right uh in marine equipment uh directive activities is that right that's correct yeah and you subsequently became the
00:27:47 and you subsequently became the certification scheme manager for passive fire protection is that right that's correct when did you become that passive fire certification scheme manager
00:28:00 fire certification scheme manager um probably during uh late 2005 uh it was gradual little transition across there
00:28:11 across there due to other members of staff uh leaving the organization i see but fairly early on in your career at the bre
00:28:20 bre you you transferred over to that role yes that's correct yes yeah and is it right that that role encompassed bs 8414 testing it did yes
00:28:31 bs 8414 testing it did yes and also testing under the loss prevention certification board scheme yes and were those tests under that scheme
00:28:41 scheme i think they were called lps one five eight one slash two tests under that loss prevention board scheme were they similar to bs8414 tests but with stricter requirements
00:28:52 with stricter requirements they use the same uh test methodology it's just the criteria that's different in effect yes and we heard from mr clark that he said the reason those tests had
00:29:04 that he said the reason those tests had additional requirements was because they were concerned with insurance loss rather than life safety do you agree with him about that i do yes and then if we could go back to
00:29:15 i do yes and then if we could go back to your statement and look at page two of that first statement paragraph
00:29:24 five
00:29:29 you tell us in that paragraph that you spent around five years as project manager for bs 8414 testing do you see that there yes when when did you spend those five
00:29:42 yes when when did you spend those five years
00:29:43 years what was that five year period um i can't recall it exactly when it started to be quite honest um but it went through until
00:29:55 um but it went through until uh middle of 2013 to late 2013. um it was great it was again it was sort of a gradual development of role uh as other people
00:30:08 of role uh as other people uh moved on or changed their activities or roles within vre i see so to your to the best of your recollection it was five years leading up to 2013 is
00:30:20 it was five years leading up to 2013 is that right so from around 2008 that's correct yes yeah and you also tell us in that paragraph five on the same page that you were the deputy
00:30:30 deputy business group manager covering passive fire group test and certification activities was that at the same time that you were project manager for 8414 testing
00:30:42 project manager for 8414 testing that's correct yes yeah and you also tell us in paragraph seven there on that second page of your
00:30:53 there on that second page of your statement that you were the fire resistance test laboratory manager at the bre now when when was that um that was from approximately s
00:31:05 um that was from approximately s um october 2013 um through till whilst my uh statement says to the present date i have recently had a change in uh role
00:31:18 i have recently had a change in uh role since i
00:31:18 since i made this statement so that went through until
00:31:22 until um november 2020 uh i'm now the head of passive fire protection group right
00:31:33 passive fire protection group right yes so just to be clear you still work at the bre is that right i do exactly yes and you're now the head of passive fire protection yes yeah
00:31:47 yes yeah and in 2013 is this right that the third edition of br135 was published and you co-authored that with sarah colwell of the bre that's
00:31:59 with sarah colwell of the bre that's correct yes and you were also involved in drafting bs 8414 parts one and two in 2015 is that correct that's correct it was a redraft it was
00:32:10 that's correct it was a redraft it was sort of the the next iteration of that standard yes yeah can you just help us as to um when you were doing 8414 testing the project manager
00:32:21 project manager and so from 2008 to 2013 um who did you report to at that time um that would have been um
00:32:33 um that would have been um between stephen howard and sarah colwell they they had a joint um business manager
00:32:40 manager group uh role during that period relating specifically to bsa or 8414 it would have been more to sarah colwell right did you have a
00:32:53 sarah colwell right did you have a single line manager or were they both line managing you they were both line managing
00:33:00 managing yeah and so it follows that does it and this was my next question that stephen howard was senior to you is that correct yes he was yes yeah and what about mr clark were you senior
00:33:13 and what about mr clark were you senior or junior to mr phillip clark
00:33:18 um
00:33:23 i would tend to say that we were on sort of equal
00:33:26 of equal footing it was uh we we were under different sort of management um areas um so yeah it's difficult to say to answer
00:33:37 so yeah it's difficult to say to answer that question really i see was there a clear uh hierarchy of structure at the bre or was it sometimes not always clear
00:33:48 or was it sometimes not always clear who was senior and who was junior um oh it was it was relatively clear okay
00:34:00 now i want to ask you some questions now about the um purpose of 8414 testing and reporting
00:34:06 reporting um and a few questions about bl 135 now thinking back to when you worked on the redraft of br135 for its third edition and that
00:34:18 of br135 for its third edition and that was published in 2013. did you and the other author sarah colwell consider that br135 second edition from 2003 was clear
00:34:29 second edition from 2003 was clear enough that this was a full system test ie8414 was a full system test did you think that had been clear enough in the previous edition
00:34:40 um it's the way that we bre had always interpreted the standard but i don't think it was necessarily
00:34:51 but i don't think it was necessarily crystal clear in the document itself yes so um was it a deliberate decision in that third edition to try and make that clearer that it was a
00:35:02 that it was a full system test that could only apply to that same system sorry i i misunderstood your last your last question
00:35:13 last question in terms of system test yes part two um the earlier edition of br135 was was absolutely clear that it was always a system test sorry i was thinking about something
00:35:25 sorry i was thinking about something else i see what was the other thing you were thinking about i i thought you were talking about the uh the 60-minute duration i see sorry
00:35:39 i see sorry have you finished yes yeah let's just look at something in the third edition of br135 if we can pull that up bre four zeros five five five four a page
00:35:51 four zeros five five five four a page that well let's just pull the document up for a moment four zero five five five four
00:36:02 if we go to the second page we see there the front page of that publication i think that's that's actually the
00:36:13 i think that's that's actually the second edition um we'll come back to that um after the publication of br135 third edition
00:36:21 edition in 2013 did you think that the industry was clear
00:36:26 was clear that any system which had passed an 8414 test
00:36:29 test had to be replicated exactly in its application on a building and that any deviation would make the system
00:36:37 system non-compliant yes i felt the industry should have understood that you say you felt the industry should have understood that but my question
00:36:48 have understood that but my question wasn't that it was did you think the industry did in fact understand that um
00:36:58 well i think during discussions that i had with uh various members of the industry uh there wasn't always full clarity of that um yeah
00:37:12 um yeah yeah and what kind of discussions are you thinking about discussions with who in industry
00:37:20 um well anybody that i came into contact with um during my role as the project manager um i think in general most
00:37:33 i think in general most most people understood that being as a full system test but there were some some people i know i can't remember specifics
00:37:43 specifics but there were some where we had that that sort of conversation just to clarify the situation yeah now given that br the bre test and
00:37:54 now given that br the bre test and classification reports refer only to the particular test system containing the products installed at the time at the test do you agree that it was vitally important that the component parts of
00:38:05 important that the component parts of the test
00:38:06 the test were fully and accurately identified in the test report and any classification report
00:38:17 yes um
00:38:21 it certainly needs to be accurately described
00:38:25 described the components there there are some ip or intellectual property issues relating to some components that clients wish to
00:38:38 components that clients wish to hold out of the test report and classification which we we sort of understood that approach as well when you say you understood that
00:38:50 when you say you understood that approach as well does that mean you were sympathetic to the fact that sometimes the test sponsor didn't want to fully record all the details of the tested system
00:39:01 tested system yes i understood that yeah
00:39:06 and was there a tension there in practice
00:39:09 practice about the need to faithfully report the details of the system versus the test sponsor's desire to keep certain parts of it confidential
00:39:23 no we always took the approach that we would describe it as fully as as possible
00:39:29 possible um and in terms of what we knew of the system
00:39:33 system there were occasions when the client would then come and ask us if there was if we were able to hold back
00:39:40 back uh some uh some detail uh usually to do with um product names or
00:39:47 or or similar to that um from the from the report right and if they came back to you and asked for that and you felt that that
00:39:58 for that and you felt that that information was important for users of the test report to be aware of what did you do
00:40:05 well if we if we felt it was um critical in in terms of describing the system then that we would we would say to the client then that that we felt that had to go in
00:40:16 that that we felt that had to go in there
00:40:19 there but if it was um if we could describe the the um the technical aspects of the product
00:40:30 um the technical aspects of the product without
00:40:30 without uh releasing product names uh then we we felt that that was uh probably okay all right let's see
00:40:41 probably okay all right let's see now we know that the bre was privatized in march 1997 when you started working on bs 8414 was it your understanding that the bre was using the 8414 test
00:40:53 was using the 8414 test to bre's commercial advantage i.e to generate
00:40:57 generate income for its other work streams
00:41:03 yes as you may be aware bre is a actually a charitable trust um we don't actually have uh any
00:41:14 um we don't actually have uh any shareholders so we're not
00:41:18 making money for shareholders what we're doing
00:41:21 doing is supporting the charitable trust uh in their sort of research and uh education in the built environment but to be able to do that um bre has to
00:41:34 but to be able to do that um bre has to generate income to support the charitable trust so yes it was a com any testing that we do
00:41:43 do is a commercial exercise but not for um shareholder income it's just to put that uh that money back into
00:41:56 that money back into the the charitable trust and support the um
00:41:59 um the ongoing uh process of bre in in being was it and just to be clear it's right isn't it that the 8414 test was seen as
00:42:12 isn't it that the 8414 test was seen as an important source of revenue for the bre
00:42:16 bre yes as as as is any testing that we do i wouldn't say that that was specifically um targeted as an important uh stream any more than any other
00:42:27 uh stream any more than any other testing we'd yes to the best of your recollection did anyone at any time take steps to consider the inherent conflict of interest
00:42:38 conflict of interest in 8414 or indeed other testing being a source of revenue for the bre
00:42:48 um sorry i don't really understand the question
00:42:51 question yeah were you aware at any stage of any consideration being given within the bre uh to the comp potential conflict of interest
00:43:00 interest between the rev needing the revenue from these testing test procedures to fund other aspects of the bre's work was that was there ever any serious consideration
00:43:12 was there ever any serious consideration given to that conflict of interest no i don't recall any any of that sort of consideration and i don't believe that there is a conflict of interest did anyone ever consider the proprietary
00:43:24 did anyone ever consider the proprietary prior propriety of commercial pressures on a testing house selling tests intended to protect life safety
00:43:34 now i want to ask you about the procedures that the bre followed in relation to 8414 tests during your time there does it follow
00:43:45 during your time there does it follow from
00:43:46 from the explanation you've given about your roles that you would have been well aware of the procedures between 2008 and 2013 is that correct yes yes and what about
00:43:58 is that correct yes yes and what about after 2013 were you still fully aware of what the procedures were around 8414 testing i'm fully aware of the procedures yes yes
00:44:09 yes just less involved since 2013. yeah now just some questions on impartiality uh if we go and look at your first witness statement again bre 4057
00:44:23 bre 4057 at page two
00:44:34 if we look at paragraph nine on the bottom of that page
00:44:41 you say in the first lines of that paragraph in summary bre is an independent and accredited testing laboratory which may be engaged by test sponsors to carry out specific standardized
00:44:53 carry out specific standardized fire testing now you're accredited by ucas yes
00:44:57 ucas yes that's correct yes and at all times were you aware that you were required to meet the standards of bsen iso 17025
00:45:07 iso 17025 yes and there was a 2017 edition of that but previously also a 2005 edition yes yes can we just look at that 2005 edition
00:45:18 edition this is bsi401726
00:45:29 so this is the edition which would have been in place throughout the periods of time that we're particularly interested in the 2005 edition and if we look at page 12
00:45:40 and if we look at page 12 and start with clause 4.1.4 on that page this is under the broad heading of management requirements
00:45:50 it says that um if the laboratory is part of an organization performing activities other than testing and or calibration the responsibilities of key personnel in the organization that have an involvement or influence on
00:46:02 that have an involvement or influence on the testing and or calibration activities of the laboratory shall be defined in order to identify potential conflicts of interest
00:46:11 interest do you see that there yes and was that something you were aware of during the time you were involved in testing activities at the re um i can't say that i was aware
00:46:22 the re um i can't say that i was aware specifically of that clause but of the general premise of that clause yes did you ever read yourself iso 17025 not in in full no and if we look
00:46:36 in full no and if we look um at the bottom of page 12 we can see that um clause 4.1.5 begins and it begins with the laboratory
00:46:47 begins and it begins with the laboratory shell and then we have a number of subparagraphs if we go over the page to 4.1.5
00:46:54 4.1.5 d
00:46:56 d says there the laboratory shall have policies and procedures to involve involvement to avoid involvement in any activities that would diminish confidence
00:47:07 diminish confidence in its competence impartiality judgment or operational integrity so when we talk about bre's impartiality
00:47:18 so when we talk about bre's impartiality in this context whether you're understanding that this is what we were referring to yes now looking at that the laboratory shall have policies and procedures in place
00:47:30 procedures in place that address all of those matters to the best of your knowledge did the bre have policies and procedures in place which ensured that its testing activities were carried out impartially
00:47:41 activities were carried out impartially and with operational integrity yes can you just explain to us what those procedures were were they written down or were they communicated orally
00:47:53 communicated orally they've written policies through our central um quality systems department right and when you were involved with bs 8414 testing did you
00:48:05 involved with bs 8414 testing did you read those policies as far as they were relevant to what i was doing yes
00:48:14 and did they assist you in terms of explaining how in practice you should maintain impartiality and operational integrity yes can you help us in what way did you
00:48:27 yes can you help us in what way did you receive guidance on that can you remember something specific you were told about how you were to do that well i can't remember any specific wording
00:48:37 wording um but the the general premise of um
00:48:48 um but the the general premise of um requiring or you know the separation of um testing and providing clients with
00:48:59 and providing clients with um specific uh information on design or uh be that design of
00:49:07 design of a product or a system or or such like um you know we can't go into that that sort of area if we're involved into in the uh
00:49:18 in the uh in the testing was that actually written down in a policy that you were using and aware of or was that just something an understanding that you had that's an
00:49:29 an understanding that you had that's an understanding that i've had for many many years even in my time um at bsi prior to coming to um bra it's it's a general premise that um all tests
00:49:42 it's a general premise that um all tests and certification organizations work on yeah now i'm sure it must be written down somewhere but i could not
00:49:50 could not um point point in the direction of that particular wording yeah and and just to be clear you can't yourself remember uh looking up guidance from time to time
00:50:02 uh looking up guidance from time to time that helped you in terms of maintaining impartiality and operational integrity not specifically no um but it's it's worth remembering that um as mentioned earlier
00:50:16 um as mentioned earlier we are a ucas accredited organization and um as such we are regularly altered audited by ucas and this is exactly the
00:50:27 audited by ucas and this is exactly the type of thing that they would be looking at in detail
00:50:32 i see so they would ask questions would you would they about how you'd maintained your integrity and operational independence yeah absolutely yes yeah
00:50:44 independence yeah absolutely yes yeah mr phillip clark told us in his evidence that he had never received any training on impartiality or where the line was to be drawn between impartiality
00:50:55 impartiality and say the giving of consultancy or advice
00:50:59 advice for the transcript that's day 97 pages 88-89 did you ever have such training
00:51:11 um
00:51:14 i can't specifically recall it but i i'm sure there has been uh some training modules in that vein i see but you have no specific
00:51:25 i see but you have no specific recollection of training on that topic no no
00:51:31 now i want to ask you some questions now about recording uh and checking of systems that are involved in in 8414 testing um if we could go at this point to bre four
00:51:44 if we could go at this point to bre four zeros
00:51:45 zeros five seven seven three and look on page two
00:52:00 so if we look at the second email down on this page it's sent to you and tom lennon and copying in others including stephen howard
00:52:10 howard and he says there tony tom i've looked at the cladding procedure and have updated some of the sop and drawings is that standard operating procedure
00:52:22 and he says please could you have a look at the attached documents and let me know if you have any comments and or edition
00:52:28 edition when we are all back in i will convene a meeting to discuss moving the cladding forward now he's talking about 8414 cladding testing yes yes and do you remember
00:52:42 yes and do you remember this happening where he updated some of the standard operating procedures and drawings
00:52:49 drawings um i don't specifically remember this this occurrence but um as with all the testing we we do there is sort of natural progression and moving forward
00:53:01 natural progression and moving forward and trying to improve through things and this was just a typical example of that
00:53:09 let's look at some of the documents he was referring to this is bre 4057
00:53:17 actually it's the next document in this run sorry it's page three of this same document here we can see a cladding test data file and report preparation
00:53:28 preparation sheet and it's got a checklist and you can see
00:53:33 can see for example in the second item down it says received client system specifications in the fifth item down it says undertaken component check and obtain
00:53:44 undertaken component check and obtain samples in the sixth item down undertake undertaken construction survey and obtained photos each major layer and then
00:53:56 each major layer and then ninth item down you can see there's a line it's just before the halfway point on this page it says final construction photographs taken
00:54:05 taken do you see that yes now um so this is a effectively a checklist and it requires a date and a sign off for each of these stages is that correct
00:54:16 for each of these stages is that correct yes
00:54:17 yes yeah did you have anything like this uh before this time so this is in may 2013 um not that i recall no
00:54:29 so were these checks done prior to may 2013 yes i think that the checks were done but it was uh
00:54:40 but it was uh not in such a uh a regimented um process of recording and following the introduction of this suite of documents
00:54:52 suite of documents were these checks in your experience diligently carried out
00:54:59 um as far as i'm aware yes
00:55:04 when you say as far as i'm aware why do you say that in terms of caveating your answer
00:55:11 answer um only because i don't recall seeing these documents completed in project files um after after that
00:55:23 in project files um after after that the introduction of this i'm not quite sure when when it was finally introduced right okay if we can look at page seven of this document run
00:55:34 of this document run this is another of the documents that mr clark attached
00:55:41 we can see here there's also a system and components photo collection sheet and that says it's to ensure photographs of the relevant and important components are taken
00:55:52 important components are taken the following sheet is to be used to collect and log images of the system and its components now again were photographs regularly taken prior to this point when you were
00:56:03 taken prior to this point when you were project manager for 8414 testing yes they were
00:56:07 they were yeah and um after this point yes was it your understanding that photographs were diligently taken to include images of the relevant and
00:56:18 to include images of the relevant and important components yes
00:56:23 and if we can also go to another document this is bre four zeros five seven six nine at page 302
00:56:35 at page 302 this is another document from mr clark's exhibits
00:56:40 exhibits we have here a it's called standard procedures for undertaking bs8414 parts one and two tests do you see that yes
00:56:51 do you see that yes and um again it has a checklist of actions with different offices in charge now did you have a system like this
00:57:02 now did you have a system like this before 2013
00:57:07 um not that i recall and did you see in test files after 2013 that documents like this were being
00:57:18 that documents like this were being diligently completed
00:57:22 um no because after 2013 i wasn't regularly looking at the test files but you would have looked at some test files yes
00:57:33 files yes but and those that you looked at did you ever see checklists like this being completed not that i recall
00:57:49 now um drawings now just some questions about drawings and 8414 tests can we look at your first statement at page four so it's bre405774 page four
00:58:02 at page four so it's bre405774 page four and if we look at paragraph 16 you tell us this and so you've been asked the question what role if any does
00:58:13 asked the question what role if any does the bre play while a test rig is being installed by a test sponsor and you say in paragraph 16 while a test rig is being installed by a test sponsor
00:58:25 rig is being installed by a test sponsor bre will take notes and photographs of the system being installed by the relevant contractors where the test sponsor has provided drawings of the system
00:58:36 drawings of the system these will be compared with the system being installed any deviations noted between the drawings and the installation will be discussed with the test sponsor
00:58:47 will be discussed with the test sponsor now that's what you told us in your statement can you help was there a practice of requiring drawings
00:58:55 drawings of systems prior to installation when you were in charge of 8414 testing um there's always been a practice of
00:59:07 um there's always been a practice of requesting the drawings uh from clients uh unfortunately it's not always been uh essentially not always been the case that we've always received those
00:59:19 that we've always received those drawings
00:59:20 drawings in time for the installation to take place
00:59:24 place right so if you hadn't received them in time for the installation to take place did you nevertheless let the installation go ahead uh yes
00:59:35 ahead uh yes yes and
00:59:38 yes and how would you know then that that installation was consistent with the way the test report would ultimately report that system if you
00:59:49 ultimately report that system if you didn't have any drawings uh well quite frequently um the sponsor would be would prepare drawings
01:00:00 sponsor would be would prepare drawings uh in relation to the system as built as opposed to providing drawings prior to the uh installation so it would be a case of comparing
01:00:11 comparing the the build notes um to the drawings that that may have been received
01:00:17 received after um the installation from the sponsor
01:00:22 sponsor i see and was that diligently done by the bre that you would compare the as built rig with the as built drawings that came afterwards yes as far as we could uh could do that
01:00:34 yes as far as we could uh could do that yes
01:00:35 yes when you say as far as we could do that were there some aspects of that job which would be more difficult for example bits of the rig that were covered up
01:00:45 um well in in respect of cladding bsa for one force test there should always be a case of
01:00:56 always be a case of um full information being available during during the build um in terms of drawing um terms of photographs and and build notes yes precisely so those
01:01:09 build notes yes precisely so those photographs and build notes would become very important wouldn't they if you didn't have drawings in advance that's correct yes
01:01:18 and was it your experience that that process of taking build notes and photographs was a careful and diligent one when you
01:01:29 was a careful and diligent one when you were involved with 8414 testing um i believe that was the case yes but do you accept that not requiring
01:01:41 but do you accept that not requiring drawings
01:01:42 drawings in advance gives rise to an obvious risk of the system being misdescribed either accidentally or deliberately in a later test report
01:01:54 um
01:01:58 yes there is a potential risk there
01:02:02 and just pulling your statement back up the same passage we were just looking at
01:02:10 in the final sentence you say any dva for deviations noted between the drawings and the installation will be discussed with the test sponsor for what purpose would you be
01:02:24 sponsor for what purpose would you be having those discussions about that those deviations um well it in some cases the uh the contractor um
01:02:37 the contractor um may well have not been uh an employee of the
01:02:42 the um the test sponsor they may be a subcontractor of the test sponsor therefore we needed to ensure that
01:02:51 that the the contractor was actually building in
01:02:54 in in in accordance with the test sponsors requirements even though they may be different to what's on the drawing so we're just raising that that as a
01:03:05 so we're just raising that that as a point
01:03:07 point to to understand the test sponsors requirements and also if we're aware of um differences then we would uh
01:03:19 of um differences then we would uh be asking the test sponsor to provide uh updated drawings in relation to those differences yes i mean you say we're just raising that as a point
01:03:31 as a point but but it isn't that precisely that the problem that you you must need updated drawings surely where that occurs yes that's correct yes and did the bre
01:03:42 yes that's correct yes and did the bre always do that or did they sometimes allow the rig to go up slightly different from the drawings
01:03:49 drawings in practice yeah well there are occasions where the test sponsor decides to change the design slightly during the installation
01:04:01 design slightly during the installation process
01:04:02 process and that that's what i meant in terms of trying to understand whether it was a the requirement of the test sponsor to change
01:04:10 change make that change or whether it you know in some instances it may simply be a mistake by the contractor during the bill we needed to understand whether that was
01:04:21 we needed to understand whether that was you know
01:04:22 you know which side that was whether it was a mistake by the contractor or a change of design from the test sponsor
01:04:29 sponsor where that occurred where there was a change of design during the installation process were there very clear procedures within the bre as to what should happen in those circumstances uh well as i say we would ask
01:04:39 ask for um drawings to be uh reissued with the
01:04:43 the with those updated details and were those always provided
01:04:49 [Music]
01:04:52 uh to my knowledge yes yes right you don't sound completely sure about that when you say to my knowledge
01:05:04 to my knowledge what do you mean exactly um
01:05:12 well we would always request them i i couldn't say categorically that uh 100 of the time that we
01:05:19 that we would always receive those yeah can you recall any instances where you didn't receive those but nevertheless the test procedure went ahead um
01:05:32 well it would be the test procedure would invariably go ahead anyway because we're up against um schedules in terms of the the test facility
01:05:44 in terms of the the test facility uh so generally the test would continue if the client was happy well with what he uh what had been built was reflected to
01:05:55 what had been built was reflected to what he wanted to be built but there would be an ongoing discussion after the event after the test with the client as to provision of those updated drawings
01:06:08 provision of those updated drawings right i see um in his oral evidence mr clark was asked about the purpose of including
01:06:16 including assembly drawings within 8414 test reports
01:06:20 reports and for the record this was at day 97 pages 72 and 73 and he said that he understood the drawings to be a representation
01:06:32 representation of how the system should be put together on a building rather than being representative of the rig as
01:06:39 rig as tested now do you agree with that or do you disagree with that um
01:06:48 i would disagree with that in in parts in that the the test the bsa414 test rig whilst it uh tries to represent a
01:06:59 whilst it uh tries to represent a building as best as it can it can never you know accurately uh represent a building it's a test methodology and therefore the the system tested on
01:07:12 and therefore the the system tested on on there
01:07:16 designed around the particular test rig the s8414 test rig and therefore there may be some
01:07:26 details that would be slightly different to what would go on on a building yes but it does sound like you would disagree
01:07:36 disagree that the drawings would be only representative of the how it goes onto a building rather than being representative of the rig as tested
01:07:49 yes there needs to be a close association between the two from these reasons um but in effect um the bs8414 test is um
01:08:03 bs8414 test is um structured around a specific test rig rather than a building yes i understand that so for example you might get a window in the as built that's not there in the test but
01:08:13 test but let's assume we have two bits of the test
01:08:17 test is the same as a bit of the building that is
01:08:20 that is you know pretty much similar to the the building has built but the cladding system itself needs to be a very
01:08:27 be a very close in fact i would say identical representation would you agree yes yes i would agree from that point of view but
01:08:35 view but there are some aspects of the a bs8414 test
01:08:38 test that requires joints in specific positions
01:08:42 positions for the test yes and those joints would not necessarily be representative of those positions on a building
01:08:51 building just to clarify this mr baker i think the question really is is the drawing that you expect to receive the client which relates to the rig meant to be a
01:09:04 which relates to the rig meant to be a drawing of exactly what is on the rig rather than a drawing which is reflects what would go on to a building
01:09:13 it should reflect what's on the on the test rig
01:09:16 test rig thank you very much yes thank you now um monitoring during the 8414 test process if we can look at page four of
01:09:27 process if we can look at page four of your first witness statement and paragraph 17
01:09:36 it's bre four zero five seven seven four yeah
01:09:40 yeah um so you tell us there such monitoring by bre is also required to ensure that health and safety aspects are being adhered to and to provide any additional support in terms of waste disposal provision etc
01:09:52 terms of waste disposal provision etc that the test sponsor or its contractors may require and then you say this bre's monitoring will not run for the entire duration of the installation but will generally be at key points
01:10:05 but will generally be at key points now focusing on that last sentence where you say that bre's monitoring will generally be at key points of the installation in what circumstances
01:10:16 circumstances would the monitoring not extend to monitoring at key points
01:10:24 um
01:10:29 well i i must admit i think my my wording is is probably a little bit woolly in in using the word generally um it should always be um
01:10:41 um it should always be um uh key points of the build um but to a certain extent we are um [Music]
01:10:50 [Music] reliant on the the contractor or the test sponsor in advising us when when they get to those key points
01:11:01 those key points i see so would those tests those key points vary depending on the build yes absolutely it would yes yeah you tell us something else about these key points
01:11:11 points um if we can stay with this topic look at page five of your statement and look at paragraph 19.
01:11:22 you're being asked who if anyone is responsible for any checks or comparison between the actual test rig as installed and the detailed drawings provided by the sponsor and you say
01:11:33 provided by the sponsor and you say the test engineer or principal consultant nominated responsible for a specific test would normally have responsibility for monitoring and checking the detail of the build for reporting purposes
01:11:44 of the build for reporting purposes other bre staff members may also be asked to assist as the installation process can often take day several days and sometimes even weeks this checking monitoring does not cover 100
01:11:56 monitoring does not cover 100 of the build process but is conducted by means of spot checks at random intervals during the build and at key points when requested by the test sponsor
01:12:06 sponsor contractor yes now um looking at that last sentence just breaking it down so you say it's conducted by means of
01:12:17 so you say it's conducted by means of spot checks at random intervals is that right
01:12:20 right yes and was that an established procedure that was written down somewhere that you would do random spot checks during the installation process uh it's probably not written so that was
01:12:33 uh it's probably not written so that was just the convention was it just convention yes and then you say so spot checks at random intervals and at key points when requested by the test sponsor
01:12:44 when requested by the test sponsor contractor now my question is did you only check at key points when you were requested to do so by the test sponsor or did bre have a clear policy of
01:12:55 or did bre have a clear policy of checking
01:12:56 checking at key points well what we would normally be doing is is talking to the sponsor and contractor um during par
01:13:07 um during par during the installation process and they would give us
01:13:15 some guidance in terms of their timelines of their build and at those point or that point we would ask them to advise us um to
01:13:27 advise us um to when they get to those points so we can take the
01:13:30 take the relevant measurements or photographs as required
01:13:36 i see um so there wouldn't be any internal guidance to bre personnel explaining what the key points were likely to be and and when those key points ought to
01:13:47 and and when those key points ought to be checked
01:13:52 um
01:13:56 well usually the people that involved in the in the installation or monitoring of the installation would be um quite experienced personnel
01:14:08 um quite experienced personnel and they would be aware of what those key points were um yeah so it was just left to those who were in charge of the particular 8414 test
01:14:19 particular 8414 test to determine what case by case what those key points were yes depending on the system that was being uh installed at the time yes now just looking at your first witness
01:14:31 now just looking at your first witness statement or staying with that page two paragraph
01:14:40 nine i want to look at the the last part of what you say in paragraph nine four lines up from the bottom you say the test sponsor designs and
01:14:51 you say the test sponsor designs and installs their own test sample bre has no role in this due to its requirement to retain remain independent and impartial now appreciate that the bre is not
01:15:03 now appreciate that the bre is not involved in the design you say um of the the test sample but in terms of the installation of the system
01:15:16 can we agree that the bre would have an important
01:15:19 important role in monitoring and checking the installation of the system being tested yes i would agree with that
01:15:33 now in terms of the checking of reports some
01:15:37 some i just want to ask you some questions about the process for authorizing a test report uh following that report being written if we look at page six of your first statement
01:15:48 statement so this statement page six at paragraph 26
01:15:55 you this is where you're addressing what documents are provided to the person writing or approving a test of bs 8414 test report and you say there the author of an 8414
01:16:07 and you say there the author of an 8414 report will have access to the full project
01:16:09 project file including test sponsor drawing build notes photographs during installation test and post-test test videos and test data etc this information will be a mix of paper
01:16:21 this information will be a mix of paper and electronic form and then in the following paragraph where you're asked the question what checks are carried out by the bre before
01:16:32 checks are carried out by the bre before any 8414 test report is approved you say this you say after the author has completed a draft of the test report that draft will then be sent to another member of the bre team for an internal
01:16:44 member of the bre team for an internal checking process a secured draft ia draft in pdf format will usually be sent to the test sponsor so they can check the system description and then you say any comments received
01:16:56 and then you say any comments received from the test sponsor will then be considered and verified before any amendments are made and then if we go over the page
01:17:07 you then say in the final sentence of that paragraph the report then goes through a final checking and approval process
01:17:13 process by the relevant report authorizer now i want to ask you did the people carrying out these internal checks and and indeed the
01:17:24 internal checks and and indeed the report authorizer did they also have access to the full project file
01:17:30 file yes and
01:17:33 yes and would you expect the checker and the authorizer to read the documents on that project file as part of that checking and approval process
01:17:45 checking and approval process um during the checking process yes the authorizer is not usually quite as
01:17:53 as uh as an in-depth um technical check what is the purpose can you help us what is the purpose of the authorization process
01:18:07 um
01:18:10 is it's more of a an oversight to ensure that key key clauses are included
01:18:21 key clauses are included correct process has been um used um test standards etc are uh correctly used
01:18:33 uh correctly used um there will be some there will be some review of the
01:18:39 the system tested uh and uh a review of the um specification and system tested
01:18:50 specification and system tested but it as i say it wouldn't be quite as uh
01:18:53 uh as a deep check as as the previous checks
01:18:58 checks i see so you would expect the person who checked it before the authorizer the initial checker to do a deep check including checking back against all the
01:19:09 back against all the contemporaneous tests documents reports photographs yes that's what i would normally expect yes
01:19:16 yes and then the authorization process is a shorter process yes yes yes and a more cursory process yes uh i don't know that i would use the
01:19:28 uh i don't know that i would use the word cursory but yes in essence that's right yeah eight four one four and at the early termination criteria now i
01:19:39 at the early termination criteria now i want to ask you some questions about that
01:19:42 that um if we can look at your first witness statement on page two paragraph nine
01:20:00 we were looking at this paragraph we were looking four lines up from the bottom
01:20:04 bottom i now want to look two lines up from the bottom
01:20:07 bottom you say there bre then carries out the large scale fire test to record time and temperature details as expressly set out in bs8414 parts one and two
01:20:18 and two written observations of the general performance of the system under test are also taken during the test these observations will also determine any early termination of the test
01:20:30 any early termination of the test due to flaming beyond the confines of the test rig or on health and safety grounds and then you say if requested by the test sponsor bre will produce a test report confirming the nature of the test
01:20:42 report confirming the nature of the test and recording the relevant time and temperature data such a test report will not of itself contain any sort of classification now just thinking about that early termination criteria
01:20:54 termination criteria can we go to bsi6097 is a copy of bs 8414 part 2 and i want to look at page 11.
01:21:21 here we go so this is eight four one four part two it's 2005. you can see that in the top right hand corner and paragraph 8.5 has the test termination criteria
01:21:34 has the test termination criteria if we can just read that it says extinguish the heat source 30 minutes after ignition if no part of the cladding system is still burning terminate the test if flaming or
01:21:45 burning terminate the test if flaming or monitored temperatures are still rising continue taking records for an additional 30 minutes up to the maximum test duration of 60 minutes and then you say that sorry and then it says the test
01:21:56 says the test shall also be terminated a if flame spreads
01:22:01 spreads if flame spread extends above the test facility or b if there is a risk to the safety of personnel or impending damage to equipment
01:22:09 equipment so that's the test termination criteria in 8414
01:22:13 in 8414 itself um can we agree that there is no room for discretion in the wording at 8.5 a it says there the test shall also be terminated if
01:22:26 the test shall also be terminated if flame spread extends above the test facility that's a mandatory requirement isn't it it is yes
01:22:37 it is yes you help us what's your understanding of why that particular wording is included in the test standard why should the test be terminated if flame spread extends above the test facility
01:22:50 um well if you can sort of consider that the
01:22:54 the uh the test uh test sample is of a finite height um
01:23:04 height um then if you get flaming above that you can't then monitor any flame uh surface spread of flame or flaming cavities or anything beyond that point um so you don't know
01:23:18 beyond that point um so you don't know from that point onwards whether any uh other other
01:23:25 occurrences would would happen so at that point you have no you could you can gain no further information from the test and in effect you you have got
01:23:39 uncontrolled flame spread it with on the system
01:23:43 system yeah can you help us as to whether there was ever a practice at the bre to use its discretion when it came to that paragraph paragraph 8.5 a if the flames were only
01:23:57 paragraph 8.5 a if the flames were only short-lived
01:24:00 um
01:24:04 discretion in terms of actually putting out the um the crib is discretion in terms of stating that that test was a termination
01:24:15 stating that that test was a termination pursuant to april 1 4. there's no discretion on that no so i i think we heard mr clark explain that sometimes it would be terminated but you would let
01:24:27 it would be terminated but you would let the rig burn on yes yes yes in your experience did you ever come across any instances where it wasn't terminated officially even though the
01:24:40 terminated officially even though the flames had reached the top of the rig because those flames were only transient or temporary
01:24:47 um
01:24:50 no i'm not aware of a situation like that
01:24:55 that and if that happened
01:24:59 what would your approach be to that part of 8414
01:25:04 of 8414 would it have failed the test or not if we consider that the flaming went above the rig then as far as we're concerned that it is termination of the test
01:25:15 is termination of the test yeah okay now i want to ask you some questions now about uh kingspan with particular reference to the k15 phenolic insulation product and we're
01:25:26 phenolic insulation product and we're going to start back in 2005 we know that kingspan carried out a test to 8414 part one on the 31st of may 2005 on a system
01:25:37 on the 31st of may 2005 on a system incorporating k-15 now i think you told us that this was around the time that you became involved in
01:25:48 that you became involved in this kind of testing is that right did you have any involvement in that test no i didn't have any involvement in that test i think that was probably a bit early for my involvement right i see yes sorry i
01:26:00 involvement right i see yes sorry i think you said 2008 you were certainly project manager for 8414.
01:26:06 8414. yes that's correct but is it possible that you were involved with 841 for a little bit before that 2008 yes i was um but not in in a in the formal way
01:26:19 can we go to kin40s
01:26:24 and look at page one
01:26:36 and look at page one this is an internal kingspan report uh by mr meredith mr ivan meredith
01:26:44 meredith and it's dated the 7th of january 2008 you can see that at the bottom of this page and i just want to ask you about some of the things mr meredith has put in this internal report
01:26:55 report um if we can go to page five
01:26:59 and look at the second paragraph i'm just going to read that to you so he says this he says in 2005 kingspan tested to the new british
01:27:11 kingspan tested to the new british standard formerly known as fire note 9 bs 8414 part 1 and based on the advice of bre we used a non-combustible board as cladding as the bre stated if you test with a
01:27:24 as the bre stated if you test with a non-combustible cladding then you could state
01:27:27 state i think i should say your system works with all non-combustible cladding systems
01:27:33 systems after successfully passing this test the bre moved the goal posts and stated that we could only say that our system works with that specific non-combustible board
01:27:44 non-combustible board however the test result met the criteria of bs 84141 and br135 and is a very useful document when securing specifications for facades above 18 meters where the
01:27:55 for facades above 18 meters where the substrata is masonry the reason for this shift in the bre's opinion
01:28:00 opinion is that they are still learning about this test
01:28:03 this test and kingspan were one of the first to test a ventilated rain screen construction now um just by way of some context and his oral
01:28:14 just by way of some context and his oral evidence to us mr meredith said that he thought he would have had this conversation with uh david hall or possibly sarah colwell this conversation about
01:28:26 sarah colwell this conversation about if you successfully pass with a non-combustible board then you can say your system works with all non-combustible cladding systems um
01:28:37 cladding systems um and you deal with this in your second witness statement if we can look at um that second statement bre 3032261 at page six
01:28:52 you cover this uh in paragraphs 19 and 20.
01:28:57 20. we look first at paragraph 19. you're answering here i think mr meredith's witness statement at this point
01:29:05 point and you say his statement seems to show that kingspan sought but failed to stretch the br135 classification process to cover class cladding systems that had not been tested in his answer to question 9c he
01:29:18 tested in his answer to question 9c he states i constantly sought to get the bre to expand what they could say about k15 in accordance with 8414 parts one and two
01:29:25 and two also at 9c he states that the bre advised if we tested a non-combustible building board they would give us scope to say that the system tested to could meet the br135 requirements when views
01:29:37 meet the br135 requirements when views behind all non-combustible cladding types and you say he then goes on to describe a meeting which he says that he king spans philip peace my colleague sarah cola and i were all present
01:29:48 sarah cola and i were all present he states that the conclusion of the meeting was that bre could not commit to being able to give kingspan scope of application as they simply did not have the knowledge of these systems and you then say in paragraph 20 i do
01:30:00 and you then say in paragraph 20 i do not recall that meeting yet i can say that mr meredith's conclusion from a conversation of that type if it happened is correct and you go on to say that bre as a test
01:30:11 and you go on to say that bre as a test house simply couldn't and wouldn't advise
01:30:13 advise a sponsor that a system would be classified to 135 without that specific system being tested
01:30:23 now to your knowledge did you or anyone else at the bre at any stage
01:30:32 stage suggest or advise kingspan that the use of non-combustible boards as the putative rain screen material meant that any non-combustible material might also
01:30:43 might also be able to be used as mr meredith has recollected um i can't recall anything um being said in that vein
01:30:56 anything um being said in that vein i've certainly not been party to that that conversation and i would be very very surprised if anybody within bre would would make that sort of statement
01:31:08 is it possible that someone at the bre gave that advice when the bre itself was on a learning curve about the behavior of these systems
01:31:18 systems do you remember a time when the bre was itself learning about system behavior in 8414 tests i think we're all it's fair to say that
01:31:30 i think we're all it's fair to say that we're always learning um whatever tests that we're doing uh and bs8414 in in those dates were were
01:31:41 dates were were a relatively new test for us um so yes we were learning in terms of system performance um which
01:31:53 um which you know from that respect i would be even more surprised um if we were to be making those uh sorts of statements if we don't have the knowledge to do so
01:32:04 if we don't have the knowledge to do so then we certainly couldn't be making those sorts of statements and it would
01:32:09 would at the end of the day it would be outside our remit to be doing so anyway so you don't ever recall a time when the bre
01:32:18 bre internally may have thought that if you tested one non-combustible cladding board
01:32:23 board you would then be able potentially to say that
01:32:27 say that any non-combustible cladding board uh would
01:32:30 would satisfy the br 135 criteria and could be used in these systems no no i don't recall anything like that no recollection of that no well can you help us as to what mr
01:32:41 no well can you help us as to what mr meredith might have been referring to then
01:32:45 i'm afraid i can't help you with that right
01:32:50 right so you can't help us as to how he came by that understanding when kingspan were were beginning to carry out these 8414 tests with the bre
01:33:04 the only thing that i could say and it's purely conjecture on my part is that um my understanding although it wasn't involved with that test
01:33:16 involved with that test or for some time
01:33:21 is that my understanding of that test is what
01:33:24 what was the system was a fairly indicative system
01:33:29 system um so i
01:33:32 um so i i would assume from bre's point of view that it you know it wasn't a representative system they were trying to understand the performance of k-15
01:33:45 the performance of k-15 behind various different types of um a board or system um
01:33:56 a board or system um and therefore you know there may have been
01:34:00 been say this is conjecture on my part there may have been sort of a general discussion about that if you know that that may be a way to to check
01:34:14 to check um the performance if you put some sort of
01:34:17 of ball in front but that in no way is um saying if you do that then it is all you know
01:34:24 know that will cover you for any type of non-combustible board when you say it was a fairly indicative system can you help us with what you mean by that yeah well this that as a system
01:34:38 yeah well this that as a system is in my in my view is not a system that would be used on a building
01:34:49 building yeah and can you help us as to why that's your view um because i don't believe the type of board that was used be could could be used as a an external
01:35:00 could be used as a an external weather weatherproof board yes so it didn't have any kind of exterior rain screen surface or coating
01:35:11 exterior rain screen surface or coating on it so
01:35:15 on it so you thought at the time did you that it was an indicative test is that right well not an indicative test per se because the the test was
01:35:26 test per se because the the test was run in in fully in accordance with bs8414
01:35:30 bs8414 the system itself i understood as being an indicative system that's subtle differences i i realize but absolutely and we are going to come back to this topic
01:35:41 we are going to come back to this topic actually when we discuss the br 135 classification of that system uh but this is helpful mr chairman i'm midway through uh this topic but i think this is as good a moment as any for
01:35:53 good a moment as any for the break yeah very well well i said we'd have a break during the morning mr baker we'll take it now uh we'll come back please at half past 11 to
01:36:04 come back please at half past 11 to continue your evidence and in the meantime while we're having the break please don't speak to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right okay thank you very good see you later thank you very
01:36:22 much
01:50:05 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing from mr baker mr baker i hope you can see me and hear me well can you yes i can good thank you very much in
01:50:16 yes i can good thank you very much in that case uh you're ready to carry on i hope i'll ask msgrange to continue putting some questions to you yes mr strange yes thank you yes mr baker um
01:50:28 yes thank you yes mr baker um we had been discussing the 2005 um kingspan k15 test and um are you aware that the outer facade in that test report from may 2005 is
01:50:41 in that test report from may 2005 is recorded as a cement particle board yes i'm aware of that and when did you become aware of that do you think
01:50:53 do you think uh i can't remember the first time that i looked at that report to be quite honest
01:50:58 honest okay yeah are you aware that kingspan now say that the test report is not accurate
01:51:04 accurate and that the material used as that outer face was a cellulose fiber cement board i've recently become aware of that yeah yeah can you help us as to
01:51:16 yeah yeah can you help us as to how that confusion might have come about the the report records one thing that kingspan are now saying that something slightly different was tested uh i can't really say uh we would have reported
01:51:30 really say uh we would have reported as um advised
01:51:34 originally by king spain um why the change i don't know yeah and mr meredith has said in his oral evidence for the transcript that's day 76 page
01:51:45 for the transcript that's day 76 page 207
01:51:47 207 that such a board was not traditionally suitable for the outermost layer of a cladding system and it sounds like you agree with that is that right i agree with that yes yeah and if we can look um on this point
01:52:00 yeah and if we can look um on this point at your third witness statement bre 3035303 at page 3
01:52:11 and in particular paragraph 12.
01:52:18 this is under the heading um correspondence dated 9th of september 2015 between myself and miss garbsite now we'll come back to that
01:52:29 that topic on in relation to the 135 classification report but just for now looking at what you say
01:52:37 you say you say this communication relates to a fully compliant bs-8414 test conducted for kingspan insulation under the bre report number 220876 originally conducted in 2005
01:52:50 220876 originally conducted in 2005 this test was conducted on a system of which from my perspective was not a complete system now when you say not a complete system is that because of the answer you just gave a moment ago because the board was not a
01:53:03 a moment ago because the board was not a board that you consider would have actually been used on high-rise buildings yes that's correct now i want to show you at this point so
01:53:16 now i want to show you at this point so i'm going to take you through the k15 story broadly chronologically um i want to turn to something from 2006 if we can go to kin402
01:53:30 this is a flyer produced by kingspan
01:53:38 it's a flyer called what's lurking behind your facade and it was produced uh in 2006 after the may 2005 test to 8414 part
01:53:49 may 2005 test to 8414 part one um
01:53:52 one um were you aware of this kind of promotional literature by kingspan um at the time in relation to k15
01:54:03 um i can't say that i was specifically aware about this document were you aware of other um kingspan k15 marketing literature
01:54:16 kingspan k15 marketing literature um no i was more aware of the uh certification issued by bba and such like
01:54:26 like yeah and the labc yeah yes okay we will come on to that now kingspan at this time did not have a br 135 classification report for the may 2005 test did they
01:54:38 2005 test did they no and if we look at the first paragraph that starts in the red text in the second half of that page you can see it says uh kingspan calls
01:54:50 you can see it says uh kingspan calls them k-15 rain screen board has not only been tested by the bre and awarded certification to bs 8414 part one but it has also been assessed and approved in accordance with
01:55:03 assessed and approved in accordance with br135
01:55:06 br135 now that's a wholly inaccurate assertion there isn't it it is yes
01:55:13 and it's also inaccurate in that a product can't be awarded that certification can it exactly yes it's it's a system test not an insulation board test
01:55:25 an insulation board test exactly and i just want to turn to an internal kingspan email about this this is kin-405179 this is an email dated the 8th of june
01:55:37 this is an email dated the 8th of june 2006
01:55:38 2006 sent by mr meredith to others within
01:55:44 kingspan if we just look this is you wouldn't have seen this at the time but um what he says in the first two paragraphs is this he says please note
01:55:55 paragraphs is this he says please note the k15 what's lurking behind your facade flyer has been withdrawn by the marketing department partly because it's considered not a good sales tax tick to highlight the fact you don't need
01:56:06 to highlight the fact you don't need class naught below 18 meters also the bre have complained about the use of the word approved and certification in our text these are
01:56:17 certification in our text these are privileges that would cost us an additional 20k
01:56:24 now um just pausing there it would appear that somebody someone within the bre has seen this what's lurking behind your facade flyer yes
01:56:33 yes yes yeah does that help you can you recall anything more about that at this time no it's probably not something i would have been involved in at that time do you think it's correct
01:56:45 at that time do you think it's correct that the bre would have charged an additional 20 000 pounds to issue a classification report for this test no i think what he i think whatever is actually referring to there is related to the approval or
01:56:58 there is related to the approval or certification i think he's probably had discussions at some stage regarding lpcb approval of the system and that's likely to well i don't think
01:57:11 and that's likely to well i don't think even that would cost twenty thousand pound but
01:57:13 pound but um that might will include a test as well
01:57:17 well uh but i that's my assumption of what he's talking about there it certainly wouldn't be a cost of that for a bo135 are you able to help us as to who it was at the bre that had complained about the
01:57:30 at the bre that had complained about the use of the word approved and certification in the text
01:57:36 um no not specifically i would assume it would be
01:57:41 would be um either sarah colewell or maybe dr debbie smith when mr meredith gave all evidence for the transcript this is it um day 75
01:57:52 for the transcript this is it um day 75 page one two four he wasn't very clear but when asked about this and who it was that had complained he said i don't know if it was tony baker and then he was asked do you think it could have been him and
01:58:04 do you think it could have been him and he said i think it could have been him yeah and so is he wrong about that that it wasn't you that complained about this flyer um no i i didn't have any discussions
01:58:16 um no i i didn't have any discussions regarding that were you ever aware of uh the bre complaining about the language used in
01:58:27 complaining about the language used in kingspan's marketing material for k-15 um not specifically about marketing
01:58:38 um not specifically about marketing material that i'm aware of
01:58:42 are you saying not specifically about marketing material because you are recalling conversations or concerns about certifications it had that yes that's it yes
01:58:53 yes i see and um who do you recall at the bre having concerns about that what about the certification or yeah
01:59:05 what about the certification or yeah um again i think it was probably um through sarah colwell uh potentially dr debbie smith um
01:59:17 potentially dr debbie smith um i think they they became aware of um
01:59:22 particularly the bba certification
01:59:27 and probably the labc certification as well
01:59:31 well and do you remember discussions taking place within bre about those certifications i do i do remember regarding the bba certification i don't remember i don't recall the issues with the labc i see
01:59:45 issues with the labc i see now um do you remember a test to bs 8414 part two on a steel framed uh structure which was carried out in december 2007
01:59:57 which was carried out in december 2007 that test was sponsored by kings fans so tech and metsec do you remember that vaguely
02:00:11 now um if we can go back to that internal report we were looking at before from mr meredith kin40847 this is the internal report prepared by
02:00:22 this is the internal report prepared by mr meredith of the 7th of january 2008 we looked at that earlier
02:00:36 and if we look at page 2 now we were on page five that we were looking at
02:00:44 and under the heading um test witnesses in the middle of that page can you see there's a list of names john eggington
02:00:52 eggington james gallia and then you're there tony baker
02:00:57 baker and it says lpcb do you see that yes yeah does that help do you think you did attend that test in december 2007 yes i think perhaps there was um some
02:01:08 yes i think perhaps there was um some discussion uh with well i don't know whether it was specifically king spain or it may have been so tech or whoever regarding potential certification to the lps 1581 or 1582
02:01:23 certification to the lps 1581 or 1582 standards in relation to that test right so that was sorry so i would have simply been there as an observer from the uh certification
02:01:34 from the uh certification perspective yeah and is it right that sarah colwell and phil clark were also there for the bre well to be honest i don't specifically remember the test
02:01:45 remember the test so but yeah i that wouldn't be unusual can you remember that in late 2007 there was significant interest uh amongst bre employees in
02:01:57 interest uh amongst bre employees in attending tests to 8414 part two tests can you remember there being interest in that
02:02:07 um there's general interest in those types of tests anyway because they're large scale tests
02:02:17 and and it's it's useful for um other people within bre to understand the types of tests that that we conduct yeah unless this is a large-scale test
02:02:30 yeah unless this is a large-scale test then
02:02:30 then yes that wouldn't be unusual for others to be
02:02:33 to be there just as um witnesses to you know just from their training perspectives yeah and um do you have any recollections of the performance of the
02:02:45 recollections of the performance of the system
02:02:46 system when it was tested then in december 2007 um i don't specifically obviously i from the
02:02:54 the i've seen this document so i understand that um
02:02:58 that um you know it didn't complete the test yes i mean it was a little bit worse than that if we look at the bottom of this page
02:03:05 this page result um can you see it 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 thus
02:03:16 and pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria of br135 yes and then it says 8414 part two does not have a pass or fail it needs to be cross-referred within vr135 and then going over the page he
02:03:28 and then going over the page he continues
02:03:31 continues he says this 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 now does that
02:03:41 that help with your recollection can you recall a test that was that unsuccessful at that time um i think it's probably quite flowery
02:03:53 i think it's probably quite flowery wording from either in this report to be honest um but yeah when i read those um those comments it did ring bells yes
02:04:06 those comments it did ring bells yes can you recall the test being a spectacular failure uh i can remember a failure yes okay um but obviously in in the role that i do i've seen many
02:04:18 in the role that i do i've seen many many tests a number of them have been failures a number of them have passes it's difficult to to actually determine in my in my mind which test was which
02:04:30 in my in my mind which test was which i see looking looking back in time now staying with this page if we can go down um to the bottom of this page there's a section that begins comments from the bre
02:04:44 can you see that there comments from the bre
02:04:47 bre and we have the following text it says the official line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the failure however and then in brackets it says
02:04:58 however and then in brackets it says unofficial comments it was apparent that the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame was apparent and the core continued to burn when the flame source had been
02:05:09 when the flame source had been extinguished they stated they did not remember the product performing like that
02:05:14 that last time now are you able to help us as to who made those official and unofficial comments
02:05:24 comments no i don't recall i don't recall being party to that discussion
02:05:30 were you solely there as a representative of the loss prevention board
02:05:34 board or were you also there because by this time
02:05:38 time you were involved with 8414 testing and i was certainly getting more involved with 8414 testing by that stage yes but i think from from the perspective of
02:05:49 but i think from from the perspective of this test i think there was a view to looking at the certification process can you recall who at the bre was taking main responsibility for this test uh i
02:06:02 main responsibility for this test uh i believe it would have been phil clark right um and any comments during the test would those most likely have come from mr clark
02:06:14 most likely have come from mr clark mr clark or um sarah colwell
02:06:21 sorry sorry i i don't agree with um the you know the comments of official line and unofficial comments that that doesn't sort of um mean anything to me
02:06:32 anything to me can you explain why that doesn't mean anything to you well we don't we don't have uh
02:06:36 have uh a process of issuing official comments and unofficial comments um it's it's just not what we do
02:06:46 we may discuss the performance of a test with the sponsor um
02:06:56 but you know they wouldn't be in terms of official line and unofficial line i appreciate that um when those comments are made they might not be headlined and signposted with here's our
02:07:08 headlined and signposted with here's our official comments here's our unofficial comments that might have been mr meredith
02:07:12 meredith putting it in those categories but um in your experience particularly thinking back to this time was it common for there to be discussions after the test including comments on how
02:07:25 after the test including comments on how different components of the test had behaved in it
02:07:36 i wouldn't say it's common but if there's a clear driver for any particular failure then that might be discussed in in general
02:07:49 yes now were you aware at the time of this test
02:07:55 this test so december 2007 that the k-15 product that was being tested was a different product from the one that had been tested in 2005 no i wasn't aware of that again in mr
02:08:08 no i wasn't aware of that again in mr meredith's oral evidence this is for the transcript day 75 page 161 he he said that this change this transfer to a new formulation of k-15
02:08:19 formulation of k-15 that had happened in 2006 was something that he thought he might have discussed with you
02:08:24 with you now do you have any recollections of that i have absolutely no recollection of that discussion or any such discussion no were you in discussions with iva meredith from time to time
02:08:36 meredith from time to time around around this time so 2006 2007 2008 uh yes but probably for a number of different reasons not just bs8414
02:08:48 different reasons not just bs8414 kingspain were looking at a number of different projects at different times
02:08:55 and did you have any any discussions with mr meredith either during or after this test not that i recall
02:09:07 now just staying with that same document that report by mr meredith uh at kin40847 if we look at page six now
02:09:25 yes and under heading 3 there it says the tested system it says this uh following much discussion we agreed on a system that we
02:09:36 on a system that we and the bre believed had the best chance of passing the low details the construction from inside to the exposed face do you see that yeah
02:09:48 face do you see that yeah now um can you recall whether there were discussions between the bre and kingspan about the system that had the best chance of passing
02:10:00 chance of passing no it's not the sort of conversation that we would have with any clients
02:10:06 were you aware of anyone else at the bre working in collaboration with kingspan at this time on these kind of issues no i wasn't aware of anybody
02:10:23 now um in 2009 were you aware that in may 2009 kingspan obtained a system approval certificate from the
02:10:35 system approval certificate from the labc
02:10:37 labc for k-15 um i've subsequently become aware yes
02:10:45 when you say subsequently when when did you become aware well only only recently i wasn't aware to my recollection i wasn't aware at that time
02:10:57 that time well let's have a look at bre three zeros one two two five two
02:11:05 and i want to look at this is an email string
02:11:15 bre three zeros one two two five two and i want to look at the first email in the chain at the bottom of that page if we could
02:11:24 we could expand that this is from john rabold now he was a bre employee yes yes yeah and it sent on the 14th of may 2000
02:11:39 and it sent on the 14th of may 2000 to you to sarah colwell to stephen howard and copying in norman macdonald and debbie smith do you see that yeah
02:11:50 debbie smith do you see that yeah and what was mr raybould's role within the bre
02:11:55 the bre uh john is a business development manager
02:12:02 and we can see it reads hi folks i've managed
02:12:05 managed to get an labc certificate from hertfordshire that says the kingspan k15 insulation can be used in a mixture of insulation thicknesses
02:12:16 thicknesses masonry or steel frame substrates a min cavity gap of 50 millimeters with a range of rain screen claddings i'm sure that this will be sent to us officially by kingspan when mark stevens
02:12:28 officially by kingspan when mark stevens gets back from the middle east i would like to think we have tried to establish some guidelines like i was proposing
02:12:34 proposing so that we could at least give mark some help with his system configurations also note that this appears to give automatic acceptance for systems over 18 meters
02:12:45 meters and then he says let me know how we want to move forward so that's the email now does that help you you said you don't think you were aware of the labc
02:12:57 think you were aware of the labc system approval certificate but does this help you as to whether in fact you were aware back in may 2009 well clearly i was invol i was copied in
02:13:08 well clearly i was invol i was copied in or sent that from john uh so yes i must have been aware at the time but i don't recall it as i sit here at the moment yeah and in the second paragraph there's
02:13:19 yeah and in the second paragraph there's reference to the fact that um mr raybull thinks it will be sent officially to us by kingspan when mark stevens gets back from the middle east can you just help us who was mark stevens mark
02:13:30 help us who was mark stevens mark stevens
02:13:30 stevens uh works for king spain yeah he worked for kingsman off-site is that right um i believe so yes yeah and
02:13:43 yeah and do you have no recollection following this email of going and reading this labc certificate to which your attention is being drawn um i must i don't have a recollection of
02:13:56 um i must i don't have a recollection of doing so i must have done but i don't recall doing so
02:14:02 was it kingspan's usual practice to send their product certificates whether that was labc or otherwise to the bre
02:14:10 the bre you can see that mr raybould is saying that he thinks it will be sent to us officially by kingspan was it kingspan's usual practice to send that kind of documentation to the bre no i wouldn't
02:14:23 documentation to the bre no i wouldn't say so not specifically in that second paragraph in the second sentence
02:14:30 sentence he's there saying i would like to think we have tried to establish some guidelines like i was proposing so we could at least give mark some help with his system configurations
02:14:41 system configurations can you help us as to what these guidelines were that had been established to try and give kingspan some help with system configurations
02:14:52 configurations yeah well i was aware at the time that um
02:14:55 um john raybull was having discussions with um
02:14:58 um mark stevens regarding a number of systems that they were looking to um get tested uh and there were some
02:15:11 get tested uh and there were some discussions around um what systems require testing to cover a scope of applications uh and it ended up quite
02:15:23 applications uh and it ended up quite quite a large potential test program i don't think it ever progressed right it is that reference to guidelines also a reference to the bre trying to put in
02:15:35 a reference to the bre trying to put in place some boundaries for king spanish to what could probably be claimed about the use of k-15 over 18 meters
02:15:43 meters um i'm not sure that's what john's referring to i think he's more referring to the test matrix or a test plan
02:15:54 test matrix or a test plan um that he was discussing with mark stevens at that point but he appears to be saying this in the context of drawing attention
02:16:05 of drawing attention to a very broad labc certificate can you recall there having been any discussions with kingspan about the need to ensure that its
02:16:17 about the need to ensure that its certifications were properly accurate based on the test evidence
02:16:25 um well i believe further up this email chain there was um potentially further discussion between sarah colwell and debbie smith and
02:16:38 and debbie smith and possibly stephen howard i wasn't involved in that uh what progressed after that i don't know
02:16:45 know i see are you referring to the email immediately above this yes
02:16:53 so sarah colwell says to debbie smith and hat stephen howard debbie steve we need to discuss this urgently you were aware of those discussions at the time were you
02:17:04 discussions at the time were you uh well as you see i wasn't actually copied into that that email from sarah so i don't know whether i would have been aware or not i guess i would have been on
02:17:16 i guess i would have been on from the sidelines point of view but i didn't i wasn't involved in any specific discussions and from the sidelines can you help us
02:17:27 and from the sidelines can you help us as to what exactly they were discussing at that time
02:17:32 well i guess it was based on the broad brush
02:17:36 brush statement on the labc do you remember there being a concern within the bre about how broad brush that labc certificate was
02:17:48 certificate was yeah i well i've i've later became become aware of it yes i say i don't recall it at this specific time
02:17:55 time but over time i'd become aware of it yes when you say i've become aware of it over time is that because while you were involved in 8414 testing at the bre
02:18:06 at the bre you came to become aware that there had been concerns about certification around this time yes that's correct yes yeah but you can't help us as to precisely
02:18:17 but you can't help us as to precisely when you became aware of this no i can't can't tell you on that
02:18:34 and let's look at an email chain now from 2010 this is bre403327
02:18:44 and if we can look at the first email in the chain which is at the bottom of page
02:18:50 one
02:18:55 right at the bottom of page one we can see an email from mr meredith to phil clark on the 25th of march 2010 with the subject bs8 for testing
02:19:07 with the subject bs8 for testing and then if we go over the page to see the content of that email he says uh phil clark um i hope all is well i have two new
02:19:18 i hope all is well i have two new insulation products that i would like to test in the bs 8414 potentially i would like two official tests however it may also be and two indicatives
02:19:29 be and two indicatives this depends on costs and he goes on and he says both tests would need to be on a masonry substrate and he asked about the dimensions of the rig and other questions about the
02:19:41 of the rig and other questions about the specifics of that so he's got two new insulation products he wants to test and potentially wants two official tests however it may also be two indicatives
02:19:54 two indicatives and then if we move up the chain on back on page one we can see that mr clark responds
02:20:04 on the 30th of march 2010
02:20:09 and he says i run well thanks happy to hear from you in terms of the questions below a couple of bs84 tests not a problem and we will be able to also do some indicative tests as required
02:20:21 indicative tests as required suggest that you speak with my colleague simon cc'd into this email that's um simon ashton jones it would appear to speak about costs etc and then if we go to the next email
02:20:33 and then if we go to the next email above that this is sent by you
02:20:37 on the 30th of march at 1653
02:20:42 sorry there's an email yes on the 30th of march 1614 and you say if we do indicatives
02:20:53 and you say if we do indicatives so it's from you to phil clark and stephen howard so this is an internal email now yeah if we do indicatives how would this be reported
02:21:01 reported just reading between the lines of ivor's email it seems as though he would try to pass
02:21:06 pass off indicatives as being full tests or am i just being a cynic exclamation mark and then phil clark responds he says at
02:21:17 and then phil clark responds he says at the top i would suggest that the supply of the data in a brief letter would suffice but no more than that now um just breaking down what you say they you start by saying if we
02:21:28 you say they you start by saying if we do indicatives how would this be reported
02:21:31 reported what do you mean there when you say what did you mean at the time when you said if we do indicatives what did you mean by that
02:21:41 by that um well i wasn't sure of what um what level of
02:21:45 level of indicative test um either was looking for whether it's similar
02:21:52 similar in vain to the test that was done in 2005
02:21:56 2005 or whether it was um a test with different uh thermocouples or no thermocouples or or what you know at that stage i didn't know what he was actually
02:22:08 what he was actually looking for or referring to and you say you talk about different levels of indicatives and i think later you draw a distinction between uh indicative which was say a research and
02:22:21 indicative which was say a research and development yeah like indicative um or an indicative which
02:22:26 which um wasn't a system you'd use in the real world but
02:22:29 world but was one that could actually go through the full eight four one four test is that right that's correct yes yeah if an indicative test was done
02:22:41 if an indicative test was done um is there a special way in which the results were reported so let's take a test whereby it's not a complete cladding system how would those results be
02:22:53 system how would those results be reported
02:22:55 reported well in in that case we would typically do what we would class as a short form letter report so it'd just be a a brief
02:23:06 letter report so it'd just be a a brief outline of what was done uh what the system consisted of and the results in terms of data or might you know it might just be a
02:23:19 or might you know it might just be a simple one or two page um what we we deem as a letter report rather than a formal test report and provide the test data to the client
02:23:31 and provide the test data to the client i see so if you test done a test not on a complete clouding system you might just issue a letter with the results in it that's correct yes yes or sometimes we might only issue
02:23:42 yes yes or sometimes we might only issue the
02:23:43 the um the test data itself that's sometimes that's all clients actually require
02:23:52 but if it was a complete system but the manufacturer told you that it was they were using as an indicative test would that affect the way in which the 8414 report was written
02:24:04 if we'd uh if it had been commissioned as a full test report or a full test then typically we would issue a full test report
02:24:16 report and would it record anywhere in that report that that was considered to be an indicative test because of some factor relevant to that such as the fact that the cladding board was not
02:24:28 that the cladding board was not represent representative um i think yeah where we are now yes that that would be the case um but back then you say
02:24:40 um but back then you say i think that's why i was asking the question because i was aware of the uh 2005 test at that at that stage and i you know was aware that there was confusion over that test
02:24:51 confusion over that test so are you saying that the bre's procedures would be different now if that 2005 test will run again yes i believe it would be yes and in what way would your procedures be
02:25:03 what way would your procedures be different
02:25:03 different uh we would be clearer in the type of report that we issued
02:25:11 issued and it would make it clear would it that it was
02:25:14 it was in some senses an indicative test yes
02:25:20 now going back to your uh email that we were just looking at we looked at um just the very first part of your short email you can have that back up so you start
02:25:34 you can have that back up so you start by saying if we do indicatives how would this be reported so is it right you're raising the very question we've just been discussing exactly that yes yeah and then you go on
02:25:46 exactly that yes yeah and then you go on and you say just reading between the lines of iva's email it seems as though he would try to pass off indicatives as being full test or am i just being a cynic now just can you help us what was the
02:25:57 now just can you help us what was the basis for that concern at the time well as i say i think i had in my mind the the test of 2005
02:26:09 my mind the the test of 2005 and my belief that that was a an indicative system as opposed to a full
02:26:18 marketable system um so does it follow that by this time you were aware that kingspan had been trying to pass that off
02:26:29 that off as being you say a full test there is that is that what you meant at the time yes i believe that's
02:26:41 meant at the time yes i believe that's that's what i was referring to yeah and how do you come to know that that um kingspan were trying to pass off indicatives as being full tests um
02:26:55 well i'm struggling to sort of uh remember actual timelines but um yeah we we were aware that the 2005 test was being
02:27:07 was being um used for to you know basically stay for kingspan basically
02:27:15 basically stating that the um
02:27:19 their k-15 test had part that insulation had passed the test and had been uh
02:27:27 been uh you know effectively given a classification um just
02:27:35 you know the wording used there is not my normal not my normal style to be quite honest so i i was just a bit maybe i was just a bit unsure of where
02:27:46 maybe i was just a bit unsure of where this one was going yes understood um was did mr howard have the same um awareness of you as you
02:27:58 have the same um awareness of you as you at the time that kingspan had been trying to pass off indicatives as being full tests
02:28:06 um i believed he did i don't know that we ever discussed this this email chain any further um i think um phil's response was
02:28:20 um i think um phil's response was probably the correct response and that's that's the the uh the way that we we went with it if if that was to be progressed and were individuals like debbie smith
02:28:31 and were individuals like debbie smith and sarah colwell also aware that kingspan had been trying to pass off indicatives as full tests um indicative in terms of the system
02:28:44 um indicative in terms of the system as opposed to a um a full set um and not a full test yes they were aware of that yeah yeah do you know whether the bre ever took any steps to alert anyone
02:28:57 took any steps to alert anyone else outside its organization to those concerns
02:29:03 concerns uh we had discussions with bba um
02:29:10 and anyone else um i don't recall um whether discussions were held with labc or not i don't know okay
02:29:24 and if we look at mr clark's response to you and mr howard again at the top of that page
02:29:35 can we agree based on his response that that um
02:29:38 that um he was aware at the time um hence he's suggesting that the supply of data in a brief letter would suffice but no more than that
02:29:51 than that i don't know whether he was actually aware of the you know the full scope of the issue but um that that would lead me to believe that he was yes yeah why wouldn't he have been aware
02:30:04 yeah why wouldn't he have been aware if if you and mr howard and debbie smith and sarah colwell were all aware why wouldn't mr clark have been aware too
02:30:13 too um well as i say i don't know whether he was or not but phil the the way that we were organized at that time i believe uh phil clark was actually under a
02:30:25 uh phil clark was actually under a different line management who was he lie managed by steve and manchester right i think in the way that we operated we
02:30:38 i think in the way that we operated we within the passive department we project managed
02:30:41 managed in terms of the front end inquiry and that sort of thing for bs8414
02:30:48 but effectively we internally subtract subcontracted the test to uh the people that actually ran the burn hall
02:30:58 burn hall which was uh steve manchester and phil clark
02:31:02 clark right how proximate were you to them in terms of your offices to to steve manchester and phil clark were you close by or were you in a separate
02:31:13 you close by or were you in a separate part of the bre um i think relatively close by but to be honest we've moved offices so many times i can't recall at any particular stage
02:31:25 particular stage then let's look at another email chain now this is moving forward in times 2013.
02:31:31 2013. if we can go to bre 403397
02:31:41 this is an email chain between you and andy russell um now it's right isn't it andy russell is also an employee of the bre yes that's correct yes
02:31:52 that's correct yes he's our assessment engineer and was he a senior consultant in the bre's passive fire protection department around this time
02:31:59 time 2013 yeah yes i believe that was his uh his title um he is mainly deals with desktop desktop assessments
02:32:11 deals with desktop desktop assessments right i see yeah and then if we look at his email
02:32:15 his email just to you at the bottom of that page on the 24th of july 2013 he says hi tony i've had a request to write an assessment for a cladding
02:32:26 write an assessment for a cladding system in leeds sorry i should have noted the subject is kingspan k15 and bs8414 so he's had a request to write an assessment for a cladding system in leeds
02:32:36 leeds basically it's a bs 8414 hue system i it's fixed back to steel work however the only test data that i have for k15 was for a bs 8414 part one test
02:32:48 was for a bs 8414 part one test where the cladding was fixed back to masonry my gut feeling is that they should test this new system even though i think that the test data that i have is probably sufficient to say that the proposed system would
02:33:00 to say that the proposed system would pass a test to bs 8414 part 2. having said all that i've just come across a report that norman wrote where there was no bs 8414 test data at all
02:33:11 all anyway i'd appreciate your opinion as i haven't had much involvement with these cladding systems now the norman that he refers to there uh
02:33:22 the norman that he refers to there uh was that norman mcdonald who worked at the bre
02:33:26 the bre yeah that's correct yes and can you help us what was norman mcdonald's role at the beginning uh norman worked with andy on assessments
02:33:38 i think i think nor at that time norman was probably or before this time norman was previously andy's line manager yeah
02:33:50 andy's line manager yeah and then if we go up the page we can see you respond
02:33:56 that day from tony baker to andy russell and you copy in stephen howard sorry you actually make stephen howard a main recipient of that this reply
02:34:07 this reply and you say this hi andy strangely enough me and steve have just come out of a meeting with wintec and this project was mentioned or one very similar i would need more info on the through
02:34:18 i would need more info on the through system build up before commenting but in general the answer would be no unless the system to be assessed was very similar to that tested i believe the test data available from kingspan would be very limited
02:34:31 kingspan would be very limited and the market is starting to get very confused
02:34:34 confused through clever marketing by kingspan i know norman did an assessment some time ago but from what i can recall it was an enclosed system but from what we understand today
02:34:45 system but from what we understand today it wasn't built in accordance with the assessment exclamation mark and they say cheers tony now um just looking at that first line of your email you say that you and steve
02:34:57 your email you say that you and steve presumably that steve howard have just come out of a meeting with wintec yes yes that's correct yeah what was that meeting about can you help us um i don't recall specifically but
02:35:11 um i don't recall specifically but wintec are sort of a design company come to contract company for
02:35:18 for um external padding systems i think it was a meeting that was set up by steve howard yes um do you think that meeting was about the use of k-15 on high-rise
02:35:29 about the use of k-15 on high-rise buildings
02:35:30 buildings not specifically i think it was more general than that but could that topic have been discussed at that meeting it would appear that that was part of that discussion for whatever reason
02:35:41 discussion for whatever reason yeah and can you remember you may not be able to but could can you remember who at win tech you met at this time i'm afraid i can't know and looking at the fourth line of your
02:35:53 and looking at the fourth line of your email
02:35:54 email um sorry third line down you say i believe
02:35:58 believe the test data available from kingspan would be very limited and the market is starting to get very confused through clever marketing by kingspan
02:36:09 kingspan now it's right isn't it that by july 2013 kingspan still only had one test report to 8414 uh for a system incorporating k15 uh which had been successful yes i
02:36:21 uh which had been successful yes i believe so yes and to part one only yes yes and that was the may test yes yes i believe so and is that what you
02:36:33 yes i believe so and is that what you meant
02:36:34 meant when you say i believe the test data available from kingston would be very limited
02:36:38 limited yes and that seems to um agree with what andy was saying in his initial initial email
02:36:47 and um can you help us when you say and the market is starting to get very confused through clever marketing by kingspan
02:36:55 kingspan what were you referring to there in terms of kingspan's marketing um well it comes back to this issue where i think kingspain were trying to push
02:37:04 push their insulation uh rather than systems uh and you know sort of generally infer into the market that um their
02:37:15 infer into the market that um their insulation was approved to uh bsa414135 yeah and i do think that was causing some confusion in the in
02:37:26 some confusion in the in the market in general yeah and again in general can you help us as to how you would have become aware of that how did you become aware of that at the time
02:37:38 um well i think it was probably through the um
02:37:41 the um the discussions that we were having with the other
02:37:44 the other companies such as wintec and our awareness of the um
02:37:52 bba and labc type certificates and such and things like that yeah can we just look at kingspan's product literature that was in in in date at this time so this is
02:38:06 in in date at this time so this is kin403545
02:38:10 this is the ninth issue of their call firm k15 rain screen board product literature we can see in that very top right hand corner if we could expand the screen we can see the ninth
02:38:24 expand the screen we can see the ninth issue
02:38:24 issue says march 2011 but i can tell you you can take it from me that this issue was not updated until july 2016 so it was current at the time you were
02:38:36 so it was current at the time you were meeting with wintec in in 2013. okay now do you think you had seen this literature or or previous versions of it um
02:38:48 or previous versions of it um at around that time so by 2013 i think i probably had yes yes and if we pan back to the
02:39:00 and if we pan back to the the whole page you can see in the text that's highlighted there's a number of bullets that give key points about k-15 and you can see it there
02:39:11 there in the third bullet it's highlighted helpfully for us it says successfully tested
02:39:16 tested to bs 8414 2002 note it doesn't tell you which part can meet the criteria within br135 and is
02:39:25 is is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters
02:39:29 meters now do you agree that that assertion is wholly inaccurate
02:39:37 uh yes i i believe that that can be misrepresented basically yeah yes uh a product can't be successfully tested to be as a absolutely yes
02:39:50 it's a very clear bold statement isn't it at the end there it is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters yes yes so you would have been in no doubt when you read that would you that that
02:40:01 when you read that would you that that was misleading yes i believe that to be misleading yes and you believed that when you read it yes uh yeah i probably did yes i say i can't
02:40:12 uh yeah i probably did yes i say i can't i probably have seen this in the past i would i would fully expect that i have and i don't think i would have changed my view yes thank you and if we go on to page six
02:40:23 six uh under the heading fire performance
02:40:30 see on the right hand side there's a heading uh fire performance
02:40:37 and um
02:40:40 it says sorry i think it's actually lower than we've got there if we can go so we can come back out
02:40:50 yes at the bottom of that page at the bottom right so it's under the big heading five performance but there's a smaller there's two smaller headings construction and then results on the right hand side if we look at that
02:41:01 right hand side if we look at that paragraph it reads the tested product meets the criteria stated within bl bre 135
02:41:08 135 by performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings
02:41:12 buildings and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the building regulation standards now that's wholly misleading as well isn't it
02:41:25 it is misleading but they they've put that against a section which gives the construction of the system that was tested so i yeah there would be an argument
02:41:36 so i yeah there would be an argument around that i see but again it's starting off saying the tested product meets the criteria so it's yes yeah from that respect yeah yeah we can agree that's misleading yes
02:41:48 yeah we can agree that's misleading yes yes
02:41:53 and just going back to that email that you you
02:41:56 you you um that we were looking at earlier
02:42:02 uh so bre three four zero three three nine seven yes thank you and in the fourth line where you've said i believe the test data available was very limited and the market is
02:42:13 was very limited and the market is starting to get very confused through clever marketing by kingspan
02:42:19 um who in the market did you consider was starting to get very confused
02:42:34 i think designers let's say wintek
02:42:44 it's difficult to say a specific sector of people really it's more a general understanding or a general feeling uh did you say that because
02:42:56 uh did you say that because you knew of examples where k-15 had been used on high-rise buildings no no i don't know of specific examples that i could state right but you were aware where you that
02:43:07 right but you were aware where you that professionals in the construction industry were beginning to get very confused yes yes there's a general statement that's correct yes yeah and it was confused about whether or not
02:43:18 and it was confused about whether or not you could use k-15 over 18 meters yes yes
02:43:26 and can you recall did other colleagues at the bre share that view so we can see that you've sent this email to stephen howard did he share your view that the market
02:43:38 did he share your view that the market was starting to get very confused through clever marketing by kingspan well i think the only reason i've um included steve in that email is because he we'd literally just
02:43:50 email is because he we'd literally just come out of the meeting together and i was probably typing this on my phone sitting on the train next to him or in a car next to him yeah um
02:44:00 but i yes i would i would be surprised if stephen wasn't aware i know sarah colwell and dr debbie smith were aware
02:44:13 so they were also aware yes that the market was starting to get very confused through clever marketing by kingspan sarah colewell doesn't they yes and debbie smith
02:44:24 debbie smith debbie smith i yes i would i would assume so from discussions that we've had here
02:44:29 had here yes and what about phil clark by this time
02:44:33 time um you've been involved in 8414 now for some years yes yes yes was also involved yes
02:44:42 yes yes was he also aware that the market was starting to get very confused through clever marketing i would assume that by this time he would have been yes
02:44:54 would have been yes because we we would have had discussions just general discussions at such times yeah yes so can we take it that there were discussions within the bre
02:45:06 discussions within the bre about concerns over kingspan's clever
02:45:12 marketing yes i wouldn't say that we um schedule specific meetings to discuss it it's just something that comes up in conversation when you're talking about
02:45:23 conversation when you're talking about particular companies
02:45:27 yeah and and can you recall this is now 2013 whether any steps have been taken by the bre to contact anybody outside of the bre
02:45:40 contact anybody outside of the bre to discuss these concerns
02:45:45 um no as i said earlier we did have some discussions with bba regarding their their certificates uh i say we i it wasn't me specifically
02:45:56 uh i say we i it wasn't me specifically i think that was sarah carl
02:46:01 we're going to come to that in just a moment other than that no not not that i am aware of um but we're in a sort of a difficult
02:46:12 um but we're in a sort of a difficult position
02:46:12 position in that um vre is not a regulatory body and therefore we don't really have any power to
02:46:24 power to um have those discussions let's put it that way but we don't feel that we do i appreciate what you're saying about your powers but would you accept that
02:46:38 your powers but would you accept that if you had concerns about products being cleverly marketed for use for which they were not appropriate and not appropriate on life safety grounds the bre could have taken it upon itself
02:46:51 the bre could have taken it upon itself to contact others couldn't they
02:46:57 potentially yes but i'm i'm not sure that we're aware of specific instances where
02:47:03 where the um you know clever marketing is one thing
02:47:08 thing but it's having specific instances where we
02:47:11 we have specific concerns about a building or something that's being installed on the building is something different and i think under those circumstances this is the second instance um yes we we would probably
02:47:23 instance um yes we we would probably make it a
02:47:25 make it a a point of contacting somebody but as i sit here at the moment i'm not sure who that somebody would be
02:47:35 just going back um to andy russell's email
02:47:39 email uh to you so it's on bre four zeros three three nine
02:47:46 seven uh in the third line he says um my gut feeling is that they should test this new system even though i think the test data i have is probably sufficient
02:47:59 is probably sufficient now um just to be clear the subject of desktop assessments is one which the inquiry is going to come back to in in much greater detail at a later stage
02:48:07 stage in module 6 of the inquiry's work but for now i
02:48:11 for now i since we're here and looking at this i want to just ask you a few more questions about this um can you help us as to what this assessment is that andy russell is referring to
02:48:22 referring to carried out by norman macdonald with no bs 8414 test data at all can you help us about that um
02:48:34 no i i can't uh to be quite honest although
02:48:37 although you know from my response in my uh my responding email it says that i i know norman did an assessment some time ago um i don't actually recall
02:48:50 um i don't actually recall the you know what that was about or what that assessment was now yeah not something i've looked back on at all
02:48:58 on at all yeah in your response you say it was an enclosed system can you help us as to what you meant there by an enclosed system um
02:49:10 yeah i guess it means it's not a ventilated system right i see uh so it's enclosed panels i think
02:49:20 think and you've said um how did you come sorry yeah how did you come to learn that the project was not even built in accordance with the assessment that's what you said at the very end
02:49:30 very end yeah we understand it wasn't built in accordance with the assessment you put an exclamation mark there um can you recall how you came aware of that
02:49:39 that i don't recall at all i'm afraid i i suspect i had recently had a discussion with norman about assessments right four one four and he may well have mentioned it during that time
02:49:51 mentioned it during that time but unfortunately i don't recall the circumstances now okay now um the bba certificate now we you've touched on that and you've mentioned that there was a meeting with br
02:50:02 br the bba so this is moving forward to january 2014 can we look at your first witness statement now bre 40 5774 page 24 and i want to look at paragraph
02:50:20 104
02:50:26 so you're asked the question let's just look at that first you asked were you aware of any such meetings taking place at the bre did you seek or were you aware of any other employee of bre
02:50:37 employee of bre seeking advice in respect of the use of combustible materials on buildings over 18 meters or on the relevant sections of the building regulations and associated guidance
02:50:46 guidance and you say at 104 i'm not aware of any meetings taking place at bre specifically regarding the suitability for use of either k15 or rs 5000 on buildings
02:50:58 of either k15 or rs 5000 on buildings over 18 meters in height or on the relevant sections of the building regulations and associated guidance now i appreciate you saying that there weren't meetings specifically regarding
02:51:10 weren't meetings specifically regarding those
02:51:11 those issues um but were you present at or were you aware of any meetings within the bre which might not have had as their specific intended subject the
02:51:22 specific intended subject the suitability for use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters but during which that during that meeting that subject was nonetheless discussed
02:51:35 no i think um if i can just sort of put this in context
02:51:43 to say that the suitability of kingspan or rs5000 um i think i'd probably say later on or earlier on in my in my statement that we can't i we can't
02:51:57 in my statement that we can't i we can't single out a component uh such as the insulation in such a way it is a system test so i think that's really really what i mean there
02:52:12 there's nothing to say that the k-15 or rs-5000 isn't suitable for buildings over 18 meters as long as they're used within a system that um
02:52:23 that um suitably you know has suitable protection i i i understand that but we've been over some
02:52:30 over some emails which would tend to suggest that the use of k15 over 18 meters must have been the subject of discussion i think you've already accepted that from time to time yes and then if we can
02:52:44 from time to time yes and then if we can look at what paragraph 105 that that follows on from that
02:52:52 you say this you say however i am aware of discussions with the bba regarding certain approvals which the bba had granted
02:53:00 granted on the basis of the bs 8414 test standard
02:53:04 standard which we considered to be a non-standard cladding system which incorporated key 15.
02:53:09 15. if i recall correctly dr sarah colwell of bre was involved in these discussions and you've mentioned these discussions with the bba and now at the end of the second line
02:53:23 and now at the end of the second line there so you say you're aware of discussions um regarding the bba and the approval they granted and and you refer to the we you say
02:53:34 and and you refer to the we you say which we consider to be a non-standard cladding system and who's the wii that you're referring to there
02:53:44 um that's myself and sarah cole that's correct and what about stephen howard
02:53:55 um
02:53:59 excuse me well i i i understood that stephen howard was also under the same um similar um thoughts but uh obviously i've seen his
02:54:10 thoughts but uh obviously i've seen his recent
02:54:11 recent evidence and i may misunderstood his um his thoughts right um and then if we can look at the next
02:54:22 um and then if we can look at the next page and pick it up at 107 of your witness statement
02:54:31 you're asked to describe any interaction you had or were aware of with the bba in respect of either the certification of kingspan k15 or rs 5000
02:54:42 of kingspan k15 or rs 5000 um and the answer you give at 107 you say as mentioned in my answer to question 8c above we just looked at that i am aware of some discussions between the bre and the bba regarding our concern
02:54:53 concern over a particular bba approval which appeared to allow the use of kingspan k15 on external cladding systems which was based on a test which we considered was not typical of a
02:55:04 which we considered was not typical of a standard system installation however i cannot recall the full details of these communications nor have i seen any records or documents regarding these communications
02:55:15 regarding these communications now just taking it step by step what can you remember about these communications with the bba about the
02:55:22 about the the bre's concerns over k-15 well i think our concerns were that um as i say there one that um the
02:55:34 um the their certification was based on what we consider was a non-standard uh system and two that their certification was for
02:55:46 and two that their certification was for k-15 insulation not a system um so the inference from our understanding of the inference of their their certificate was that um k15 could
02:55:59 their certificate was that um k15 could be used
02:55:59 be used in a number of sys different types of system
02:56:03 system over 18 meters yes and that was not your view was it no that's not our view yeah and again where you're referring to the we here um is that
02:56:16 here um is that is that again it's sarah colwell for sure yes
02:56:20 sure yes yes yes and um can you remember whether um stephen howard had similar concerns about the bba set
02:56:32 similar concerns about the bba set certificate for k-15 i can't say whether he did or not i don't know and um was the concern
02:56:45 and um was the concern about the bba certificate which was current in uh 2014 does that help you in terms of the timing of this we'll come to look at that certificate in just a moment
02:56:58 um no that doesn't really help to be honest okay
02:57:04 and can you recall how had this concern arisen
02:57:07 arisen how would the bb bre become alerted to a problem with the bba certificate i don't know how it originated to be
02:57:18 i don't know how it originated to be honest um
02:57:21 i think it was sarah originally um uh brought it out but who originates who originally spoke to her about it or whether it's something she just became aware of
02:57:33 something she just became aware of i don't i don't recall yeah and you referred earlier to the fact that you thought there was in fact a meeting with the bba
02:57:40 the bba between the bre and the bpa is that right i believe there was yes yes were you present at that meeting no no i think it was just uh sarah cole and somebody from libya
02:57:52 sarah cole and somebody from libya and can you help us as to even in rough terms
02:57:55 terms when that when that took place
02:58:00 i'm afraid not you and know i i i've not seen any
02:58:05 seen any formal documentation or anything relating to that it's just discussions that we had in-house
02:58:11 in-house and i understood that sarah had actually spoken to
02:58:14 spoken to somebody at the bba i don't even know who that was at the time and was it your understanding that sarah colwell had shared with the bba the view that the test
02:58:25 with the bba the view that the test carried out in may 2005 was on a non-standard cladding system i think she um just discussed with them our general concerns as a um
02:58:38 our general concerns as a um i'm sure that yeah that that came up as well
02:58:41 well in terms of our our thoughts on this system that was tested but also that it uh the certification as uh as written inferred that it could
02:58:54 written inferred that it could k-15 could be used in a number of different systems yes thank you so just to be clear you think she discussed the bre's general concerns about that bba certificate but also
02:59:05 also the fact that that 2005 test had been on a non-standard system yes i can only say definitely it's the general concerns i don't i can't say definitely she discussed that
02:59:16 can't say definitely she discussed that specific test yeah now you said in that paragraph that you haven't been able to find any records or documents relating to this can we just have a look at an email chain
02:59:27 at an email chain bre 403493
02:59:35 sorry just while that's coming up can you recall who it was at the bba that sarah colwell spoke to no i'm afraid not now
02:59:47 so um this is an email without any text dated the 7th of january 2014 from stephen howard to you and attached to it was the bba
02:59:59 and attached to it was the bba certificate for k15 it was attached as a pdf you can see that
03:00:04 that there in the attachments yeah so it does appear that a specific certificate had given rise to particular concerns yes
03:00:15 particular concerns yes yes it would appear to be here and can you
03:00:18 you recall reading the bba certificate
03:00:25 um yes i can't remember when but i i can remember reading it let's look at that attachment bre 403492
03:00:45 so this is the attachment that mr howard sent you in january 2014 does that help as to whether that looks like a certificate you would have read at some point about k-15 yes yeah
03:00:58 read at some point about k-15 yes yeah yeah and looking at page one if we look at the the bottom left-hand side we can see that it says the date of first
03:01:07 first issue was the 27th of october 2008 um and then there's been an amendment in in this much smaller text underneath it says certificate amended
03:01:18 says certificate amended 6th of april 2010 can you can you see that
03:01:22 that yes and then sticking with that page that first page you can see a bit further up under the capital letters key factors assessed
03:01:34 the capital letters key factors assessed we've got behavior in relation to fire which is the third bullet point down or third point down and it says this it says um the boards will not contribute to the development
03:01:46 will not contribute to the development stages of a fire the product has been tested to bs 8414 part 1 2002 for one specific construction on masonry walls now can you help us when you read this
03:01:59 now can you help us when you read this certificate what did you understand this phrase to mean the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire
03:02:10 um to me that sounds as if they're saying it's a non-combustible or limited combustibility
03:02:20 board which is not
03:02:25 exactly that's my next question that's not an accurate description of k-15 in terms of its performance in fire is it no
03:02:36 and then if we go to section seven on page five
03:02:39 page five about two-thirds of the way down the page
03:02:44 page we can see under 7.1
03:02:49 there it says the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations and then it says this the product therefore may be used in accordance with
03:03:01 therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and for england and wales it says approve document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1
03:03:08 1 and paragraphs 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 volume 2 see also diagram 40. now just looking at that did you
03:03:21 now just looking at that did you consider that there were any circumstances in which k-15 could be used in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 12.7 of adb
03:03:33 um
03:03:36 only if it was tested within us within a system to the full requirements of ps8414
03:03:42 ps8414 well just to help you paragraph 12.7 of adb
03:03:45 adb is headed insulation and it's it states that all
03:03:49 that all insulation materials should be of limited combustibility and do you want to have a quick look at that would that help yeah if we could yeah
03:03:58 yeah let's go to clg1
03:04:02 607 at page 96.
03:04:19 there we have um 12.7 of approved document b and it's headed insulation materials products
03:04:27 products and it says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see
03:04:38 should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now just to put the question again did
03:04:49 now just to put the question again did you consider that there were any circumstances in which k15 could be used in accordance with paragraph 12.7 there of adb
03:05:01 can you recall whether sarah colwell reported that she had um discussed the specific language of the bba certificate
03:05:12 the bba certificate with the bba itself well i think that was the general context of having those discussions with the bba is to um
03:05:23 the bba is to um discuss the these sorts of issues that we felt were incorrect yeah yeah um did you discuss um
03:05:34 um did you discuss um any of this with mr howard we can see he sent you this certificate on the 7th of january 2014. um presumably there were some discussions after he sent it
03:05:46 discussions after he sent it to you is that right um i think there must have been some discussion i don't recall that particular um circumstance i don't recall why he
03:05:58 um circumstance i don't recall why he sent it to me on that particular date um obviously there's no text on there so maybe i just said that i don't i don't have a copy of the
03:06:09 i don't i don't have a copy of the certificate to hand or anything so he sent me a copy so i guess from that we must have been having discussion about
03:06:16 about it but i don't recall the circumstances of that discussion right and you can't even recall whether it was
03:06:23 it was a discussion about concerns that you or others in the bre had about the content of that bba certificate i'm afraid i can't recall right you know
03:06:34 i'm afraid i can't recall right you know clearly we've we've had concerns for for some time in terms of the way the certificates have been represented uh or sorry
03:06:46 represented uh or sorry the installation performance is being represented in in certificates to put it in the correct way
03:06:55 so putting timelines and who those discussions were with and the context of those discussions i'm afraid i really can't can't say yeah if we just look um just to complete what
03:07:08 if we just look um just to complete what we have in the documents if we can go to bre
03:07:22 3015007
03:07:28 bre 3015007 so all we have uh after that
03:07:41 so all we have uh after that uh certificate sent is a message back from
03:07:44 from you to mr howard 7th of january 2014 on the same day and you say see attached i assume this is the basis of the bba certificate
03:07:55 of the bba certificate and we can see you've attached a document with the number 220876 and that was the may 2005 test to bs 8414 part one yes yes
03:08:07 to bs 8414 part one yes yes yes and again does that seeing that does that help you as to what you discussed with mr howard no i'm afraid it doesn't oh clearly we were having a discussion
03:08:18 oh clearly we were having a discussion around that you know that particular certificate and the uh the testing but i i don't recall
03:08:23 recall specifically what those discussions were right
03:08:27 right now let's move forward in time again now to august 2015 and if we can go to a series of emails at bre404085
03:08:38 now this is quite a long chain and we won't go through all of it at this stage in the inquiry but for now i want to ask you about an email you sent to phil
03:08:49 email you sent to phil clark if we can go to page three
03:08:54 there's an email of the 6th of august
03:09:00 2015 about page three about halfway down the page
03:09:07 we can see picking it up there's an email from andy russell to you 6th of august 2015 at 12 yet 24. and the heading the subject is bre 135 certificate
03:09:21 and he says um this he says hi tony another bs 8414 part 2 test inquiry they're looking for a test of a stenae panel system
03:09:34 of a stenae panel system and then he gives some details of that system sfs inner leaf lined internally with plasterboard and not lined externally kingspan call firm k-15 insulation
03:09:45 kingspan call firm k-15 insulation cavity steny panel facade and they he says they need it pretty urgently as the handover is in september could you please provide a quote to him and a copy gita in as she's on holiday for the next
03:09:56 gita in as she's on holiday for the next two weeks
03:09:58 two weeks and then if we can go up to page two to the very
03:10:02 the very end of the page
03:10:05 mr clark responds and to you and to others on the 6th of august 2015. and if we look on the top of page 3 what
03:10:17 and if we look on the top of page 3 what he's saying he says gents um he says the system looks like a usual build-up the only unknown for me is the stan-eye panel i have a feeling we tested some similar
03:10:28 i have a feeling we tested some similar and it got through the main issue may be the hardened acrylic face and how that performs as well as structural integrity of the panels i would suggest that as this is again k-15 and it appears that kingspan
03:10:39 k-15 and it appears that kingspan systems
03:10:40 systems are being heavily questioned by the nhbc second in two days and having spoken to either recently there may be more to come
03:10:47 come that it may be worthwhile asking iva meredith to see if we could utilize the wall one
03:10:52 wall one which already has a partially built kingspan sfs in system sorry steel frame system i think that means in place if he agrees this could be done by
03:11:03 if he agrees this could be done by september
03:11:06 and then if we look up again your response on the same day the 6th of august
03:11:11 august on page 2 at 1409
03:11:17 you say this you say um back to phil clark and others the same list thanks phil yes i think the message is finally getting through that we can't assess everything based on one
03:11:29 assess everything based on one old test now just to be clear um what exactly did you mean by that the message is finally getting through we can't assess everything based on one
03:11:41 we can't assess everything based on one old test
03:11:42 old test well we was getting a lot of requests for assessments for systems outside those that had been tested
03:11:52 tested um so yeah i think um we're now getting people actually saying that they need a
03:12:03 people actually saying that they need a test as opposed to an assessment because you know we were basically
03:12:09 basically having to say turn turn around to people and say no we can't assess this based on that single test that has been done and are these desktop assessments that they're looking for yes that's correct yes yeah and
03:12:22 yes that's correct yes yeah and can you give us some indication of for how long had assessments been been being requested based on only that one old test no i don't know to be honest but are we
03:12:34 no i don't know to be honest but are we talking years are we talking months uh probably years as opposed to months yeah and you say yes i think the message is finally getting through that
03:12:45 finally getting through that you can't assess in that way what had been done to try and get the message through that you weren't prepared to be doing that
03:12:56 well i think probably just into in terms of that we're having to refuse to do these assessments and who is that message being communicated to
03:13:07 communicated to uh those that were asking right um i think in my um in my first statement um i've mentioned a couple of occasions where andy
03:13:19 a couple of occasions where andy andy russell has asked me my opinion on uh doing assessments for various different people um and in in some cases my
03:13:31 um and in in some cases my response is you know i don't think we can do this right um so we were having to turn more away than we was actually enabling to do and was that communicated
03:13:42 enabling to do and was that communicated to kingspan as well and to mr meredith that that was the situation
03:13:47 situation well no not necessarily because the um the inquiries weren't coming from kingspan
03:13:54 kingspan they were coming from other companies be they
03:13:58 they um designers or contractors or or who else
03:14:02 else yeah and can we agree that by this time by january 2014 you had a good awareness of the way in which kingspan was using that one test from 20 2005
03:14:15 that one test from 20 2005 to market k15 and to achieve certifications for the product yes
03:14:23 yes we had a good understanding of how they were marketing it yes
03:14:30 um mr chairman i know at the time and i'm about to move to um a new topic um yes because i'm making good progress with this witness so
03:14:41 with this witness so um that would be a good moment for the lunchtime break well that's what we'll do well
03:14:46 do well uh mr baker we're going to have a break now so that we can all get some lunch we'll resume please at two o'clock and once again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence
03:14:57 about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break okay thank you thank you very much see you later two o'clock please
03:15:29 you