British Board of Agrément (BBA) Evidence - Monday 22nd March 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:14 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:18 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr albon of the british board of agramal as usual i'm joined by the other members of the panel mysterio istafan

00:00:31 good morning good morning everyone

00:00:37 i think my first task this morning is to check that mr albon is in touch with us i think he is but could you confirm mr albon that you can see me and hearing hear me clearly please

00:00:48 hear me clearly please yes i can

00:00:49 yes i can good thank you very much good morning good morning um we probably ought to just run through the housekeeping for the full sake before we continue your evidence can you confirm please that you're alone in the

00:01:01 confirm please that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence yes i am thank you can you confirm that you don't have any documents or other materials with you no i don't and can you confirm that your

00:01:12 no i don't and can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic devices with you which can receive messages

00:01:19 messages yes that's correct lovely thank you very much well uh the procedure will be essentially the same as it was last week we'll have a break during the morning and the afternoon but if you

00:01:30 morning and the afternoon but if you want an additional break just make sure i know that and we'll accommodate you as best we can all right is there anything you'd like to raise before we carry on no thank you

00:01:41 to raise before we carry on no thank you very good thank you well then i'm going to invite ms grange to put some more questions to you yes ms grange yes thank you yes good morning mr chairman and um good morning mr alban good morning

00:01:52 good morning mr alban good morning i'm going to start with some questions this morning about some of the specific wording that we see on the rayna bond certificate from 2008 and then i'm going to come on to ask you some questions

00:02:03 to come on to ask you some questions about the reviews that were carried out of that certificate so focusing first on the wording for the certificate can we bring that certificate back up that's bba six zeros 47

00:02:25 and we can see towards in this bottom half of that page under key factors assessed and then behavior in relation to fire the third heading down

00:02:36 heading down we see the wording in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface in england and wales

00:02:47 and wales and then we also see something similar if we go to page 5 at section 6.3

00:02:57 if we look in the middle of that behavior in relation to fire section 6.3 it says as a consequence of section 6.1 and 6.2

00:03:08 6.1 and 6.2 those are the paragraphs above that we looked at last week the products may be regarded as having a class naught surface in relation to the approved document b of the building regulations as amended england and wales

00:03:23 regulations as amended england and wales now can we go with that in mind can we go to your second witness statement that's bba 3010723 at page 17 and i want to look at the bottom of page

00:03:35 and i want to look at the bottom of page 17

00:03:38 and we can see the inquiry question in bold and the question you're asked is did the 2008 certificate for reyna bond architecture wall panels indicate that all such

00:03:49 wall panels indicate that all such panels are achieved national class naught if not why not please explain by reference to the language used in the certificate including under key factors assessed on

00:04:01 including under key factors assessed on page one of the certificate and your answer starts at paragraph 63 and if we go over the page

00:04:11 in a number of paragraphs there you're basically just quoting a certificate um again if we can pick it up at paragraph 66 on that page

00:04:23 you say this you say the bba had no data to show similar class naught low risk classifications for the standard product and this is clear from the text of the

00:04:34 and this is clear from the text of the certificate diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 sets out requirements for the reaction to fire classifications of the external surfaces of walls in doing so it accepts

00:04:45 surfaces of walls in doing so it accepts the use of either british standard bs476 part six and seven or european classifications using the bsen 13501 but one standard

00:04:56 but one standard a classification to either system could be used to satisfy the requirements of the approved document for all situations then you go on in 68 the two classifications require the use of

00:05:08 classifications require the use of different test methods and are not equivalent the results achieved in one system cannot be used to infer a result for the alternative system and then you go on at 69. for the

00:05:20 and then you go on at 69. for the situations where class naught is required diagram 40 also accepts a classification of b s3 d2 or better that means this means that as defined in the

00:05:31 this means that as defined in the approved document a product achieving class b s 2 d naught as for the reynabond standard product could be used in all situations where a class naught result is deemed to be

00:05:42 class naught result is deemed to be acceptable in the case of the raynabon materials this means that the standard and fr grades could both be used in the same situations as those requiring a class naught performance as defined in diagram

00:05:55 naught performance as defined in diagram 40 of approved document b and then at 71 and 72 you say it is for this reason that the certificate states that in relation to the building regulations for reaction to

00:06:07 the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface this is in respect of their permissible areas of use as defined by diagram 40. both versions of the product met the

00:06:19 both versions of the product met the requirements for situations where diagram 40 accepts the use of a class naught material and at 72 you say this is not the same as stating that the standard product has

00:06:30 as stating that the standard product has a class naught surface which had not been shown to be the case i've shown you that long passage from your your statement um and you mentioned there that there is

00:06:41 um and you mentioned there that there is no equivalence between the european classes

00:06:45 classes and the bs 476 tests which are relevant to class naught and it's right isn't it that that lack of equivalence is a point specifically made in the notes to diagram 40. do you

00:06:56 in the notes to diagram 40. do you recall that yes

00:06:59 yes yes

00:07:01 yes and

00:07:02 and if we understand you correctly in your witness statement you're pointing out that in the pre-document b in diagram 40 it said that either class naught or euro class b s 3 d naught was acceptable on

00:07:15 class b s 3 d naught was acceptable on buildings over 18 meters is that right yes

00:07:21 yes and that is what the bba certificate means is it when it says the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface

00:07:34 i would like to point out as i said on thursday that i was not involved in the drafting of this certificate and that my statement is what i i have inferred from the details on the file so i can't be

00:07:46 the details on the file so i can't be sure

00:07:47 sure what was meant but my interpretation is as described in this statement yes i understand that and i understand what you've said about your direct involvement with the certificate

00:07:59 involvement with the certificate um but but can we agree that that is what it means when it says may be regarded as having a class naught surface it's because of the equivalence point in diagram 40.

00:08:10 point in diagram 40. that's what i believe to be the case yes can you help us why doesn't it just say that

00:08:19 i think it is a poor certificate wording and it could have been improved the later issue of the certificate did remove that statement and made things much clearer than in the original issue of the certificate

00:08:31 of the certificate yes and when you're talking about the later issue of the certificate you're talking about in 2017 yes yes

00:08:38 yes yes

00:08:40 yes how would the average construction professional know that that was what the wording meant as described in your statement i not that the products are class naught but that for the purposes of diagram 40 they can

00:08:53 for the purposes of diagram 40 they can be regarded as such

00:08:57 the certificate must be read in full you cannot simply look at one phrase on the opening page and interpret from that single statement if

00:09:07 if a construction professional had read in full

00:09:11 in full the reaction to fire section of the certificate then it would have been clear

00:09:15 clear that the standard product had not been tested to achieve classo right but you accept that certain statements including on the front of the certificate

00:09:27 certificate were

00:09:28 were misleading is that correct do you accept that

00:09:31 that i think if taken in isolation they could potentially be misleading but the certificate must be read in full yes

00:09:39 yes going back to the certificate if we can have it back up again page five bba 6047 page five

00:09:57 and if we look again at 6.3 it begins with these words as a consequence of sections 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a

00:10:08 the products may be regarded as having a class naught surface doesn't that suggest that the bba has considered the results and is declaring the panels as meeting class naught

00:10:20 now if we considered that it was a class o product

00:10:24 o product the section would have read the products are classo services not maybe regarding right

00:10:33 right can you help us as to where that wording came from the panels may be regarded was that something that was a common phrase used in the bba at this time

00:10:46 i'm sorry i don't know have you yourself ever come across that phrase in another certificate

00:10:56 i haven't but this is an area i would not normally be working in and so it may appear in other certificates that i have not seen right let's look at another part of the certificate if we go to page two

00:11:11 in the top section

00:11:15 under the building regulations uh as amended england and wales can you see that there's the second requirement down

00:11:24 down is requirement b41 uh for external fire spread and we can see on the right hand side that it says this the panels are judged to meet the

00:11:35 this the panels are judged to meet the class naught requirements do you see that wording there yes

00:11:41 yes doesn't that suggest that the bba has considered data relevant to class naught and has judged that the panels meet the requirements of class naught

00:11:52 no again if that was the case the statement would be something like the panels are classified as colasso as defined in the national building regulations it would be a different statement

00:12:05 it would be a different statement i see so are you saying it would be clear to construction professionals reading that not that the panels are class naught but that

00:12:15 but that some form of equivalent analysis has been done well i would expect a construction professional to read the entirety of that statement which does refer them to

00:12:26 that statement which does refer them to section 6.1 to 6.6 where the actual test data are given

00:12:33 do you accept that the consequence of saying

00:12:36 saying those things about class naught was that the entire focus of this certificate became class naught right from page one when in fact everyone associated with it should have appreciated that the

00:12:47 should have appreciated that the european classification results were of key importance in terms of the use of the product above 18 meters

00:12:59 again you must read the certificate in its entirety

00:13:04 entirety at the time the european classification system was new and the industry had for decades been used

00:13:12 used to using the classo system so i believe i don't know but i believe we were attempting to use terms that were familiar to the industry at that time

00:13:26 right what are you what are you basing that on that knowledge on that you believe you were attempting to use terms familiar to the industry at that time from my personal knowledge of the fact that classo was

00:13:38 that classo was the term that everyone understood in the industry

00:13:42 industry the european classification system was new

00:13:45 new and perhaps people were unfamiliar with it at this very early stage i would emphasize though that all of the information is given in the fire section of the certificate

00:13:56 of the certificate if the reader took the time to read the certificate in full

00:14:01 do you agree that a construction professional should be able to rely on what the bba says about the technical properties of a product without going into the details of equivalence and testing methods

00:14:16 i agree that they should be able to rely on the content of the certificate yes i'm not sure about the second half of your question could you perhaps rephrase that

00:14:25 that yes what i'm suggesting to you is that for example here where it says the panels are judged to meet the class naught requirements

00:14:33 do you agree that a construction professional ought to be able to take that statement of face value rather than have to read that together with another part of the certificate which is about equivalence

00:14:45 which is about equivalence in diagram 40. no i don't accept that they should make any judgment based on a single sentence within the certificate they must read the full certificate they must understand it and read in conjunction

00:14:57 understand it and read in conjunction with the approved documents themselves the certificate only gives information to form a judgment on the basis of the requirements of the approved documents

00:15:08 right i think you said at the beginning of your answers this morning that it was a poor certificate wording and it could have been improved in what way are you accepting that the wording was poor

00:15:24 i would not use terms such as the panels are judged to meet class o i would give statements of fact and this was a not a statement of fact it was an

00:15:35 not a statement of fact it was an interpretation right

00:15:39 right now if we look at your second witness statement page 28 um

00:15:44 um so that's bba three zeros 107 2 3 page 28 i want to look at paragraph 111

00:15:54 you say this the front page of the certificate states that the panels may be regarded as class naught materials if all colors of the product were covered this would have read the panels

00:16:06 covered this would have read the panels are class naught materials or similar the use of the may indicates that this this is not always the case the space available on the front page is limited and it is not possible to give

00:16:18 limited and it is not possible to give full details there the reader is directed to section six which gives all of the necessary information and then you tell us the wording was revised in the second issue of the certificate to further aid clarity and

00:16:30 certificate to further aid clarity and we know that that was in 2017 now we will come to color in just a moment

00:16:37 moment and we'll also come to the second issue of the certificate later are you saying there in that paragraph of your statement that may be regarded as class naught means

00:16:48 as class naught means may or may not be regarded as class norm

00:16:54 that answer was in response to a specific question about color so

00:17:02 so the fire classification classifications given in the certificate relates to the specific colors that were tested and i believe the certificate makes that clear

00:17:13 right so you're saying that um the extent to which it may not be regarded as class naught is solely in relation to the different colours or are you saying that more broadly the

00:17:25 you saying that more broadly the certificate means may or may not be class naught

00:17:31 it certainly refers to specific colors

00:17:38 and the use of of the phrase may be regarded as cast naught on the front page which is what you're dealing with here and then you draw this distinction about color

00:17:49 about color is is the use of the words maybe regarded as class naught on the front page different from the maybe regarded as class naught that we see in section 6.3 where it said

00:18:00 that we see in section 6.3 where it said as a consequence of section 6.1 and 6.2 may be regarded as class naught sorry that that was a long question um yes what i'm trying to get at is

00:18:12 um yes what i'm trying to get at is whether you're telling us that the phrase may be regarded as class naught means different things in different parts of the certificate because here you appear to be telling us that the front page of the certificate

00:18:23 that the front page of the certificate is saying may be regarded as class naught because only some colors are covered

00:18:30 covered whereas elsewhere in your statement you're saying that the phrase may be regarded as class naught is because of diagram 40 and the fact that b may be seen as

00:18:43 and the fact that b may be seen as equivalent for diagram 40 purposes to class naught and what i'm trying to get at is whether what you're telling us is that that phrase may be regarded as class naught is actually being referred

00:18:54 class naught is actually being referred to in different ways in different parts of the certificate

00:18:59 on the front page where it talks about maybe

00:19:04 maybe i believe that relates to

00:19:08 the two options within diagram 40 are you the european and the british standard classification systems the use in this answer relates to

00:19:22 the use in this answer relates to the performance of different colors potentially giving different classifications yes but but if you read what you say here in paragraph 111 you say the front page of the certificate states that the

00:19:34 page of the certificate states that the panels may be regarded as class not materials

00:19:37 materials and then if we go on to the third sentence the use of the may indicates that this is not always the case yes but again i was answering a specific

00:19:48 yes but again i was answering a specific question about the performance of individual colors this i was not regarding this as a question about the front page of the certificate

00:19:58 mr album before we leave paragraph 111 i'm slightly puzzled by the second sentence

00:20:08 which suggests that if well it does say that if all the colors were covered then the certificate would have read the panels are class naught materials i don't understand quite how you could

00:20:20 i don't understand quite how you could make that statement if you hadn't got the necessary tests to demonstrate that they were class naught

00:20:28 naught i think with hindsight perhaps i'm i'm mixing the front page and the fire section itself where we do talk about the fire performance of individual colors

00:20:37 colors and the fact that a given performance as quoted may not be achieved for all colors of the product it may have been better if i omitted the reference to the front page here

00:20:48 reference to the front page here all right thank you yes

00:20:52 yes that's very helpful um

00:20:54 um now as we've discussed our connect did not send any information or data about test 5b

00:21:01 test 5b to the bba which dealt with the cassette panels

00:21:05 panels i just want to see what you say about this in your second witness statement so this statement at page 30

00:21:13 and if we pick it up at paragraph one two two

00:21:17 two two you tell us this it's at the bottom of that page had the bba been aware that the cassette fixing method for the product was in fact classified as e to en13501

00:21:28 classified as e to en13501 rather than b as we were led to believe this classification would have been given in the certificate in addition to the class b for the riveted fixing method

00:21:39 riveted fixing method and then you tell us in one two three the areas of use permitted for a class e material by diagram 40 of approved document b are different than those for a class b both in terms of height and

00:21:50 a class b both in terms of height and distance from a boundary a class e material could not have been used

00:21:55 used on a and then we go over the page

00:22:00 on a building with a floor more than 18 meters in height from the ground in the absence of any additional supporting evidence such as a full-scale fire test and compliance with the requirements of br135

00:22:11 br135 as far as the bba is aware no such additional data were available as non had been provided to the bba and then you say this at 124 had the bba been made aware that the cassette fixing

00:22:23 been made aware that the cassette fixing method was in fact class e this and the corresponding restrictions would have been made clear in the certificate text now you tell us that in that part of your statement and you say

00:22:35 your statement and you say um something similar on at least four occasions in your second statement but nowhere in that second statement dealing with this certificate do you tell us what the bba would have said on

00:22:46 tell us what the bba would have said on the certificate about the class naught if you had known that the european classification of the cassettes was class e

00:22:55 class e can you explain to us can you help as to what impact that would have had on the class naught statements in the certificate

00:23:06 well there are if you like contradictory ratings um between the british standard and the european standard classification

00:23:17 and the european standard classification systems

00:23:18 systems in relation to permissible areas of use within diagram 40 we would always take the worst case and quote that worst case so in this case we would have

00:23:30 so in this case we would have quoted the newer class e and omitted reference to class o

00:23:38 i see so all references to class naught would have been omitted would they certainly for the cassette version yes right

00:23:48 right even though you've still got the rivet version which has the b and which for diagram 40 purposes would be treated the same as class naught

00:24:00 it's slightly hypothetical but if we had been aware of that i would have expected different classifications to be given for rivet and cassette potentially we could have given both

00:24:11 potentially we could have given both class o and class b for the riveted but certainly not for the cassette yes you say potentially we could have given both class naught and b for the

00:24:22 given both class naught and b for the riveted

00:24:24 riveted would the bba still have said that the rivet fixed panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface is that what you would have expected

00:24:34 no in that case because we had test data specific to um the bs476 methods um i would expect us to give the classification

00:24:47 us to give the classification well no you had test data specific to the fr panel for bs476 but you didn't have test data relevant to the pe panel

00:24:58 to the pe panel yes you're right yes

00:25:00 yes so can i ask the question again um what would you have said about the class b for the rivet will it would it still have said may be regarded as class

00:25:11 still have said may be regarded as class naught

00:25:16 possibly at that time in that context i don't know yes

00:25:20 yes just some questions now about what you say more detailed questions about what you say about the colors that the certificate deals with um let's just look back at page five of the certificate bba six zeros 47 page

00:25:34 the certificate bba six zeros 47 page five

00:25:37 at 6.4 [Music]

00:25:40 [Music] in the middle of that page it says these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and the designations of a particular color should be confirmed by

00:25:51 color should be confirmed by and for england and well wales it says test or assessment in accordance with approved document b appendix a clause 1 now

00:26:02 now if we can look at your second witness statement again at page 27 bba 3010723 page 27

00:26:11 page 27 from paragraph 104

00:26:15 where you're dealing with this color point

00:26:18 point you tell us the performance achieved in reaction to fire testing is known to be influenced by the color of the coating finish chosen as the pigments and other component materials can have an effect

00:26:29 component materials can have an effect where the numerical result achieved places a product close to the transition point from one classification to another as defined by the classification system it is possible that two different colors

00:26:41 it is possible that two different colors tested could achieve different classifications this is a general consideration for all materials and is not specific to acm products

00:26:50 products for this reason the fire classification quoted in any bba certificate is color specific

00:26:56 specific unless the laboratory carrying out the fire test has confirmed in their report that the classification given covers all of the colors in the range then at 107 you go on

00:27:09 you go on the bba had only certified the fire performance of the product slash color combinations given in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the certificate this meant that the classifications given the

00:27:20 the classifications given the certificate were only applicable to the specific colors quoted in section 6.1 and 6.2

00:27:26 and 6.2 these classifications could not be extrapolated to apply to any other color and then you tell us please please look at section 6.4 of the certificate you

00:27:37 at section 6.4 of the certificate you refer to that in 108 and you tell us that as far as the bba is aware no such testing or assessment was carried out on the colors chosen for installation on grenfell tower

00:27:48 installation on grenfell tower the fire performance of the products installed on grenfell tower were not covered by the bba certification now

00:27:56 now you tell us there that the bba only certified the product color combinations in section 6.1 and 6.2 and if we just go back to those in the certificate page 5

00:28:09 certificate page 5 bba 6047.

00:28:13 now where you were talking about product are you being specific about whether the product is a standard sample the pe court or the fr call

00:28:24 court or the fr call it would apply irrespective of the court

00:28:29 well at 6.1 it says a standard sample of the product with a gray green duragloss coating

00:28:37 coating so are you saying that um you're only certifying the pe version of the product with a gray green coating

00:28:46 coating and not the fr version of the product with a gray green coating

00:28:54 yes that's in terms of fire classification that's the only classification that we had yes

00:29:02 yes and so at 6.2 you're saying that for the fire retardant sample of the product it's only the metallic gray color that is covered by the certificate is that right

00:29:13 is that right yes

00:29:15 yes and we can see there are two different types of coating that are being quoted in the certificate the pvdf coating and the duragloss 5000 coating now can

00:29:26 and the duragloss 5000 coating now can can you clarify for us do you mean that the colors also have to have the same coating to be covered by the certificate so for the top one in 6.1 it's not only

00:29:37 so for the top one in 6.1 it's not only got to be

00:29:38 got to be p

00:29:39 p grey green but it's also got to have the duragloss 5000 coating

00:29:46 yes

00:29:49 and for the at 6.2 the fr sample of the product would have to be metallic gray and it would have to have the pvdf finish not any other type of coating is

00:30:00 finish not any other type of coating is that right yes

00:30:04 so effectively the scope of the certificate is for three very specific products

00:30:09 products pe grey green duragloss fr gold jira gloss and fr metallic grey pvdf

00:30:17 pvdf and nothing else is that correct

00:30:22 you said the scope of the certificate um that's slightly different the scope of the fire classifications are as you described yes

00:30:32 yes i mean when i'm talking about sorry when i'm talking about the scope of the certificate i'm talking about it in terms of its fire performance yes just to clarify so

00:30:41 so you're saying that the certificate is just for those three very specific products yes yes

00:30:51 doesn't that limit the certificate enormously to the point of almost uselessness if it only applies to those specific colors and those specific coatings

00:31:05 and those specific coatings yes it does very often a fire classification report is provided which does cover the full colour range in those circumstances the certificate wording would be different

00:31:17 wording would be different this does require that for a particular installation the the color and the configuration to be used on a building must be tested in order to determine its reaction to fire

00:31:28 determine its reaction to fire classification and therefore its suitability for that particular installation right

00:31:35 right well let's just test that a little and just look at some some other points

00:31:40 points if we go to page three of the certificate

00:31:47 under the the heading the second heading down technical specification at 1.1

00:31:55 we can see

00:31:59 that it tells us

00:32:03 yes if you look in the third line down there's a

00:32:08 there's a there's the word a at the very end of the

00:32:11 the line on the on the right hand side it tells us in this description that a duragloss or pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed face

00:32:26 and we saw in the evidence of mr gregorian that this particular statement was inserted at the request of our conic now wouldn't the reader of this part of the certificate understand this to mean

00:32:38 the certificate understand this to mean that the durogloss or pvdf coating in whatever colour was covered by the statements made in this certificate

00:32:50 well the performance in other aspects is covered by this certificate its lightfastness is structural performance and various other performance parameters are not affected in the same way as the fire classification again you must read

00:33:03 fire classification again you must read the full certificate

00:33:06 i see so you're expecting somebody to read that sentence there a duragloss or pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed face but to understand that

00:33:18 but to understand that in the fire performance section what you're saying about fire performance only covers very specific products and very specific coatings yes

00:33:29 products and very specific coatings yes i think is it section 6.4 makes it very clear that this fire performance is not achieved by other cuts or may not be achieved by other colours of the product i do think that is quite clear

00:33:40 i do think that is quite clear yes

00:33:42 yes you say in paragraph 104 of your statement we just looked at it that two different colors could achieve different classifications if the numerical result is close to the transition point from

00:33:53 is close to the transition point from one classification to another do you remember where we just looked at that just now

00:33:58 just now yes

00:34:00 yes can we go to an email chain this is bba three zeros 106.93 this is an email chain between you and mr gregorian in october 2007.

00:34:12 mr gregorian in october 2007. and if we go to the second email down on the first page this is from you to him

00:34:21 and we can see um in the

00:34:25 in the third paragraph so you said hammer i think your wording is generally appropriate and this is just to be clear about the alcoa raynabon cladding panels and then you say something about

00:34:37 and then you say something about durability in the second line and then in that third paragraph you say i don't know what statement you are making on file performance but it is now our policy

00:34:46 policy that reaction to fire testing is color specific either if you have a fire test report for a particular color then the results only apply to that color not the full range

00:34:58 that color not the full range you can't say that the whole range is class naught low risk for example

00:35:04 now um it's right isn't it that no one at the bba considered whether these colors were close to the transition point between classifications did they

00:35:15 point between classifications did they no

00:35:16 no this was just standard wording that was uh inserted upon your instruction wasn't it it was my advice not my instruction but yes

00:35:27 yes yes your advice then and it's not inserted for any technical reason pertaining to rayna bond it's just bba policy to make that color caveat clear at the time yes

00:35:39 at the time yes yes

00:35:40 yes what had led to the the change in in policy that you're referring to in that email

00:35:46 email you say it is now our policy that reaction to fire testing is color specific what had led to that change

00:35:54 at this time i was section head of a a different department dealing with paints coil coatings products where color was was really quite important

00:36:05 quite important from an architectural perspective i had been advised i think initially by x over wellington that color could make a significant difference to the classification

00:36:18 difference to the classification achieved by product i was surprised by that and i subsequently raised it with bre for confirmation and they did confirm that this was the case

00:36:29 that this was the case so once i had that information from two ucas accredited file laboratories i made the rest of the bba aware of that position

00:36:38 position right and can you recall who was it at the bre that you spoke to about this point

00:36:46 i can't be sure it was 2007. probably sarah carl well but that's that's not a statement of fact she was my usual contact it may have been someone else and can you help us what kind of test or

00:36:59 and can you help us what kind of test or assessment was the bba recommending should be carried out by construction professionals on different colors of a product

00:37:09 product it would be the process defined in improved documents so bs4 the british standard bs476 parts six and seven i see

00:37:22 just stepping back from this is it right that the bba was keen to limit the certificate in terms of color but not and fire performance but not in terms of fixing method

00:37:34 fixing method i.e cassette rivet

00:37:38 well the certificate is an assessment of overall fitness for purpose of which fire

00:37:43 fire is only a part albeit a very important part

00:37:47 part the only applicable restriction in this case would have been the fire classifications yes but what i'm getting at is is isn't this a potentially inconsistent approach

00:37:59 this a potentially inconsistent approach to be

00:38:00 to be limiting the certificate in terms of of color

00:38:04 color but not making clear that the results that you're quoting for fire performance were for the rivet and not the cassette

00:38:16 yes i think i acknowledged on thursday that we should have included the fact that those fire test reports were specific to the riveted product

00:38:30 yes so can we agree that this is an inconsistent approach to be saying on the one hand that it's limited by color but not to say it's limited

00:38:42 to say it's limited by fixing method now i think it's two different things the the color is a deliberate policy

00:38:51 policy composed across all product types by the bba

00:38:55 bba the failure to refer to riveting is an error i see

00:39:02 i see now the reality is that beat that reynabon came in a plethora of colors and finishes now it's right isn't it that the bba project managers would have known that

00:39:13 project managers would have known that having reviewed the reynabond marketing literature yes yes

00:39:20 but despite that this certificate has extremely serious color caveats reducing its usefulness to just three very specific products is that right

00:39:34 it does have those caveats i'm not sure it reduces its usefulness because it instructs a potential specifier to obtain the necessary fire classification for that

00:39:45 necessary fire classification for that configuration and color right

00:39:50 right if we go back to the email chain that i was just looking at with mr gregorian um bba 3010693 and just look at the top of the page

00:40:04 mr gregorian in response to your advice he says thanks john i'll change the text we fire and have a chat with you later regards hamo now as to that do you recall reviewing

00:40:15 now as to that do you recall reviewing or commenting on the text of section 6 of the bba certificate prior to that certificate being issued on the 14th of january 2008

00:40:26 no i doubt i would have done so

00:40:31 why do you doubt you would have done so given this exchange because i was working in a different team

00:40:39 team within the bba and i was not advising on the

00:40:43 the detailed text of the certificate other than this email it was a general policy across the business and not specific to this job

00:40:54 business and not specific to this job do you recall having any other discussions with mr gregorian about the text of section 6 of the certificate before it was issued

00:41:04 i may have done what i don't recall okay now i'm now going to turn to ask you about the reviews of the certificate that were carried out subsequently we heard in the oral evidence of uh miss

00:41:17 we heard in the oral evidence of uh miss valentina amoroso that there were a number of reviews of certificate 084510 during its lifetime and we've understood the chronology just

00:41:28 and we've understood the chronology just to help you with that to be broadly as follows there was a review which started in december 2010 and closed in april 2011. that was the 2011 review there was then a second review which

00:41:39 there was then a second review which started in october 2013 and closed in april 2015. we're going to call that the 2015 review the bba then offered a reissue contract

00:41:51 the bba then offered a reissue contract to iconic but this was not processed by the bba despite being signed by

00:41:58 signed by iconic

00:41:59 iconic then there was a review which started on the 12th of october 2016 and went through to november 2016 that's the 2016 review

00:42:10 the 2016 review and then the bba again offered a reissue contract to arconic in 2016 and that was taken up

00:42:17 taken up and the fire at grenfell tower occurred during the work being done on the certificate during that 2016 reissue contract

00:42:26 contract so that's the background now in terms of the terms that apply to these uh reviews can you just help us with this we see in the documents that have been disclosed about the reviews

00:42:37 have been disclosed about the reviews that they're from time to time additional terms and conditions that applied specifically to them

00:42:44 them we have sought clarification with this from the bba as to precisely what conditions would have been applicable to the reviews and we understand the bba's position to be that there were additional terms and

00:42:56 that there were additional terms and conditions for the reviews but that the original contract terms entered into in 2007

00:43:02 2007 would have remained in force for the lifetime of the certificate is that correct is that consistent with your

00:43:11 yes understanding believe the review terms conditions refer back to the original yes so proceeding on the basis that the 2007 contract terms applied to the

00:43:22 2007 contract terms applied to the reviews

00:43:23 reviews can we just return to those terms and conditions in the technical file for this assessment this is at bba 408042 at page two

00:43:46 so these are the certificate terms and conditions this is taken from the file that we have for this rainer bond certificate and if we go to page three we see the claude seven obligations

00:43:59 the claude seven obligations upon our conic we can see those on the left hand side on the left hand column and

00:44:06 and we can see that under 7a there's an obligation to disclose the bba full particulars of and relating to the subject including and then there's a whole

00:44:17 including and then there's a whole list of particulars that have to be provided

00:44:21 provided and then if we look at clause 7g further down in that column

00:44:32 we can see that it was an obligation of the main contract to immediately notify the bba of any change in the particular supply to the bba or any third parties and also of any new

00:44:43 or any third parties and also of any new or additional information concerning the subject or its suitability for the specified use including without limitation to the generality of the foregoing details of claims by users of

00:44:54 foregoing details of claims by users of the subject that is or it is or maybe unsatisfactory for the specified

00:45:00 specified use so those are the main contract terms and if we could also look at page four

00:45:07 page four of this certificate sorry of this contract we can see on the left hand side at the top is clause 13.

00:45:18 and this deals with withdrawal or suspension of the certificate and it makes clear that the bba shall be entitled to withdraw or supply or suspend the certificate at any time by

00:45:30 suspend the certificate at any time by notice in writing to the applicant and then without prejudice to the generality of that may withdraw or suspend the certificate by notice and then there are some

00:45:41 by notice and then there are some particulars given about certain circumstances including for example at b there's any change in the technical specification of the subject as assessed and set out in the

00:45:52 subject as assessed and set out in the certificate so that's the um the contractual provision that governs withdrawal or suspension of the certificate

00:46:02 now just in general would you agree that a review should be a thorough and comprehensive process yes

00:46:11 yes and would you agree that a meticulous and careful review process is essential to the trust that the construction industry has in bba certificates

00:46:22 certificates yes

00:46:23 yes now i want to focus with you at this point on the the review that took place between 2013 and 2015.

00:46:33 now as we heard from miss amoroso during her oral evidence this commenced in october 2013 when the former project manager maria barbato

00:46:43 barbato wrote to arconic if we can look at her letter that's at bba 408090

00:46:58 this is miss barbato's letter 8th of october 2013.

00:47:05 and if we go to page 2 under the heading submission of data at the bottom of that page

00:47:14 page it's stated it is necessary for the bba to be supplied with the following information in order to carry out the review of your aggramar certificate then the number is given

00:47:25 then the number is given and

00:47:27 and in one it says it's the normal practice to do a written survey of users of the product

00:47:32 product and there's a typographical error in there referring to stone like cladding panels in the second line and then we see it a paragraph two written confirmation that there have

00:47:43 written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design specification context of use or other details that would invalidate the certificate alternatively please specify any changes

00:47:56 alternatively please specify any changes and then it goes on about factory production and control in paragraph three

00:48:02 three and regarding factory production and control they are asked for full details of any changes to and then a whole list we see raw materials and then if we go over the page

00:48:13 over the page the manufacturing process quality control procedure and then the list goes on we don't need to go to the other items in the list and we can see this is signed maria barbato

00:48:24 we can see this is signed maria barbato so that was october 2013.

00:48:29 and um do we take it from that that by this time so october 13

00:48:37 um and i think by this time your head of approvals of construction products is that right

00:48:45 you held that position between 2013 and 2019

00:48:51 yes there was a brief period where i was head of approvals for the energy and ventilation team and i believe that's missed from my statement

00:49:02 that's missed from my statement that was for a brief period before the three teams were merged into two teams at which point i became head of construction products so i mean right my statement wasn't entirely correct in terms of chronologically i

00:49:15 correct in terms of chronologically i see can you remember the date when you became head of construction projects i think it was 2013 but not precisely right

00:49:25 right now do we take it from this that by this time it was customary to require a certificate holder at such a review to provide both factory production control data that was

00:49:36 factory production control data that was paragraph three and

00:49:39 and the written confirmation you can go back a page in the letter the written confirmation that there have been no changes that we see in paragraph two was that customary practice within the bba

00:49:52 customary practice within the bba yes

00:49:54 yes and we saw in the evidence of miss amoroso that she sent similar versions of this letter herself or sent a similar version of the letter herself for the transcript the references at bba408098

00:50:07 and that also contained an identical request

00:50:11 request for written confirmations that there have been no changes in the design and then we saw that the project managers sent a number of requests for this information over a protracted

00:50:23 this information over a protracted period

00:50:25 period that's between october 2013 and january 2015.

00:50:29 2015. miss barbato herself sent six requests in writing and also had several telephone calls and miss amoroso and mr nakomo sent five written requests

00:50:41 written requests so in total that's 11 written chases in that period now

00:50:48 now was that volume of correspondence on this review normal in your experience no

00:50:58 didn't it indicate to the bba that it had a recalcitrant certificate holder

00:51:09 i would have expected more of a response after that number of chases yes

00:51:17 yes not not just more of a response but a response yes because you had no response to that yes

00:51:27 didn't it indicate that iconic weren't interested in sharing information with the bba

00:51:37 certificate holders very often were slow to respond for requests for information this is not unique or even an unusual situation at that time

00:51:49 i see so you you've accepted that the volume of correspondence on this review was

00:51:55 was was was not normal but you're saying that this was not a unique or an unusual situation is that right

00:52:04 right it was

00:52:05 it was common

00:52:07 common for certificate holders to be slow in responding this is an exceptional extreme case i believe right you say it was common for certificate holders to be slow in

00:52:18 certificate holders to be slow in responding what about no response at all to that question posed and again and again 11 times

00:52:27 again it was unusual but not unique in these situations it was

00:52:34 it was to the discretion at that time of the line managers whether enough information was available elsewhere to enable a judgment to be made as to whether or not the certificates continue

00:52:47 whether or not the certificates continue to represent the performance as assessed

00:52:52 right well i'll come to the decision that was made about this in just a moment

00:52:56 moment and what we know is that miss amoroso did succeed eventually in establishing a signed quality plan and setting up some ongoing surveillance but she did not succeed in getting the

00:53:08 but she did not succeed in getting the written confirmation that there had been no changes which would invalidate the certificate um can we go at this point to an email she sends in january 2015. this is at

00:53:20 she sends in january 2015. this is at bba

00:53:21 bba 408079

00:53:31 this is the email from miss amoroso to lilia coscook at arconic copying in mr verla and celine ernie and she says hi lilia sorry

00:53:44 celine ernie and she says hi lilia sorry sorry for the late reply unfortunately in the last year we've experienced several problems getting in touch with you and received the required info to progress our job this leading to severe delays in closing

00:53:55 this leading to severe delays in closing this review job for this reason bba has decided to go ahead with the information already in hands

00:54:03 hands and then she says i drafted a copy of the review report and i'm waiting for approval from my team manager after that you will receive it for your personal record

00:54:12 record now did you have any role in the decision to go ahead with the documents already in hand at this point i don't think so this would be in the

00:54:23 i don't think so this would be in the engineering department so i should not have been involved i see

00:54:29 i see do you agree with this decision given that the history that i've just outlined to you which

00:54:37 you which we went through with miss amoroso in detail

00:54:45 i can't really make comments i don't know what information was available from other sources that led to this decision being made but hang on you know

00:54:58 but hang on you know that the manufacturer has been asked at least 11 times in writing for confirmation that there have been no changes

00:55:07 changes undermining the certificate how could

00:55:12 how could information that you do have in your hands

00:55:16 hands affect the fact that you are missing that important confirmation

00:55:23 i don't know what information was available i would imagine that technical literature performance claims were examined and that there was no contradiction in the claims being made

00:55:35 contradiction in the claims being made by the manufacturer compared to those made in the certificate that would have given reassurance that nothing had changed at this time there was discretion

00:55:46 at this time there was discretion given to team managers to proceed in this way

00:55:50 this way i would have expected the team manager to speak to his boss the head of approval

00:55:55 approval certainly in my team that was how it worked

00:55:58 worked and so

00:55:59 and so a decision would have been made at a senior level within the bba that sufficient information was available we have changed the process now and this discretion no longer applies

00:56:12 discretion no longer applies in these circumstances under the current processes the certificate would be suspended

00:56:18 yes well thank you for that um but going back to what you said about the situation pertaining at the time you said that there was no contradiction in the claims being made by the

00:56:29 in the claims being made by the manufacturer compared to those made in the certificate the bba's job didn't start and finish with the claims being made by the manufacturer in its

00:56:40 made by the manufacturer in its literature did it no

00:56:43 no the bba's

00:56:45 the bba's entire purpose surely was to

00:56:48 was to scrutinize such claims and ascertain by reference to objectively verifiable evidence or information whether those claims were accurate yes

00:57:01 claims were accurate yes yes but the decision had already been made in the original assessment based on data provided to us that appear to validate the claims being made i don't think the bba procedures were

00:57:14 i don't think the bba procedures were ever

00:57:15 ever designed to cope with a situation where a manufacturer would deliberately mishold

00:57:21 mishold fire test data from the bba and continue to do so but but put aside for a moment what had happened when the certificate was first issued we know that arconic

00:57:32 issued we know that arconic came into possession of more fire test information in the ensuing years information which did undermine

00:57:43 information which did undermine that that was in the certificate why was it important for the bba to get an answer to the question whether anything had changed

00:57:55 given the fact they had already misrepresented the performance of the product and were continuing to do so despite the fact they had additional fire test data again our procedures did not envisage

00:58:07 again our procedures did not envisage such a situation could occur that someone could behave in this manner and deliberately mislead us but with fire test data wasn't it envisaged that there could be retesting

00:58:20 envisaged that there could be retesting of products periodically as we've seen in in some of the um underlying fire test information where it recommends that tests are carried out at

00:58:31 at intervals to check whether the information still remains valid yes that's true and if that were the case then i would expect that a responsible manufacturer would immediately

00:58:42 immediately change the claims being made for the process based on the new fire data available to them i'm assuming that they did not do so because we would have checked that as part of the review process

00:58:57 right but here you haven't just got a void an absence of information you have 11 requests where you've asked for that information you've asked whether they've been any

00:59:09 you've asked whether they've been any changes that should have been a very simple thing for archonic to answer shouldn't it yes it should and you've had those 11 requests go by and they haven't said anything to you

00:59:20 and they haven't said anything to you shouldn't that have alerted suspicion within the project managers that something was awry

00:59:29 well again we may well have been naive but i don't think that suspicion that someone was deliberately misrepresenting the performance of their product in a safety critical manner would have occurred to us

00:59:43 mr nakomo said that there was a general instruction in place that if project managers were not getting all the information that they've been chasing for

00:59:53 for that project managers should then complete the review with what you have and close the job that was his evidence at day 107 page 48 and lines 54-55

01:00:04 page 48 and lines 54-55 sorry and pages 54-55 were you aware that this was the approach that project managers were following at this time to complete the review with what you have and close the job and move on

01:00:18 i think mr incoma may have accidentally slightly misinterpreted the position i would have expected him to discuss that situation with his line manager as part of regularly monthly

01:00:29 manager as part of regularly monthly updates

01:00:31 updates and that they should come to a decision between the two of them to close the job on the basis of the information available that was my experience i see i understand you're saying in terms of the process he should have

01:00:43 terms of the process he should have followed he perhaps should have gone one level higher than him himself but in terms of the basic point that he's making he said there was a general instruction in place that if project

01:00:54 instruction in place that if project managers were not getting all the information they've been chasing for that then they should complete the review with what you have and close the job

01:01:01 job are you suggesting that he's he's making that up or was that indeed the general instruction at the time no i'm not saying he's making it up i think he's just slightly

01:01:13 think he's just slightly not given all of the full information and certainly the intention was to close the job if possible but only if the information available to you to him was such that he could have confidence

01:01:25 was such that he could have confidence in closing that job it's a case-by-case process it's not an overall instruction and how was that communicated to

01:01:36 and how was that communicated to project managers and managers such as mr nicomo

01:01:41 nicomo through training ongoing mentoring and the fact that there would be a minimum of monthly meetings initially between the project manager and the team manager

01:01:53 and the team manager to discuss all ongoing jobs and then the team manager would meet with the head of approvals in the same way to discuss problem jobs so in that scenario i would expect that

01:02:04 so in that scenario i would expect that this would have been discussed with the head of approvals and a decision made on an individual basis that it was appropriate to close the job right but it would appear that didn't happen in this instance yes i don't know

01:02:17 happen in this instance yes i don't know did you endorse that approach that general approach of if you can't get all the information you just complete the review with what you have and close the job

01:02:27 job at the time yes that was consistent across both teams as i said we have perhaps recognized that we were naive and changed the process as it stands at the moment

01:02:38 process as it stands at the moment right

01:02:40 right miss amoroso said that it was the common practice within the bba that suspension would only happen where there was in her words active denial from the certificate holder to allow factory visits

01:02:53 holder to allow factory visits that was at day 106 page 82 lines 16 to 20.

01:02:58 20. is she right about that was it common practice that suspension would only happen where there was active denial to allow factory visits

01:03:10 i think she's incorrect that is a scenario where suspension would certainly happen but there are many other situations where certificates may be suspended

01:03:21 can you explain how that came to be her understanding of the circumstances and the indeed the only circumstances in which suspension would occur no i can't

01:03:35 was there any written policy or guidance to project managers about when a failure to communicate with the bba should be escalated

01:03:45 this would be discussed on an individual basis in the meetings that i have described

01:03:52 when you say this would be discussed um do you know for a fact that it was discussed

01:03:59 discussed uh

01:04:00 uh on a regular basis at the time or is that speculation on your part it's speculation on my part i can only speak from my own personal experience the way

01:04:11 the way matters were managed in my team the intention was that it should be consistent across both teams our procedures are consistent across both teams and i would be surprised if that were not the case

01:04:23 surprised if that were not the case i don't have personal experience to confirm that then so is when i asked you the question was there any written policy or guidance to project managers about when a failure to

01:04:34 project managers about when a failure to communicate with the bba should be escalated is the answer to that question no

01:04:43 i can't recall a specific policy that would cover that scenario but every job that we do is handled on an individual basis and it is discussed with line management

01:04:54 with line management who are familiar with processes as are the project managers was there any written policy or guidance given to project managers about when to escalate a case for consideration for

01:05:06 escalate a case for consideration for suspension

01:05:10 again at an absolute minimum monthly basis each job will be discussed with line manager and scenarios for handling individual situations will be developed

01:05:23 who are you saying would have been the the line manager that this should have been discussed with who was that at the time this is

01:05:32 i'm sorry i spoke over you would be the head of approvals brian chamberlin right but again i think the answer to my question is no is this right that there was no written policy or guidance given

01:05:44 was no written policy or guidance given to project managers about when to escalate a case for consideration of suspension there are documented procedures dealing with the suspension of certificates

01:05:55 with the suspension of certificates policies cannot possibly cover individual circumstances because they are subtle and nuanced and have to be discussed

01:06:03 discussed and when you say there are documented procedures dealing with suspension of certificates are you saying that those written policies don't cover at all the circumstances in which suspension ought

01:06:14 circumstances in which suspension ought to be considered or escalated within the bba

01:06:19 bba that's a subjective consideration that is very difficult to actually put into a procedure

01:06:25 procedure so no

01:06:30 miss amaroso has also said that she did not review the original contract terms with arconic to see what they said during this time can can you explain that why a project manager wouldn't go

01:06:42 that why a project manager wouldn't go back to the contract terms to see what the overarching obligations were in this scenario

01:06:53 i'm struggling to see why project manager would go back to the contract terms the requirements for the review are clear they are there is a standard review

01:07:04 they are there is a standard review letter

01:07:05 letter the standard review letter was sent [Music]

01:07:09 [Music] the consequences for failing to comply with that as i say would be discussed with line management i don't really see it's necessary to go back to the terms and conditions of the certificate

01:07:20 and conditions of the certificate well in circumstances where 11 separate chases had been sent or confirmation that there'd be no changes undermining the certificate wouldn't you have expected the project

01:07:31 wouldn't you have expected the project manager to have reviewed the contractual obligations in their entirety in order to start considering suspension

01:07:40 i think as part of the training the contractual obligations are understood by project managers i don't dispute that i just wonder why

01:07:51 i don't dispute that i just wonder why anyone would need to go back to read the original contract is the principles i think that are important and they would have been understood well

01:08:00 well one possibility is say that they understand the circumstances in which suspension or withdrawal of the certificate can occur but that would not be a decision for the project's manager that there is an escalation process within the bba

01:08:13 escalation process within the bba that ultimately requires a signature of a director there were about four steps in the suspension and it's not the project manager's decision

01:08:22 right so how how do you suggest this ought to have happened that what the the project manager escalated this to mr chamberlain for consideration of suspension yes

01:08:33 consideration of suspension yes no

01:08:34 no i'm saying it would depend on the individual circumstances and i am not aware

01:08:38 aware of what those circumstances were and the basis for the decision that was made if it was considered that it was appropriate to suspend the certificate then there is a process to be followed

01:08:49 then there is a process to be followed and that would ultimately involve the head of approvals okay but you are aware and we've gone through it in detail with the bba witnesses that uh on at least 11 occasions written confirmation was

01:09:01 occasions written confirmation was requested that there were no changes undermining the certificate in those circumstances would you have expected the project manager to have considered suspension and

01:09:13 to have considered suspension and referred it to her line manager for further consideration

01:09:19 yes i would expect this job to have been discussed as with any other job and an appropriate decision made

01:09:27 why do you say i would expect this job to have been discussed as with any other job wasn't this a very unusual situation where those requests had been made time and time again over a two-year period with no

01:09:40 again over a two-year period with no response

01:09:42 response yes

01:09:43 yes it was an unusual scenario although not unique

01:09:47 unique all jobs are discussed on a regular basis with line management and decisions made on the basis of the available information to your knowledge was there any pressure on the bba project managers to close out

01:10:00 on the bba project managers to close out reviews where they incentivize to close out reviews

01:10:08 as with any business there is

01:10:11 there is pressure to complete work in hand when you say incentivized um no there's no financial or personal reward to be gained by closing jobs

01:10:22 closing jobs what about pressure at around this time were you conscious that there was pressure on project managers to be completing and closing out reviews

01:10:34 as with any business as i say there is always pressure to complete work in hand i'm not aware of any particular emphasis at this time the reality is isn't it that the bba is

01:10:46 the reality is isn't it that the bba is a commercial organization so the longer a review takes the less profit the bba will make on the fees that the certificate holder is is paying do you accept that

01:10:58 accept that it doesn't affect profits the the fee is a flat fee for a review um i should emphasize yes there is commercial pressure to complete work

01:11:08 work that is never overriding the technical integrity of what we do that is always paramount

01:11:16 paramount were you ever made aware that there was a leaderboard or tally in the bba office showing the number of closed-out reviews for each team no

01:11:27 for each team no you were never aware of that at any stage

01:11:32 now we know now that by this stage arconic had further fire test data in october 2011 arconic had performed another european test of the reynabond pe in cassette form

01:11:45 reynabond pe in cassette form and this time the cstb issued a classification report saying that cassette form was a class e then more tests were done at the end of 2013 and on the 31st of january 2014 the

01:11:57 2013 and on the 31st of january 2014 the cstb

01:11:59 cstb issued a classification report that rayna bond in either rivet or cassette form was class e so all rainer bond panels were european class e that is the time when miss maria barbato

01:12:12 that is the time when miss maria barbato was seeking information from arconic that classification of e for both panels lasted for the better part of the year and then on the 4th of december 2014 at

01:12:23 and then on the 4th of december 2014 at our conic's request the cstb issued new classification reports the rayner bond p e rivet dropped from the class b and was classified as a c s

01:12:34 the class b and was classified as a c s 2 d

01:12:35 2 d and the raynabon pe cassette was classified as e now in those circumstances it's right isn't it that had the bba insisted that arconic produced written confirmation

01:12:47 arconic produced written confirmation that there were no changes undermining the certificate the bba might well have been alerted to the fact that the fire performance was wrongly stated on the certificate do you

01:12:58 wrongly stated on the certificate do you accept that if they had told us yes but i would have expected them to provide us with those fire test reports in accordance with their contractual obligations

01:13:09 their contractual obligations i would also have expected them to update the fire classifications being claimed for their product in their technical literature yes but i think we can agree also can we

01:13:21 yes but i think we can agree also can we that you would have also expected the bba to have insisted on confirmation that there were no changes which invalidated the certificate

01:13:33 invalidated the certificate i think given the history of communications with arconic i would very much doubt they would provide us with that information but if they had done so then yes it

01:13:45 but if they had done so then yes it would have alerted us can we just look at what you say about this in your second witness statement that's bba 3010723 at page 34 paragraph 138

01:14:03 you say there 138 as previously described in point 21 above no response was received from the certificate holder to these requests for the first two reviews as much of the necessary

01:14:14 reviews as much of the necessary information was available to the bba from other sources such as the internet a decision was made to continue the certification on the basis of the information that was available on the

01:14:25 information that was available on the understanding that there had been no significant technical changes affecting the certificate and you go on bba procedures do allow sanctions to be taken for example when there is a

01:14:36 there is a lack of cooperation by certificate holders and this could lead to suspension or withdrawal of a certificate however on my review of the documents in this case i can see no reason to believe

01:14:48 this case i can see no reason to believe that there was any additional information conflicting with that given in the certificate in addition the certificate holder was continuing to cooperate in other ways such as maintaining the surveillance

01:15:00 such as maintaining the surveillance operated over the manufacturing process it seems to have been considered at the time that withdrawing the certificate would be a disproportionate response to the lack of communication from the

01:15:11 the lack of communication from the certificate holder during the review process

01:15:16 process now

01:15:17 now can you explain in circumstances where alconic had been asked on multiple occasions to confirm that there had been no changes which would undermine the certificate and had never responded why you are saying there that it was

01:15:29 why you are saying there that it was considered that withdrawing the certificate would be a disproportionate response to the lack of communication

01:15:38 well that was a conclusion drawn by other people so i can't comment on whether or not it was appropriate i can only imagine that the information available at the time

01:15:48 time gave the necessary reassurance that there was no contradiction between the performance being claimed and that that was given within the certificate

01:15:59 well they were not cooperating in a significant way with the review were they we can agree that yes and if they couldn't confirm there'd been no changes you could have no

01:16:10 been no changes you could have no confidence that your certificate was an accurate statement about the performance of the product could you well it was consistent with the claims being made by the manufacturer

01:16:22 why why did that give you confidence that the certificate was an accurate statement about the performance of the product

01:16:30 product well as i've explained i don't think our procedure

01:16:33 procedure a situation where there would be deliberate misrepresentation of the performance of the product with a fire safety critical aspect of performance such as this but if all you're doing in these reviews

01:16:46 but if all you're doing in these reviews is looking at whether there's any changes as compared with the manufacturer's literature what is the point of a bba review couldn't an average construction professional do that for themselves

01:16:57 that for themselves well the review goes beyond looking at the manufacturer's literature that's only one aspect of it but there was no information available to us that suggested the assessment made

01:17:09 that suggested the assessment made during the original contract was incorrect and that nothing appeared to have changed

01:17:16 but you'd ask that very question of the manufacturer and on multiple occasions they had not responded so you did have some information available to you that

01:17:27 some information available to you that suggested there might be a problem yes yes there could be many reasons why there was no response though as i said perhaps we were naive but i don't think

01:17:38 perhaps we were naive but i don't think we anticipated the actual reason why there was no response mr nakomo's oral evidence he was the team manager at this time was that he was not even aware that there was any

01:17:49 was not even aware that there was any discussion or consideration of suspension of the certificate that was day 107 page 69 and page 90. how can you explain

01:18:00 how can you explain why suspension doesn't even appear to have been considered as one possible response to the lack of cooperation you were getting from arconic

01:18:11 arconic i don't know i was not involved in that particular conversation

01:18:21 mr chairman if i can just finish this line of questioning it won't take much longer yes all right if we look at your another passage in your second witness statement at page 35

01:18:32 your second witness statement at page 35 paragraph 142

01:18:42 you say this you say the failure of barcode to disclose the existence of other fire test reports including that demonstrating class e performance for the cassette fixing method should have been declared to the bba at the time of

01:18:53 been declared to the bba at the time of the initial assessment and at each of the subsequent reviews the failure to do so prevented this classification being included in the product certification and then you say this we would clearly

01:19:04 and then you say this we would clearly consider this to be unsatisfactory now but could have formed no opinion on the matter at the time of receipt of their response as we were unaware of the

01:19:15 response as we were unaware of the existence of the additional data now

01:19:19 now in that last part of that paragraph doesn't that actually underestimate what was going on here you say you could have formed no opinion uh on the matter at the time couldn't you

01:19:31 on the matter at the time couldn't you have formed an opinion on the fact that archonic was failing to cooperate with the bba by failing to respond to its requests

01:19:41 yes and we have now changed our procedures whereby where no response is received we will proceed to suspend the certificate

01:19:50 the implication from your statement is that you didn't consider that to be an unsatisfactory state of affairs can you explain why not

01:20:02 well clearly it was an unsatisfactory state of affairs

01:20:07 as i've said sorry i am assuming that at the time the individuals concerned considered that there was sufficient information available to them to make a judgment

01:20:19 to make a judgment wasn't this the paradigm case of a lack of cooperation

01:20:28 clearly there was a lack of cooperation for context it was not unique this would sometimes happen and a judgment had to be made on a case-by-case basis

01:20:41 can you accept now that that was a wholly

01:20:45 wholly flawed judgment that was made at the time

01:20:50 yes and for that reason we have now changed our procedures so it cannot reoccur

01:21:01 and shouldn't the bba have suspended this certificate until arconic provided all of the information that had been requested

01:21:09 requested that was not the policy at the time it would be the policy now why that was not carried out at the time i don't know because i don't know the individual circumstances

01:21:20 circumstances i see mr chairman thank you for letting me carry on i think that would be an appropriate moment yes right thank you very much well mr albon we'll

01:21:29 we'll have a break at this point uh we'll come back at 20 to 12 please and um again as i have on previous occasions i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or

01:21:41 to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it during the break all right yes thank you good we'll look forward to seeing a bit later on then thank you very much

01:40:05 welcome back everyone we are ready to continue hearing mr alban's evidence i'll just check that he is in contact with us are you there mr alvin can you see me can you hear me yes

01:40:16 alvin can you see me can you hear me yes i can very good thank you very much you ready to carry on i hope yes good thank you and when you're ready ms grange

01:40:23 grange yes thank you very much um mr albans just some short questions now about the cstb um and we want to know if you can help us with a matter which arises from miss

01:40:35 us with a matter which arises from miss amoroso's evidence on the cstb she said in her oral evidence that she would have expected the cstb to notify the bba if there had been changes to the

01:40:47 the bba if there had been changes to the certified product she said that at day 106

01:40:51 106 page 79 and also page that 206 and following

01:40:55 following and she talked about a mutual agreement between the bba and the cstb in this regard

01:41:01 regard now can you help us was there any mutual agreement between the bba and the cstb about the sharing of information relevant to for example the reynabond

01:41:12 relevant to for example the reynabond product

01:41:15 product not in the way you have just described no other than the cstb providing us with evidence sorry evidence um data during the original assessment

01:41:27 data during the original assessment that was the end of the relationship with regard to raynaud right thank you and uh

01:41:35 and uh there was some or supposed to be some sharing of information relevant to the surveillance of the factory processes

01:41:42 processes which the cstb was to be carrying out and which the bba relied on up until 2015 is that right yes

01:41:51 and and that's what mr nakomo appeared to understand this agreement to relate to he thought it was about the surveillance visits which the cstb were undertaking that was day 107 page 23.

01:42:05 undertaking that was day 107 page 23. um so just to be clear um is your evidence that there was no agreement with the cstb to share test evidence or data more generally

01:42:16 generally than that

01:42:17 than that not that i'm aware of no yeah

01:42:21 yeah so you're not aware of an agreement with the cstb to share information relevant to the rainer bomb products if for example they were retested by the cstb between 2008 and 2015.

01:42:37 thank you now

01:42:39 now moving forward in time to the 2016 review

01:42:43 review we heard from miss amaroso about that 2016 review which commenced in october 2016.

01:42:50 2016. can we just go to the letter that she sent at that point this is bba three zeros one one zero five nine

01:43:04 and if we go to page four within this string

01:43:10 we can see [Music]

01:43:12 [Music] yes thank you is that that yes here we can see the email that she sent on the 12th of october 2016 to mr verla mr schmidt and others at

01:43:24 mr verla mr schmidt and others at arconic

01:43:26 arconic um and she says that um it's about the rayna bond architecture wall cladding panels and this certificate she says i've been designated as the project manager responsible for coordinating the

01:43:37 manager responsible for coordinating the review of your bba certificate and she gives the number and your name has been advised to me as our main liaison contact for this work and then you can see uh what she says is

01:43:49 and then you can see uh what she says is underneath that at our estimated time for the completion of this product project is approximately four months and to initiate the work required for this review within that period

01:43:59 period we require the following information to be provided to the bba by alcoa architectural products and then she says at point one written confirmation

01:44:11 says at point one written confirmation from alcoa that there have been no changes to the raw materials manufacturing process or quality control procedure other than those already notified to the bba

01:44:24 those already notified to the bba then at point two she wants a copy of the current uk technical literature and ce marking if applicable at three a list of customer complaints uh four recent copies of quality control

01:44:36 uh four recent copies of quality control sheets

01:44:38 sheets uh and then she says in order that there are no delays i'd be grateful if you'd reply with the relevant information now that is different from the letter which miss amoroso sent in 2014 in the sense that it does not

01:44:51 in 2014 in the sense that it does not request

01:44:52 request written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design specification context or use or other details that would invalidate the certificate um

01:45:03 um now we've understood from the evidence of mr nakomo that this this email that we see on the screen would not have been a standard form letter but a letter that the project manager would have taken from

01:45:14 have taken from something working out at the time is it right that it was up to the project manager how to phrase the requests

01:45:23 requests for reviews at this time so we're now in 2016.

01:45:29 i was not directly involved it was my understanding there was a standard review template i know for sure there is a standard review template now i thought there would have been at this time

01:45:42 so um would you have expected to have seen the same

01:45:48 the same paragraph about written confirmation no changes repeated as part of this 2016 request

01:45:58 request sorry i'm not familiar with what the standard template would have been in 2016 but i'm surprised it's not there yes thank you now in fact so arconic responded to mr

01:46:09 now in fact so arconic responded to mr miss amaroso in terms first mr remy provides detailed information about the surveillance quality plan and mr amaroso then asked for uk

01:46:20 and mr amaroso then asked for uk technical literature and ce marking etc and mr remy sends her some technical data sheets a brochure about installation and the ce certificate albeit for rayna lux

01:46:33 albeit for rayna lux and

01:46:35 and we can find no other communication in which ms amoroso asked for any kind of confirmation that there were no details that would invalidate the certificate

01:46:46 invalidate the certificate now

01:46:47 now can you tell us whether that was in line with the bba's formal processes and procedures at this time i'm sorry i don't think i can because i can't recall the template that was in

01:46:58 can't recall the template that was in place at that time right so you can't recall what should have been requested no sorry

01:47:06 no sorry i see now

01:47:09 i see now we heard in the oral evidence of miss amaretto that at this time she noticed that arconic were not taking responsibility for the product when fabricated in cassette form and she required all references to that

01:47:21 and she required all references to that to be removed removed at this time um

01:47:29 doesn't it follow from that change that the bba did appreciate that the original certificate did cover the cassette variant

01:47:41 i think that is open unfortunately to interpretation it is it's not to my view but clearly other people thought that it did that change was a very important one

01:47:53 that change was a very important one wasn't it to remove references to the cassette fix because otherwise people might think the performance stated was accurate for the cassette six yes yes

01:48:04 yes wasn't that something that needed to be updated as a matter of urgency

01:48:12 i think the urgency would only apply if we had been aware of the reaction to fire classification of the cassette product and we weren't

01:48:23 why wouldn't the urgency apply also

01:48:26 also once you became aware that arconic was not taking responsibility for the product when fabricated in cassette form well that was something we clearly

01:48:37 well that was something we clearly needed to address i believe we did so as part of

01:48:40 part of this process but

01:48:43 but clearly the urgency to that would be less than it would be for a safety critical parameter right

01:48:50 right well what we see is that the next step was for iconic to enter into a review contract and that change was brought about over a period of months

01:49:00 months can you help us as to whether that was in line with the bba standard processes at the time

01:49:10 i think you mean the issue this this would be the review but if it was a reissue contract the the time to carry out the reissue would vary depending on the amount of work involved and the nature of that work

01:49:24 and does it follow that during that time you could have a certificate remaining in circulation but which you know you want to make a change to narrow the scope of it

01:49:37 yes

01:49:40 now i now want to ask you some questions about um the bba's decisions around this time about the relevant regulatory regime governing governing these acm uh panels

01:49:53 uh panels and if we can look at your um second witness statement at this point bba3010723 at page 24. i want to look at paragraph 95

01:50:10 now in this section of your statement just for context you're dealing with the 2016 review of the certificate and you say at 95 it was also noted that the fire section required updating to

01:50:22 the fire section required updating to include reference to the necessary height and boundary restrictions this was part of a general change of bba policy to give the bba's opinion on the

01:50:33 policy to give the bba's opinion on the interpretation of the requirements of the documents supporting the national building regulations this did not represent a change in the nature or scope of the assessment or certificate and would not have opposed

01:50:45 certificate and would not have opposed imposed any additional restrictions on the use of the product defined in the national building regulations as originally assessed and then you say please see paragraph 149 below for further details

01:50:58 149 below for further details and if we go on to paragraph 149 on page 36 of this statement

01:51:08 you say this it's right at the bottom of the page

01:51:11 the page you say earlier in 2017 before the fire the bba had identified what it considered to be an ambiguity in the wording of section 12.7 insulation

01:51:22 wording of section 12.7 insulation materials products of approved document b volume 2. and then you over the page you say this section reads

01:51:33 and we get the quote from

01:51:35 from uh 12.7 of approved document b and then at one paragraph 150 you continue the issue centered on what would constitute a filler and in

01:51:47 would constitute a filler and in particular whether the polyethylene materials in acms could be so classified since the events at grenfell fire there has been some debate on this issue and an opinion has been expressed by an

01:51:58 an opinion has been expressed by an expert witness to the inquiry dr barbara lane that this is not the case however the bba felt that the existence of the etc in this section widened the definition

01:52:10 in this section widened the definition of the materials covered by this requirement and that it could be concluded that the polyethylene would be required to be of limited combustibility irrespective of whether or not it

01:52:21 irrespective of whether or not it constituted a filler and just to finish this point you say 151 if this was the case as the polyethylene was not of limited combustibility the product would be restricted to use

01:52:32 the product would be restricted to use on buildings up to 18 meters in height

01:52:36 um and

01:52:38 and just to be clear that the you say in the middle of that paragraph that the bbl felt that the existence of the etc in this section widened the definition we can see that at the top of the page

01:52:49 we can see that at the top of the page where it reads in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants gaskets and similar etc used in the external

01:53:02 and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility now taking this in stages can you explain when was this ambiguity

01:53:13 can you explain when was this ambiguity in the wording of 12.7 as you have characterized it first identified by the bba

01:53:22 not precisely around the beginning of 2017 i would think roughly and were you involved in the identification of this ambiguity

01:53:33 identification of this ambiguity yes

01:53:35 yes was it you within the bba that spotted this and came up with this interpretation i think so yes

01:53:45 so what was it that came to change and alerted you to the fact that there was this ambiguity in the wording

01:53:56 i'm afraid i don't remember i doubt if it was an acm issue because i didn't deal with these materials

01:54:05 right so are you saying that it's possible it was it came to your attention because of an issue you were dealing with with another a different product not an acm product yes i think so then i probably applied

01:54:17 yes i think so then i probably applied it in wider context of other uva certified materials right and can you help us as to what other product triggered this consideration

01:54:29 i'm sorry i don't recall was it a some form of composite product with a with a composite with a core in the middle

01:54:40 i don't know um it may be i was reading the section for another purpose and somehow identified this could be a problem for composite products i really don't remember what the catalyst was for

01:54:52 don't remember what the catalyst was for beginning this conversation with people can you just explain to us your thinking at the time in terms of why it's the reference to etc in that paragraph that it potentially widened the

01:55:04 that it potentially widened the definition of the materials to cover the core of an acm

01:55:11 i think initially that the debate centered on whether or not the polyethylene core would constitute a filler

01:55:19 filler and there is debate about whether or not that would be the case

01:55:27 possibly it could be argued that it's not a filler but the fact that there was that presence of etc within the section to me

01:55:37 to me meant that we should look at the purpose behind it and why it was there and that we should not restrict our interpretation to the rigid definition given within the approved document

01:55:49 approved document right

01:55:50 right and you say that you say initially the debate centered on whether the polyethylene core would constitute a filler can you remember when that debate was going on and who was involved in that debate

01:56:01 that debate it would have been early 2017 i think um probably myself and colleagues in the technical department initially so are you talking about an internal

01:56:12 so are you talking about an internal debate just within the bba or were any other organizations involved at that time

01:56:18 time as far as i recall it was internal was it anything to do with doubts about the safety of some acms which had been involved in cladding fires around the

01:56:29 involved in cladding fires around the world

01:56:33 did you have any awareness of such fires in early 2017 broadly yes can you help us as to which fires you

01:56:44 can you help us as to which fires you were aware of in early 2017 not specifically i think there were occurrences in the middle east

01:56:54 can i i'm sorry to interrupt you um the stranger i'd be interested to get uh mr alborn's

01:57:00 alborn's evidence on a related but slightly different

01:57:03 different point and this seems a good time to do it

01:57:06 it um

01:57:07 um the actual regulation it's not in adb is it mr albon it's a separate um instrument and it requires the external walls adequately to resist the propagation of

01:57:18 adequately to resist the propagation of fire that may not be the precise wording but that's the requirement isn't it yes did it occur to you to consider whether uh

01:57:29 uh an acm panel with a polyethylene core which was highly combustible might not be suitable at any level

01:57:42 as i've said previously the bba is not a research organization it's not a fire test laboratory we are required to identify and apply best practice

01:57:54 identify and apply best practice so if there was any evidence in the public domain that this would constitute a danger then yes i would expect us to be aware of it and to take appropriate action

01:58:06 sorry i i think it is for others to carry out the necessary research and place that information into the public domain

01:58:15 domain well i asked the question only because you were obviously thinking about this sort of problem uh at the time in relation to the 18 meter limit and i wondered whether you had thought about it

01:58:28 about it without that restriction in mind but the answer maybe you didn't i think my consideration was really specific to the details given in the approved document um i'm really not

01:58:41 document um i'm really not a fire engineer i'm not qualified to make a wider region reaching judgment um on the basis of my own knowledge i'm afraid

01:58:48 afraid all right thank you very much yes ms grange i'm sorry yes no no not at all um

01:58:55 um mr alban mr nicomo thought that the the dubai and uae cladding fires were part of the reason that the bba added this height restriction wording

01:59:07 height restriction wording that was at day 107 page 97 lines 18 to 22.

01:59:12 22. um

01:59:13 um is he wrong about that that was his understanding that those cladding fires those international cladding fires had led the bba to decide to refer to this height restriction

01:59:26 refer to this height restriction at this point is that right

01:59:30 not that i'm aware of but mr como is a bba technical expert specializing in cladding materials i have a different role within the organization so he may have been having that

01:59:41 he may have been having that conversation with others but not with me but was it you taking the lead in 2017 on making these height restriction changes to bba certificates

01:59:53 restriction changes to bba certificates yes

01:59:54 yes on the basis of the contents of the approved documents though not on specialist knowledge of fires that had occurred elsewhere right were you aware of the lacrosse fire in melbourne australia in november 2014

02:00:07 australia in november 2014 i don't think so no

02:00:11 were you involved in um any the seeking of any external advice or expertise in relation to this point did the bba go outside the organization

02:00:24 did the bba go outside the organization and ask for advice from warrington viax over or the bre at this point about this interpretation i don't think we did now

02:00:36 i don't think we did now why not if you're if you're not fire experts and you say you're the others are much more expert in these matters

02:00:45 matters why not seek external assistance about the proper interpretation of adb at this time well we're not fire experts but we are

02:00:57 well we're not fire experts but we are quite experienced in interpreting the requirements of the approved documents and i believe we formed the view that we had sufficient internal competence to make a judgment on this particular point

02:01:08 make a judgment on this particular point right

02:01:09 right was the bba aware that there was industry guidance dating from as early as june 2014 which suggested that all elements of an external wall panel should be of limited

02:01:21 external wall panel should be of limited combustibility to satisfy the main route to compliance in adb that was in the building control alliance technical guidance note 18 from june 2014. was the bba aware of that

02:01:34 june 2014. was the bba aware of that i was aware of that technical guidance note i don't know if i was aware of it in 2014

02:01:39 in 2014 um but we would base our judgments on the

02:01:43 the requirements of the approved documents which did not have that requirement i see so are you saying you solely

02:01:54 i see so are you saying you solely looked at adb and just on the basis of the language in adb that's how you came to introduce this height restriction into your certificates i wouldn't say i wholly looked at adb

02:02:06 i wouldn't say i wholly looked at adb but that was the basis of that decision yes i would have thought if best practice was felt to contradict the approved documents then the experts would have taken steps to update those

02:02:18 would have taken steps to update those approved documents accordingly yes i think what i said was solely looked at adb so i was just implying that it would adb was your only source of information about this ambiguity yes in that particular instance yes

02:02:31 in that particular instance yes so are you clear that it wasn't any other industry guidance that was instrumental in bringing out about this change of approach within the bba

02:02:42 no i'm not other other colleagues may have had access to other sources of information um which may have influenced their their views when we discussed it

02:02:53 when we discussed it i see for example there was some uri guidance from 2016 which refers to all significant elements of each and every layer of the wall

02:03:04 layer of the wall needing to be of limited combustibility if following the primary route to compliance in adb were you aware of that at the time no i would have consulted the approved

02:03:15 no i would have consulted the approved document

02:03:18 and were you aware of a discussion or debate within the wider construction industry about this ambiguity or anomaly in adb at the time

02:03:29 not that i recall no now um this is a topic to which the inquiry will return in module six but can you help us at this stage as to whether the bba ever

02:03:39 ever had any discussions with the dclg or mhclg government department about this ambiguity or anomaly that you refer to

02:03:56 i can't recall any in relation to acms

02:04:02 acms um

02:04:03 um no i'm not aware of any

02:04:06 so did you ever have any discussions with dclg or mhclg about 12.7 of adb and its interpretation including

02:04:17 of adb and its interpretation including the filler point or the etcetera point at any stage

02:04:23 not that i recall

02:04:27 was this new interpretation of 12.7 of adb a formal policy or stated position of the bba

02:04:38 yes internally yes can you help us as to why we don't see any written documents which record that which record this consideration being given and this change in approach and

02:04:50 given and this change in approach and the rationale behind it

02:04:55 it would have been discussed verbally internally with everyone involved and training given to the staff involved as to the reason the interpretation and the consequences we don't document every single decision

02:05:07 we don't document every single decision we make within the bba wasn't this a pretty important decision you were taking from now on to start putting a height restriction for certain certificates based on

02:05:19 for certain certificates based on wording of adb that was unchanged it was just your interpretation of it that was changing

02:05:27 changing yes it was a significant decision everybody explained the thinking behind the process to everybody and everyone involved with the drafting of certificates would have been well

02:05:38 of certificates would have been well aware of it so why why do we not see any documentation relating to this change of approach

02:05:49 at the time it was not felt necessary to document it as i say we don't document every technical decision that we make were there any training materials reflecting this change in approach

02:06:01 reflecting this change in approach no it was

02:06:02 no it was a verbal briefing and was this position ever communicated to

02:06:07 to industry

02:06:13 i'm hesitating because it was a different team i imagine when we were changing the certificates we would have communicated to the certificate holders but i would not have been involved in that process

02:06:24 not have been involved in that process right

02:06:25 right did the bba ever take any active steps to implement this change of position for example

02:06:31 example by revisiting certificates it had issued for external war materials where this change was potentially important

02:06:42 i think we made the change specifically in relation to acm materials and we were going through a process of updating those certificates

02:06:52 miss amaroso's evidence was that you decided to introduce these height restrictions as and when the certificates were coming up for reissue is that right yes

02:07:05 and and what i want to understand is if you were doing this because you had concerns about the safety of these products and their use over 18 meters

02:07:16 products and their use over 18 meters why why wasn't this a change that you were urgently implementing across all bba certificates

02:07:28 it was our interpretation it was an interpretation that was not shared by others such as dr lane ultimately it was the approved documents that were the arbiter of whether or not

02:07:39 that were the arbiter of whether or not the product could be used above 18 meters the bba certificate has no regulatory significance and so it was down to the judgment of the individual specifying the product as

02:07:50 the individual specifying the product as to whether or not it could be used above 18 meters yes but let's just focus on what you the bba thought were you uh bringing about this change

02:08:01 were you uh bringing about this change because you had concerns about the safety

02:08:04 safety of acm products with a polyethylene core over 18 meters

02:08:12 i think with respect you're applying a great deal of hindsight to the questioning at the time we were making this decision as far as i'm aware there was no no

02:08:23 as far as i'm aware there was no no guidance available to us as to this failure mechanism the melting ponding reigniting of the polyethylene core the safety criticality of that was not

02:08:34 the safety criticality of that was not appreciated as far as i know the approved documents certainly made no reference to it the approved documents now do specifically refer to the core of acm

02:08:45 do specifically refer to the core of acm materials and require them to be of limited combustibility that change was not made until 2019 so

02:08:53 so i think it's clear that this is no criticism of the people responsible for the approved documents but it simply wasn't understood at the time the criticality of this aspect of the product performance had we known this

02:09:04 product performance had we known this could happen of course we would have made it a matter of urgency so is it is it your evidence that you're making this change but but not on the basis that this is a necessary

02:09:17 this is a necessary safety change what just because you noticed that there was this ambiguity and so you decided to do it anyway it wasn't clear to us whether or not the

02:09:28 it wasn't clear to us whether or not the product was restricted we were taking a conservative view but we didn't understand at the time at the significance of what could happen

02:09:38 but surely you must have been taking that conservative view because you had some concerns about the use of polyethylene materials above 18 meters otherwise why do it

02:09:49 otherwise why do it yes we did have some concerns as to whether or not they would comply with the requirements of the approved documents and had we appreciated the criticality of that of course we would have reacted

02:10:01 that of course we would have reacted differently but i don't think we could have done at the time yes and what i'm seeking to understand is given that you did have some concerns as to whether or not they would comply why not implement this change

02:10:12 why not implement this change more quickly

02:10:17 i think i can only repeat myself that we didn't understand the significance and i don't think information was available to us

02:10:24 us that would have indicated the significance of this and you're quite sure are you that it was pre the grenfell tower fire that this change began to be made within the

02:10:36 this change began to be made within the bba

02:10:38 bba i think it was yes

02:10:51 and did the grenfell tower of fire make that work more urgent yes

02:10:59 now after the fire you prepared um a note with mr moore that went to the bba board we looked at that earlier but can we go back to it bba three zeros 10485

02:11:26 sorry that this is um actually we didn't look at this before this is the email uh that uh where brian moore sends uh

02:11:34 uh this briefing note to

02:11:37 to the bba board on the 20th of june 2017 so just a few days after the grenfell tower fire and we can see from the top of the page that it was sent to you and others at

02:11:48 that it was sent to you and others at the bba

02:11:51 and

02:11:55 sorry actually i think we need the second email down sorry

02:12:03 yes sorry that email there mr moore says uh in his email to the board dear board members please find a pendleton note regarding the fatal fair grenfell tower

02:12:15 regarding the fatal fair grenfell tower this is our current understanding based on media reports in summary we are in a reasonable position

02:12:22 position and it says if the cladding system either combination of cladding and insulation is as described in the media then the system is not certificated by the bba

02:12:32 the bba the insulation itself is not certificated by the bba the cladding itself is the certificate is 2008 vintage and was in the process of being reviewed and reissued just before the fire

02:12:45 reissued just before the fire we would be in a stronger position if it's stated in terms not to be used above 18 meters but as the note makes clear the certificate holder user must comply with building regs

02:12:57 comply with building regs we had not concluded any conducted any cladding related inspections at the building

02:13:03 building and and we can see from the email at the top that then this is forwarded to you shortly after it's been sent to the board now can you explain what you understood

02:13:15 now can you explain what you understood mr moore to mean by we would be in a stronger position if it's stated in terms not to be used above 18 meters

02:13:26 um not really it's it's his wording what so

02:13:33 what so did you not understand what he meant by that when you saw this email to the board

02:13:39 i imagine he is stating that from a bba perspective if we had said it could not be used above 18 meters then it would not have been covered by

02:13:51 then it would not have been covered by the certificate yes

02:13:54 yes in in your view should the certificate have stated that that it should not be used above 18 meters given the view that you had formed of the requirements of approved document be in the building regulations

02:14:07 in the building regulations we were in the process of updating it i believe

02:14:10 believe to say that but it is still the approved document that is the governing documents not the bba certificate it's our opinion i understand that but

02:14:22 i understand that but where you say we were in the process of updating it does it mean are you confirming that in your view the certificate should have stated that it should not be used

02:14:33 have stated that it should not be used above 18 meters

02:14:38 i think we had come to the view that the filler the polyethylene core would have been covered by the definition in 12.7 so

02:14:50 it wasn't entirely clear but yes we were saying that of course had we known that it was in fact an e-classification there would have been no ambiguity and it would be very straightforward to

02:15:02 and it would be very straightforward to say it should not be used above 18 meters

02:15:05 meters right

02:15:06 right let's go to the note that was attached to this email of the 20th of june this is uh if we go to bba three zeroes 10486.

02:15:20 and i think you told us i took this you to this at the very outset of your evidence and you confirmed that uh you you wrote this document yes

02:15:30 i wrote to the initial draft yes on a technical basis it was updated slightly by brian moore subsequently but not in the technical basis

02:15:40 basis right

02:15:40 right yes and if we go to page three

02:15:46 paragraphs 16

02:15:49 16 and following you're dealing with the regulatory requirements in approved document b and paragraph 18 refers in in terms and

02:16:00 and paragraph 18 refers in in terms and quotes from section 12.7 and then at paragraph 19 you say appendix a defines the meaning of limited combustibility by a combination of test and material requirements

02:16:13 of test and material requirements it seems most unlikely from the evidence that the ldpe filler material used in the composite panels could meet these requirements

02:16:24 requirements there could be some debate as to whether this call constitutes a filler but we believe that there is a consensus within the bba that it does as such the panels should not in our

02:16:35 as such the panels should not in our opinion be used at a height exceeding 18 meters and as such should not have been used on grenfell tower now where you say there there was um

02:16:48 consensus within the bba that it did fall within uh the word filler

02:16:57 is that right i thought what you told us in your witness statement was that it wasn't reference to filler that

02:17:05 that uh

02:17:06 uh piqued your interest in in 12.7 but it was the reference to etc in paragraph 12.7 that in the bba's view in your view widened the definition of materials

02:17:17 widened the definition of materials caught by the section can you explain for us

02:17:22 yes i think this was written that the day after after the fire at that time i considered that the polyethylene core did constitute a filler

02:17:32 filler subsequently to that i've tried to take on board the opinions of perhaps better qualified people than me such as dr lane uh who believes that it's not a filler

02:17:43 uh who believes that it's not a filler but i still believe the principle applies that it is not restricted to fillers the president of the et cetera widens the definition so i think my argument would stand

02:17:55 i see so i think what you're telling us is that your interpretation of 12.7 has changed as you've heard more discussion about this point is that right

02:18:08 yes partly also i think we were trying to understand the reason for the restriction um in terms of the statutory instrument and the the higher level requirements

02:18:22 and the the higher level requirements right and just to be clear prior to the grenfell tower fire and at the time you were

02:18:27 were uh

02:18:28 uh scratching your heads and having a good think about 12.7 of adb are you saying now that in fact it was the word filler that you thought might cover the core of an acm panel

02:18:42 cover the core of an acm panel at the time yes but you're telling us now in your witness statement that actually it's the reference to etc which you think is the better point is that is that right

02:18:56 at the time i considered it would constitute a filler

02:19:01 filler i have tried to take recognition of the opinions of others but i don't think that it affects the principle of the statutory instrument that

02:19:10 that materials of this kind should not be used above 18 meters right

02:19:16 right regardless of the filler or the other specific wording in that clause once the view was held that

02:19:23 that these panels needed to be of limited combustibility why did the bba not immediately take steps to insist that its certificate holders seek to the reissue of their

02:19:35 holders seek to the reissue of their certificates so as to impose an 18 meter limitation for panels that were not materials of limited combustibility

02:19:46 at the time this was almost an academic exercise that could be debated as to whether or not we were correct as i've said had we appreciated the significance of what could happen clearly we would have taken immediate

02:19:58 clearly we would have taken immediate action but i don't think the information was available to us at the time

02:20:05 i see so you said you were vaguely aware of cladding fires in the middle east and you've accepted i think that this was in part driven by safety concerns

02:20:16 was in part driven by safety concerns and yet despite that are you saying that it was acceptable for the bba not to immediately take steps to insist on changes to these certificates

02:20:27 changes to these certificates to put in the height restriction i was aware of fires in the middle east and elsewhere i think but i'm not aware of any research

02:20:38 but i'm not aware of any research or subsequent publications that had if you like put the blame for those fires on the use of acm materials and the mechanism of failure of those hcm materials

02:20:48 materials had we known that the polyethylene core could behave in the way that it does clearly would have taken a completely different view as to their significance but

02:20:59 but repeating myself i don't think anybody did the approved documents were not updated until 2019.

02:21:06 did it not occur to you once you were aware of fires in the middle east and once you were pondering the meaning of 12.7 that it might be advisable for the bba to take external advice

02:21:18 for the bba to take external advice from

02:21:19 from properly qualified fire engineers about the risks posed by these panels

02:21:27 i think if properly qualified fire experts had understood the risks posed by these panels they would have immediately put that information into the public domain and contacted those responsible for the building regulations

02:21:39 responsible for the building regulations well that's not an answer to my question um

02:21:43 um did it not occur to you once you were aware of fires in the middle east and once you were pondering the meaning of 12.7 that it might be advisable for the bba to take external advice from

02:21:54 bba to take external advice from properly qualified fire experts fire engineers

02:21:59 engineers i thought at the time i still think we are capable of making a judgment on the content of the approved documents which is what we were doing had there been other information

02:22:10 had there been other information available to us as to the performance of these acn materials in fire of course we would have needed to take that on board but i don't believe such information existed but how did you know if you didn't ask

02:22:21 but how did you know if you didn't ask anybody who was an expert in this area because our judgments are based on the requirements of the approved documents so we would take that as being established best practice

02:22:32 let's move on now to some faq documents that were issued um if we can go to met3053158

02:22:43 underscore p18 at page 176.

02:22:58 this is a circular that we believe was sent out from the bba in early 2017 to all local authorities and housing associations can you help us did you um

02:23:10 associations can you help us did you um help in the writing of this document

02:23:16 i would have been involved i'm sure yes if we go to page 177 we can see there are some faq some frequently asked questions there and at the very bottom

02:23:28 the very bottom we can see this statement it says as a consequence of the testing carried out the reinaborn cladding product used at grenfell tower was deemed to achieve a class naught rating

02:23:40 now mr moore thought that it was possible that either you or mr denier wrote this statement do you remember writing that that as a consequence of the testing carried out the rayna bond cladding product used at

02:23:52 the rayna bond cladding product used at grenfell tower was deemed to achieve a class naught rating

02:23:58 i don't remember but i'm sure i would have been involved can you explain why the wording uh is as we see here that the product was deemed to achieve a class naught rating why was that used

02:24:12 class naught rating why was that used i think that's consistent with the wording of the certificate at the time isn't it

02:24:18 well i don't think we see that wording deemed to achieve anywhere in the certificate i think we see phrases like may be regarded as or are judged to meet but we don't see

02:24:31 to meet but we don't see that phrase okay um possibly not that precise phrase but as a principle i think it's consistent with the wording in the original certificate did you know at

02:24:43 original certificate did you know at this time that as a fact reynaborn pe had not been tested in accordance with bs 476 part 6 and part 7. yes

02:25:03 before sending this message to the local authorities and housing associations can you help us to what steps the bba took to investigate the basis on which the 2008 certificate claimed that reynabong

02:25:15 2008 certificate claimed that reynabong 55 may be regarded as class naught or were deemed to achieve a class naught rating what steps did you take

02:25:24 at this time i don't remember

02:25:29 now we we heard in the evidence of mr moore about another q a document published by the bba at the time if we can go to

02:25:36 can go to ctas

02:25:38 ctas six zeros

02:25:41 six zeros 43. this is was it was actually exhibited to mr todd's report at phase one of the inquiry

02:25:58 so these appeared to be some some more faqs that appeared on the bba website and if we look at the very bottom of page one these appear to be

02:26:11 bottom of page one these appear to be dated the 22nd of september 2017.

02:26:17 can you see that yes

02:26:19 yes and if we go to the bottom of page four we can see reference to two updates that are given in this particular version of these faqs about

02:26:31 version of these faqs about corresponding with and receiving correspondence from arconic

02:26:37 arconic can you help us was this q a document actually published on the vba's website

02:26:43 i don't know were you involved in the drafting of this

02:26:48 this i would have been yes

02:26:51 now we heard evidence from mr moore that this faq was challenged by a whistleblower member of staff and that shortly after this ucas uh visited the bba to assess the

02:27:03 ucas uh visited the bba to assess the certificate is that right yes

02:27:06 yes so did ucas visit uh because there had been a complaint by a whistleblower within the bba

02:27:16 as far as i recall ucas didn't tell us they had received a complaint i may be wrong um i wasn't aware of that at the time i don't think

02:27:29 right have you subsequently become aware that one of the ucas visits was due to a complaint made by someone inside the bba

02:27:39 bba as far as i can recall only through the evidence given to the inquiry right now mr moore went on to say in his oral evidence that you dealt with this member of staff and discussed the concerns that

02:27:51 of staff and discussed the concerns that that member of staff had with them do you recall that

02:27:56 there's a slight assumption that i know who that member of staff is and that they made a complaint but yes i did have a discussion with a member of staff who had raised concerns about one of the faqs

02:28:07 faqs yes

02:28:09 yes let's just look at what mr moore said about that if we can get bring up the transcript for day 107 page 148 line 6.

02:28:27 day 107 page 148 line 6. uh

02:28:33 uh actually i think yeah i think we pick it up at line three sorry line two the question is asked and what was the nature of that challenge and mr moore answers again i can't remember the specifics of it it was

02:28:44 remember the specifics of it it was dealt with by another director the commercial director and the head of approvals mr alban met with this member of staff to discuss his concerns the outcome that was fed back to me was there was a difference of view about the

02:28:56 there was a difference of view about the bba's approach and yeah you know the more experienced the scientists mr alban had listened carefully and given a view the non-technical salesperson had a different view and i think the outcome

02:29:08 different view and i think the outcome was that you know the scientist view was reasonable and matters were left there though i think matters were escalated by the colleague elsewhere possibly to the media

02:29:19 media now is that an accurate summary of what happened that there was a discussion with the member of staff and the outcome was that there was a difference of view but

02:29:30 but the scientists view your view was reasonable and matters were left there yes

02:29:36 yes can you help us what does what complaints were actually discussed in that meeting

02:29:44 i'm struggling to remember the specifics it was a slightly disjointed conversation our colleague wasn't a scientist had never been involved in the certification

02:29:55 never been involved in the certification process and as i recall had a slightly confused

02:30:00 confused understanding of the regulatory situation

02:30:03 situation his view was that the [Music]

02:30:06 [Music] approved documents were flawed could not be replied but relied upon and that the bba certificate in some way overrode them

02:30:17 right was that individual also concerned about the frequency of reviews that had occurred in respect of the rainer bond certificate

02:30:28 we may have discussed that i don't recall

02:30:31 recall was this a formal procedure this this complaint procedure that was being followed no it was an informal telephone conversation in the commercial

02:30:42 conversation in the commercial director's office was there a record made of the discussions that occurred not by me

02:30:53 not by me right why by the commercial director it was an informal conversation

02:31:04 but why don't we see some record of the complaint that was made and the response that you gave to that complaint

02:31:14 complaint i wouldn't describe it as a complaint it was an an informal conversation between colleagues if the individual was dissatisfied with the outcome he could have escalated it

02:31:25 the outcome he could have escalated it in writing but as far as i know he chose not to do so

02:31:30 so had he then expressed it in formal terms it would have been documented in a different way to a casual conversation between colleagues

02:31:42 casual conversation between colleagues in an office right

02:31:46 right i see

02:31:47 i see i want to ask you now some questions about the ucas uh reviews that took place now it's right isn't it that the bba is accredited by ucas as a certification body is that right

02:31:59 certification body is that right yes

02:32:00 yes and specifically and you've explained this in detail in your second witness statement

02:32:04 statement ucas accredits the bba to certify wool and cladding products and systems and acm materials fall within the scope of that accreditation is that right

02:32:15 of that accreditation is that right yes

02:32:17 yes and is it right that as part of their accreditation of the bba ucas would do regular surveillance and assessment of the bba yes

02:32:27 yes and typically how often do those assessments occur by ucas they are annual assessments for each of the accreditation standards for which we are accredited there are four

02:32:40 are accredited there are four i see so uh every year each of those four standards are assessed by the ucas is that correct yes

02:32:49 yes yeah

02:32:50 yeah now shortly after the grenfell tower fire there were two ucas assessments as far as we understand it and can you confirm there was one visit on the 12th of july 2017 that was solely in relation

02:33:01 of july 2017 that was solely in relation to

02:33:01 to certificate zero eight four five one oh the one certificate is that correct yes and then there was a second visit on the 15th of august 2017

02:33:12 the 15th of august 2017 and that was after the acm certificates had been reissued with the height restriction wording on them is that correct

02:33:18 correct yes

02:33:21 yes and that second review uh the scope of it related to the reissue of that certificate as well as other reissued acm certificates is that correct

02:33:33 correct i believe so i don't think i was present to that meeting but i have seen the report so yes i think so can we look at the ucas report for the visit on in july 2017. this is at bba

02:33:45 visit on in july 2017. this is at bba three zeros 1073

02:34:00 this is their assessment report and we can see in the table on the right hand side three lines down um

02:34:11 well it says sorry in the middle it says bba and then type of assessment on the right hand side it says accreditation extra visit so would was this visit outside the

02:34:23 so would was this visit outside the usual surveillance that ucas would conduct of the bba yes

02:34:32 and at the time of this assessment report uh did it mostly or indeed entirely concentrate on a review of the bba's records for certificate zero eight four

02:34:44 records for certificate zero eight four five one oh can you help us it was a combination of examining the records and verbal examination of the people involved did ucas look at all of the technical

02:34:57 did ucas look at all of the technical files for this certificate at this time i don't recall we would have provided anything that they asked for right so you can't help us as to whether they saw the whole file

02:35:09 they saw the whole file a lot of the specifics know sorry if we go to page three where we have the executive summary

02:35:21 in the second paragraph down in the third line we can see that you were present and representing the bba at this assessment yes yes

02:35:31 yes and if we go to the third paragraph down it says this during the opening meeting it was confirmed that the ucas lead assessor carrie randall previously worked for the bba and had

02:35:44 previously worked for the bba and had left the organization five years ago during his time at the bba carrie worked within a number of different sections including the section referred to in this report as s3 under the section head

02:35:57 this report as s3 under the section head jeff gurney it was explained that the ucas head of construction and physics sam giles was in attendance to address any conflicts of interest that may arise in connection

02:36:08 of interest that may arise in connection with this and therefore maintain ucas impartiality all present at the opening meeting agreed that the assessment could go ahead on this basis and no conflicts of

02:36:19 ahead on this basis and no conflicts of interest occurred during the assessment so

02:36:24 so just to be clear the the ucas lead assessor carrie randall had previously worked in the department which had

02:36:35 which had had responsibility for the rainer bond certificate yes yes

02:36:41 is it common for former bba employees like mr randall to end up working at ucas

02:36:51 i'm struggling with the definition of common sorry i think there are three or four ex-bba members who work for ucas right thank you and is it right mr nakomo referred to mr

02:37:02 and is it right mr nakomo referred to mr randall as the cladding expert while he was at the bba he said in in around 2011 and 2015

02:37:11 and 2015 uh

02:37:11 uh that that was how mr uh randall was referred to as the cladding expert within the bba is that correct he certainly had a good working knowledge i'm not sure he was the expert

02:37:23 knowledge i'm not sure he was the expert as such but yes he was competent in that area

02:37:27 area the fact that he was an ex-employee of the bba and in department s3 which issued certificate 084510 is a plain conflict of interest isn't it

02:37:42 it could be interpreted as such it's really a question for you cass i think what's the pba

02:37:50 wouldn't mr randall have had an interest in defending the processes by which he himself would have operated

02:37:58 well he wasn't involved in this assessment as far as i recall again i'd have to refer you to ucas for that question it's their decision as to who to appoint to this investigation yes well i'm sure we can

02:38:10 investigation yes well i'm sure we can ask them in due course but i'm just interested in and what you can help us with about this did mr randall take a full part in this assessment it says here that he was the lead assessor did he in fact take a full

02:38:22 lead assessor did he in fact take a full part in the assessment

02:38:25 i think he coordinated the assessment i would say it was led by mr patterson who was the uks fire expert right

02:38:35 right can you explain just going back to what we see on the screen if we look at the last sentence of paragraph that third paragraph down

02:38:45 it says there all present at the opening meeting agreed that the assessment could go ahead on this basis and no conflicts of interest occurred during the assessment that that reads as if it was both the

02:38:57 that that reads as if it was both the bba and ucas that agreed that the assessment could go ahead and no conflicts of interest occurred is that right i think we had no grounds to object to

02:39:08 i think we had no grounds to object to mr randall being present at the assessment so yes i appreciate you might have no grounds to object on one level but did you think that there was a conflict

02:39:19 did you think that there was a conflict of interest in terms of mr randall conducting the investigation when he'd worked in the very department that had issued this bba certificate

02:39:31 sorry with respect it's really not a question for the bba we are not here to appoint

02:39:36 appoint those who are going to judge us if ucas were happy for someone who had left the bba five years ago to take part in this investigation i see no reason to object

02:39:48 i see no reason to object i see

02:39:50 i see now um

02:39:51 now um just to look at some of the feedback that was given by ucas during this assessment if we can go to page 14

02:40:05 what we see in this uh finding what you get is a kind of fine is a finding number and then in the right hand side you get a justification for clearance or request

02:40:16 a justification for clearance or request for further evidence and it says this draft of the updated certificate 08451a provided that includes more provided that includes more representative front-page photograph

02:40:29 representative front-page photograph improved front-page summary of behavior in relation to fire information and clear a reference to product application for use on buildings up to 18 meters

02:40:40 for use on buildings up to 18 meters now those changes that are listed there changes to the image to the front page summary and the reference to the 18 meter height restriction are some of the changes that we see

02:40:51 we see in the certificate on reissue on the 4th of august 2017 um can you help us were those changes made as a result of the feedback from ucas in this assessment

02:41:05 i believe the changes were already being incorporated into a issue of the certificate prior to this assessment the possible exception of the photograph i'm not sure about the photograph but i

02:41:16 i'm not sure about the photograph but i think the others were already being agreed

02:41:19 agreed i see

02:41:20 i see so it's just coincidental that those were also changes that the bba sorry that ucas were requesting i don't think it's coincidental i think they are confirming that the changes we

02:41:32 they are confirming that the changes we are making are proportionate and appropriate i see

02:41:37 i see if we can go to page six um and look at the bottom of the page

02:41:47 there's a header in bold there we go there we go see we can see it says certificate certification documentation 7.7

02:41:55 7.7 and in the third paragraph down it says the certificate content was reviewed during the assessment particular attention was paid to the section relating to fire performance the front page summary of the certificate 08 4510

02:42:07 page summary of the certificate 08 4510 under behavior in relation to fire does not summarise all main classification data it only included the national surface spread class north england and wales and low risk material for scotland

02:42:19 wales and low risk material for scotland therefore it is recommended that it would be better to either include all classification information all keep the headings and refer to relevant section with all the information

02:42:30 with all the information and then they say recommended finding and they give a number for the finding was raised in connection with this so is it right that at the time of this

02:42:41 so is it right that at the time of this assessment ucas were critical of the front page of the certificate and in particular what it said about behavior in relation to fire yes

02:42:51 yes and ucas said that that summary should either provide a full overview of the classifications or just a reference to the section in the body of the certificate where fire

02:43:02 body of the certificate where fire performance is dealt with

02:43:06 yes but they were confirming judgments the bba had already made as part of the reissue process

02:43:13 they were looking at the original certificate not the ongoing draft or the reissue

02:43:18 reissue i see so are you saying you had already worked out that that summary needed to change on the front page yes

02:43:27 yes right

02:43:28 right and if we go up to page to page four at the very top there's a heading conclusion

02:43:38 it says this uh under conclusion it says during the assessment it was seen that the information included within the certificate was supported by appropriate test data and that the surveillance processes in place had identified

02:43:50 processes in place had identified when the content of the certificate needed to be revised

02:43:56 and then underneath the bullet point list just a little bit further down we can see it says overall it was seen that the bba have followed their processes in relation to the certification activities undertaken

02:44:09 certification activities undertaken it was also noted that the processes follow compare well to the requirements of iso 17065 and that the current processes include included good demonstrations of the

02:44:21 included good demonstrations of the effectiveness of the processes and systems to meet the requirements of that iso

02:44:27 iso now when it says that the bba have followed their processes is it right that what ucas was looking at was whether the bba had complied with its own processes and procedures

02:44:41 yes and then it had considered those processes against the relevant iso 17065 standard

02:44:49 standard well they would do that as part of the original assessment of course before they award the accreditation but yes yes

02:44:57 yes did ucas evaluate the assessment and review process in any detail

02:45:07 i think it was a two or three hour meeting but don't you completely recall so in some detail yes so it did evaluate the review process

02:45:19 so it did evaluate the review process did it in in some detail i'm sorry it should say in the reports what they looked at if it doesn't i'm afraid i don't recall the details of exactly which documents they examined

02:45:30 they examined well can you help us with this because we can't find this anywhere in the report what if anything did ucas say about the bba having closed the 2015 review

02:45:40 review without having received written confirmation from the certificate holder that there had been no changes which would invalidate the certificate

02:45:52 i don't recall them commenting on that would they have been aware of the multiple written requests to give confirmation that there had been no changes that invalidated the

02:46:03 no changes that invalidated the certificate that the bba had made of iconic

02:46:08 iconic they had access to all of the information and documents that have been provided to the inquiry so yes

02:46:17 now clearly at this time neither the bba nor ucas knew that arconic had a great deal more test data about rayna bond did the bba and ucas discuss the

02:46:28 did the bba and ucas discuss the information on the certificate and how it actually supported or how it was supported by the test data available

02:46:37 again i don't recall details of the conversation which i'm sure they would have done yes can you help us as to how ucas came to the conclusion that the surveillance processes in place had identified when

02:46:50 processes in place had identified when the content of the certificate needed to be revised

02:47:00 sorry could you rephrase that for me please yes what ucas have come to the conclusion in the report we just read it that the surveillance processes in place

02:47:11 that the surveillance processes in place had identified when the content of the certificate needed to be revised and and can you help us as to how they came to that conclusion

02:47:23 came to that conclusion presumably from a combination of examining the documents retained on the file and verbal examination of the individuals involved

02:47:32 if they mean the surveillance done by the technical assessor that process that surveillance process was not designed to identify new fire performance data was it no

02:47:46 yes now after this ucas assessment as we know the rainer bond certificate was reissued

02:47:55 reissued and do i understand it correctly that you reviewed that certificate before it was reissued is that right yes i was involved in the process of updating all acm certificates at that time

02:48:06 time and if we could just look briefly at what you say about this in your second witness statement if we can go to that at page 37 bba 3010723

02:48:18 to that at page 37 bba 3010723 page 37 paragraph 154

02:48:24 you tell us this at the bottom of the page the second issue also remove the wording that the panel may be regarded as having a class naught surface as it was recognized that this was open to

02:48:36 was recognized that this was open to misinterpretation

02:48:40 and then you say amended the presentation of the fire results but not the results themselves and updated other wording in line with the then standard bba format

02:48:52 the then standard bba format now can you just help us where you refer if we go back to the bottom of the page you say you've removed the wording about the cast naught surface as it was recognized this was open to

02:49:03 recognized this was open to misinterpretation what was that misinterpretation

02:49:09 that all versions of the product could achieve a colossal surface when we did not have fire test data support that assertion yes had the ucas assessors said something about that statement or was it the bba's

02:49:21 about that statement or was it the bba's own decision to change that

02:49:25 we had decided on the revisions that required as far as i remember before ucas made their visit i see

02:49:34 i see and in fact what we know is there was another reissue of this certificate shortly after this if we just go to that at bba6049

02:49:49 right at the bottom we can see

02:49:54 it says that the date of the second issue was the 4th of august 2017 but then two lines down the certificate was amended

02:50:02 amended on the 22nd of september 2017 to remove st panel

02:50:09 st panel can you help us what what does that mean st panel there

02:50:14 for some reason we've referred to the polyethylene product as standard throughout so i assume the st refers to the

02:50:22 the polyethylene or standard panel yes i see

02:50:25 yes i see and at page seven what we see is an updated table

02:50:32 and what we can see in the top of that page in the table is that you've taken out all references to the pe

02:50:39 to the pe panels and this certificate only refers to the fr panels yes yes

02:50:46 yes and we understand that this change was made at the request of arconic following their decision not to sell p e cord rayna bond acm at all in the uk is that your understanding

02:50:58 your understanding yes

02:51:00 yes yes thank you

02:51:03 mr chairman i the next phase of my questions are all about the k-15 kingspan right i'm very happy to begin those now um and and go for the next eight minutes

02:51:16 um and and go for the next eight minutes up to the lunch break um or we could break now and come back slightly before two o'clock are you getting on how are you getting on generally so i'm getting

02:51:27 you getting on generally so i'm getting on well um i think i've got around a half day to go with this witness if we go well this afternoon we may fit in this afternoon if i run into tomorrow that won't be by very much but i'm

02:51:39 that won't be by very much but i'm certainly ahead of time given that this was supposed to be a two-day witness it sounds to me as though we could be slightly generous to ourselves and stop now and return it to a clock unless you tell me that would be unwise

02:51:51 unless you tell me that would be unwise no i'd be entirely content with that and then i can take the topics all right without breaking well there you are mr albon you get a slightly longer lunch hour today um we'll stop now we'll come back at two

02:52:03 um we'll stop now we'll come back at two o'clock

02:52:04 o'clock uh and again as i've said to you before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it over the break all right okay thank you thank you very much we'll see you at two o'clock then please okay thank you

02:52:35 you