Evidence from British Board of Agrément (BBA) assessor regarding their certification process for Reynobond cladding panels. Testimony covers review procedures, test data verification, and communication with manufacturers.
00:00:07 good afternoon everyone welcome back we're going to continue hearing evidence from uh
00:00:13 from uh miss valentina amoroso so i'm going to begin by checking that ms zamarozzo can see me and hear me clearly hello mr sumrose are you there hi yes i can hear you and see you very
00:00:25 hi yes i can hear you and see you very well thank you very much and you ready to carry on i hope yes good well that case i'll ask mr millet who's somewhere about to um yes mr millet
00:00:36 to um yes mr millet uh mr chairman i am here i hope i can be seen uh at least by the witness if not by
00:00:40 by the panel yes i can you can be seen by us now it's just it weren't up in one of my thumbnails oh right i see um uh ms amarosa can we please go to bba3010822
00:01:02 is there anything it should be coming up here it is
00:01:14 uh now um this uh is a document that was in the technical file for this review uh and just for the um reference for that it's in the technical file of page three two two
00:01:25 file of page three two two this is a better copy it's a a brochure that you can see on the right hand side of the screen carries the title uh aluminium composite
00:01:36 carries the title uh aluminium composite panels and sheets transform create fascinate and it's an iconic document as you can see
00:01:44 see um from the product description rhino bond renault lux it was in the technical file but do we take it from your answers that you wouldn't have reviewed this document
00:01:56 reviewed this document uh no that is a document that i would have reviewed you would have reviewed it well i'm grateful um we can see the date um on the uh left
00:02:08 um on the uh left um up the page it's right in the middle of the screen and if it can be blown up it's about a fifth of the way down the screen you'll see it
00:02:16 see it vertically written from bottom to top but it carries the date 10 2013 that could be blown up um you should see it uh that's now i think
00:02:27 you should see it uh that's now i think upside down um yes that's it now can you see that uh just at the very end of that small rather blurry writing it says 10 2013.
00:02:41 it says 10 2013. you may have to take it from me that that is what it says we might just have to take it from you mr blind all right this is joan i think that's that's probably right looking at what i've got as well
00:02:50 as well um do you recognize this document do you think
00:02:54 think uh it is typical for sure that we would review in a in a review if we track to the far left of this document at the bottom of the first
00:03:03 first page you can see some claimed file performances
00:03:09 uh we need to blow those up and i'm again hoping they're going to be clear enough for you to see and there's a header fire certificate aluminium composite panel raynor bond architecture uh it's not brilliant i have to accept
00:03:22 uh it's not brilliant i have to accept but and you can see underneath that it says um there's a european classification yes if it is slightly smaller it might
00:03:36 yes if it is slightly smaller it might be slightly clearer for you it's the second yeah it's the second blue bar yes i can recognize bs1d0
00:03:47 blue bar yes i can recognize bs1d0 thank you very much yeah very well thank you now that's the fr core result which is recorded in the bba certificate uh
00:03:57 uh do you um do you and that's because it says says you can see just before the b there's a it says fr you see that
00:04:08 fr you see that not very clear but it does say fr okay did you notice when you looked at this document as part of your review that our colleague made no claim at all about
00:04:19 about reinaborn 55's pe chord product
00:04:25 uh i don't recall that
00:04:30 even though the bba certificate said that pe corps had achieved b s 2 d naught did you not notice that when you looked at this document the claim was being
00:04:41 at this document the claim was being made by the current uh marketing literature was it was only for fr and it was bs one d naught it might have been some something that i
00:04:52 it might have been some something that i i would have picked up saying that there was no ah now i can see that better ah thank you that's much better well you can yes
00:05:02 can yes uh even though it's not particularly clear that it's f and a bit's missing it it is fr as you can see
00:05:08 can see for europe my question is um even though the bba certificate said that pe core had achieved b s 2 d naught did you notice that the marketing literature now said nothing at
00:05:20 marketing literature now said nothing at all
00:05:20 all about the fire classification for pe only for fr yeah it refers only to one product what did you make of that at the time
00:05:31 what did you make of that at the time that these must be referring to only one of the two products that were certified so it was the literature for one of the two products and did you ask yourself why it was that
00:05:43 and did you ask yourself why it was that arconic was now putting forward only its european fire classification for fr and nothing for pe uh no i didn't i did not ask did you not
00:05:55 no i didn't i did not ask did you not did you notice that there's no claim at all here about the bs 476 tests or about rayner bond achieving class naught
00:06:02 naught even though the bba certificate you were reviewing said that the panels may be considered to be class naught yes uh it is not compulsory to declare all the
00:06:13 it is not compulsory to declare all the classification that further has especially because these technical data sheet refers to europe specifically and does not make reference to uk
00:06:26 uh no but as you can see there are there are references there to the national standards in france and germany
00:06:33 germany did you wonder to yourself i wonder why there's no reference to the uk national test class no when the certificate carries a claim uh that the pe panels
00:06:44 carries a claim uh that the pe panels uh can be regarded as class naught no as i said that i must have thought that this was just referring to one of the two products and the fr panels as well did you wonder
00:06:56 and the fr panels as well did you wonder why there was no claim that the fr panels were also classified as having class naught no it is not unusual that the technical data sheet would only
00:07:07 data sheet would only declare some of the performances if they're both accepted under the regulations right i mean if you were comparing as you told us was the exercise
00:07:18 us was the exercise the certificate against the publicly available current technical data used in the uk uh i i'm just seeking to understand why you didn't spot the fact that although the
00:07:29 didn't spot the fact that although the certificate uh claimed uh class naught or the the panels could be regarded as having class naught uh and made a claim for the pe as having
00:07:42 uh and made a claim for the pe as having class b
00:07:43 class b there's nothing in this document that would support that
00:07:49 well i must have thought at the time that this technical literature was just referring to one of the two products that was certified so in that case there should have been another technical data sheet for the pe core
00:08:02 technical data sheet for the pe core did you look for one i did find it did you actually look well these data are um the result of the what i was managed to
00:08:15 the result of the what i was managed to download for that from their website did you not think to go back to iconic and say well i can see what's being said about fr
00:08:23 about fr what is the current marketing literature being used in the uk uh to promote pe
00:08:31 uh no as you have rightly noted it was very difficult to get any response from alcoa you didn't try did you you didn't ask that question
00:08:42 that question i did ask for the uk technical literature in the review email which clearly they didn't supply
00:08:53 clearly they didn't supply um
00:08:59 but you didn't sorry to press this point a little bit more you didn't take this document look at it and go back to our comic and say i've got your uk literature current for
00:09:10 i've got your uk literature current for europe
00:09:11 europe for fr can i please have your current uh literature being used in the uk
00:09:18 uk both for the um european classification for pe and the national classifications for both pe and fr no i did not follow up from this
00:09:30 and fr no i did not follow up from this technical brochure why was that because i had already tried to be in contact with them and i didn't think
00:09:39 think they would have replied to a further request
00:09:44 now um there was a report for this review that you did it's a bba four zeroes eight is 8135 can we go to that please
00:10:02 and
00:10:07 yes here it is thank you uh and you can see that it's dated the 10th of april if you look at the very bottom 10th of april 2015 and we see your signature on the left uh
00:10:18 and we see your signature on the left uh as prepared by you and authorized by pranakomo as team manager engineering on the right and if we go a little bit above that we can see uh that it says the next
00:10:30 we can see uh that it says the next review date will be the 14th of january 2017. an action required again rather like the last time it said revise and reissue the certificate
00:10:41 revise and reissue the certificate uh sorry certificate holder needs to enter the con into contract to be prepared by the bba to revise and reissue the certificate as detailed in section 3 roman 3 of this report
00:10:51 report that's looking ahead isn't it to the reissue that was needed yes yes and the very top you see under the summary the certificate remains valid
00:11:02 the certificate remains valid i'll come back to little raymond three in just a moment and you've summarized it for me um did you draft this document that's on the screen yes
00:11:16 did you use a template or did you uh draft it from scratch no there was a template for reviews before creative words now to look at the
00:11:27 before creative words now to look at the points made in uh section what to look at the action required by the client by reference to section three roman three that's referred to in the middle of that box can we go to um
00:11:38 box can we go to um uh page six please of this document
00:11:44 and it says there at the bottom of the page certificate the certificate needs to be updated to include reference to the latest standards and regulations as detailed in section 3
00:11:54 section 3 roman one an additional section to cover manufacturing and then over the page to page seven and uh an additional section to cover recycling and reuse an update of clauses and general wording
00:12:06 an update of clauses and general wording of the certificate an update to the conditions of certification it appears that no updates were required as to the fire test results that's right isn't it that is
00:12:17 results that's right isn't it that is correct
00:12:18 correct why was that because we are not aware that there were new test data available that would require issue this wording
00:12:34 now there's no deadline imposed either for these
00:12:37 for these updates why was that
00:12:42 there they didn't used to be a deadline for that
00:12:48 if we go uh to page six back to page six a little bit higher up above where we were looking under technical data it says the content
00:12:59 under technical data it says the content of the technical literature was compared to the one in the certificate and was generally found satisfactory with the exception of the tensile strength and flexural rigidity values which is slightly different from the ones
00:13:10 ones in the certificate
00:13:13 did you perform that comparison exercise yes that must have been me what was the technical literature that you used to make your comparison
00:13:24 make your comparison uh the one that was available from their website
00:13:27 website for the technical data sheet
00:13:32 did you or did that include using the transform
00:13:35 transform create fascinate brochure that we've just been looking at it must have been proved that i can't recall if
00:13:42 recall if it was the only document
00:13:46 right because if you had made a comparison between those two documents that brochure on the one hand and the certificate on the other you would have
00:13:57 certificate on the other you would have seen that there was quite a significant difference between them wouldn't you referring to what specifically referring to the claims made for fire performance in relation
00:14:08 in relation to the standard pe called reynabon 55 well there was one uh as we have uh looked at previously there was one
00:14:20 uh looked at previously there was one of the two um certified products that was missing in the brochure the one that was available in the brochure had the classification that was matching was in
00:14:31 classification that was matching was in the certificate
00:14:43 now um this part of the report then i think goes on to say
00:14:49 uh uh just uh halfway down that block of text it's recommended that the certificate holder ensures that there is no contradiction in the technical information they use in their literature
00:15:00 information they use in their literature compared to what is contained in the certificate should they wish to claim higher values this information can be assessed by the bba and certificate revised under contract what was it that you
00:15:12 under contract what was it that you expected iconic to do in response to that recommendation uh to reply whether they wanted to claim different performance from what was
00:15:23 different performance from what was stated in the certificate was that the same exercise that you'd carried out
00:15:31 in which occasion well it's part of your review
00:15:37 no it was not part of the review my assessment of a different performance
00:15:46 and what was it that you were in let me try a different way you were making this recommendation what was it that you expected arconic to do when ensuring that there was no contradiction
00:15:57 contradiction uh between the technical information they use in their literature and the certificate but we were expecting that if this is this clause is specifically
00:16:08 if this is this clause is specifically referring to the previous one where they where we are saying that they were declaring different um structural properties of the panel and therefore if they wanted those
00:16:21 and therefore if they wanted those properties to be reflected in the certificate we would have carried out an assessment yes what i'm really putting to you is isn't this the same exercise that you yourself have carried out maybe the
00:16:33 yourself have carried out maybe the comparison between the technical literature and the certificate yes the comparison was aiming at stating that there was a difference and then if the client wanted to
00:16:45 and then if the client wanted to incorporate that into the certificate we would have done
00:16:49 done a reissue a technical issue it wasn't uncommon for certified holder to declare higher properties in the literature than
00:17:00 higher properties in the literature than what was in the certificate and keep this studio more conservative puts everybody sorry apologies yeah yeah i mean to be clear you weren't inviting or recommending were you too
00:17:11 inviting or recommending were you too iconic that they should perform a check uh uh of the certificate against the underlying up-to-date technical data that they had
00:17:23 up-to-date technical data that they had i was recommending that they would cross-check their literature against our certificate where do we well explain to me how uh
00:17:34 where do we well explain to me how uh you understood the sentence i've just read to you uh in that case where you say it's recommended that the certificate holder ensures that there's no contradiction in the technical information they use in their literature
00:17:46 their literature compared to what is contained in the certificate what it what did you mean by technical information they use in their literature i meant that we were inviting them to
00:18:00 i meant that we were inviting them to uh refer to the certificate wording and ensure that there was no contradiction for tradition to what they were claiming in their technical literature the technical literature being the same
00:18:12 the technical literature being the same as you reviewed yes yes i see so you're not recommending that they perform a a check against the underlying technical data forming the basis of their
00:18:22 their their literature just at the what's said on the face of the literature itself yes yes now we can also see from section
00:18:33 yes yes now we can also see from section four
00:18:34 four uh of of this uh document if we if we go down a little bit to conclusions clear
00:18:44 uh yes um in the second bullet point the certificate should be revised and reissued to address the points raised in section three road three the bba will prepare a contract this work and forward to the certificate
00:18:56 work and forward to the certificate holder once ready uh is that because the reissue wasn't covered by the annual maintenance fee arrangement that is correct we'll now see what
00:19:07 that is correct we'll now see what happens with that request to reissue um do you remember that there was a reissue contract raised after this review
00:19:18 raised after this review yes in a late a little bit later in 2015 yes
00:19:25 2015 yes and uh if we go to uh bba3010889 we should see that
00:19:41 is that the reissue certificate contract that you generated um i believe that that's in blank
00:19:52 um i believe that that's in blank if we then go to met3053158 underscore p18 page 31.
00:20:07 underscore p18 page 31. um this is an email sent to claude verlais
00:20:11 verlais by the bba gary dicker on the fifth of may 2015
00:20:15 may 2015 with the uh and you can see the attachments the reissue contract and the reissue offer letter hello claude please find attached please find attached contract please sign and scan
00:20:24 scan back to me to proceed now the bba's records that we've seen suggest that that offer wasn't taken up uh and then lapsed a year later
00:20:40 uh can we go first to i'll just show you one or two documents can we go first please two uh met in fact it's the same exhibit and page 41 10 pages on
00:20:54 we see that claude verle signs the document you generated on the 5th of may 2015.
00:21:04 and if we go back to page 38 in the same email run or document run we can see that it was sent back to the bba on the 8th sorry on the
00:21:15 on the 8th sorry on the 7th of may 2015. if you look at the very top of the page claude verde sends it back to gary dicker and says hi gary please finding clothes to sign reassurance contract
00:21:26 clothes to sign reassurance contract moreno bond do you know why uh it wasn't taken further by the bba thereafter i don't i don't recall
00:21:37 thereafter i don't i don't recall you don't know would you have been monitoring whether iconic took up this contract pursuant to the recommendation contained in the review report that you generated i would have
00:21:50 that you generated i would have followed up on whether they they had taken a proper contract or not and i would make the head of pounds aware you say you would have followed up
00:22:02 aware you say you would have followed up on whether they'd taken up the contract or not do you remember whether you did i must have given gary a call right a call you see we've got no documents as
00:22:14 a call you see we've got no documents as i say
00:22:15 i say showing that this was chased up by the bba
00:22:19 bba um do you think that it was only done by telephone
00:22:23 telephone uh i'm i'm referring to me following up with the account manager but it was the job of the account manager to follow up on all contracts who was the account manager in this
00:22:34 who was the account manager in this instance resistance it was gary dicker gary dicker right did you follow up with gary dicker what had happened uh with this reissue contract that you had received or he had
00:22:45 contract that you had received or he had received back from mr verde i i might have given him a call
00:22:51 call out of courtesy but it wasn't my job as i stated
00:22:55 i stated to follow up on all the contracts prepared
00:22:59 prepared at some point did you become aware that arconic hadn't taken up this review contract in accordance with your recommendation in your review report
00:23:07 report i must have been informed that the the contract had lapsed were you concerned that arconic had not taken up that contract yes what did you do about it
00:23:20 yes what did you do about it i don't recall was specifically we did discuss
00:23:24 discuss but we must have discussed that uh we had to
00:23:27 had to request that they take and they had taken the contract uh you don't recall specifically that we discussed did you you have did you have a discussion
00:23:38 you have did you have a discussion yourself with anybody about pushing arconic or pushing yourselves actually to to push this new contract forward again these conversations were usual between
00:23:49 these conversations were usual between the project manager the team manager and the head of approval when contracts were not taken up we would follow up and perhaps prepare a new contract you see there was no follow-up from the
00:24:00 you see there was no follow-up from the bba even though you had the signed contract back that we can see in the records can you explain why that was no would it be normal for the bba to let something like that lapse
00:24:11 something like that lapse having received back a signed contract from a client for a reissue of a certificate no usually the contract will come back assigned we will start the work and you can't explain why in
00:24:23 the work and you can't explain why in this on the in this instance the bba didn't take up the signed contract from mr verle and move that project forward i don't i do not remember
00:24:34 i don't i do not remember i could you don't remember can you explain
00:24:37 explain are you able to give me a reason why it was lacked by the vba i i really don't know now we saw from uh your review report that you signed on
00:24:48 uh your review report that you signed on the 10th of april 2015 that the next review date was the 14th of january 2017. uh we've just seen that is it right do you remember that the review
00:24:59 you remember that the review process for the certificate started in october 2016.
00:25:07 the following year 2016. yes the following year yes i remember there was another review that um
00:25:16 that um was raised automatically uh can we go to bba three zeros one one zero five nine please
00:25:41 um this is an email chain between you and our conic in october 2016. can we go to page four
00:25:50 this is an email from you uh to uh iconic to mr verlais and also you'll see from the header to claude schmidt
00:26:01 claude schmidt and celine antow and it's dated the 12th of october 2016. you see at the very top it says mercury 12 october 2016. yes
00:26:14 12 october 2016. yes yes yes dear claude verla it says uh and you can see in the subject line that it's about the review for rayner born certificate zero eight stroke four five one zero uh
00:26:27 stroke four five one zero uh importance hi you say i've been designated as the project manager responsible for coordinating the review of your bba certificate zero eight straight four five one zero
00:26:39 zero eight straight four five one zero and your name has been advised to be by as our main liaison contact for this work
00:26:44 work our estimated time for completion of this project is approximately four months
00:26:48 months and to initiate the work required for this review within that period we require the following information to be provided to the bba by alco architectural products one written confirmation from alcoa architectural
00:26:59 confirmation from alcoa architectural products that there have been no changes to the raw materials manufacturing process or quality control procedure
00:27:05 procedure other than those already notified of the bba two
00:27:08 bba two a copy of the current uk technical literature ce marking if applicable and installation instructions relating to the certified certificated product three a list of customer complaints if any relating to
00:27:20 customer complaints if any relating to product quality for the projects in the uk and actually taken to resolve them four recent copies of completed quality control sheets for the manufacture of the product as part of this review a report will be
00:27:31 part of this review a report will be issued in the form of a letter at the end of the job in order that there are no delays in completing the review i'd be grateful i'd be grateful if you would reply with the relevant information in regards to
00:27:43 the relevant information in regards to points
00:27:43 points one to four by 11 november 2000 2016.
00:27:51 was this a standard form uh letter or notification yes
00:28:00 did you take it from a template on your system do you think i don't remember as i said i don't remember
00:28:10 the form of the letter was the same for all the reviews like could you please i'm sorry to ask you to have to do this but would you please repeat that answer because your sound dropped
00:28:21 because your sound dropped yes sorry i i was hearing an echo uh i was saying i don't remember if there was a template pro forma uh for for these sort of letters but
00:28:32 letters but the content of the letter was the same
00:28:39 same was the same on our reviews i see now i'd like to compare this one what i'm looking at at the moment with the one that you sent in 2014 and early 2015.
00:28:53 in 2014 and early 2015. could we keep this one on the screen please and also have up at the same time bba four zeroes eight zero nine zero page two
00:29:11 now in the previous review cycle if you look at the right hand that's right that's not the right preference let's try a different reference
00:29:22 reference stay with me
00:29:30 [Applause] uh yes if you um could go please to bba
00:29:38 uh yeah i'd like you to go to bba eight zero nine four zeroes eight zero nine
00:29:52 eight
00:30:02 your email that you sent on the 2nd of december 2014
00:30:28 eight zero nine eight
00:30:40 well you've got that on the left at the moment uh
00:30:43 moment uh so i have in fact let's i i'm being urged actually to show you what's on the right hand side of the screen anyway which um which we can do uh if you look
00:30:54 which um which we can do uh if you look at submission of data on the right hand side uh
00:30:57 side uh you can see that uh the data requested there
00:31:01 there uh was under looking at paragraph two as we saw in your emails i was trying to show you written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design specification context abuse or other details that would invalidate the
00:31:13 details that would invalidate the certificate alternatively please specify any changes and then you could see below that three factory production control please supply full details of any changes raw materials etc
00:31:27 looking um across to the left hand side we can see that there's no equivalent in your uh
00:31:40 this has gone wrong could we go back i'm very sorry could we go back please and forgive me for this can we please get back
00:31:48 back i can see what's happening now um can we go back please to bba three zeroes one one zero five nine page four
00:31:55 four i apologize uh miss amarose i'm showing you two documents which don't compare thank you now can we have that one on the left hand side
00:32:08 keep that there this is your email to our comic of the 12th of october 2016 which i've shown you can we keep that please up on the screen thank you and have that and have that's it now i want to compare
00:32:21 that's it now i want to compare uh items one two three and four in your 2016
00:32:24 2016 email with the submission of data requirement uh in uh the uh 2013 and 2014 requests
00:32:35 uh 2013 and 2014 requests and under submission of data you can see on the right hand side paragraphs one two three etcetera which is the same language you you and miss barbato had used in your requests for the 2014 to 15 review
00:32:48 for the 2014 to 15 review yes yes now if you look at your email on the left hand side we can see that that's changed you see um instead of paragraph two written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design
00:33:00 been no changes in the design specification context abuse or other details etc uh we've now got something completely different
00:33:06 different uh uh under one we've got written confirmation from alcher that there have been no changes to the raw materials manufacturing process or quality control procedure other than those already notified
00:33:16 notified the bba and then a copy of the current under two current uk technical literature etc uh do you know why the these these
00:33:27 uh do you know why the these these changes were made to this wording
00:33:33 well as i stated in my witness statement uh the at some point uh between
00:33:39 between these two reviews there has been a change
00:33:43 change in the review process within bba by which some information were deemed redundant and were no longer asked for example
00:33:53 example 0.1 in the document that is on the right was no longer requested to the um certificate holder because it was deemed not not necessary for
00:34:04 it was deemed not not necessary for reviews um and likewise the wording of the letters being sent out had been rewarded as part of that new process that was put in place
00:34:17 that was put in place and just to focus on the key change that we're interested in here just just confirm that in the 2014-15 review
00:34:26 review the request as you can see from item 2 was for other details that would invalidate the certificate but when we look at the 2016 request that's been dropped hasn't it
00:34:38 that's been dropped hasn't it it would appear so yes do you know why that request was dropped no as i said it was part of a new process for reviews that was put in place at the time
00:34:51 that was put in place at the time it was and do you know the reason for that change not for that change specifically were you part of that uh were you part
00:35:03 were you part of that uh were you part of any discussions which led to that change in the review process no it was just
00:35:09 just um an operational decision to streamline the review process that were taking too long
00:35:19 and was did you ever ask about the reasons for the change between the 2014-15 version of the question and the 2016 version of the questions
00:35:31 2016 version of the questions no i did not did anybody ever explain the rationale for the change to you
00:35:37 no not for the wording specifically no you say it was just an operational decision to streamline the review process that was taking too long did it occur to you at the time that although in 2014-15 you were asking
00:35:49 that although in 2014-15 you were asking an extremely personal question you were asking
00:35:51 asking for anything any detail that would invalidate the certificate now you weren't i can see that but at the time i did not
00:36:03 i can see that but at the time i did not ask for the reason for that change
00:36:07 can we go to uh page three uh bba i'll give you the reference again
00:36:13 again uh it's on the it's the document on the left hand side we can get rid of the document on the right hand side so i only want to have up please bba three zeros one one zero five nine can we look at page three um this is an
00:36:25 can we look at page three um this is an email
00:36:26 email uh on the 18th of october from nicholas remy at alcoa to you copy to claude verla and he says dear valentino marozzo and he introduces
00:36:37 valentino marozzo and he introduces himself as the project manager responsible for the bba review and he says first of all we would like to inform you that our architectural products changes its name for iconic effective first of november as your estimated time for completion of
00:36:49 as your estimated time for completion of this product is about four months would it be possible to consider changing the name of the company and its logo on the official documents during the review process
00:36:56 process what would it mean on both your and our side regarding your request please note i'll come back to you with all the required documents within the 11th of november
00:37:03 november if we go up to page 1 we can see that on the next day 19th of october
00:37:13 uh mr emmy comes comes back after some feedback from you uh and in the third paragraph down he says regarding the modification about the name the logo the address of
00:37:24 about the name the logo the address of the company it's just an administrative modification the company hasn't been bought we just changed our name and logo for the address same thing our plant is still at merck sign but the name of the street has been changed regarding requested
00:37:36 has been changed regarding requested documents one we can't provide a written confirmation that there were no changes in our process
00:37:41 process please finally close to this email a draft of our last assessment for production where i noticed every actual changes highlighted in the document please let me summarize it below and then he does so page one we added the
00:37:52 then he does so page one we added the relevant reference number for brain unlocks coated aluminium sheet and coil page two change of name and address etc page three pbdf uh becomes pvdf 70 stroke 30
00:38:03 pbdf uh becomes pvdf 70 stroke 30 etc and he sets out a whole load of requests of changes just pausing there um it's right to think
00:38:11 to think if we go up to the top of the email that mr remy attached to it a copy of the quality plan you see and he says attachment you can't actually see that it is the quality plan
00:38:23 actually see that it is the quality plan um but he does that um if you look at uh where he then takes you through the changes in the part of the email i've been referring to all of the changes that
00:38:35 referring to all of the changes that he's notifying you about are about the quality plan aren't they yes and in fact that is what you asked him in your requested item one written chain written confirmation of no
00:38:46 written chain written confirmation of no changes to the raw materials manufacturing processes or quality control procedure
00:38:52 so this discussion was only about that is that right yes and if we go to page four of this email chain
00:39:03 we could see your initial email which had started this off which i showed you a moment ago item two on that or paragraph two asks for a copy of the current uk technical literature ce marketing if
00:39:15 technical literature ce marketing if applicable and installation instructions related to the certificated product to see how that request progressed let's go
00:39:23 go up to bba
00:39:27 up to bba zero 301105 one
00:39:33 if we go to page two in that we can see an email from nicholas lomi same day 19th of october 2016 uh which we've uh just looked at but if
00:39:45 uh which we've uh just looked at but if you go up to the bottom of page one you can see how that progresses i'm showing you these in different documents because the email chain is split i'm afraid but if you look at your email to mr remy
00:39:59 but if you look at your email to mr remy uh on the 24th of october 2016 uh hi remy thanks for your email please find my comments in red below so that's why we need to see this one and if we go to page three
00:40:13 we can see that mr remy has asked you the question on the paragraph two in red you can see your request and he says could you please precise what kind of specific document you're requested
00:40:25 of specific document you're requested and you answer in red technical data sheets commercial brochures installation manuals that are dispensed across the uk also ce marking data since you state below your product is now ce marked
00:40:36 below your product is now ce marked now that's am i writing thinking that's the only technical information that you've asked for that is correct why did you not ask him for up-to-date test data
00:40:47 for up-to-date test data as i stated previously requesting test data was not a direct task within the scope of the review
00:40:59 is it was it even an indirect task again as i stated previously if we would find
00:41:06 find that there was a change in the manufacturing process or raw material then we would ask for new test data
00:41:15 let's go to page one of this document
00:41:19 we see mr olympia's response to your red lettered response to his request if i can put it that way and you say this this is the same day uh hello thank you for your feedback
00:41:32 please find me close to this email this mail i'll stand the documentation for the uk technical data sheets for composite panels technical data sheets for our standard finishes for building products both ppdf
00:41:43 finishes for building products both ppdf 7030 and dg5000 transformation guide step to step to a perfect
00:41:49 perfect cladding a ce certificate for raina lux products i think i've answered to everything for the moment don't hesitate to come back to me if you have further needs
00:41:58 needs in the meantime i'll be waiting for your feedback now presumably the reynolds certificate was not relevant that's correct uh but apart from apart from that
00:42:09 from that it's right isn't it that mr remy has given you everything you asked for yes yes yes now let's look a little bit more closely at what he said uh uh because you can see that this
00:42:20 uh uh because you can see that this email has some attachments to it um and the first of that those attachments is called aluminium technical data sheet and we can look at that that's a bba
00:42:31 and we can look at that that's a bba three zeros one one zero five two
00:42:38 if we go down to page two in that document we can see the date up the side and again it's i'm afraid in this rather difficult uh in date format
00:42:49 uh in date format uh it's 03 2016. it's the very top of the um script in the upright on the left on the right hand side
00:42:57 hand side of the document we can just have that blown up a little bit more i'm hoping we can see it
00:43:06 yes we can this time can you just see there that on the right hand side of the screen
00:43:09 screen very near the top right hand corner it says o3 stroke 2016. i can see that yes march 2016. um do you recognize this
00:43:21 march 2016. um do you recognize this document do you recall it uh yes it's yeah your i mean your report says that you reviewed it so can we take it that you're familiar with it yes i don't remember it specifically but
00:43:34 yes i don't remember it specifically but i must have been the one that i've reviewed
00:43:36 reviewed yes thank you now can we go to the bottom of page two it's on the screen at the moment but i'd like to have that blown up uh where it says under the blue header fire certificates for pre-painted aluminium composite panel raynor bond
00:43:48 composite panel raynor bond and that is i think pretty clear and immediately under the blue banner we see europe
00:43:53 europe en13501 frb s1 d naught
00:43:59 again did you notice that there was no claim being made here about european classification for pe cord acf i can see that now i did not
00:44:12 i can see that now i did not question it at the time you didn't question it at the time did you notice it at the time no because there was the great britain line that was referring to the pe which
00:44:25 line that was referring to the pe which was
00:44:26 was uh in line with the certificate contest yes i'll absolutely i'll come to that in just a moment just sticking with just sticking with the european classification
00:44:38 classification did you notice that the claim in the certificate that you were reviewing uh had a claim that reynaborn55pe
00:44:49 a claim that reynaborn55pe had euro class b
00:44:55 uh that were i don't remember what was in this
00:44:58 in this in this certificate at the time again well let's let's let's see if we can get this differently can we please have up on the screen
00:45:06 screen the bba certificate uh which is bba6047
00:45:13 bba6047 uh and let's go to page five of that
00:45:21 i wanted that up at the same time as the document we were looking at we can just have the two side by side
00:45:30 please
00:45:38 [Applause] that's bba3011052 page two how you can have that up at the same time no
00:45:48 time no uh yes thank you very much now can we blow up
00:45:53 blow up uh the bottom part of the screen on the left and the and uh the middle part of the screen on the right
00:46:04 when you did your review miss amaroso did you
00:46:08 did you notice that under section six one the certificate said a standard sample of the product with a great green duragloss 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire achieved the
00:46:19 reaction to fire achieved the classification of b s 2 d naught
00:46:26 and when you well did you notice that first of all uh yes i must have read it at the time yeah yes and then when you when you were comparing that
00:46:37 when you when you were comparing that and looking at this piece of product literature did you not notice that the product literature made no reference
00:46:46 reference to a standard sample of the product having
00:46:50 having b s 2 d naught in accordance with the european classifications only a classification in relation to fr which was b s one d naught
00:47:02 uh if if i noticed that there was a reason
00:47:06 reason for concern because it was a it was um there was also a classification to the bs standard it wasn't sorry it wasn't a requirement
00:47:17 it wasn't sorry it wasn't a requirement at the time to have all test data to the european standard
00:47:24 standard no but did it not go through your mind to ask yourself why it was that although the certificate had a claim for standard pe having a class b
00:47:38 for standard pe having a class b as a 2008 the marketing literature as of 2016
00:47:43 2016 eight years later made no such claim
00:47:48 no why is that i must have not thought that there was a causal concern
00:48:08 going then down on the left hand side uh we can keep let's keep the certificate out going on the left hand side of the screen five lines down to the data about great
00:48:19 lines down to the data about great britain you can see it says as you've pointed out already bs 476 part six and seven
00:48:25 seven p e and fr class naught now do you accept
00:48:39 now do you accept that the claim uh that pe called rayner born had
00:48:43 born had class naught was incorrect because it had not been tested to bs 476 parts six and seven
00:48:52 yes i do accept it
00:48:56 yes and indeed the certificate at uh
00:49:09 6.1 does not in fact claim that the standard sample had passed class naught or achieved class naught no i think the s 476 part six and seven
00:49:23 no i think the s 476 part six and seven yes did you notice that yes you did notice it yes what did you do about it well
00:49:34 what did you do about it well i didn't have a reason to believe that that was wrong because it was written previously by the previous assessors so there must have been a reason why that then went on on 6.3 saying that
00:49:47 that then went on on 6.3 saying that there was equivalent to glasso in fact there was a common misunderstanding in the industry
00:49:55 what was the common misunderstanding that class b could be considered equivalent to classo notwithstanding the clear note in diagram well let me take the word clear
00:50:06 diagram well let me take the word clear out of that notwithstanding the note at the foot of diagram 40. yes that there was um a point of discussion with many clients
00:50:19 right let me see if i can understand your evidence do you accept that the certificate uh if we give go back to the certificate please have it back on the screen
00:50:30 like both of those things up at once yes thank you that's as we were do you accept that the certificate doesn't actually make a claim uh that pe standard called reynabon 55 had
00:50:42 standard called reynabon 55 had actually passed tests under bs476 part 6 and 7 and achieved class naught no
00:50:49 no it just states in 6.3 that it could be considered as having lasso so when you made the comparison between paragraph 6.12 and 3
00:51:02 paragraph 6.12 and 3 of the certificate and the marketing literature which claimed class naught for for pe what were you thinking i
00:51:14 what were you thinking i assumed that that was what the previous assessor that wrote the certificate was aiming at in 6.3 you made that assumption did you check
00:51:25 you made that assumption did you check that assumption with anybody within the bba
00:51:29 bba no because i assumed that these this had been checked already at the time of the initial issue right did you check any of this with the br the bre for example no
00:51:49 now let's continue with the review correspondence then can we next go to bba3011067
00:51:58 this is your email of the 24th of october 2016
00:52:07 it's the next thing that happens and you uh write to mr remy and you say hi remy
00:52:15 remy thanks for all the details provided so far i will review them in a timely manner
00:52:19 manner i'm updating the quality plan with all the amendments you suggested in order for me to finalize it i would need your input on a couple of points are you actually responsible for the fabrication of the cassette
00:52:30 fabrication of the cassette are you carrying out any tests on the final product now by um tests tests on the final product uh
00:52:41 what do you mean by tests on the product it it refers to a specific uh section of the quality plan
00:52:52 the quality plan which deals with the in-house testing and that specific specifically refers to the
00:52:59 the in-house testing prior to finishing the product so and what do you mean by
00:53:07 mean by the final product or finishing the product as you send your answer well the product that they were manufacturing was made by lamination of
00:53:19 was made by lamination of aluminum sheets with a core and they were doing as far as i remember testing prior to the fabric to the manufacturing of these panels
00:53:30 to the manufacturing of these panels and then testing at the end like mechanical testing for example
00:53:38 i see so when you say a test on the final product would that be something like
00:53:41 like a t peeled test yes that's correct um now he responds to your uh two questions
00:53:52 to your uh two questions let's look at bba five seven 3011057
00:54:00 this is uh mr remy's response of the 26th of october if we could just have that blown up a little bit he says uh it answers your question are we
00:54:11 uh it answers your question are we responsible for the fabrication of the cassettes as we don't manufacture the cassettes ourselves we take no responsibility for it
00:54:20 it now the first question is what prompted you to ask your question whether arconic was responsible for the fabrication of cassettes i believe it
00:54:33 fabrication of cassettes i believe it must have been because cassettes were referred to in the certificate for in the quality plan had you not seen the fact that certificates were issued
00:54:44 issued were referred to in the certificate when you first reviewed it at the end of 2014 early 2015 i did not have information enough
00:54:55 i did not have information enough information about the manufacturing to identify what was produced by them and what was not well what was it you remember that alerted you
00:55:05 you to a question about the fabrication of the cassettes
00:55:12 i believe it must have been because there was probably no reference in the quality plan to the manufacturing of the cassette there was some i don't remember exactly but there was a
00:55:24 i don't remember exactly but there was a mismatch between the certificate and the quality plan with that in that regard why because the quality plan said nothing about the cassette
00:55:34 cassette or what what was that what was the mismatch i don't remember if the certificate was quoting the cassette at the time and the quality plan was not or vice versa but there was
00:55:45 plan was not or vice versa but there was a mismatch in that sense uh well let's have the certificate back up then again please uh bba 6047
00:55:58 this time let's go to page two i think we only need the certificate on the screen
00:56:12 and we can see at page two we've got the various regulations set up but a page three i think in fact that's what i want
00:56:21 want uh we can see technical specification one description and you can see in the second sentence under
00:56:29 under section 1.1 it says the panels are available either plain edge riveted system or flange cassette system to suit architectural requirements see figure one and and if you scroll down we saw this
00:56:40 and and if you scroll down we saw this earlier on so i'm assuming you're familiar with it you can see under figure one there are the two systems set out in the certificate so when you review the certificate second time around in late 16 you would
00:56:51 second time around in late 16 you would have been
00:56:52 have been very much alert to the fact alive to the fact that the certificate uh described uh two ways of fixing the panels yes riverton cassette
00:57:02 cassette yes given that given the certificate that you were reviewing says that the panels being certified can be fixed in rivet form or cassette form uh did you think that mr remy's
00:57:13 uh did you think that mr remy's assertion
00:57:14 assertion as we've seen in his email that arconic took no responsibility for fabrication rather missed the point you were making well it was as a matter of fact
00:57:25 well it was as a matter of fact answering to my question saying that we're not manufacturing cassettes and therefore they were not responsible for it
00:57:33 for it um when he said that iconic took no responsibility for cassette did you ask yourself how that could be so given that the certificate you were
00:57:44 given that the certificate you were reviewing uh showed uh that there were two ways of using these panels one in a rivet system and one in a cassette
00:57:56 rivet system and one in a cassette system
00:57:58 system yes this was um something that i had found with other certificates where the design of the cassette was not covered
00:58:08 covered within the design and manufacturing the cassette system was not covered within the same
00:58:13 the same factory in the same certificate holder premises
00:58:16 premises where the flat panels were produced and therefore they had no control on it did it not suggest itself to you that arconic
00:58:27 not suggest itself to you that arconic did have responsibility for the fire performance of the panels in both forms of fixing rivet and cassette because the certificate claimed that the panels were class b european
00:58:38 european or deemed to be class naught without differentiating between the two different forms of fixing
00:58:47 yeah the structure was not specifying which of the two type of system were tested but it was my belief at that point when i received the answer
00:58:59 i received the answer that clearly the cassette system should have not been part of the certificate in the first place shouldn't have been part of the certificate in the first place said are you saying that you identified an
00:59:10 are you saying that you identified an original error
00:59:13 yes an original error that had been allowed
00:59:17 allowed to remain on the face of the certificate for eight years almost nine yes that that is because of the different approach um bba was taking
00:59:28 bba was taking with respect to the cstb and other european bodies whereby if a certified holder is not in control of the manufacturing of all the products that are
00:59:39 products that are covered by the certificate then those products
00:59:43 products they are not under control they shouldn't be including the certificate well that's certificate that's cassette but what about rivet what led you to think that rivet was any different
00:59:55 riveted panels are a much simpler design than cassette systems cassette can be formed in many different ways and if you don't have control on the design and manufacturing of the cassette then you don't have control on the
01:00:07 then you don't have control on the final performance of that product was there anything you had seen to tell you that
01:00:12 that unlike cassette which was not manufactured by iconic rivet was different and was manufactured by iconic riveted panel are just flat
01:00:24 iconic riveted panel are just flat panels
01:00:24 panels with rivets you need so as long as you specify
01:00:28 specify the type of fixings and the spacing of the fixings then your the performance of the clouding in terms of structural performance is assured
01:00:39 performance is assured that isn't correct is it miss amaresa because even with a rivet there is a manufacturing process simple though it may be which is the drilling of holes through the skin and through the core
01:00:52 through the skin and through the core yes that is correct so what was it that led you to think that rivet was different
01:00:57 different from cassette because riveting as long as you can specify the spacing of the
01:01:04 of the uh the rivet rivets that is a much simpler
01:01:08 simpler and identifiable performance than cassettes
01:01:12 cassettes but you were drawing your distinction as it seems on what uh iconic was manufacturing in other words what it what left its factory what led you to distinguish between cassette on the one hand which as you say was not manufactured or
01:01:24 which as you say was not manufactured or not done by our connect and rivet on the other
01:01:27 other is there anything you saw which told you that the riveting the puncturing of with holes in the panels was done by arconic no but i believe in in the uh
01:01:39 no but i believe in in the uh body the certificate we were referring to the performance of the fixings that had to be used
01:01:49 i i'm not sure i'm following your answer you're drawing a distinction i think um as between what is covenant and what isn't covered by saying what is and isn't manufactured you
01:02:00 what is and isn't manufactured you exclude
01:02:01 exclude a cassette because you say it's not manufactured by iconic my question is well why not also exclude rivet on the basis that there's nothing to tell you that that was also not manufactured by iconic
01:02:16 was also not manufactured by iconic as i said river riveted system are a lot simpler than cassette systems in in their behavior structural behavior so they can be assumed to be covered in the certificate as long as you
01:02:27 the certificate as long as you um comply with the guidance provided by the manufacturer on drilling the holes well that's a different
01:02:35 different method of differentiation isn't it one cassette is out because alconic don't manufacture it simple or difficult
01:02:42 difficult whatever but but you're saying that uh the
01:02:45 the rivet is covered because you just follow the instructions i don't understand the rationale here between differentiating uh cassette as as not covered and rivet
01:02:56 uh cassette as as not covered and rivet as covered they're not consistent are they because the two systems are completely different and the there is a lot more that goes into the quality control
01:03:07 control of the manufacturing cassette system that doesn't go in in the control of riveted systems now let's go forward and look at the review checklist uh if we go to bba3011085
01:03:21 if we go to bba3011085 we can see the checklist at uh
01:03:26 done for this review uh and it's 15th november 2016 as you can see from the uh document
01:03:38 uh document under checked and approved and there's a little um
01:03:41 little um signature there do you know whose little signature that is uh that is prayer and common that's pretty common all right and it's got your name on it as the pm
01:03:53 and it's got your name on it as the pm uh and if we go to page four item 13 you can see certificate check wording and this is a checklist and can
01:04:05 wording and this is a checklist and can i just confirm that this document is one created by you for bba's internal records
01:04:11 records yes uh and if we go under certificate check wording we have a look at the long paragraph there third third main third paragraph down
01:04:23 third third main third paragraph down and it says this a general rewording is necessary
01:04:26 necessary as the certificate has never been reissued since its first issue in 2008 the only reissue job ever raised s 157 262 in 2015 was never taken up and then abandoned
01:04:37 then abandoned particularly since the product is reaction to fire classification of b height and boundary restrictions apply section 6 needs to be consistently revised in accordance with our latest templates
01:04:47 templates also the client has confirmed an email dated 26th october 2016 that they don't manufacture the cassette so the description part of the certificate needs to be revised to make clear that the client is only manufacturing flat sheets
01:04:58 manufacturing flat sheets and that the use as cassette is outside the scope durability statement needs to be revised to reflect the difference in service life for pbdf and acrylic coating
01:05:07 coating in accordance with certificate 87 stroke 1964
01:05:10 1964 ps1 and ps4 also 9.1 needs to be revised as it is not appropriate to give a service life for 30 years based on historical evidences a thorough investigation in the initial
01:05:22 a thorough investigation in the initial assessment folder file and then you identify it has revealed that no tests were actually assessed no tests were actually assessed for the panel durability statement was issued on the basis of the cstb approval
01:05:34 basis of the cstb approval and some test data carried out of the a1 coded sheet no peel test has ever been assessed um can we take it from
01:05:43 from the last part of that paragraph which i've read in full to you that you did thoroughly review the initial assessment folder file file s3 stroke 410414
01:05:54 s3 stroke 410414 what is concerning that statement such as the durability right it was that the limit of your assessment or analysis of the
01:06:07 of your assessment or analysis of the initial
01:06:08 initial folder file yes why did you not uh go back to the initial folder file the project file and
01:06:19 initial folder file the project file and examine
01:06:20 examine why it was that cassette had been included
01:06:26 where now it was to be excluded it was evident to me at the time the cassette were included because they were part of the initial csv certificate and we
01:06:39 csv certificate and we never uh checked that that that was not manufactured in the same premises of the flat sheets
01:06:49 did you look at the initial project file to find out why cassette was covered when now you discover that it shouldn't
01:07:00 when now you discover that it shouldn't have been
01:07:01 have been so you thought i did not look at in detail i just saw that there that was covered in initial um submitted um cstb file
01:07:13 um submitted um cstb file when you did your uh review of the initial assessment folder file was it a general review or was it only limited to the statements relating to durability do you think only related to the statement of durability
01:07:25 related to the statement of durability so do we take it from that that notwithstanding the fact that you discovered a mistake about the coverage of the certificate you didn't uh review the project file
01:07:36 uh review the project file for fire performance test data
01:07:40 no that wasn't within the scope of that review
01:07:43 review well it was within the scope of your review to look at that file for durability data why not look at the whole file uh uh and
01:07:55 look at the whole file uh uh and examine the claims or documents in it which supported the claims for fire performances well as i said the the system here was
01:08:06 well as i said the the system here was claiming that there were two types of panels that were achieving class b and that can be deemed to be equivalent to class o which was the same that they were claiming literature so i did not have at
01:08:19 claiming literature so i did not have at the time
01:08:20 the time any reason to believe the further investigation was required in the original file during this review and i know you looked at it only for durability you say but did you notice that a european
01:08:32 notice that a european fire test had been done on the rivet fixing of renault 55 pe i did not look at the fire test filter at all
01:08:53 at all when you discovered this mistake as you thought it to be uh in relation to cassette did you ask arconic for any fire test data relating to cassette
01:09:06 relating to cassette no because we decided to exclude that from the scope of the certificate
01:09:13 yes that that would of course work going forwards
01:09:16 forwards the future were you interested to know though
01:09:20 though whether there was any fire test data supporting the cassette form of uh pe uh which had supported the supply of cassette pe for the previous eight or nine years
01:09:33 previous eight or nine years i did not look indeed in the previous test data as i mentioned now um let's look at page four of the review checklist
01:09:49 review checklist uh and you uh you you can see that as we've seen yeah you propose to exclude references to the cassette form from the certificate
01:10:03 from the certificate uh it is the reason you wanted to exclude it because you thought that it was an incorrect claim in other words it was a claim that cassette was covered by the certificate when it shouldn't
01:10:14 by the certificate when it shouldn't have been
01:10:16 have been yes that is what i stated and did you think that if you didn't remove the references to cassettes from the coverage users would be misled into thinking that the certificates
01:10:27 certificates the claims made in the certificate covered both rivet and cassette forms yes
01:10:36 given that you realize that the certificate of covered cassettes for some eight or nine years on an erroneous basis did you raise that fact with anybody
01:10:44 anybody more senior to you at the vba
01:10:48 that was part of me raising the fact that
01:10:52 that there hadn't been any uh bba surveillance in the previous years that is the reason why we didn't spot this anywhere
01:11:04 right who did you raise that with with mighty manager with the with the head of approval when we carried out the reviews
01:11:15 carried out the reviews did you take any steps to inquire of arconic
01:11:18 arconic how come the certificate had covered cassette fix variant for eight years even though arconic took no responsibility for it as i said i i think that this was coming
01:11:29 as i said i i think that this was coming directly from what was covered in the cftb certificate which was covering the cassette one specific design of cassettes i don't know why it was covered but it
01:11:41 i don't know why it was covered but it was a
01:11:42 was a it was covering a prescriptive design of cassettes
01:11:48 yes my question is different did you take any steps to ask arconic how come
01:11:55 how come the certificate had covered cassette fix variant for almost nine years even though arconic took no responsibility for it and never had so they said
01:12:08 they said i did not ask them why that was there because the answer was that that was initially included in the cstb certificate and it was included as a consequence in the bba certificate
01:12:27 did you not think back to the question that had been asked by maria barbato and indeed yourself on numerous occasions to ask whether there were any details which would invalidate the certificate
01:12:38 which would invalidate the certificate and wonder why it was that arconic had never told you in the nine years the certificate was in circulation uh that although it purported to cover cassettes on its face
01:12:50 cassettes on its face iconic were not responsible for cassettes
01:12:54 cassettes i believe arconic's understanding at the time was that because that was covered in the cstb certificate then it was fine to be included in the bbs certificate and for that to be
01:13:06 bbs certificate and for that to be included in the city in the french certification it was enough to have test data for it even though you were not producing the cassette yourselves did you suspect that our colleague had
01:13:18 did you suspect that our colleague had realized
01:13:20 realized that the bba certificate had made a claim for the fire safety of a product which it was now maintaining it had no responsibility for
01:13:30 can you repeat the question did you suspect that our comic had realized that the bba certificate uh covered something and covered fire claims for that thing uh for which it was now disclaiming
01:13:41 uh for which it was now disclaiming responsibility
01:13:44 yes that'll disturb you
01:13:50 yes there is suggested that that should not part of the certification now uh so we're going to turn to a slightly different topic yes maybe convenient moment for the
01:14:02 yes maybe convenient moment for the break
01:14:04 break yes very well well we'll take another short break there mr marisa we'll resume at fast 3 please and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything
01:14:16 anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it during the break all right thank you very much see you at help us three thank you
01:30:19 welcome back everyone we're now ready to continue
01:30:23 continue hearing the evidence of miss amarezzo so i'll just check that uh she can see and hear us all right yes yes
01:30:30 yes you can very good thank you very much you're ready to go on yes good thank you very much well when you're ready mr minute yes um miss amarose we were on the review checklist can we get back to that
01:30:41 review checklist can we get back to that please
01:30:41 please bba three zeros one one zero eight five page four item thirteen
01:30:50 uh and uh you can see uh in the third paragraph four lines down uh you say particularly since the product has a reaction to fire classification of b height and boundary restrictions apply and section six needs to be consistently
01:31:01 and section six needs to be consistently revised in accordance with our latest templates
01:31:04 templates now you say something about this in your statement uh if we go to it please at page 16 paragraph 88 can we have that up please
01:31:13 you say there that the bba had started to introduce some classic clarifications regarding
01:31:19 regarding use restrictions of cladding products this was in the attempt to clarify the tests to bs 476 were not sufficient to demonstrate the level of combustibility of cladding products especially for acms
01:31:30 products especially for acms also the adb was ambiguous in the suitability of use of planning materials as tests
01:31:35 as tests over the page please
01:31:40 the bs476 were deemed equivalent to bs en 13501 in justifying the use of cladding above 18 meters now um you you're uh you then see that
01:31:51 now um you you're uh you then see that the inquiries question of bold is b what decisions have been made then we have a long set of um discussion about that at paragraphs 89 90 and 91
01:32:07 and you say if we could just focus on
01:32:14 paragraph 90 we can just have that you say where tests bscn 13501 were not available the certificate holder had to provide test reports to this standard to demonstrate the limited
01:32:25 standard to demonstrate the limited combustibility whereas where the certificate holder would refuse to provide test data to be sen 13501 and in the absence of combustibility test results a height restriction would be applied to the
01:32:36 restriction would be applied to the certificate but test results in line with br e135 are supplied instead an exception to the height restriction would be added to the certificate and looking at paragraph 90 90 there
01:32:48 and looking at paragraph 90 90 there where you say um to demonstrate the limited combustibility in the second line what do you mean um class a2
01:32:59 class a2 i see
01:33:03 but a2 is a a test under bsen 13501 isn't it yes yes so can you explain where you say
01:33:14 yes yes so can you explain where you say where tests of bs en 1351 were not available
01:33:18 available the certificate holder had to provide test reports to this standard to demonstrate limited combustibility a2 as you say yes that means that around the time
01:33:32 yes that means that around the time when we were carrying out the second review dba has started to require that all certificates for clouding were including references to the bscn13501
01:33:47 including references to the bscn13501 for test data and that uh supporting the test data had to be provided
01:33:54 provided to demonstrate that there were the products were or limited combustibility which was a wording that was um in the approved document b at the time
01:34:04 time what if a a a client or certificate holder had a bs en13501 test showing europe euro class b what happened then
01:34:17 well in the first instance it was good that they had that 13501 classification as opposed to 476 and then we would then apply the um
01:34:28 and then we would then apply the um high restrictions in accordance with the document
01:34:34 do i take it from that in simple terms what you're saying is that the bba by by this time
01:34:40 this time uh had come to the come to the view that only a european a1 or a2 uh would do otherwise you'd get a hype restriction yes other than a pass under bsa414 to br
01:34:51 yes other than a pass under bsa414 to br 135
01:34:53 135 yes right says right that the bba then came
01:34:57 came to prefer the european classification over the bs-476 part six and seven tests that is correct do you know when the bba came to that view
01:35:08 it wasn't one in one particular event but it was a gradual um decision that came about in around that time
01:35:18 time uh when it when did you say it was gradual i can understand that when did this
01:35:23 this when did this start to become the decision as it were well it was at the time of the second review that you had
01:35:32 you had which was 2016 you said 15. 2016.
01:35:40 15. 2016. october 2016 is what we're looking at yeah right so at october 2016 was the bba starting to come to this view or
01:35:51 come to this view or had it already arrived at this view it had already arrived at that view because uh i was making reference in the um checklist to
01:36:02 um checklist to the latest templates so that wording had already been used on some other certificate at the time and what do you know what had triggered the bva to come to this view what have persuaded it to come to this view
01:36:14 persuaded it to come to this view well a few of us including myself were of the opinion that the testing to bs 476 were not could not be deemed equivalent
01:36:25 were not could not be deemed equivalent to the 1351 because they were not addressing the combustibility aspect of the material but we're only assessing the
01:36:35 the superficial spread of frame so they were not
01:36:39 not fully representative of the level risk of fire spread now we've seen in paragraph 88 of your statement that you said that adb was ambiguous
01:36:48 ambiguous in the suitability of cladding materials as tests to the s476 were deemed equivalent to bsen13501 in justifying the use of planning over
01:36:59 in justifying the use of planning over 18 meters we've seen that can you can you clarify exactly in what way the bba considered that adb was ambiguous in the sense that for the the height
01:37:12 in the sense that for the the height restrictions the diagram 40 was allowing the use of plus o materials as well as class b where the two tests were not strictly
01:37:23 where the two tests were not strictly equivalent and therefore they couldn't be compared and they could they shouldn't have been used in the same type of use i see um
01:37:34 type of use i see um were you involved in any discussions within the within the bba about what you identify here as the ambiguity
01:37:41 ambiguity yes that was a common discussion and design within the engineering department when did those discussions begin do you remember
01:37:50 it was always there we we also discussed it
01:37:54 it uh with other members of the industry uh it was
01:37:57 it was a point of debate uh everyone had a different opinion but we decided to go for the safest approach
01:38:07 who did you take your lead from in going for the safest approach
01:38:14 it was our decision what do you mean who who was the most senior person that you know about or dealt with uh involved in that decision
01:38:26 uh involved in that decision uh it was the decision of the project managers and the team managers at the time
01:38:31 time and it was approved by the approval i see um to the best of your recollection do you know whether the view to which the bba had come was one communicated to anybody
01:38:42 communicated to anybody in central government for example of the um the dclg or the mhclg as it became uh i was not part of that of that
01:38:53 uh i was not part of that of that discussion of those discussions uh i know that the industry had tried to to make the government aware of these issues as it
01:39:04 government aware of these issues as it was raised in some of the conferences that i attended i know that bre had tried to reach out to the government but without much luck right um anybody particular any names of anybody
01:39:16 anybody particular any names of anybody in government that you can uh tell us about no as i said i wasn't part
01:39:22 part personally part of those conversations i see you say that uh you say it was raised in some of the conferences you attended can you just give us some idea of what conferences those were and when they were uh there had been a
01:39:34 when they were uh there had been a conference on the bre ground uh one or two years earlier uh with various representatives of the facade industry and um
01:39:45 industry and um and this was a point of discussion during that conference do you remember who it was who was involved
01:39:53 involved in those discussions who was giving a speech or on the platform i don't remember who were the speakers but i'm sure bre has records of that conference
01:40:06 right
01:40:12 now you say in your statement as we've seen at paragraph 19 you also said at paragraph 91 that requiring a1a2 was not compulsory under adb that's that's what you say
01:40:25 under adb that's that's what you say are you saying that it was a matter of bba policy to add a height restriction in the absence of a1a2 but not technically required by adb
01:40:36 but not technically required by adb yes yes
01:40:39 yes yes am i right that because it wasn't compulsory the bba didn't require such a restriction to be added with any urgency
01:40:45 urgency that's correct so it wasn't for example in the case of this 2016-17 review required as a condition of closing off the review no it was a change that would be applied
01:40:58 no it was a change that would be applied as an if
01:40:59 as an if when it was coming
01:41:02 a change that would be applied when a reissue was coming yes i see okay now uh
01:41:18 i see okay now uh at paragraph 86 of your statement if we could just have a look back at that please
01:41:23 please uh you say this is page 16 if we just go back to it
01:41:34 the answer is a short one to a longer question
01:41:37 question uh and summarizing it you're saying that um users of a certificate would not be notified of any drafting changes uh or that the certificate was
01:41:48 changes uh or that the certificate was due to be reissued uh unless they set out sent out a specific inquiry to the bba it does that tell us that you wouldn't
01:41:59 it does that tell us that you wouldn't put a notice on the website that the certificate was up for uh reissue
01:42:05 reissue that is correct uh all that there were drafting changes which were requested and due but haven't yet been made
01:42:12 made that is so that would mean wouldn't it that a user of the certificate might have no idea about the imposition of the 18 meter restriction that you were planning yes
01:42:24 were planning yes and it would have no way of knowing unless it unless it's specifically inquired of the bba to see if there were any changes in train
01:42:33 train that is correct right
01:42:38 sorry i'm sorry just a minute forgive my interrupting mr i can't help noticing that you're looking down at something either on the desk or in your lap it's just my hands well they're beautiful hands i'm sure
01:42:50 well they're beautiful hands i'm sure but i just wanted to make sure you didn't have a mobile phone with your instincts
01:43:01 can we go to paragraph 87 paragraph roman four question was was
01:43:13 paragraph roman four question was was certificate zero eight uh four five one zero for purpose without redraft if so please explain how your answer was the reason that this reissue was required in contrast to the previous was there was a change of name of certificate holder
01:43:25 of certificate holder the product not the certificate was deemed still fit for purpose now if we go back to the review checklist at page five please that's bba three zeros 11085
01:43:36 three zeros 11085 page five bba three zeros one one zero eight five page five uh you can see the under paragraph 15 validity decision highlighted it says requires technical
01:43:48 highlighted it says requires technical reissue
01:43:49 reissue and is it right that you yourself considered that a technical reissue was required
01:43:55 required yes did you ask yourself the question at the time how can this product be fit for purpose
01:44:00 purpose if it needs a statement added about the restriction on the height at which it can be used
01:44:09 yes i think that is why i was recommending a technical issue you did you did ask yourself that question but but my question is how could it how could the product be
01:44:20 how could it how could the product be fit for purpose as you say in paragraph 87 if it needed if the certificate needed a statement adding to it limiting its use to buildings under 18 meters
01:44:33 but the the fitness the fitness for purpose was still uh was still in place
01:44:40 place uh he just had to modify the issue with respect it isn't is it because it's no longer fit for purpose on buildings above 18 meters that is why we were going to amend that
01:44:53 that is why we were going to amend that that wording but it was still in compliance with the regulations technically speaking
01:45:07 now at this time this is october 2016 as we've seen you were dealing with arconic and you were dealing with nicholas remy there would you say that he was being
01:45:18 there would you say that he was being helpful and responsive to your queries
01:45:22 uh what i can see from the exchange of emails yes did you get the sense that you were being kept in the dark about anything no no no did you have any discussions
01:45:35 no no no did you have any discussions with mr remy other than those we've seen in his email responses to your emails not that i can remember
01:45:46 now we know that in early 2015 arconic changed its pe core of reynabon 55 from translucent to black
01:45:54 to black and then commissioned some more tests of that core in july 2015 and the rivet retested got a c c s 2 d naught and the retested uh
01:46:05 s 2 d naught and the retested uh render 1 55 in cassette got an e and just for our note that's arc five zeros 402
01:46:14 zeros 402 and arc five zeros 405. and there were also recipe changes um am i right in thinking as i think we looked at before but you would have expected modifications to the core recipe
01:46:25 modifications to the core recipe to have been notified to the bba yes yes yes and you would have expected to be notified of that modification is this right even though the technical performance didn't change
01:46:40 the technical performance didn't change what if the core had not been modified but but just tested differently again would you expect that that should be notified to you
01:46:50 um if there were new test data available then
01:46:54 then yes we would expect them to send them over to us now there's no record that we've had that you were told about any of these tests or classifications if you had been do i take it that you would have noted them and recorded them
01:47:06 would have noted them and recorded them on the certificate yes let's then move on in time to november 2016 and the reissue um summarizing it it's right isn't it that the bba
01:47:17 that the bba did re-offer a reissue contract to iconic and iconic accepted that and signed a reissue contract
01:47:25 contract yes yes yes let's go to bba four zeros eight
01:47:29 eight two one three page two please this is an email of the 9th of june 2017.
01:47:41 2017. it'll come up in just a moment bba 408213
01:47:45 408213 page 2. we can skip to page 2 at the very bottom of the page we can see
01:47:52 see an email from you to mr remy of the 5th of june
01:47:56 of june and then
01:48:02 if we go up please to the top of the page
01:48:14 i'm on page two
01:48:21 yes um well we need i think the bottom of page one what i want to show you is on this screen at the moment but i just want to show you the start of the email bottom of page one that's it um from nicholas remy seventh
01:48:33 that's it um from nicholas remy seventh of june
01:48:34 of june 2017 to you copy to claude verlais dear valentino thank you email then over the page of page two
01:48:43 uh under cassette system about a quarter of the way down the screen do you see um uh you've i think embedded in red your response to what he says
01:48:54 your response to what he says uh in black he says cassette system we base our calculations on the reynold notches straight fixings resistance and then you said this since the cassette system has never been assessed by bba and you've confirmed
01:49:05 assessed by bba and you've confirmed that you do not manufacture them hence you are not accountable for their final performance these will be removed from the certificate it can be added if a proper assessment is carried out including specific testing audit of the fabricators and
01:49:16 testing audit of the fabricators and submission of information related to the approval procedure for the fabricators they need to be registered in scheme controlled by you
01:49:28 registered in scheme controlled by you was that notification there as a result of learning that cassette cassettes weren't manufactured by the vba in the course of your 2016 review
01:49:40 in the course of your 2016 review we're not manufactured by grenoble uh that by
01:49:44 that by iconic yes yes i see uh so there's nothing new you've learned you've just decided that in the reissue you're not gonna cover cassettes that is
01:49:55 you're not gonna cover cassettes that is correct because of what you learned in the previous now closed review done in late 15 early 16.
01:50:00 16. yes yes uh now at paragraph 108 of your statement page 20 please
01:50:07 please we just go to that
01:50:12 uh you say uh there i can no longer recall
01:50:16 recall uh the exact chain of events and dates but basically after the grenfell fire bba put in place policy by which all the acm certificates would be updated at the same time
01:50:24 same time to reflect their classification to bsen 13501
01:50:28 13501 any height restrictions applicable further clarifications of the interpretations of test results and br compliance details of any bsa414 tests carried out effectively the bba carried out a project to bring forward the updates of
01:50:40 project to bring forward the updates of the prior intention being only to update as when the opportunity arose the nhbc wording will be updated though i don't remember exactly how and the front pictures of the certificates will be updated to reflect
01:50:51 certificates will be updated to reflect any height restrictions i was the pm you say dealing with these all these changes ensuring consistency across the board and assessing any test data supplied by the manufacturers during that period do i understand from that both those
01:51:03 do i understand from that both those paragraphs that there was a decision within the bba to reassume all acn certificates for which the bba had previously issued certificates in the past at the same time that is correct uh was that as a
01:51:16 that is correct uh was that as a consequence of the fire yes did the fire make that all the more urgent
01:51:23 urgent when i say the fire i mean the grenfell tower fire that is correct yes did the bba thereafter require that all acr manufacturers have their certificates updated
01:51:35 their certificates updated at that time uh yes in other words it was no longer up to the manufacturer to decide whether and when he got a reissue this was now mandatory yes and i don't think
01:51:49 mandatory yes and i don't think um vba requested a manufacturer to enter into a ratio content for that now you say in paragraph 109 that you assessed any test data supplied
01:52:00 that you assessed any test data supplied by the manufacturers during that period what period are you referring to in the period in which bba was carrying out
01:52:08 out this big project of reaching all the certificates right we haven't seen any record of our comic providing any further test data did they do so i don't believe they did
01:52:20 did they do so i don't believe they did no
01:52:21 no now let's turn to look at how that uh reissued certificate was created uh can we go first please to vba four zeros eight two two zero
01:52:41 this is an email from the bba to nicolas remy on the 21st of july 2017 from denise flinton weinstein attaching the certificate
01:52:54 attaching the certificate and she says please find attached a draft copy of the certificate zero eight stroke four five one zero for the above product
01:53:04 product as part of an initiative to clarify behavior in relation to fire and permissible areas of use this reissue
01:53:11 reissue specifies a height limit of 18 meters for the installation of this product this draft certificate is sent to you for information only and it will be issued and published shortly now noting the date
01:53:23 shortly now noting the date 21st of july 2017 that's about five weeks after the grenfell tower fire on the 14th of june 2017 isn't it
01:53:32 isn't it yes yes did you play any part yourself in the reissue of the certificate yes
01:53:43 uh yes i see and at this time did you play any particular part
01:53:50 yes i was told throughout did you ask arconic
01:53:54 arconic at this point for any data on fire tests for the purposes of the reissue
01:54:01 um i don't i asked specifically as part of this project or shrink all the certificates
01:54:10 why not because communications regarding these ratio of the certificates following the grandfather empire
01:54:18 empire all communication regarding that were not
01:54:21 not managed directly by me but by bba itself you say by bba itself do you mean somebody else within the bba other than you
01:54:32 you yes i was just doing the the uh redrafting work i see do you know who it was in the bba who was responsible for dealing with arconic
01:54:43 was responsible for dealing with arconic uh about their underlying fire test data after the grenfell tower fire i don't remember we with our chronic uh as as we had already
01:54:54 with our chronic uh as as we had already an ongoing ratio i was dealing with them and uh i would have communicated with them that we were to reissue their certificates um if there wasn't a need to
01:55:07 um if there wasn't a need to ask for new test data i wouldn't have asked the other certified holder have voluntarily submitted their new test data
01:55:23 right and what do you know do you know what the bba made of arconic's exceptional behavior do you describe it uh
01:55:36 do you describe it uh no i don't i don't remember can we go to met30s
01:55:41 met30s 53158 underscore p19 page 23 this is an exhibit to mr verlais exhibit part 19 of his
01:55:52 exhibit part 19 of his to his witness statement page 23.
01:55:57 it's an email dated the 25th of july 2017
01:56:02 2017 uh to denise clinton weinstein uh copied to cloud schmidt among others you're not copied in on it um do you think it's a document you might have seen at the time or do you think it might have been
01:56:13 or do you think it might have been copied onto you um i generally don't remember maybe i've seen some copies of this but
01:56:24 maybe i've seen some copies of this but right let's um just look at the fourth paragraph down we'll take it quickly if you didn't see it at the time and we can see from the fourth paragraph down if we can scroll up a little bit please
01:56:34 please on the screen he says as attached documents
01:56:39 documents and he makes some uh corrections or additions or amendments uh to the certificate in reissue draft reissue that um
01:56:50 that um mr flint and weinstein has sent it you can see they're all set out there um there's uh there's nothing there about fire performance is there
01:57:03 about fire performance is there no no
01:57:09 do you know whether anybody within the bba
01:57:13 bba pressed arconic for precise up-to-date details about fire performance uh having received this message from mr verle in response to receiving the draft uh no as far as i
01:57:26 receiving the draft uh no as far as i know
01:57:27 know none of the factors were pressed for new test data at the time right can we then go to the certificate as issued on the 4th of august just a two weeks i'll say later 2017
01:57:40 just a two weeks i'll say later 2017 again we're post fire now this is bba 6046 [Music]
01:57:49 at the bottom of the page uh we can see uh the date 4th of august 2017 signed by brian chamberlain uh and claire curtis thomas
01:58:00 claire curtis thomas and at the top we can see a building that now appears to be rather just move up to the top of the page we can see the photograph or the image a rather lower building than the
01:58:12 a rather lower building than the original one and if you go to page three under
01:58:18 description you can see paragraph 1.1 we have that blown up
01:58:24 blown up rayna bond architecture wall cladding panels are flat aluminium composite panels comprising two half millimeter thick aluminium alloy sheets etc bonded to either side of the low density polyethylene ldpe core exposed faces coated with
01:58:37 ldpe core exposed faces coated with either a
01:58:38 either a 28 micron layer of polyvinylidene difluoride paint ppdf 7030 or a 35 micron layer of polyester paint duragloss 5000
01:58:49 duragloss 5000 polyester primer protects the unexposed face
01:58:52 face the panels are available in two grades differentiated by the composition of panel core st and fr with the normal characteristics given in table one and then table one is set out
01:59:01 set out and you can see it there and there are the flames made for it and if you go to the bottom the panels are mechanically fastened to the aluminium subframe using
01:59:14 to the aluminium subframe using aluminium rivets forming an open jointed cladding system details of panel mounted are shown in figure one and if you go over the page to page four uh it says the flat panels can be formed into
01:59:25 the flat panels can be formed into cassettes with different flange widths and fixed to the aluminium subframe by means of t slots fitting onto pins
01:59:33 onto pins and then there's a footnote footnote 1 which appears twice in that subsection the manufacturing and use of the cassettes the subframe and its attachment to the substrate wool are not covered by this certificate
01:59:44 covered by this certificate and then lower down the screen same page you can see figure one typical fixing system
01:59:48 system and if we have that scrolled down a little further we can see that it's rivet riveted system um now we can see that the update you
02:00:00 um now we can see that the update you identified in your 2016 review that is removing references to the cassette fix and clarifying the scope of the certificate uh was what you'd identified um
02:00:11 uh was what you'd identified um am i writing thinking that those recommendations have been carried through to this certificate yes but is it right that these changes were not based
02:00:23 these changes were not based on any uh data about fire performance were they no you were simple as a you um
02:00:34 you were simple as a you um the this reissue was simply sweeping up changes that you had already identified in your 2015-16 review that's correct
02:00:47 in other words this is right that the removal of cassette was not because it did not perform uh in accordance with the fire
02:00:58 uh in accordance with the fire performance tests claimed for it uh but uh because quite simply you learned that our connect didn't as it were manufactured cassette
02:01:10 as it were manufactured cassette that's correct in fact it's right isn't it that even at this stage 4th of august 2017 the bba still did not know is this right
02:01:21 the bba still did not know is this right that the cassette had failed european fire tests repeatedly since late 2004. yes we did not know when i say cassette i mean reynabon 55pe
02:01:33 when i say cassette i mean reynabon 55pe in cassette fabrication i understood
02:01:39 if we go to section seven on page six
02:01:46 uh we can see cutting straight down as is under behavior in relation to fire i can scamper down i think to the table
02:01:54 the table on the next page
02:01:59 and there it is at the top of the screen these are the fire classifications standard with grey green duragloss 5000 coating bs2d naught fr with gold duragloss by a thousand coating bs1
02:02:10 coating bs1 d naught and then fr with a metallic gray pbdf coating blank uh standalone national building regulation class naught now um
02:02:22 naught now um just looking at that table can you explain why even in august 2017 after as you told us the policy had been introduced at the bba only to use
02:02:34 bba only to use european classifications if they've got your evidence right why um you see class naught or low risk used
02:02:41 used as the fire classification for fr that was because it was still allowed under the building regulations and therefore we couldn't remove it all together but
02:02:52 we couldn't remove it all together but we required that to be to be read side by side with the european classification uh i see it doesn't say that though does it you have a footnote class not all low
02:03:04 it you have a footnote class not all low risk
02:03:05 risk it simply says class naught as defined at appendix a paragraph 13a to approve document b would that footnote alert the reader to
02:03:16 would that footnote alert the reader to the concern within the bba that there was no equivalence between the european fire testing regime and the
02:03:25 and the national classes well it wasn't specified
02:03:29 specified but we pushed for the certificate to include the european classification
02:03:36 right why didn't you push iconic to give you the up-to-date european classification for fr as opposed to relying on a historical
02:03:47 as opposed to relying on a historical class naught uh there is a classification for afar to the european standard in this table the fr with the metallic gray pvdf coating is what i'm referring to
02:03:59 coating is what i'm referring to ah right um
02:04:03 i don't know we we had one classification for the fr and that's what we put in there now i'm putting these in a table did you re did the bba revisit the original data
02:04:14 did the bba revisit the original data from the assessment
02:04:17 uh i don't remember can i did you yourself put this certificate together yes with the help so when you put fire
02:04:29 yes with the help so when you put fire classification against standard with gray green duragloss 5000 coating bs2 dnaught where did you get that from it must have been from the test data that we had in our procession
02:04:40 that we had in our procession the test data right so did was that the first time that you went back and looked at the test data in the technical file yes i see so you didn't just copy it
02:04:52 yes i see so you didn't just copy it across from the certificate the old certificate i don't believe so did you ask well when you when you looked at the test file did you notice that the
02:05:05 test file did you notice that the classification from the cstb that supported
02:05:08 supported standards claim standard please claim to be
02:05:11 be b s 2 d naught was dated the 5th of january 2007
02:05:18 2005. i don't remember did did it occur to you to ask arconic if they had more up-to-date fire performance data for standard
02:05:30 uh that might have happened but i don't remember did you notice that but did you also get the bs one d naught for fr from the original uh technical file
02:05:44 uh that is possible and again you would have noticed that that was dated september 2006 for 10 years late 10 years ago again
02:06:02 for 10 years late 10 years ago again sorry could you say that again please i was saying again same as before i don't remember exactly what happened in that period before this certificate was published
02:06:13 before this certificate was published did anybody at the vba yourself included actually
02:06:16 actually ask arconic uh whether or not these fire classifications which on the from the technical file were more than a decade old
02:06:27 were more than a decade old to provide you with updated test data if they had any both first standard and for fr in these two colors and coatings no it wasn't a
02:06:40 common procedure from bba to ask for new test data
02:06:44 test data every now and then but why not there had been a fatal fire only a few weeks before my question is why didn't you insist or anybody else at the bba
02:06:54 the bba insist on either seeing our comics up to date
02:06:58 date fire tests for both pe and fr or at least insist on a confirmation that you had all relevant and up-to-date test data in your hands that is not a question for
02:07:13 in your hands that is not a question for me
02:07:13 me i was just doing what i was asked to do at the time well it's a question for you because i'm asking you to to to answer it why did you not
02:07:24 to to to answer it why did you not insist you personally not insist or ask your superiors to insist on seeing our comics up to date for test data for both these kinds of panels or else say we're not going to reissue
02:07:36 or else say we're not going to reissue it
02:07:37 it at the time these events were happening i wasn't even aware of which products were involved in the fire
02:07:47 you say that you were just doing what you were asked to do at the time who asked you to do this the the operations manager the head of approval they've asked me to
02:07:59 approval they've asked me to update all the certificates right who was in charge at the time of extracting from our connect the up-to-date fair test data and classifications at the time when we were reaching the
02:08:11 at the time when we were reaching the certificate it would have been me to go through the old file
02:08:16 right
02:08:19 okay but who was in charge of getting what wasn't on the file out of our comic by way of up-to-date material
02:08:28 it wasn't something that we were asked to do
02:08:32 to do okay let me try it differently who was the contact person at the bba con in contact with arconic on the subject
02:08:40 subject of what was needed to to produce this reissue
02:08:44 reissue uh that would have been me prior to the fire and following from the fire it would have been the the admin team who was it in the admin team
02:08:55 team i don't remember there were letters sent out to all the manufacturer manufacturers of acm panels to communicate that these ratios were going to open right how would you
02:09:06 were going to open right how would you say
02:09:07 say specifically for latest test data at the time
02:09:11 time we were just reaching the certificate on the basis of what we had on our records now you say it was you before the fire um what happened after the third did somebody come to tell you that they were
02:09:22 somebody come to tell you that they were taking you away from you your role as contact point with arconic and taking it on themselves no i was dealing with that phonic for the previous ratio that we have been discussing during this hearing
02:09:33 discussing during this hearing and then following from the fire that ratio became part of the the wider and bigger project of reaching all the certificates for acm panels
02:09:44 all the certificates for acm panels the whole communication related to that were dealt uh by the admin team uh it's it's right i think coming back to the point that even at this point
02:09:55 to the point that even at this point uh a number of weeks only after the grenfell tower fire uh your statement of fire classification of our conics pe panels as class b
02:10:06 of our conics pe panels as class b were based on a test done in late 2004 and classified in early yes that is true without any investigation
02:10:17 true without any investigation from our conic of whether there was an up-to-date test
02:10:22 yes yes can we get back to the certificate
02:10:30 look at paragraph 7.3 [Applause] the products are not classified as being non-combustible or limited combustibility etc and so their use is restricted to 18
02:10:42 etc and so their use is restricted to 18 meters in height unless a full-scale fire test to either bs 8414 part 1 2015 uh or bs 8414 part 2 2015 has been conducted
02:10:52 conducted but the specific wall on construction under consideration and other the other requirements of br e report br 135 2013 have been met now that section 7.3 is is this right
02:11:06 now that section 7.3 is is this right the new statement in other words that's where we find the imposition of the 18 18 meter restriction yes and was that the primary reason for
02:11:17 and was that the primary reason for reissuing the certificate this specific certificate within the reissue
02:11:25 reissue before the fire but yes this was one of the updates that we were going to incorporate and we can see as we've just seen from table three there's reference to class north
02:11:35 north you don't see anywhere in this statement uh the phrase the panels may be regarded as class naught do we yes that is correct was any decision made or discussion had
02:11:48 was any decision made or discussion had about removing that phrase that um
02:11:59 if we can go to the front page one we can see
02:12:03 can see both here indeed and on page one that behavior in relation to fire
02:12:10 is described as the panels have a b s two d naught or a b s one d naught reaction to fire classification to b s e en 13501.1 2007
02:12:21 to b s e en 13501.1 2007 depending on the grade chosen that's now only the european classification no reference to national classification there was that in line with the bba policy as it had evolved by this
02:12:32 bba policy as it had evolved by this time that you described earlier yes was there any discussion at all at this time about the expression may be regarded as class not or maybe regarded as having class naught
02:12:42 naught which was in the original certificates but removed in this reissue as i stated i don't remember a specific discussion around that wording
02:12:56 uh now we know that ucas did an assessment of the bba in july 2012 uh 2017 and then had an extra visit in august
02:13:03 august 2017. do i take it that you were involved in those visits yes
02:13:11 now let's look briefly then at the ucas assessment report this is a bba four zeros eight six two zero this is the report from the first visit and it's dated the 12th of july 2017
02:13:23 dated the 12th of july 2017 and i'd like to go to page this is the executive summary on page eight can we go there
02:13:34 eight can we go there third paragraph down
02:13:37 uh it says um
02:13:42 per paragraph down a discussion about the most recent reviews undertaken was held with project manager valentina amarozzo you see that yeah and then in the next paragraph it says you gave an account of the review
02:13:55 you gave an account of the review uh and you just you described the review checklist
02:13:58 checklist and follow up by the bba with the manufacturers and there's a description about the decision to remove the cassette system from the next version of the certificate i'm summarizing
02:14:09 i'm summarizing and then it goes on in the next paragraph it was noted bottom of the screen if we can scroll up a little please it was noted that valentino amarezo had had an awareness
02:14:20 had an awareness of the fire performance of the certificated products during the ucas assessment this included the routes to establish the suitability of a planning system for use on a tall building valentina was asked during the discussion relating to the review of the
02:14:31 discussion relating to the review of the certificate if she questioned the tests required by the client she replied positively in this case the product is being sold in the uk market and the manufacturer's literature contains photographs depicting buildings that are over 18
02:14:43 depicting buildings that are over 18 meters in height etc now
02:14:48 etc now where it says valentina was asked during the discussion relating to the review of the certificate if she questioned the tests required by the client and she replied positively does that mean that you were
02:14:59 positively does that mean that you were asked by the ucas inspectors if you had actually questioned the fire performance tests that went
02:15:06 that went into the certificate uh yes i believe this was referred to the period of the review where i raised the fact that
02:15:16 fact that the that we had to include the height restriction certificate right now it looks from this that you told the you told ucas positively that you did
02:15:27 you told ucas positively that you did question the tests uh required by the client
02:15:33 did you do that did you did you tell them that
02:15:38 i don't i don't remember exactly what this um
02:15:42 this um sentence is referring to in relation to that ucas
02:15:48 assessment we haven't seen any evidence we've been through a lot today i appreciate samurais that you ever actually looked at the underlying fire performance data to support the
02:15:59 fire performance data to support the claims made in the original certificate or indeed
02:16:03 or indeed with one exception in this certificate um
02:16:06 um is it completely true that you told uh is it completely true that you did as you appear to have told ucas but you questioned the tests
02:16:19 but you questioned the tests yes i think i did question why we were using
02:16:22 using the the tests uh they were why in the first place we were uh lasso classification on the basis of tests that were not the british standard tests
02:16:34 british standard tests and then i believe um i did assess the original files during the final ratio after the fire
02:16:46 after the fire but i don't remember if the ucas uh assessment was before or after that uh review this is this one is from the july 2012
02:16:58 this one is from the july 2012 review and inspection because this this report is dated july 2017. i'm sorry 12th july 2017. so that's when uh it is said in this report that you said it
02:17:10 report that you said it so this is before reissue on the fourth of august
02:17:14 of august but after the fire it's between the two dates
02:17:19 does that help you in your answer yes during that period i did review the original files and that is what came in the last ratio
02:17:33 and that is what came in the last ratio by this point this is 12 july 2017 had you actually before that questioned the tests
02:17:41 the tests uh uh it it it's part of your review that you've done that thus far [Applause] i did question those tests as part of
02:17:52 i did question those tests as part of the
02:17:53 the worker issue that i was doing across the board for all the sem panels until that point i wasn't asked to review the original test data from the original dossier
02:18:10 from the original dossier now we know that in uh september 2017 arconic decided no longer to sell pe called reynaborn for tall buildings and decided to withdraw uh then decided
02:18:23 and decided to withdraw uh then decided to withdraw pe rainer bond completely and you remember that in
02:18:27 that in on the 21st of september 2017 mr verde told you that arconic were no longer selling pe in the uk for architectural purposes and he wanted references to pe
02:18:38 purposes and he wanted references to pe in the certificate to be removed do you remember that yes yes uh
02:18:45 um let's just go to the reissued certificate it's bba six zeros four nine
02:18:56 and on page one we can see there's a new date at the bottom the reissue date you see it's uh fourteenth uh sorry 4th of august 2017 is the date
02:19:08 uh sorry 4th of august 2017 is the date of second issue and then certificate amended on 22nd of september
02:19:13 september 2017 to remove st panel st means pe core doesn't it yeah and if we go to pages if we go to page seven we see there are no references to
02:19:24 seven we see there are no references to the pe core anymore
02:19:27 they're gone you see that yeah that was just an edit wasn't it yes you didn't at that point ask for any further information no because it was uh was outside the
02:19:40 no because it was uh was outside the scope of the certificate at that point did you wonder why uh arconic was withdrawing pe called acm from the uk market for architecture completely yes i remember that aquanic stated
02:19:53 yes i remember that aquanic stated that they because they did not have control on how the market would be using their products and because the legislation in the uk was
02:20:04 particularly clear they didn't want like any responsibility related to future accidents
02:20:17 future accidents now do you remember in february 2018 a bbc correspondent by the name of tom simons got in touch with the bba about information that arconic had made
02:20:30 about information that arconic had made changes to the pe core in 2015. i remember that uh that was the case yeah
02:20:38 yeah yes now let's just look at one email string here it seems that bba four zero is nine five eight six
02:20:46 eight six page four
02:20:50 and at the bottom of page four and over onto page five we can see uh very bottom of page four an email from brian moore on the 6th of february 2018 and
02:21:02 on the 6th of february 2018 and if we go to the top of page five he says this
02:21:08 this uh and it's declawed verlay demonstrate the bba has been contacted by bbc television about a program they're planning to broadcast in respect for the fatal fire at grenfell tower in london in june 2017. the bbc has informed us
02:21:20 in june 2017. the bbc has informed us that in 2015 arconic may have made some changes to the pe material in the core of the render bond pe product and which may not have been communicated to the bba we've not commented on this
02:21:31 to the bba we've not commented on this to the bbc but we would like to understand whether or not any changes to the core of the pe product occurred in 2015
02:21:37 2015 and whether or not you say that this was communicated to the bba i'd be grateful for your response by the place of business on monday 12th february 2018 please and if we scroll up to page three we can see that you are
02:21:48 to page three we can see that you are joined in on this chain yes there it is you see that yeah and you you you
02:22:00 you see that yeah and you you you uh uh say i've reviewed once more the technical file for rendezvous but i'm afraid i have to confirm we don't have the 2014 test report the only fire tests to n13 501 are in
02:22:12 the only fire tests to n13 501 are in the attached pdf summary when you set them out uh the pe riveted beats
02:22:17 beats s2d naught that's test 5a from early and the reynabon fr riveted bs uh i should say f1 d naught
02:22:29 uh i should say f1 d naught uh and then you say if you skip to the bottom you say please note that all technical info for this certificate are only available in the original assessment file s341014 nothing else was ever provided to us
02:22:42 nothing else was ever provided to us after that
02:22:45 now if we skip to the to the bottom of page one of this email run
02:22:53 uh this is an email to you also on the 19th of february 2018 uh copied to john albon bellatina by coincidence whilst we were
02:23:05 bellatina by coincidence whilst we were discussing this matter in the corridor and verlais rang he will email me to say that the change from translucent to black core occurred in may 2015 because the market asked for black where edges of the page please page two
02:23:19 where edges of the page please page two where edges were visible the black was a nicer look aesthetically the fire properties of both were identical the bba was not told of this
02:23:30 identical the bba was not told of this for that reason he also said that the auditor did not comment on the black four during a 2015 visit in respect of the change from b to d he said that nothing has changed
02:23:41 to d he said that nothing has changed and the values pertain to whether the cladding is flat or in cassette i've also asked him to comment to me about whether arconic is going to provide any information to the bbc
02:23:52 the bbc he thinks not but we'll confirm now just pausing there according to brian moore cleverley said that nothing had changed and the values pertain to whether the cladding is flat or in cassette
02:24:04 cladding is flat or in cassette doing your best what did you understand that to me
02:24:12 that the change to the color of the core would not imply it's changing the performance whether that was a flat panel or a cassette system and the change from b to d what did that
02:24:25 and the change from b to d what did that mean
02:24:26 mean i believe that refers to the classification yeah the fire test that the bbc correspondent had sent to us i see what about a reference to d where did that come from
02:24:39 the the declassification i believe was again one of the tests that the bbc correspondents had sent to us
02:24:50 and if we go to the top of page one you respond
02:24:57 respond on page one uh same day a little bit later in the morning uh also copy to john albon thanks brian this is interesting if any of you has access to the 2014 report i'd like to
02:25:08 access to the 2014 report i'd like to see it
02:25:08 see it we are not covering the cassette anyway the report we have on farthest for flat panel zone now it's right isn't it as we've seen that because the certificate did cover cassette for many years indeed from
02:25:20 cassette for many years indeed from january 2008 until 2017. yes are you saying here that it didn't matter what the cassette classification was historically because the certificate as of february
02:25:32 because the certificate as of february 2018
02:25:33 2018 did not cover cassette i was saying that for the purpose of that those ratios that we were doing they
02:25:41 they we we shouldn't have included that test report and therefore we shouldn't yeah look for it
02:25:49 this amazing can i trouble you to keep your voice up of it please because i think
02:25:54 think sometimes towards the end of the sentence you drop it and the transcribers can't hear you too clearly do you mind thank you very much
02:26:03 there's no you're not you don't seem to say to brian moore that historically this actually creates a problem
02:26:10 a problem the impression given by your email is that you don't cover cassettes anyway and the report you've got on file is for flat panels only um was it not a concern of yours at the
02:26:21 um was it not a concern of yours at the time that historically for all these years
02:26:24 years before cassette was dropped in the august of 2017 the certificate had covered it it was everyone was aware of that it wasn't just my fault
02:26:41 now there's further email correspondence which
02:26:44 which may be better covered with other witnesses but can i just look at one more
02:26:47 more this is bba 409087
02:26:54 also in the same sequence and on the same topic
02:27:00 if we go to page three we can see the email we've just looked at well actually it's not it's a slightly different email but uh we can see that there's an email that
02:27:12 uh we can see that there's an email that brian moore sends you uh copy to john alborn v another coincidence bbc just forwarded all of these there would seem to be quite a few that we are unaware of
02:27:24 that we are unaware of and then if we go to page four we can see your email in response uh i'm sorry this is actually the wrong
02:27:35 uh i'm sorry this is actually the wrong way around what's happening what happens is that tom simon sends brian moore uh a a set of classification reports that the bbc have uncovered and then if we scroll up we can see that he sends it to you
02:27:48 he sends it to you and then if we go a little bit further up still
02:27:51 up still go higher up page three
02:27:56 we can say we see you go back to brian moore and say hi brian thanks a lot interesting reading
02:28:02 reading uh so the client said that the core of the pe version of the panel was originally translucent and then a black black was introduced for commercial reasons none of the reports until 2015 underlined mentions the color of the
02:28:13 underlined mentions the color of the core
02:28:15 core uh and then you you see below that that you conduct some kind of um uh analysis uh of these reports that you had been sent by mr moore she got from tom simons
02:28:26 tom simons is that right yes um could you see from the reports that mr simons had sent mr moore and mr moore was sending on to you that rivet and cassette had achieved quite different classifications
02:28:39 quite different classifications yes on looking at those reports did it occur to you that before the fire at grenfell tower the bba certificate for reno bond
02:28:47 reno bond had materially incorrect information about the classification of pe called acn
02:28:54 acn that might have been the case but yeah
02:29:01 in particular that it failed to distinguish between the cassette and rivet fixing variants
02:29:09 variants yes and also that the best class it could claim from 2014 the latest was class c
02:29:21 yes that is yes and in cassette e
02:29:29 plus e yes i believe that was the finding from this analysis yeah and neither class c nor class e would have met
02:29:40 would have met uh the requirements of diagram 40 and adb
02:29:44 adb at the time would they yeah was this the first time you had discovered these facts yes can you account for why this is the first time you discovered these facts
02:29:59 i believe it was because in none of the reviews that we had carried out we checked the original test reports because that was not the procedure that bba would use
02:30:12 procedure that bba would use can you account for how it was left to a bbc journalist to uncover these facts and that the bba had for so many years failed to do so i cannot account for that no
02:30:26 do you accept that you should have been much more proactive and assertive in pressing arconic for all up-to-date and relevant fire test data for rayner bond 55
02:30:34 bond 55 since your first involvement with it in december 2014 i believe bba procedures should have been different
02:30:44 german i've come to the end of my prepared questions and it is 4 30. yes uh but there remains the usual break to see if there are any follow-up questions yes
02:30:55 questions yes i i i i detect that only about 10 minutes is probably needed if that's we'll see how we go shall we yes
02:31:04 yes right well miss america mr millet's got to the end of his questions but we need to have a short break for him to check that he hasn't left anything out and also to enable others who are
02:31:15 out and also to enable others who are uh watching these proceedings and may have other questions to uh put them to us so we'll have a break now i think we'll say for 10 minutes until 20 to 4 it may turn out to be a
02:31:27 until 20 to 4 it may turn out to be a little longer if people tell us they need more time but we'll get back as soon as we can and um please don't talk to anyone about your evidence uh during the break all right thank you
02:31:40 uh during the break all right thank you very much
02:40:42 welcome back everyone uh we'll now see whether mr millett has any more questions to put to mr samareza so first thing is to check that miss amoroso can see me and hear me all right can you
02:40:53 can you see me yes very good thank you very much um well now we'll see if mr militz got any more questions to put you there mr miller any more questions yes mr
02:41:04 mr miller any more questions yes mr chairman just uh just one uh topic really um miss amaresa could you please be shown today's transcript at page 67
02:41:15 shown today's transcript at page 67 i'd like to uh show you the exchange that you and i had from line 16 onwards
02:41:25 at line 16 you say
02:41:29 uh question you say you would have been notified by the cstb if there had been any changes just let me understand that were you expecting the cstb to send you underlying test data unilaterally
02:41:41 underlying test data unilaterally themselves and your answer line 20 we would have expected because the certificate as to inaudible was issued as a confirmation certificate of a cstb certificate initially we were
02:41:53 of a cstb certificate initially we were expected that cstb would have notified us of any changes to the certificate the its use or validity or anything that had to do with the manufacturing if that happened and with that the agreement was that they would have sent us copies of
02:42:05 that they would have sent us copies of their
02:42:05 their surveillance reports in the factory which in essence we never received a question you say we expected that the cstb
02:42:14 cstb i would have notified us of any changes to the certificate use of validity etc that's me questioning you what was the basis on which you understood the cstb would do that and then you say there was a usual
02:42:25 and then you say there was a usual agreement within notified bodies across europe
02:42:28 europe whereby a confirmation certificate could be issued on the basis of one certificate issued by another body as long as there was this mutual agreement by which the notified body that was issuing the certificate
02:42:39 certificate would have notified the other body in this case bba of any changes to the certificate now i want just to focus on um any tests fire tests and
02:42:50 any tests fire tests and any classification reports reaction to fire
02:42:53 fire classification reports issued by the cstb
02:42:58 cstb after the date of the confirmation certificate you're referring to what was the basis on which you understood
02:43:09 understood that the cstb would provide those updated new fire test reports or classification reports to the bba
02:43:21 or classification reports to the bba um what was the basis yes it was on the basis that there was this mutual agreement between bpa and cstb to notify
02:43:33 agreement between bpa and cstb to notify each other if there was any relevant change to the certified products change to the certified products what about
02:43:41 about change uh uh as a result or change in the classification to the to the
02:43:48 to the of the products for the purposes of reaction to fire that would have included that what was the basis of your understanding that the cstb
02:43:57 cstb would send you new test reports on new classification reports as i think you say after the date of the issue of the
02:44:08 say after the date of the issue of the certificate because the bba certificate existence was relying on the test data i should buy the
02:44:16 buy the cstb so if the cstb had carried out new tests um on the product they should have notified bba of those changes and what i want to know is is where you
02:44:28 and what i want to know is is where you got that understanding from that was on the basis of the training that i received when i uh joined bba did somebody tell you when
02:44:39 uh joined bba did somebody tell you when you joined the bba that if the cstb are asked to perform a new fire test
02:44:47 55 you would receive a notification that a new fire test had been carried out and the results of that fire test
02:44:58 results of that fire test it wasn't um described so much in detail but yes that was the the underlying assumption between um on having a certification on a
02:45:10 on having a certification on a confirmation certificate to what extent did you understand that that was linked to this to the surveillance process
02:45:21 uh it was part of the same process if the cstb surveillance process did not involve new
02:45:33 involve new fire test data new classifications done other than as a result of a change to the product why did you expect to be notified of
02:45:44 why did you expect to be notified of those by the cstb well in that case i wouldn't have expected csdb to be in possession of those
02:45:51 those test reports if the cstb had conducted the tests reports though they would wouldn't they are you saying that
02:45:59 that just to be clear although you would expect those to be done if picked up as part of the surveillance exercise you wouldn't expect to be notified of such test reports
02:46:10 reports and test data and classifications if they were not done as part of the surveillance process no they would be equally have to be notified to bba because they were affecting the content
02:46:22 because they were affecting the content of the certificate
02:46:26 well i think we need to be clear about this if we can excuse me just let's assume that for reasons unconnected with the surveillance visit uh submitted a panel to
02:46:40 uh submitted a panel to cstb for further testing and got a test report
02:46:45 report which was inconsistent with an existing bba certificate was it your understanding that csdb would inform the bba of that
02:46:57 would inform the bba of that uh the results of the test and send them the test certificate yeah that was my understanding okay thank you very much yes mr millet who
02:47:09 told you that that is what would happen as i said it was part of the training that i received by my colleagues when i joined bba
02:47:21 when i joined bba right see
02:47:28 just looking a little further at your answer you um i think i was saying that um you would expect to receive a test report which was inconsistent with the
02:47:39 report which was inconsistent with the existing bba certificate um how would the bb how would the cstb know
02:47:45 know what was in your bba certificate because the bbs certificate was issued as a confirmation of the french one and therefore it was replicating what
02:47:57 and therefore it was replicating what the french certificate was saying if the cfcb had carried out new test data there is a reason to believe they would have updated that their certification therefore they would
02:48:08 their certification therefore they would have notified vba of those changes in their certificate so that
02:48:12 that those changes could be incorporated in the bba certificate so is your evidence that you were told when you started in december 2014 when coming into cladding and looking at
02:48:25 when coming into cladding and looking at the
02:48:26 the the old bba certificate for reynabon 55 that
02:48:31 that if there were any new tests for fire or new classifications for fire done by the cstb those would be notified to the bba so long as this confirmation
02:48:43 to the bba so long as this confirmation certificate was in place yes that was my understanding right and did you ever see any any uh materials any um documents any contracts any any kind of
02:48:56 documents any contracts any any kind of written materials to explain to you how that worked no i did not see any uh contracts between vba and csdb
02:49:07 uh contracts between vba and csdb and who was it precisely within the bba that led you to believe that the cstb would send all updated or any updated fire test data and classification reports to the bba
02:49:21 and classification reports to the bba in order to ensure that the bba could keep their certificate accurate and up to date
02:49:25 to date it wasn't anyone in particular it was the training that we received when we joined the bba right it wasn't any one person and was that training in a document no
02:49:38 and was that training in a document no it wasn't documented it was an informal training if that is what you meant who pres i'd like to get a name if i can who precisely was responsible for leading you to believe this as i said it wasn't it wasn't one person
02:49:51 as i said it wasn't it wasn't one person that was
02:49:52 that was what i was told when i joined by several colleagues remember who gave you that training
02:50:08 you that training do you remember ever sending the bba certificate to the cstb to get them to verify that it was accurate
02:50:16 accurate um as against what test data they had no if that happened that would have happened in the original certification not in the following ratios and reviews
02:50:28 not in the following ratios and reviews why would that not happen as part of a reissue
02:50:31 reissue it wasn't part of the bba procedure at the time
02:50:35 the time given what you've told us about what you would have expected why didn't you send the draft reissue of the certificate to the cstb and ask them to verify its claims in relation to fire performance against the records that it
02:50:48 performance against the records that it had
02:50:50 had what are you referring to specifically here it's 2017 august 2017 when the um certificate was reissued my question again
02:51:01 again why didn't you send the draft of that reissued certificate in that year to the cstb
02:51:05 cstb and ask them to verify its claims in relation to fire performance against the records that the cstb had it was an unprecedented circumstance and
02:51:16 it was an unprecedented circumstance and none of us thought of doing that
02:51:22 right thank you very much mr chairman i've come to the end of these extra questions
02:51:26 questions yes thank you very much
02:51:31 i'm sorry i'm sorry mr chairman i just wanted to say thank you to the witness well absolutely you should coming to give her evidence um ms zamarezza thank you very much i've come to the end of all of my questions and it only remains to me to thank you
02:51:42 and it only remains to me to thank you very much for your assistance mr chairman yes well thank you very much again miss samara so i have to thank you on behalf of myself and the panel for making yourself available
02:51:53 available the whole day to answer questions um it's been very useful to hear from you and we're very grateful to you for coming along so thank you very much and you're now finished and free to go
02:52:05 finished and free to go thank you thank you very much and that's all we're going to do today we're going to break now for the for the end of the afternoon and we shall resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow as usual so thank you very much
02:52:18 tomorrow as usual so thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you
02:52:31 you