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

Full transcript

00:00:13 good afternoon everyone welcome back we're going to continue uh hearing evidence from mr elbon mr alvon

00:00:20 alvon can you see me and hear me kelly yes i can

00:00:24 can thank you very much welcome back are you ready to continue i hope yes in that case i actually invite strange to put some more questions to you yes ms grange when you're ready yes thank you yes good afternoon mr

00:00:36 yes thank you yes good afternoon mr alban

00:00:37 alban i now want to ask you about kingspan and in particular about the bba's certification of the kingspan cool firm k15

00:00:46 k15 insulation product and if we could go first to your third witness statement that's the statement in which you deal with k15

00:00:53 with k15 at bba 3010751 page 15 and paragraph 50

00:01:08 we can see that in the question at question 10 in the middle of that page you were asked by the inquiry about your knowledge of the bba's relationship with kingspan in october 2008 and you say

00:01:21 october 2008 and you say i was aware of kingspan as a holder of a number of certificates but as far as i can recall up to october 2008 i had little if any direct contact with them as i was

00:01:32 if any direct contact with them as i was then employed in other areas of the bba's business now can you help us when was it after october

00:01:39 october 2008 that you did first have direct contact with kingspan

00:01:48 when i became a technical manager in 2009 i had

00:01:57 more involvement in the insulation sector than i had previously i may at that point had some dealings with kingspan um i became directly concerned with them

00:02:09 um i became directly concerned with them when i became head of energy and ventilation uh 2012 2013 something like that right yes thank you and um we'll come on to this in a little

00:02:21 and um we'll come on to this in a little bit more detail but when did you first become involved in any particular certificate for k-15 in any capacity

00:02:31 as far as i can recall that would have been the

00:02:35 been the second issue i think of their initial certificate yes was that the second issue published uh on the 17th of december 2013 yes yes thank you so when you were

00:02:47 yes yes thank you so when you were technical manager between 2009 and 2013 were you responsible for the policies and procedures which applied to the k-15 certificates yes and when you were head of approvals

00:03:01 yes and when you were head of approvals for construction products that's between 2013 and 2019 did the k-15 certificates fall under your area of responsibility yes thank you now

00:03:14 yes thank you now prior to your own involvement i think you're aware that there'd been two previous published bba certificates for k-15

00:03:21 for k-15 issue one dated the 27th of october 2008 and amended issue 1 bearing the date of 6th of april 2010 but which you tell us was not published

00:03:33 but which you tell us was not published until the 12th of july 2013. is that correct yes i should perhaps say there is some uncertainty as to exactly when that was published that's the best

00:03:45 published that's the best date that i can give you it's not entirely clear i see and and when you say that's the best date i can give you how have you ascertained that publication date of the 12th of july

00:03:56 publication date of the 12th of july 2013.

00:03:58 2013. from an exciting i'm sorry excuse me from an examination of the retained records on the bba's files right so there's something in there that tells you that it was likely published

00:04:09 tells you that it was likely published in july 13 yes yes thank you and in your third witness statement you tell us that in respect of uh issue one and amended issue one the project manager and approvals

00:04:20 the project manager and approvals manager for both were george lee and chris hunt respectively is that correct yes let's go to issue one then dated the 27th of october 2008

00:04:32 then dated the 27th of october 2008 at bba 6038

00:04:45 we can see from the top that it's for the cool firm k-15 rain screen insulation board and we can see there's a box underneath that a pale

00:04:57 there's a box underneath that a pale blue box

00:04:58 blue box product scope and summary of certificate and then in the left hand uh corner towards the bottom of the page we can see the date 27th of october 2008. and that's been

00:05:11 27th of october 2008. and that's been signed by

00:05:11 signed by chris hunt head of approvals and greg cooper the chief executive at the time yes yes and on page one under we've got it there

00:05:22 and on page one under we've got it there on the page under the key factors assessed heading we see behavior in relation to fire is the third bold heading and it tells us the boards will not contribute to the development

00:05:35 will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard c section seven now i want to ask you about this particular wording just briefly

00:05:45 briefly to see whether you might be able to assist us where mr hunt could not can you help us what does that phrase

00:05:53 phrase mean the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire i don't know

00:06:04 so you can't help us as to whether that's derived from guidance

00:06:11 no or or from somewhere else within the building regulations or approved document b no do you want me to speculate

00:06:23 no do you want me to speculate uh not at this stage i mean i'm going to ask you a number of questions about this i'd rather you didn't speculate um well what

00:06:34 um well what could the scientific or evidential basis for such an assertion be let's put it like that i don't know

00:06:45 do you understand and did you understand when you came to be dealing with the k-15 product that it was a combustible phenolic insulation material yes

00:06:56 phenolic insulation material yes as such can you explain how it could have been accurate to state that the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

00:07:06 a fire i don't know the basis for that statement

00:07:10 statement because i think we can agree it's not qualified is it it's a definitive statement is it not yes does this assertion concern you at all looking at it now

00:07:22 looking at it now yes it does i would point out that it does refer the reader to the main fire section of the certificate and reiterate that any certificate should be read in full

00:07:33 any certificate should be read in full and no decision should be based on the basis of a single sentence but yes it does concern me yes because actually that sentence doesn't in fact appear in section seven does it

00:07:46 can you remember when you first became aware of that sentence

00:07:54 no i believe it was removed as part of the

00:07:59 the um reissue replacement of the certificate in 2014 maybe 2015 2014 certificate that was issued in 2015

00:08:12 issued in 2015 do you remember reading it and being concerned about it

00:08:18 i remember removing it in 2015 yes and were you concerned at the time that you removed it i didn't feel it was an appropriate

00:08:29 i didn't feel it was an appropriate clause to insert in the certificate so yes i was concerned

00:08:34 well you say i didn't feel it was an appropriate clause can we agree that it was inaccurate an inaccurate statement of how this for not combustible phenolic insulation would behave in fire

00:08:46 would behave in fire as i've said i do not know any scientific basis for making that statement

00:08:52 statement yes mr hunt told us in his evidence that he couldn't remember reading that wording at the time and asking himself what it meant and he also said that reading it now i think it

00:09:03 also said that reading it now i think it confuses

00:09:04 confuses more than it helps can i take it from your answers that you agree with that yes and just for the transcript that was mr hunt day 108 page 173

00:09:15 mr hunt day 108 page 173 lines one to six and page one seven five line two

00:09:19 line two do you accept that the most natural reading of that phrase will not contribute to the development stages of the fire

00:09:26 the fire is that it is a description of something which is non-combustible

00:09:35 i am not sure whether it would be equally true of something of limited combustibility that's beyond my experience i'm afraid either way do you accept that the wording is misleading given that

00:09:46 the wording is misleading given that k-15 is neither non-combustible nor a material of limited combustibility if taken in isolation yes but again you must read the full certificate

00:09:58 well you keep adding that caveat if taken in isolation you must read the full certificate but but nowhere is that phrase explained is it in section seven it's

00:10:11 explained is it in section seven it's just a bold statement that appears on the front of the certificate yes but the true performance of the product

00:10:20 product if you wish to describe it in that way would be given in section seven of the certificate so are you saying that a reader of this certificate should just what simply ignore that sentence on

00:10:31 just what simply ignore that sentence on the first page no they should read the certificate in full and take the performance characteristics given in the certificate against the criteria given in the approved documents

00:10:44 right but what weight should the reader of this certificate give to this statement the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

00:10:54 that's an opinion the factual performance characteristics are given in section 7 of the certificate

00:11:02 and if you take the information given in section 7 and apply the criteria given in the approved documents you can form an accurate picture of where the product can be used i see you say it's an opinion it's a wholly

00:11:13 you say it's an opinion it's a wholly inaccurate and misleading opinion isn't it

00:11:17 i agree we cannot substantiate it yes yes

00:11:21 yes can you help us did the bba ever receive any

00:11:25 any queries concerns or complaints in relation to this phrase so far as you are aware

00:11:35 we did receive some queries about the file wording as a whole i don't know if they related specifically to that clause and who were those queries from we had a

00:11:47 and who were those queries from we had a conversation with nhbc at one point and an inquiry from mhclg yes i'm going to come on to the inquiry from mhclg because i think we have some

00:11:58 from mhclg because i think we have some emails about that you mentioned a conversation with nhbc can you tell us when did that conversation take place

00:12:07 it it was when the certificate was being was either reissued or the 2015 replacement uh specifically to the

00:12:18 replacement uh specifically to the wording

00:12:20 and who was it at the nhbc who you had this conversation with about the wording

00:12:28 wording uh great imperial and dave alexander white

00:12:32 white right and were they concerned about the scientific and evidential basis for that statement

00:12:39 statement as i recall it was more about the classifications given in the certificates rather than that front page statement i see

00:12:49 why when you first saw this did you not investigate how it had come to be included in the certificate in the first place

00:13:05 it wasn't a process i would normally follow if i thought a wording in the certificate was inappropriate clearly i would seek to correct that if the staff involved were still working

00:13:18 if the staff involved were still working in the

00:13:19 in the operational certification side of the business i would have a conversation with them to establish where it had come from in this case both staff members involved had moved on within the business were no

00:13:30 had moved on within the business were no longer working in this area can you help us why wasn't that a process that you would usually follow even if the relevant staff have moved on

00:13:41 moved on uh wouldn't you want to understand whether the training was adequate for staff at the time whether the processes that were being applied for fire performance assessments were

00:13:52 for fire performance assessments were robust why wouldn't you want to understand any of those things well the training had greatly increased since the time that certificate was written we had different project managers we had

00:14:03 different project managers we had different managerial staff in post and ultimately i was signing off the certificates rather than a colleague so there was almost no

00:14:15 overlap between the processes in place in 2008

00:14:18 in 2008 and those in place when i came to head the department i see so you decided did you that you there wouldn't be anything to be learned from investigating how this error had

00:14:29 from investigating how this error had come

00:14:30 come to occur on the certificate i was confident that area would not be repeated

00:14:36 repeated and that the process we had in place at that point were far more robust than they were at the time that certificate was drafted i see but but we know that for example chris hunt did carry on working in the bba

00:14:48 hunt did carry on working in the bba albeit in a different department why wasn't it important to ascertain how mr hunt could have signed off on this certificate when there was no evidential basis for

00:14:59 when there was no evidential basis for that statement because he had moved to a non-technical role within the organization he was heading up product development activities and no longer in a position to make

00:15:11 and no longer in a position to make technical judgments over insulation products

00:15:15 products did you ever speak to mr hunt about this about how this came to occur

00:15:22 not what are we calling

00:15:25 can we look now at page five of this same certificate bba 6038 page five and at section seven on page five

00:15:38 we can see at the bottom the heading behavior in relation to fire and at section 7.1 we can see details are given of a bs 8414 part

00:15:49 are given of a bs 8414 part 1 test which is a large-scale fire test yes

00:15:54 yes yes and then also some details are given below that of a bs en 13641 fire resistance test for non-load-bearing elements yes

00:16:05 for non-load-bearing elements yes yes and you tell us in your witness statement we don't need to turn it up it's paragraph 86 of your third witness statement on page 24

00:16:13 page 24 that the bba was provided with a full copy of the 8414 test report prior to the issue of the first certificate now um the description of the eight four

00:16:25 now um the description of the eight four one four part one test includes six millimeter cement particle boards that's in the second line of that bullet point um and this is the same

00:16:36 bullet point um and this is the same test to eight four one four part one which is referred to in all issues of the certificate for k-15 do you agree

00:16:45 yes and we can see at the end of the third line down so in that first bullet point at the end of the third line it begins the cement particle boards it

00:16:57 it begins the cement particle boards it says this the cement particle boards provided the over cladding for the rain screen

00:17:02 screen system now did you consider at any stage or are you aware of any other bba employee considering that cement particle boards might not be

00:17:13 that cement particle boards might not be able to be used as the outer layer in a rain screen cladding system on a high-rise building

00:17:21 i wasn't involved in the drafting of this certificate but i think that would be an unusual scenario to have an unfinished cement particle board as a cladding

00:17:32 particle board as a cladding yes and did that occur to you when you came to be involved in these certificates after 2008 that was an unusual scenario to have an unfinished cement particle board as a

00:17:43 unfinished cement particle board as a cladding

00:17:45 cladding i was aware of it yes yes

00:17:51 and were you aware that that build-up described was not one that could be replicated on an actual high-rise building

00:18:00 building in what way could it not be replicated sorry well for the same reason because it's a a cement particle board which you wouldn't expect to be used as the outer cladding for a

00:18:11 used as the outer cladding for a high-rise

00:18:13 high-rise building yes

00:18:18 now my next question relates to a matter which we may need to deal with at a later stage in this inquiry but for now i want to ask you this do you recall being involved in early 2014 in

00:18:29 2014 in any discussions or meetings with the bre on the subject of any bba certificate for

00:18:36 for k-15 sorry what was the date again early 2014 do you remember being involved in any discussions or meetings with the bre on the subject of any bba

00:18:49 with the bre on the subject of any bba certificate for k-15

00:18:53 i don't recall one we believe that those discussions may have involved stephen howard

00:18:59 howard and sarah colwell does that help i have met both of those individuals um i'm sorry i really don't recall a meeting about k-15s

00:19:10 meeting about k-15s not to say there wasn't one right so you can't remember a meeting with the bre at which you came to discuss the certificate for k-15 and its wording

00:19:23 the certificate for k-15 and its wording do you know the specifics of what was discussed that might help john we're just going on what other bre witnesses have told us so that's why we're asking you we're not aware there's any notes of that meeting

00:19:35 aware there's any notes of that meeting it is possible but i don't recall it did anyone at the bre ever express to you

00:19:42 you at any stage a view that the 8414 part one test buildup on which kingspan were relying was a non-standard or non-typical system

00:19:53 non-typical system did the bre ever say that to you they didn't but i was aware of that i didn't think that was the purpose of the test

00:20:04 it's not a role that i fulfill but as i understand it it's very unlikely that a actual site installation will exactly reproduce the construction in the test i

00:20:15 reproduce the construction in the test i was above the understanding that they would be used as the basis of desktop assessments by suitably qualified individuals to extrapolate those results to

00:20:26 extrapolate those results to particular real world constructions right so just so just so as i'm clear on your evidence are you saying that the purpose of referring to this test in the bba

00:20:39 referring to this test in the bba certificate was because the bba understood that that would be used for the basis of desktop assessments in the future i understood that they

00:20:51 in the future i understood that they i believed that they could be used for that purpose yes

00:20:56 i see but that's not the premise on which they're included in the certificate is it well they're included as representative test data for that particular construction

00:21:07 construction it is for the specifier and the reader to decide whether or not it's appropriate for a particular installation hmm well we'll come and look at that

00:21:18 hmm well we'll come and look at that wording again in a moment but nowhere in the certificate does it say we've included these details of the 8414 test build up so that desktop assessments can be done

00:21:29 so that desktop assessments can be done on the basis of it it doesn't say that does it no it doesn't

00:21:35 we provide the test data to be used by others on the basis of the requirements of

00:21:39 of a given installation and requirements of the approved documents that certificate does not say it is suitable for use on any particular installation that is a judgment to be made by others

00:21:52 right did you understand that that 8414 test data applied only to the exact materials tested in the exact

00:22:00 the exact same configuration did you understand that

00:22:04 that yes

00:22:07 if we go back to page one of the certificate to the product scope section

00:22:21 you can see that at the top we've got the main cool film k15 main screen heading then the lighter box product scope and summary of certificate

00:22:32 certificate we can see that it says there this certificate relates to cool femme k15 rain screen insulation board a rigid phenolic board with foil composed

00:22:42 composed composite facings for use as external thermal insulation on new and existing

00:22:49 existing steel frame or masonry walls do you see that yes now that reference to the use of k15 on steel frame walls

00:23:00 steel frame walls was not correct in 2008 in relation to buildings with a story over 18 meters was it

00:23:12 i'm hesitating i don't understand what you're asking me um let me ask it a different way given that the bba only had evidence of one test to bs 8414 part 1

00:23:24 to bs 8414 part 1 with a masonry substrate and had no evidence of any testing to bs 8414 part 2 for steel frame structures it was not correct that k-15 could be

00:23:38 it was not correct that k-15 could be used

00:23:39 used on existing steel frame walls in buildings over 18 meters was it well with respect it doesn't say that it doesn't say that you can use it above 18 meters on a steel frame

00:23:51 18 meters on a steel frame construction you could use it below 18 meters

00:23:55 meters on steel frame construction but where does it draw that distinction that you're drawing now where does it clearly state that you can only use it on a steel frame construction if it's below

00:24:06 steel frame construction if it's below 18 meters

00:24:08 18 meters that restriction isn't given in the bba certificate it's given in the approved document

00:24:13 document and as i've said it's for the reader to take the data within the certificate and apply that to the criteria given in the approved document

00:24:21 document why is that not made clear in this certificate why is it not made clear that you can only use it on a steel frame building if it's under 18 meters

00:24:32 if it's under 18 meters it's a fundamental principle of certification we don't say what it's not suitable for in that way

00:24:38 that way it may well be that post publication of this document

00:24:44 a representative bs-8414 part 2 test had been carried out in which case it would be suitable for that construction to be used above 18 meters

00:24:57 construction to be used above 18 meters yes but with respect mr alban you're not dealing with when you issue this certificate you're not concerned with what might happen post-publication surely the bba is concerned with what information it has

00:25:09 concerned with what information it has at the time it issues the certificate yes

00:25:13 yes yes and it only had an eight four one four part one test yes yes so shouldn't it have made clear that for steel frame walls it could only be used if under 18

00:25:26 walls it could only be used if under 18 meters wasn't an important qualification to include as part of this product's fitness for purpose no not at all it's for to specify for an individual building to read the

00:25:37 individual building to read the information in this certificate as you say there is no ps8414 part 2 test in this absence its use as covered by this certificate

00:25:48 covered by this certificate would be below 18 meters but it's the approved documents that make that distinction not the bba certificate

00:25:58 mr alban in your uh first witness statement you have told us this is for the reference bba 50158 page 16. paragraph 64. that the intention is that the certificate is a

00:26:09 intention is that the certificate is a stand-alone document that gives the reader

00:26:11 reader all of the information required without recourse to other documents if it's a standalone document that gives the reader all of the information required

00:26:22 required why isn't it clear from the very first page of this certificate that k15 can only be used in one specific construction over 18 meters

00:26:34 when i wrote of no other documents being required clearly or was not referring to the statutory instrument or the approved documents that support it they are the governing documents to decide whether or not a product can be

00:26:46 decide whether or not a product can be used in a particular situation the certificate gives the specifier the information they need on which to make an informed judgment

00:26:55 judgment if there is no data within the certificate that allows the use below above 18 meters then clearly it is restricted by the approved documents to below 18 meters i see so so far on

00:27:07 to below 18 meters i see so so far on this page have i got this right the reader is to ignore the sentence under behavior in relation to fire and understand that the statement about use

00:27:18 understand that the statement about use in steel

00:27:19 in steel frame buildings is qualified to only buildings below 18 meters is that right

00:27:27 i wouldn't expect any informed specifier to make a judgment on the basis of the first page of the certificate i would expect them to read the whole document if they do that all of the necessary information on

00:27:38 all of the necessary information on restrictions in relation to location based on fire is given in section 7 of the certificate ms grange can i just suggest this regardless of what may come later in the

00:27:49 regardless of what may come later in the certificate the opening paragraph is simply a description of the product isn't it which is designed for use as thermal insulation in different types of construction

00:28:02 different types of construction doesn't say any more than that does it

00:28:06 sorry mr chairman you're asking me are you asking the witness well i'm putting it to you that it's simply a generic it's a generic statement which doesn't seek to address problems of over or under 18 meters

00:28:19 problems of over or under 18 meters and maybe shouldn't be regarded as defective because it doesn't do so yes i think what i'm seeking to explore is why

00:28:26 is why we don't see from the very first page of this certificate that k15 can only be used in one specific construction over 18 meters and that's just i'm suggesting an explanation at

00:28:37 just i'm suggesting an explanation at least in relation to the first paragraph namely the first paragraph is simply generic in its intent and tells you that the the product is intended for use in masonry with masonry

00:28:49 intended for use in masonry with masonry and

00:28:50 and steel framed walls regard it's not addressing questions of height or limitations yes i i understand i i'm really seeking to get to the bottom of why

00:29:01 to get to the bottom of why a qualification to that effect only appears in the next issue of this certificate well you can also witness that of course yes but

00:29:10 yes but we'll come to that were you aware mr alban in 2008 that k15 was being regularly specified for use in the over 18 meter market

00:29:22 18 meter market i would have no way of knowing that did you ever become aware of that that k-15 was being regularly specified for use in the over 18 meter market

00:29:35 not free the grenfell tower fire now let's look at what it says in this certificate about the classification to br 135 of the 8414 test data if we can

00:29:48 br 135 of the 8414 test data if we can go back to section 7.1 on page 5. and we see at the bottom of that page that same

00:29:58 that same bullet point and you can see if we look three lines up from the bottom of that paragraph it says this it says within the stated test time the temperature at the level two

00:30:10 time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c

00:30:13 c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 now you were asked about that

00:30:26 135 now you were asked about that particular wording by the inquiry if we can look at your third witness statement page 25 bba three zeros 1075

00:30:37 statement page 25 bba three zeros 1075 and if we look at inquiry question 27i which is the second question down there and you're asked the question on what basis did the bba deem it acceptable and

00:30:48 basis did the bba deem it acceptable and or accurate to conclude and sustain in the absence of any classification report to br 135 but the criteria therein had been met

00:30:59 criteria therein had been met and you in your answer you give a detailed explanation of the different aspects of a br135 assessment and then if we can look at what you say at paragraph 94 at the bottom of page 26

00:31:11 bottom of page 26 of your statement

00:31:15 you say you say this you say the bba considers itself competent to make a judgment

00:31:22 judgment as to the results of a bs 8414 test based on the above br 135 based criteria when provided with a full report on a performed test there is clearly some subjectivity to

00:31:34 there is clearly some subjectivity to the judgment of the mechanical performance and this is one of the reasons that it is now standard practice to give report reference details and certificates to enable a specifier to make their own

00:31:47 to enable a specifier to make their own assessment of the results should they choose to do so now just picking up on the end of that paragraph was there not also some subjectivity in the judgment of mechanical

00:31:58 in the judgment of mechanical performance back in october 2008 yes if that's right why weren't the report reference details not always given in the certificate can

00:32:11 not always given in the certificate can you help us i don't know it obviously would have been better had they done so can you help us when was this practice of giving report reference details

00:32:22 of giving report reference details introduced by the bba i don't recall the exact date possibly around 2014 2015. i'm

00:32:34 around 2014 2015. i'm guessing to be honest around that time okay thank you so just to be clear in the absence of a br br135

00:32:42 br br135 classification report is this right that the bba carried out its own assessment of the test data in the report against the criteria in br135

00:32:54 yes the approved documents do not require a classification report it requires the system to meet the criteria of br135

00:33:05 the criteria of br135 and can you help us um who are you talking about when you say that the bba considers itself competent to make a judgment about the results of an 8414 test

00:33:15 test are you talking about all project managers uh who who is it within the bba that would have been competent to carry out those assessments uh technical experts within the area of

00:33:28 uh technical experts within the area of insulation

00:33:32 i see and what about in december 2013 for issue 2 of the certificate which you were involved with did you carry out that exercise at that time

00:33:44 i would have reviewed the conclusions of the project manager who would have made the initial assessment i would have reviewed that conclusion

00:33:54 i see so you would have reviewed the conclusion about the r135 criteria would you

00:33:59 you yes was the assessment of 8414 test data against the criterion br135 a normal or regular occurrence for the bba in october 2008

00:34:14 i wasn't involved in that time i believe this was the first certificate of its type so it would not have been normal at that time right

00:34:24 right and and who would they be you say that there were technical experts in the area of insulation who were capable of making these assessments who would can you give us some names who would they be

00:34:36 um john denier gay trump

00:34:48 um john denier gay trump possibly other experienced project manager at the time obviously as with any company we have some turnover of staff so

00:34:54 staff so putting the relevant staff in the right time scale is quite difficult yes and what about george lee who's the project manager for this certificate

00:35:04 he was an experienced project manager who had worked in this area for some time so

00:35:08 time so possibly so you would expect him to be making assessments against vr135 based on 8414

00:35:16 on 8414 test data yes if it was his first experience of that test i suggest it would be then i would expect him to discuss it with management and that would have been mr

00:35:28 management and that would have been mr hunt wouldn't it or a technical expert working in a difference department yes in your third witness statement i don't think we need to turn it up

00:35:39 don't think we need to turn it up now you set out in a table for us all those individuals at the bba who were involved in in drafting the various k-15 certificates and you tell us that brian haynes as the

00:35:51 and you tell us that brian haynes as the technical manager you say that for amended issue one and issue one

00:35:57 issue one he provided opinion on the performance in fire

00:36:01 in fire of the properties of the product that's what you tell us there um can you help us on what specifically did mr brian haynes provide an opinion about the fire properties of the product

00:36:15 about the fire properties of the product from memory i'm sorry i can't tell you specifically so when where you tell us in your statement that mr haines provided opinion on the performance in fire properties of the

00:36:26 performance in fire properties of the product

00:36:28 product where did you get that from there would have been documentary evidence on the file in forms of notes or emails that's the only way i could have inferred that i wasn't involved at the

00:36:40 inferred that i wasn't involved at the time

00:36:41 time and would any such opinion or advice be recorded in writing it should be yes

00:36:50 if we go to the witness statement of mr denyer john denyer at bba 3010780 page 24 and i want to look at paragraph

00:37:02 page 24 and i want to look at paragraph 99. bba 3010780 page 24.

00:37:12 mr denyer says in that top paragraph in addition i do have an email on my email archive dated the 9th of june 2008 from the then project manager george lee to our then technical manager brian

00:37:24 lee to our then technical manager brian haynes requesting an opinion on the bs 8414 test but i have no record of a reply to this request and if we could go to that email we think this is bba

00:37:37 think this is bba 50255

00:37:44 we can see that there is an email there at the top of the page from george lee to brian haynes cc'ing chris hunt saying hi brian please find attached product description and

00:37:57 find attached product description and we think that's supposed to read 8414 fire report for which i require a fire opinion and you can see this relates in the subject to call firm k-15

00:38:08 to call firm k-15 now mr alvin we we cannot find a response to that email um do you know whether a fire opinion was in fact provided

00:38:19 provided i have found no documentary evidence of such an opinion it may be that brian haynes discussed with george lee but i don't know according to the bba's

00:38:30 know according to the bba's policies and procedures should there have been a written response to that providing a fire opinion

00:38:37 opinion if one was provided there should be a documentation of any technical judgments made on a project yes

00:38:44 yes yes

00:38:48 and you can't help us as to why we don't find that in this case we don't find any fire opinion helping us as to how someone looked at the 8414 test data and concluded that the ber-135 criteria

00:39:01 and concluded that the ber-135 criteria was satisfied i haven't found any documented evidence of that decision being made no just looking back at issue one of the certificate

00:39:12 certificate and that the phrase we were we were looking at this is at page five bba 6038 page five and looking at paragraph 7.1

00:39:29 page five and looking at paragraph 7.1 so it's summarizing the bs 8414 report and at the very last line it's saying and that the product meets the criteria stated within

00:39:41 stated within 135 and you see there it says the product meets the criteria stated do you see that yes now going back to your third witness statement bba 3010751 page 27.

00:39:56 bba 3010751 page 27. we can see that you've been asked about this particular sentence at inquiry question

00:40:01 question 27 k

00:40:07 and you're asked the question on what basis did the bba deem it acceptable and or accurate to conclude

00:40:14 conclude and to state that the product had met the criteria within br135 and your response is below you say as explained above the test

00:40:25 explained above the test relates to the specific construction tested

00:40:28 tested and it would have been preferable not to refer to the product in this section this was corrected in the second issue of the certificate issued on the 17th of december 2013.

00:40:41 issued on the 17th of december 2013. now i'm not sure that's an answer to the question you were asked and so i'm going to ask it again now take it in in stages why do you say it would have been preferable not to refer to the product

00:40:53 preferable not to refer to the product in this section

00:40:57 because as stated the test relates to a specific

00:41:00 specific construction and so it is a system test and not a product test yes

00:41:06 test yes um so does it follow d do you consider the assertion that k-15 as a product had met the criteria in br135 do you consider that to have been an accurate

00:41:18 consider that to have been an accurate assertion

00:41:21 assertion no it is a system test not a product test

00:41:25 test and do you agree that a reader would inevitably conclude that k15 as a product

00:41:30 product had met the criteria in br135

00:41:35 i would hope that anybody making a judgment on the basis of a complex test such as br bs 8414 would understand that that is a system test

00:41:46 system test if not that is potentially misleading yes

00:41:50 yes yes can we agree that that section of the certificate is wholly inaccurate and misleading i think the use of the word product is inaccurate and misleading i wouldn't say

00:42:01 inaccurate and misleading i wouldn't say the whole

00:42:01 the whole sentence is inaccurate and misleading well that's the bit i'm asking you to focus on

00:42:07 focus on the statement that the product had met the criteria within br135 can we agree that that is wholly inaccurate and misleading yes you cannot extrapolate that results to other constructions including that

00:42:19 to other constructions including that product

00:42:20 product right can you explain why was that not corrected until 2013

00:42:28 i think it's an unfortunate human error that was overlooked during the certificate checking process so i can't explain it

00:42:38 did you ever speak to mr hunt about this inaccurate statement on page five of the certificate i've asked you about whether you spoke to him about the statement on page one about

00:42:49 about the statement on page one about whether

00:42:50 whether about the product not contributing to the development stages of a fire did you ever speak to him about this inaccurate statement that the product met br135

00:43:00 met br135 no for the same reasons i explained earlier i don't think it would have added any value

00:43:07 mr hunt could not account for this kind of error

00:43:10 of error making its way into the final version of issue one

00:43:14 issue one and also amended issue one of the certificate can you help as to how that error has found its way into that certificate no can we look at the witness statement

00:43:27 no can we look at the witness statement of george lee at this point uh who you tell us undertook the drafting of the certificate if we can go to bba three zeros 10794

00:43:38 if we can go to bba three zeros 10794 at page four

00:43:45 and i want to look at what he says at paragraph 23

00:43:53 now um the the questions the inquiry asked are not included uh in this statement just the answers he is

00:44:01 is asked by the inquiry uh what his understanding was of the the classification national class naught and at 23 his response was this

00:44:12 naught and at 23 his response was this a class naught rating indicates limited combustibility do you see that yes now is that your understanding too that

00:44:23 now is that your understanding too that a class naught rating indicates limited combustibility no that's incorrect

00:44:32 back in 2008 was that your understanding that a class naught rating indicates limited combustibility no can we agree that mr lee does not

00:44:44 no can we agree that mr lee does not appear

00:44:45 appear from that answer to have a clear or accurate understanding of the meaning of limited combustibility and its relationship to a classification of national class laws

00:44:56 i would agree that at the time he was writing this statement he clearly did not have an understanding he left the bba i don't know 10 years ago i don't believe he has worked in this

00:45:07 i don't believe he has worked in this area since he left it may be his memory is inaccurate and that he did understand the difference at the time

00:45:18 difference at the time i see well given that he said this in 2019 to us uh do you have any reason to think that he would have thought something different

00:45:27 different uh back in 2008 when this certificate was being put together i think it's inevitable he would have had a better understanding at the time he was working with these products than he would have

00:45:38 he would have relying on memory um ten years later i can't tell you that he did understand the difference at the time i would hope that he did

00:45:51 right well can you explain to us how it could be that a bba project manager drafting certificates for thermal insulation materials including kingspan's products does not appear in his statement to this inquiry

00:46:03 appear in his statement to this inquiry to have a clear understanding of fire classifications

00:46:08 as i've tried to explain i think he's understanding at the time he was working with these products would have been better than it is 10 years later when he's been working in different product areas

00:46:21 how can you deduce that given that on the face on the front page of this certificate it says this product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

00:46:32 of a fire how can you con how can you conclude that he would have had a better understanding at the time he wrote that a statement which you've admitted was inaccurate and not supported by any evidence

00:46:44 evidence well i think the two things are different um i'm not deducing anything i'm really suggesting that if he is relying on his memory from 10 years ago

00:46:54 years ago he may not have the understanding now that he had at the time he was writing certificates i really don't know

00:47:07 if we um if we look at paragraph 25 of your third witness statement that's at page seven

00:47:25 you tell us something about the systems that are meant to be followed you say the individual level of knowledge possessed by each member of staff is closely monitored by line management

00:47:36 management both informally via daily interaction and more formally by annual appraisals against set objectives as part of this process

00:47:43 process needs for further training are discussed and documented for achievement over the year to follow and then you go on at 26 fair the project managers and their management are assigned particular product areas

00:47:54 are assigned particular product areas in which to specialize as they build their experience for example there's a team

00:47:58 team that works only in the field of thermal insulation in this way knowledge can be built on more quickly liaising with more experienced colleagues working in the same team

00:48:07 same team as opposed to working across the full range of product covered by the bba now can you help us was george lee a specialist in thermal insulation

00:48:21 specialist in thermal insulation he worked largely in the field of terminal insulation he was not an expert in thermal insulation in the way that some of his colleagues would have been

00:48:36 i see what about mr hunt was he uh an expert in the field of thermal insulation no do you consider that it's possible

00:48:47 no do you consider that it's possible that mr lee may have included the phrase will not contribute to the development stages of a fire on page one of the certificate which we've looked at on the basis that he believed k-15 to be

00:48:58 on the basis that he believed k-15 to be a material of limited combustibility

00:49:05 if he believed that the material was of limited combustibility i believe he would have included a statement to that effect in section 7 of the certificate so i think it's unlikely it was on that basis

00:49:20 i see have you any stage been aware of confusion in the wider industry about the meanings of class naught and limited combustibility

00:49:34 i'm not aware of any confusion between those two terms they're both clearly defined within the approved documents

00:49:41 can we just look briefly back at another passage in mr lee's witness statement so bba 3010794 on page six

00:49:53 if we go to paragraph 44 a this is about whether or not the bba was accredited by ucas to interpret

00:50:04 accredited by ucas to interpret fire test data and mr lee has answered not to my knowledge at the time of my employment this would be the reason to obtain a fire opinion as the bba were not accredited to

00:50:16 as the bba were not accredited to interpret fire test data now is he right about that no i think he has a limited understanding of the accreditation process

00:50:27 process yes so um in fact the bba was accredited to interpret fire test data yes it's not really the way accreditation works we are accredited to

00:50:38 works we are accredited to assess and certify products the scope of that accreditation is limited by ucas to certain product areas within those product areas there are a wide variety of product parameters we

00:50:51 wide variety of product parameters we are required to assess and understand fire is one of those and so it is included under the accreditation but it is not a direct part of the accreditation

00:51:03 can you explain my why mr lee thought that the bba were not accredited to interpret fire data

00:51:12 i think from what i've seen in his statement he is consistently relying on memory and

00:51:24 not giving answers that are credible

00:51:28 i see let's move on now to section 7.2 of this issue one of the certificate on page five if we can go back to that bba

00:51:39 bba 6038 page five right at the bottom we can see

00:51:43 can see section 7.2 it tells us there the product is classified as class naught or low risk

00:51:49 low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and then over the page

00:52:04 and then over the page it tells us england and wales approved document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraphs 12.5

00:52:11 12.5 and 12.6 volume 2 see also diagram 40. so that's what we see about class naught in this first issue of the k-15

00:52:22 in this first issue of the k-15 certificate and i want to ask you about what fire test data was provided by kingspan at any stage to evidence the assertion that k-15 had achieved class naught

00:52:35 that k-15 had achieved class naught if we can go first to one of the witness statements provided by mr brian moore to the inquiry at bba

00:52:44 3011097

00:52:50 this witness statement is dated the 18th of november 2020 and if we go to page four

00:52:56 four and look at paragraph three m we can see that mr moore has been asked about the technical assessment by the bba

00:53:05 bba of k-15 and in particular the assertion that k-15 had achieved a classification of class naught and he states there if we look at 15 and

00:53:16 and he states there if we look at 15 and then 16 he says certificate 08 4582 and the first issue of certificate 14 5134 stated that the product was a class naught

00:53:26 naught low risk material in order to demonstrate this test reports are required to bs 476 part 6 and bs 476 part 7 and no such reports

00:53:38 6 and bs 476 part 7 and no such reports are contained on any of the k15 file folders and then he goes on in 16 he says this instead the classification for k15 was

00:53:49 instead the classification for k15 was extrapolated from a series of fire reports on similar kingspan phenolic products including those of a similar density and facing

00:54:00 those of a similar density and facing type and then he says that copies of the reports are exhibited to his statement and mr moore was asked about this during his oral evidence and i want to take you to what he said

00:54:12 and i want to take you to what he said then

00:54:13 then if we can go to the transcript at day 107

00:54:16 107 page 16797

00:54:29 he's being asked about this exercise of extrapolation and this is the answer he gives picking it up in line seven he says well if there are no kingspan if there are no

00:54:40 kingspan if there are no fire reports to justify the class naught statement

00:54:43 statement on what basis was the bba including this in a certificate was the question that i asked

00:54:49 asked and mr alban's view a very experienced and senior person at the bba his view was that it was more likely than not that it was extrapolated from a series of fire

00:55:01 extrapolated from a series of fire reports on similar kingspan phenolic products

00:55:04 products including those of similar density i the material reference that exhibit bm4

00:55:11 bm4 you will recall that at the start of my statement i did clarify that word that wording as deduction belief rather than an absolute there is a formula here that someone has

00:55:22 there is a formula here that someone has extrapolated from a series of fire test reports

00:55:27 now can you help us when did you first conclude that an extrapolation was likely to have taken place

00:55:38 when i was asked as part of the inquiries questions

00:55:44 and so was it the case that you looked back at the k-15 files found no evidence of bs 476 part 6 and part 7

00:55:53 part 7 testing and therefore concluded that there must have been some form of extrapolation is that right it's a little more than that there is no evidence of the necessary

00:56:05 there is no evidence of the necessary the s476 test reports but the project manager had placed within that specific technical folder a number of associated

00:56:17 technical folder a number of associated kingspan fire test reports to those standards

00:56:21 standards they would only be on that folder if they had formed some part of the assessment of k-15 there is nothing directly linking them to the conclusion straw

00:56:31 straw but i inferred from the fact that they were placed on the file that an extrapolation had been made on the basis of those reports that is an influence i can't confirm

00:56:42 that is an influence i can't confirm that

00:56:43 that i see did you ever consider as an alternative possibility that those responsible for drafting the certificate simply accepted kingspan's claim in their own marketing literature

00:56:54 their own marketing literature that k-15 was class nor and included that claim in the bba certificate without carrying out any extrapolation exercise

00:57:05 if that were the case i don't know why the project manager would have placed these reports which were collated from other assessments we had carried out on this specific assessment folder

00:57:20 would it have been in accordance with the bba's procedures at the time to have taken kingspan's marketing literature and to replicate what was in that because that said plus norm absolutely not there should be

00:57:34 plus norm absolutely not there should be a defined and documented technical assessment to back up any statements made in the certificate did you actually check with either mr lee or mr hunt

00:57:46 lee or mr hunt what had led to the inclusion of the class naught statement in the certificate no and just to be clear you're not suggesting that you yourself

00:57:58 suggesting that you yourself ever carried out any such extrapolation in relation to k15 and class nor are you no i'm not

00:58:06 now going back again to your third witness statement um bba 3010751 page 21 and looking at the top of page 21 and inquiry question

00:58:18 inquiry question 23d

00:58:21 you were asked the following on what basis did you or any other employee or agent of the bba consider it appropriate for the bba to extrapolate in the manner described instead of

00:58:32 in the manner described instead of requiring the relevant test reports and your answer at 70 was i was not involved in this process and so i'm unable to comment on the details of the technical assessment made now i'm not sure that was actually

00:58:46 made now i'm not sure that was actually an answer to the question is this right that you do not know for a fact that such technical assessment was actually made

00:58:58 there is no documentation on file to confirm that so i can't be sure now

00:59:06 can i ask you this whether or not an extrapolation was actually carried out on this occasion on what basis do you consider that it would ever be appropriate to extrapolate

00:59:20 appropriate to extrapolate from test reports for various products to pronounce a classification to national class nor for a different product

00:59:31 that would depend on the circumstances and the individual carrying out the assessment it's not unknown

00:59:39 unknown for an insulation manufacturer to produce identical products for exactly the surplus excuse me for different purposes so maybe there is an absolutely identical product

00:59:50 product used for roofing and for cladding now we had a fire test report on that product and we knew for certainty that it was an identical formulation specification it might be appropriate

01:00:03 specification it might be appropriate to transfer that classification across equally if we had a letter of opinion from a suitably qualified individual at a ucas accredited file laboratory

01:00:16 a ucas accredited file laboratory that they had carried out an extrapolation we might be prepared to accept that but we would not carry out that type of technical judgments within the bba right so taking this in stages um can we

01:00:29 right so taking this in stages um can we agree that there wasn't an absolutely identical product to k15 that you could simply take information for in this instance i don't know

01:00:41 i don't know you say you don't know did you check the products i'll come to it in a moment the products that you say were referred to on the file and and check whether they were an

01:00:52 and and check whether they were an absolutely identical product to k-15 well i wasn't involved in the assessment process at the time so no i wouldn't have done that no and the file doesn't reveal

01:01:05 no and the file doesn't reveal any opinion being provided by a ucas accredited fire laboratory does it suggesting an extrapolation

01:01:18 if we look again at the evidence of mr moore if we can go to the transcript of day 107

01:01:23 day 107 page 170 line 17.

01:01:38 page 170 line 17. day 107 page 179 17.

01:01:47 he says this he says i understood that it was not it wasn't common but it was not unusual if there were products of a similar

01:01:55 similar of a very similar kind to each other and if the performance was adjudged to be so similar

01:02:00 similar to one that we'd already assessed it was not unusual for the bba to extrapolate its opinion from one product to a similar one that was the core of the conversation

01:02:12 that was the core of the conversation and then he's asked is what you've just told us something that john alban told you or is it something you're telling us from your own knowledge and experience so if we go over the page to

01:02:25 the top of the next page yes from your own knowledge of experience and he says it's something that i'm saying arose in my conversation with mr alban based on his knowledge and experience across many

01:02:36 his knowledge and experience across many many years more than me at the bba to me that sounded and i think this material was actually in the place where the fire test reports would be in the particular folder so it

01:02:47 would be in the particular folder so it was

01:02:47 was it was far from it wasn't a leap of faith it was a reasonable deduction to be drawn

01:02:53 be drawn and that was the basis for the belief now um is mr moore correct that he's saying that it wasn't unusual if there were products of a

01:03:05 unusual if there were products of a similar

01:03:07 similar of a very similar kind to one another and if the performance was adjudged to be so similar to one already assessed it was not unusual for the bba to extrapolate opinion from one product

01:03:18 to extrapolate opinion from one product to a similar one do you agree with that

01:03:23 i don't think that's inconsistent with the explanation i just gave it would depend on

01:03:28 depend on the circumstances individual to the case mr alban i think it is inconsistent because you said that if if there was an identical product you would extrapolate

01:03:40 product you would extrapolate and mr moore here is referring to products of a similar or of a very similar kind so which is it is it only where there is an identical product that you extrapolate

01:03:52 product that you extrapolate or is it where there is a similar or very similar product that you would extrapolate test data of this nature if it was identical the bba could make that judgment if it was not identical

01:04:04 that judgment if it was not identical and it was the similar scenario i would expect us to obtain an expert opinion from outside of the bba okay so it sounds from what you're

01:04:15 okay so it sounds from what you're saying like mr moore was wrong that it was not unusual for the bba to extrapolate from one product to a similar one he's wrong about that yes

01:04:29 i think it depends what you mean by what he means by the bba would extrapolate we would potentially

01:04:37 take classification and use it but it may be based on a joker made by somebody from outside of the bba

01:04:48 i see can you help us in what other circumstances and for what other products or manufacturers have such extrapolations ever been carried out can you give us some context

01:04:59 carried out can you give us some context to this

01:05:03 it's not uncommon that we have a fire test report that has a limited scope for applicability for example we might then ask our certificate holder to

01:05:15 certificate holder to seek a letter of opinion from the organization that carried out the fire test

01:05:20 test to expand that scope of applicability for example for thickness of insulation it may have a limited thickness within the scope of the fire test report but the fire laboratory might

01:05:32 but the fire laboratory might be prepared to expand that thickness to match that which the certificate holder once covered in the certificate yes now that scenario is not quite the same as what i'm trying to get at

01:05:44 same as what i'm trying to get at um i understand that if you've actually got

01:05:49 got an extrapolation carried out by a third-party assessor that that's a different thing but going back to what the bba itself does can you help us have the bba ever

01:06:01 does can you help us have the bba ever carried out other extrapolations for other products or manufacturers like the one that we see referred to for k15 and class naught

01:06:17 i'm not aware of how having done what you were suggesting um unless it was the scenario i explained previously where it was the same product being used for two different applications

01:06:29 different applications so are you saying this is the only time you've ever come across this the k-15 situation and class naught the only time you've come across an extrapolation from similar products well i don't know what

01:06:42 similar products well i don't know what the extrapolation was that's the problem that i have i don't know what's work was done

01:06:46 done because it's not documented on the file so i find that difficult to answer do you consider that extrapolation is a process permitted by the bs 476 part 6 and part 7

01:06:57 and part 7 test standards mr moore was not able to help us on that question and said he didn't know the answer can you help us it would certainly be beyond the competence of the bba to carry out

01:07:09 competence of the bba to carry out that we would expect an expert to fire opinion if we were to do something outside of what was defined within the fire test standards

01:07:19 i see do you know did the bba follow any particular guidance when carrying out these extrapolations

01:07:31 again unless i know what extrapolation was carried out no we did not have a procedure for extrapolating fire test reports because i would not expect us to be doing that

01:07:43 be doing that are you aware as to whether the bba has ever had a discussion with a fire engineer external to the bba about

01:07:52 about uh the concept of extrapolating test data from different products

01:08:02 nuts that i can recall

01:08:05 if we go back to your third witness statement at page 21

01:08:17 in the middle of page 21 you were asked at e

01:08:23 on what basis did you consider that the bba was entitled to describe a class naught

01:08:28 naught product which had not to the bba's knowledge achieve that classification and you tell us at 71 a technical assessment would have been made there are reports on file relating

01:08:39 made there are reports on file relating to the insulation foam component used and various faces and i assume that these were used to make a fire engineering assessment of the likely performance of the k-15

01:08:50 of the likely performance of the k-15 product

01:08:52 product now you can take it from me that the reports to 476 part 6 and part 7 which mr moore told us that he found in the test data area of the k-15

01:09:03 area of the k-15 file and are exhibited to his second witness statement what i'm going to do is just summarize those for you what we see is an unfaced cfc free phenolic phone laminate

01:09:15 phenolic phone laminate test to bs 476 part 7 from august 1991 a k7 sarking board test to bs 476 part 7 from february

01:09:26 february 1993 k9 with a glass tissue not a foil facer tested to bs 476 part 6 from october 1993

01:09:39 from october 1993 k9 with a glass tissue not foil facer test

01:09:43 test to bs 476 part 7 from october 1993 k 8 cavity boards with a glass tissue not

01:09:51 not foil facer tested to 476 part 6 and part 7 in a letter from july 1994 cool firm dl2000 with one aluminium

01:10:03 1994 cool firm dl2000 with one aluminium face and one glass tissue face tested to bs four seven six part six from october 2003 cool firm dl3300 with one aluminium face

01:10:15 cool firm dl3300 with one aluminium face and one

01:10:16 and one glass tissue base tested to bs 476 part seven from october 2003 and finally an assessment report to 476 part 6 and part 7 on cool thumb dl

01:10:29 part 6 and part 7 on cool thumb dl dl3300 with one aluminium face and one glass tissue face from december 2003 now i've summarized those test reports

01:10:40 now i've summarized those test reports to you

01:10:41 to you can you explain and help us in the light of those what led you to the assumption that those reports were used to make a fire engineering assessment

01:10:52 fire engineering assessment as you describe it of the likely performance of the k-15 product the only basis on which i formed that impression was the fact that they had been placed on

01:11:03 been placed on the file 4k 15 there would be no reason for them to be on the file unless they had been used i would not be competent to make that technical judgment i don't know

01:11:15 technical judgment i don't know on what basis that judgment was made no have you actually read those reports for the other kingspan products yourself

01:11:26 for the other kingspan products yourself i may have glanced at them when i put the file together for the inquiry but no i didn't study them in detail had some form of extrapolation been conducted

01:11:37 conducted what consideration do you think ought to have been given to the fact that these reports were some of them very old one of them was already 15 years old by 2008

01:11:48 already 15 years old by 2008 should that have been a consideration in any such assessment the age of report should always be a consideration it's not to say because it's 15 year old years old it

01:12:00 because it's 15 year old years old it can't be used but you would need a good case in order to be able to use reports that was that old and what considerations should have been given to the fact that none of those products appear to have

01:12:13 none of those products appear to have had the same phaser arrangement as k-15 i

01:12:16 i foil faces on both sides of the phenolic core

01:12:20 core what consideration should have been given to that i think that would be for a suitably qualified fire expert to decide it's outside my competence to judge it may be that a judgment could be made

01:12:33 it may be that a judgment could be made on the known performance of those faces but i don't know

01:12:39 mr alvin you're the bba's chief scientific officer if it was outside your competence to judge wouldn't it have been outside the competence of the project manager

01:12:49 manager and the head of approvals who were considering this certificate at its time

01:12:57 i don't think they would have been more qualified to make a judgment than myself or other colleagues we have in the business i don't know who made the decision

01:13:05 decision and on what basis

01:13:08 does it follow from your answers that you can't tell us how that extrapolation extrapolation exercise could have been done that you can't take us through the steps as to how you would conclude

01:13:21 the steps as to how you would conclude that it can be classified to class naught

01:13:25 naught no i can't

01:13:30 did you take steps to find out from mr hunt who was responsible for the technical sign-off of that first k-15 certificate and whether your deductions on the matter were correct

01:13:44 no

01:13:53 can we go to um bba three zeros one one zero nine three

01:14:10 this is a letter dated the 2nd of december 2004. to um iva meredith and it's signed we can see

01:14:18 can see at the top of page two it's signed by simon lloyd of the bba

01:14:25 and if we go back to the main yes thank you

01:14:28 you go back to the main uh part of the letter we can see in the opening paragraphs that the letter is chasing a response to an earlier letter from the 7th of september 2004 says on

01:14:39 from the 7th of september 2004 says on consulting our records we've not received a reply from you to our letter date of that date and at the second paragraph he states uh we would like to point out

01:14:50 he states uh we would like to point out that we are unable to proceed with the work until we have received the information requested and underneath that mr lloyd has listed out various outstanding pieces of information

01:15:01 information including just over halfway down the list

01:15:05 list reaction to fire data and surface spread of flame

01:15:09 of flame do you see that yes it is apparent from your witness statement and that of others at the bba that there was no fire test data to bs 476 part 6 and

01:15:21 no fire test data to bs 476 part 6 and part 7

01:15:22 part 7 provided to the bba on k-15 prior to issue

01:15:26 issue one of the certificate do you agree with that

01:15:31 that yes as far as you were aware when did the bba first receive test data showing tests of bs 476 part 6 and 7

01:15:42 showing tests of bs 476 part 6 and 7 for k15 which would confirm a class naught classification i don't think we ever did

01:15:55 ever did no that that seems to be the position but we just wanted to confirm it with you that you never actually receive test data to those parts of 476 part 6 and 7. i think i've

01:16:06 parts of 476 part 6 and 7. i think i've seen

01:16:06 seen euro classification data but i don't recall seeing a bs 476 set of reports

01:16:14 reports did you ever consider that there might be a reason that that data was not forthcoming from kingspan when requested

01:16:24 i was not involved at this stage of the assessment i think my initial involvement was when we had the c category to the euro classification system

01:16:35 system whose responsibility would it have been to ensure that this fire test data had been received for k-15 in in october 2008 when the certificate was first issued

01:16:48 was first issued initially the project's manager and then when the final certificate was reviewed prior to issue by the individual making the certification decision

01:17:00 certification decision yes and what about on the 17th of december 2013 for issue two of the certificate that certificate carries your signature as head of approvals doesn't it yes was it

01:17:13 yes was it your responsibility or somebody beneath you to

01:17:16 you to ensure that that fire test data had actually been received for k-15

01:17:24 the content of the certificate was entirely my responsibility however it's not part of normal bba procedure to go back and repeat the initial assessment as part of a reissue

01:17:37 initial assessment as part of a reissue during a reissue we focus on the changes that we are making to the certificate we don't go back to the original first principles assessment that was carried out

01:17:46 out for the first issue of that certificate i see so that error was made and it just wasn't picked up in later issues of the certificate is that correct yes

01:17:59 that correct yes but should it have been should someone have checked at the time of issue 2 in december 2013 that there was in fact that test data available that would not form part of our normal

01:18:11 that would not form part of our normal procedures we would expect that the statements made on a certificate can be justified

01:18:19 can you help us as to why it's not made clear in any of the k-15 certificates that that class naught classification has been reached by way of an extrapolation from similar

01:18:30 by way of an extrapolation from similar products

01:18:36 i don't believe that would be significant if the product can achieve a class o rating it can achieve a class o rating it's a black and white can or cannot

01:18:49 black and white can or cannot it does appear in this case we cannot justify the fact we made that statement are you aware now that during the lifetime of this certificate kingspan has obtained test results

01:19:00 has obtained test results which in fact showed that k-15 was not able to achieve class naught

01:19:06 i have seen that reporting as part of this inquiry yes are you able to accept as mr hunt did in relation to issue one and amended issue one

01:19:17 one that this was a very basic failure of due diligence on the part of the bba

01:19:25 yes and you told us that when you signed off on the issue two of the certificate that you'd already become concerned about the assertion on page one of the certificate

01:19:37 one of the certificate about not contributing to the development stages of a fire in those circumstances why did you also not

01:19:44 not check the other assertions in the certificate before it was reissued

01:19:54 i think there's a difference between an inappropriate and misleading wording and a statement based on fact given criteria

01:20:02 criteria contained within the approved documents i had no reason at that point to believe we did not have the necessary supporting information on file i see so you're saying at the time you

01:20:13 i see so you're saying at the time you would draw a distinction between inappropriate and misleading wording as compared with a statement based on

01:20:24 as compared with a statement based on fact

01:20:24 fact yes i think the wording is subjective the statement on class o was objective and i had no reason to believe he would

01:20:35 and i had no reason to believe he would not have that data on file so it didn't occur to you once you've found one major error with the certificate it didn't occur to you to check that there weren't others

01:20:46 there weren't others i would have read i hope the rest of the certificates i regret the fact i did not pick up that misleading wording on the front page

01:20:56 page but what about the class naught statement

01:20:59 statement as i said there was no reason to suppose we wouldn't have had that information on file

01:21:05 file right so you don't regret signing off on that

01:21:10 yes i regret not doing it but i don't think i would have been expected to go back and check it i think it was a reasonable assumption to make that

01:21:21 a reasonable assumption to make that those reports would be there to enable us to make that statement i see mr chairman um i think that would be a good moment for our afternoon break that suits you yes how

01:21:33 afternoon break that suits you yes how are we doing question i keep asking you i know but still i'll ask it again yeah we're doing we're doing well um if we do go into tomorrow it won't be by very much

01:21:43 very much and i'll i'll do my best uh to see if i can conclude the remaining questions today but i um these topics are important i don't want to feel like i'm rushing them so no well i'm not not speaking to

01:21:54 so no well i'm not not speaking to russia i'm just inquiring right thank you very much um ms alban we'll have a short break at this point today we'll be tighter we'll come back at 25 to 4 please all right and please don't talk

01:22:06 please all right and please don't talk to anyone about your evidence on the break okay thank you so much see you later

01:35:12 welcome back everyone we're ready to continue with mr albon's evidence if he's

01:35:18 he's there so the first question is are you there mr albon can you see me and hear me clearly yes i'm here good thank you very much and and you're ready to go on i hope yes right thank you and i'm strange when

01:35:31 yes right thank you and i'm strange when you're ready yes thank you mr chairman and yes mr alban now thinking back to that first k-15 certificate in october 2008 it's it's right isn't it that no initial

01:35:44 it's it's right isn't it that no initial assessment or audit as to the manufacture of k-15 had been carried out prior to that certificate being produced yes yes and and if we look at your third

01:35:56 yes and and if we look at your third witness statement uh bba three zeros 107 5 1 page 22 and i want to look at what you say at paragraph

01:36:08 74

01:36:14 now just focusing on the first four lines

01:36:18 lines of that paragraph you say for an assessment of a new product for a new client

01:36:24 client it is normal practice to carry out an initial factory inspection however in this case kingspan held other certificates for very similar products that were manufactured in an identical

01:36:36 that were manufactured in an identical way

01:36:37 way using the same foam insulation and very similar

01:36:40 similar faces now um just pausing there how would anyone at the bba

01:36:47 the bba know that the k-15 was like manufactured in an identical way to other similar products if there had been no

01:36:56 been no assessment of the manufacturer or production process for k-15

01:37:03 well the assessment of production is based on an internal bba document known as a quality plan we would have had

01:37:11 had a quality plan for production at kingspan's factory covering all of the then certified products and as part of the assessment of k15

01:37:22 of k15 we would have updated the quality plan to also include the k15 product from a desktop examination it would have been clear that the same raw materials the same

01:37:35 the same raw materials the same manufacturing line same quality control procedures um the same

01:37:39 same equipment and the same staff would have been involved in the production of k15 as had previously been certified for these other kingspan certified materials

01:37:52 right you say from a desktop examination it would have been clear that the same raw materials the same manufacturing line

01:38:01 line the same quality control procedures the same equipment and staff would have been involved

01:38:06 involved how would the bba know that from a desktop examination if they hadn't actually gone and seen the manufacturing production process themselves

01:38:17 themselves we would have seen the manufacturing process for these other products because we inspect and audit the factories on a six monthly basis so we would have had a very high level of familiarity with

01:38:29 of familiarity with the factory environment post certification the surveillance would commence 4k15 and the assessment process was validated by the fact that when

01:38:41 the fact that when the auditor was in the factory it was confirmed that the process was as described in the quality plan documents i say are you effectively saying that an assumption would have been made prior to

01:38:53 assumption would have been made prior to the first issue of this certificate that the manufacturing process was identical

01:38:59 identical for k15 as it was for other kingspan products is that what you're saying no it would have been documented on the basis of information provided by the manufacturer

01:39:10 manufacturer and assessed by the project manager as part of the update of the quality prime document so you would take it on trust that what kingspan was telling you

01:39:21 kingspan was telling you about its manufacture manufacturing process was correct yes

01:39:28 it would have been informed by existing knowledge and experience of the process and it would have been validated as part of the normal surveillance process immediately post certification yes but that's after

01:39:39 post certification yes but that's after the issue of the certificate i'm focused on what happens before the certificate is actually issued and what i'm asking is whether you take on trust kingspan's assertions that the manufacturing process is identical

01:39:53 manufacturing process is identical there is no physical validation until the first surveillance visit but there would be a very high degree of confidence based on our previous knowledge of these type of materials

01:40:06 yes i see can you help us in what other circumstances has this occurred how have other manufacturers uh had such a shunt assumptions but

01:40:17 uh had such a shunt assumptions but being made about their products without i wouldn't use the term assumption i think it's a considered technical judgment

01:40:27 judgment but yes that principle has been applied in other processes

01:40:33 when you say the principle has been applied in other processes can you give us some examples of products or manufacturers where similar assumptions have been made about the

01:40:43 the manufacturing process being similar to other products

01:40:49 it may be applied in situations where it is a very large scale piece of equipment it is very difficult to vary the process parameters such as damp proof membranes see

01:41:05 such as damp proof membranes see now in relation to that desktop assessment or desktop exercise which you say took place on this occasion relating to the bba quality plan by whom was that exercise carried out who did

01:41:16 was that exercise carried out who did that desktop assessment

01:41:20 it would have been initially the project manager quality plans are signed by um a line manager the title of those managers has changed over the years but it would have been assessed and checked

01:41:32 it would have been assessed and checked by a line manager i see so would it have been carried out by

01:41:37 by george lee and then checked by christopher hunt i would expect so yes and can you help us as to why we don't see any documentation to that effect on the file

01:41:49 no i can't

01:41:53 i want to ask you now about the amendments that were made to issue one of the certificate if we can go to bba 6030

01:42:01 6030 and we look on page one

01:42:14 and we look on page one we can see in the bottom left-hand corner of the certificate that it still carries a date of first issue of the 27th of october 2008

01:42:25 issue of the 27th of october 2008 but underneath that date we see in very small print it says certificate amended on the 6th of april

01:42:33 of april 2010. do you see that yes

01:42:38 so just to be clear this is still the first issue of the certificate but an amended version of it was produced is that correct yes and if we go back to your third witness statement

01:42:49 witness statement bba 30 105 107.51 at page 30 and look at paragraph 111

01:43:01 you tell us you say although the date of the amendment is given on the certificate as the 6th of april 2010 in fact it was not published until the 12th of july 2013 and was

01:43:12 12th of july 2013 and was superseded by the second issue dated the 17th of december 2013. now just to be clear did you read the amended issue one of the certificate

01:43:24 amended issue one of the certificate before

01:43:25 before it was published in july 2013 no i don't think so

01:43:34 and i think you've told us that from documents on the file that the best um the best guess that you've got is that amended issue one was published on the 12th of july 2013 is that correct

01:43:48 uh if that's the date i gave yes can you help us what was the reason for the delay of over three years between the amendment date six of april

01:43:59 between the amendment date six of april 2010 and the publication date can you help us with that i'm sorry i don't know it isn't that an extremely long time for

01:44:10 it isn't that an extremely long time for the certificate to be awaiting publication yes is this unusual in the experience of the bba yes amendments are only intended to

01:44:23 yes amendments are only intended to allow very minor changes to a certificate it should be a straightforward process can you help us as to what was happening with the certificate between april 2010 and july 2013 as far as you're

01:44:36 2010 and july 2013 as far as you're aware was it simply sitting waiting to be published or was something else going on as far as i can recall i wasn't involved so i don't know and can you help us as to what it

01:44:48 know and can you help us as to what it was what happened in july 2013 which actually resulted in the certificate finally being published gang i'm sorry i don't

01:44:56 don't know i want to go back a little in time and ask you about an exchange with kingspan that occurred shortly after the publication of the first version of the certificate

01:45:08 of the first version of the certificate issue one without amendments the bba wrote to kingspan on the 24th of december 2008 so only two months after the certificate was first published

01:45:20 was first published proposing some amendments to the wording if we can

01:45:23 if we can look at some emails on that if we go to

01:45:28 kin402093 and i want to look at the email on page two

01:45:36 there's an email there from george lee to

01:45:39 to gareth mills on the 24th of december 2008.

01:45:44 2008. 9.50 copying in mr hunt about kingspan courthouse and k15 rain screen insulation board and mr lee begins by saying hi gareth

01:45:55 and mr lee begins by saying hi gareth we've recently received a number of comments on the k-15 certificate in relation to the clarity of wording used as part of this certificate's fire section

01:46:05 section in response to this we have a suggested amendment to the text which we wish to make

01:46:11 make this amendment we will make at no cost to yourselves and as an improvement to the certificate which i hope you will agree will improve how this certificate will read in the future

01:46:22 future now have you seen that correspondence previously prior to looking at it for the purposes of the inquiry not that i recall now

01:46:33 can you help us as to what comments had been received by the bba about the clarity of wording used as part of the fire section no have you ever asked anyone else in

01:46:47 no have you ever asked anyone else in the bba

01:46:48 the bba about that no

01:46:54 if we look at the third paragraph um of this email where we then have some bullet points george lee sets out the changes that he proposes to the certificate and in the third line down we can see

01:47:06 and in the third line down we can see that in relation to the key factors assessed point behavior in relation to fire he wishes the certificate to be amended to state

01:47:16 to state the boards are classified as class naught the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire and then this is the new part the product has been tested to bs 8414

01:47:27 product has been tested to bs 8414 part one for a specific construction on masonry walls

01:47:35 so that sentence in the certificate it is what's new that's making clear it's been tested to bs8414 part one for specific construction on masonry

01:47:48 for specific construction on masonry walls

01:47:50 walls now can we agree that that amendment to specify that k-15 could be used over 18 meters with one specific build up

01:47:59 up only on masonry walls was a fundamentally important amendment wasn't it

01:48:10 it certainly improves the clarity yes

01:48:14 yes and to set this out on the front page of the certificate would have made absolutely clear to the reader the limitation on the use of k15 over 18 meters to one specific configuration do

01:48:25 meters to one specific configuration do you agree

01:48:30 yes and were you aware when you came to be involved in this certificate that the bba had

01:48:38 bba had proposed its amendments to clarify the use of k-15 over 18 meters as early as december 2008

01:48:52 were you at any stage aware of any role that kingspan might have played in delay in issuing the amended version of issue one

01:49:04 no when i came to this certificate it was in the final stages of the second issue i was not aware of the correspondence prior to that

01:49:17 do you agree that mr lee if he didn't get a

01:49:21 get a a speedy response to this email suggesting amendments to improve the clarity of the wording he ought to have chased this up with

01:49:32 he ought to have chased this up with kingspan as a matter of urgency

01:49:37 i agree this is an improvement and i agree it should not have been allowed to delay for three years without knowing the details but i have to reiterate that no one

01:49:48 but i have to reiterate that no one should be making a judgment on the fitness purpose of the material on the basis of one statement on the front page

01:50:02 i see um let's go to amended issue one again

01:50:08 again so that's bba 6037 at page five and look down to section seven behavior in relation to fire

01:50:29 now this section has changed in this amended issue one it still states that the product is classified as class naught or low risk that's the same in 7.1

01:50:42 that's the same in 7.1 as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations but then

01:50:46 then this bit has changed it says the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and then for england and wales it's got approved document b and you can see that for volume 2 of

01:50:58 and you can see that for volume 2 of approved document b it now says not only that paragraphs 12.5

01:51:03 12.5 and 12.6 are there but also 12.7 so it's now saying the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of 12.7 of volume 2

01:51:15 of 12.7 of volume 2 of adb

01:51:18 now going back to your third witness statement

01:51:21 statement and uh page 31 of that bba three zeros 10751 page 31

01:51:30 question a

01:51:33 there at the top of the page there's a short question why was reference to paragraph 12.7 added to this section and you say this at one one that

01:51:44 and you say this at one one that paragraph 113. as above i was not involved in the preparation of this certificate but i believe that this reference to 12.7 relates only to the product's use in masonry construction

01:51:56 masonry construction section 12.7 states that any insulation product used above 18 meters must be a material of limited combustibility but also that this restriction does not

01:52:07 but also that this restriction does not apply to a masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9 of the approved documents

01:52:16 documents since the certificate covered the use of both masonry cavity wall and rain screen systems the product could be used in a suitable masonry construction without height restriction provided the

01:52:28 without height restriction provided the requirements of diagram 34 were met now i'm going to come to ask you about the substance of that answer in a moment but can i just ask you this first when

01:52:39 but can i just ask you this first when did you come to form the belief that the reference to 12.7 in amended issue one

01:52:45 issue one related only to the product's use in masonry construction

01:52:52 when i was asked to prepare this witness statement

01:52:56 statement and what led you to form that belief where did you get that from

01:53:03 from my knowledge of the product and the approved documents i believe my suggestion is the only way in which

01:53:09 in which that statement could be correct

01:53:14 i see if we if we look again and sorry within this third witness statement at page 49 paragraph 191 you make the point very confidently there if we look at

01:53:26 there if we look at that in the first five lines you say as described in point 35 above the statement relating to the use of the product in accordance with the provisions of

01:53:37 provisions of clause 12.7 of approved document b volume 2

01:53:40 volume 2 related exclusively to its use in masonry construction it did not cover the product's use as part of a rain screen cladding system for which above 18 meters of material of

01:53:52 for which above 18 meters of material of limited combustibility rating was required

01:53:55 required by the documents supporting the national building regulations

01:54:02 so just to be clear this is in fact your view formed at a later stage is this right

01:54:09 right of what the author or person approving amended issue one might have intended yes yes i was not involved in drafting that statement

01:54:20 have you spoken at any stage to either george lee or chris hunt about what their reasoning was at the time for including this reference

01:54:30 reference to 12.7 in amended issue one

01:54:35 no neither individual worked for the bba and i was aware that both were being asked to provide their own witness statements so i did not think that would be appropriate

01:54:47 george lee in his witness statement did not appear to be able to offer any reason as to why this reference to 12.7 of approved document b was added to amended issue one

01:55:01 and that would tend to suggest would it not that he might not have had in mind the reasoning that you now suggest

01:55:11 it's difficult for me to know what mr lee had in mind when he drafted that certificate but i'm not suggesting that was his intention that's the only way i can see in which that clause would be correct yes

01:55:24 clause would be correct yes can we just look at mr hunt's oral evidence on this if we go to the transcript at day 109 page 56 line 13

01:55:41 so picking it up at line 13 he is asked what do you mean it may have been related to masonry cavity walls can you explain and he says this well having thought

01:55:52 and he says this well having thought about it more recently again obviously with the you know looking at the certificates and the available files and i think that that reference was probably related to masonry cavity

01:56:03 was probably related to masonry cavity construction because that reference appears

01:56:06 appears in approved document b there is that reference to masonry cavity walls and masonry external walls are mentioned in this certificate

01:56:15 um and then going on in the next question yes that is something

01:56:22 something that you've considered fairly recently may have been the reason for the inclusion of that wording is that right and then going on to the next page he says yes

01:56:32 says yes but it seems to me now but that was also likely the likely situation at the time now mr hunt does not appear to know for certain what the reason was for including that wording

01:56:45 including that wording um can you help us with this does the bba

01:56:48 bba keep records of significant amendments made to certificates and the reasons why such amendments are made

01:56:58 we do now in this case the records are sparse

01:57:06 based on bba procedures at the time should there have been a record as to why this amendment was being made in amended issue one

01:57:19 yes this goes beyond what i would normally expect to see carried out under an amendment i would expect to see more documentary evidence that is in

01:57:31 more documentary evidence that is in fact on file yes so just to be clear you would expect to see some written document setting out the rationale for adding in

01:57:42 adding in clause 12.7 of approved document b into this

01:57:45 this amended issue of the certificate yes no not at that level of detail i would expect to see key technical decisions documented we do not explain the rationale behind every single

01:57:58 rationale behind every single clause and a certificate this was a significant amendment wasn't it i don't think it's particularly significant is it it's an

01:58:09 significant is it it's an addition to one clause that's available in the approved document

01:58:14 well let's look at it were you aware in april 2010 of the wording of paragraph 12.7 of a pre-document b yes let's bring that up uh this is the

01:58:25 yes let's bring that up uh this is the 2000 edition 2006 edition at clg 1607 page

01:58:32 1607 page 96.

01:58:44 there we have clause 12.7 and its headed insulation materials slash products in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product

01:58:56 ground level any insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to

01:59:07 this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wool construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now do you agree that other than masonry cavity wall construction the whole

01:59:18 cavity wall construction the whole thrust of that paragraph is that all insulation products being used in the external wall construction of buildings with a story over 18 meters should be materials of limited

01:59:29 should be materials of limited combustibility

01:59:32 yes and this product is not of limited combustibility and the certificate does not state that it is of limited combustibility well how then if it's not a product of

01:59:44 well how then if it's not a product of limited combustibility how then could k15 be used in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of approved document b which is what this certificate said i think it's

01:59:56 said i think it's capable of misinterpretation the only way in which it could satisfy would be for the masonry cavity wall construction but if this product was of limited combustibility

02:00:07 combustibility the bba certificate would very clearly state that in the fire section i think it's an enormous leap to go from compliance with 12.7 to inferring that

02:00:18 that material is of limited combustibility how is that an enormous leap when that is the entire thrust of paragraph 12.7 mr alban well it's not the entire thrust

02:00:29 the entire thrust because it goes on to state this restriction does not apply to masonry i agree it's potentially misleading but once again you have to read the whole certificate if you had gone on to read the specifier

02:00:41 if you had gone on to read the specifier had gone on to read the fire section in its entirety it does not state this material is of limited combustibility and if it was the bba would sus

02:00:52 and if it was the bba would sus explicitly states that it was it also doesn't state this material is not

02:00:58 not of limited combustibility does it

02:01:02 well it's completely impractical to state every single thing that's a product

02:01:06 product isn't our process is to state what a product is and it's not sensible to infer that it is something that the bba does not state it is

02:01:15 it is yes but you're saying that had the certificate been read in its entirety the reader would have realized that this reference in 12.7 was only to an exception in 12.7 yes

02:01:28 exception in 12.7 yes yes i accept if taken in isolation that clause is potentially misleading but it should not be taken in isolation yes but what i'm interested in is what was it elsewhere in the certificate

02:01:40 elsewhere in the certificate that would have informed the reader that the product was not of limited combustibility when there's no such statement

02:01:47 statement anywhere else in the certificate

02:01:51 as i've said i think it is completely impractical to state what a product isn't we can only state what a product is

02:01:58 is it's not non-combustible either and we don't state that we do say without sufficient evidence at the time

02:02:06 the time that it's class o we go on in a later edition

02:02:10 edition to say that it's category c but at no point do we say it's a limited combustibility i see so are you saying that a reader of this

02:02:21 are you saying that a reader of this certificate would not be led to conclude by reference to that 12.7 reference that this product was of limited combustibility

02:02:32 limited combustibility i think that clause is potentially confusing and i would expect a razor then

02:02:38 then look for further confirmation that is of limited combustibility not finding that they would conclude that it is not limited combustibility

02:02:51 i see do you agree that to have added paragraph 12.7 onto that bba certificate for k15

02:03:00 for k15 was misleading and potentially dangerously so given that k-15 was a combustible phenolic foam i agree it's misleading i don't agree it's dangerous because

02:03:12 it's dangerous because again you should read the whole certificate and it does not state that that product is of limited combustibility

02:03:21 i see um let's go to your third witness statement at this point page 33 paragraph 125 vba 3010751 page 33.

02:03:40 here you are being asked at 44 why the reference to 12.7 of approved document b was subsequently removed in the next issue

02:03:50 issue of the bba certificate for k-15 dated the 17th of december i issue two and you say this at one two five you say the certificate wording was changed as

02:04:02 the certificate wording was changed as part of a general bba policy of not repeating information given within the building regulations within the main text of the document for this reason

02:04:14 for this reason all references to approved documents and mandatory standards were removed from this section as part of the second issue the revision did not relate to 12.7 alone and then going on to paragraph 126

02:04:27 alone and then going on to paragraph 126 you say the opportunity was taken to revise the wording in line with other bba insulation certificates as the style and format had evolved since the issue

02:04:38 since the issue of the certificate in 2008. it is bba policy to maintain consistency of approach

02:04:45 approach for a given product type and this often means rewording of sections during certificate reviews in other words is it right that your evidence is that the removal

02:04:56 your evidence is that the removal of the reference to 12.7 of adb was not specific to that particular section

02:05:03 section but simply part of a wider process of stylistic change which happened to be going on at the time is that right yes at the time i was not aware of the

02:05:14 yes at the time i was not aware of the perceived significance of that reference to 12.7

02:05:18 to 12.7 i did become aware of that at the later points with um correspondence with mhclg but at that point this certificate had i believe already being reissued

02:05:31 i see well let's look at that exchange of correspondence now between you and mr brian martin from the dclg in respect of amended issue one of the certificate

02:05:43 the certificate if we can go please to um bba seven 50178

02:05:56 and if we can begin on page three

02:06:01 this begins yes this is the beginning of the chain

02:06:04 the chain it's an email from mr brian martin you can see from communities.gsi.gov dot uk

02:06:11 uk to you copying in guy banson and nick price and the subject is safety concerns regarding bba certificate 08452

02:06:22 regarding bba certificate 08452 and he says dear john i'm not sure we have met i'm currently the official at dclg

02:06:27 dclg responsible for part b of the building regulations it's come to my attention that bba certificate 08452 2008 included advice that the product in

02:06:39 included advice that the product in question satisfied paragraph 12.7 of volume 2 of approved document b paragraph 12.7 provides that insulation materials used in external walls

02:06:50 in external walls should be materials of limited combustibility it would appear however that the product in question is not a material of limited combustibility i am also aware that certificate 08452

02:07:02 i am also aware that certificate 08452 has recently been revised and that this reference has been removed i am concerned that the original certificate may have been issued in error

02:07:12 error as this is a serious safety matter i would appreciate it if you could investigate and invite advise me of the outcome of your investigation as soon as possible

02:07:23 your investigation as soon as possible could you please also acknowledge receipt of this email and then he said best regards brian martin

02:07:31 martin now can you help us what was your reaction when you received this email

02:07:38 i think i was on leave when this email was sent and it was redirected to my colleague john denyer

02:07:48 denyer who handled the immediate investigation in my absence um when i returned from leave

02:07:56 leave john and i discussed and i responded from that point so i wasn't aware of this receipt of this initial

02:08:04 initial email at the time okay so when you did become aware of this email when you returned from leave what was your reaction to it i was

02:08:15 what was your reaction to it i was concerned

02:08:16 concerned clearly this was an issue i was previously unaware of i was aware of brian martin as an experienced professional responsible for appendix

02:08:30 professional responsible for appendix through document b and of course i was concerned that he had these issues yes do you accept that mr martin doesn't appear to have considered the

02:08:41 appear to have considered the possibility that the reference to 12.7 was in fact a reference to the exception for masonry in 12.7 well at this point i wasn't really aware

02:08:53 well at this point i wasn't really aware of the nature of his concern but no it doesn't mention based on reconstruction no he's read it and he has assumed that the reference to paragraph 12.7 is

02:09:07 that the reference to paragraph 12.7 is stating that this product can be considered a material of limited combustibility yes

02:09:17 he's not stating that he's asking us to explain

02:09:21 explain the text of the certificate well he's saying very clearly in the second paragraph isn't he paragraph 12.7 provides that insulation materials should be materials

02:09:32 insulation materials should be materials of limited combustibility it would appear however that the product in question is not a material of limited combustibility so he is concerned about the thrust of paragraph 12.7 yes yes did you agree

02:09:45 yes did you agree when you read this that uh with mr martin's view that this was a serious safety matter

02:09:56 without knowing the basis of his concerns i couldn't draw a conclusion but he had stated this potentially serious safety matters so yes i was very concerned

02:10:07 yes i was very concerned well can i ask it this way once you knew the basis of his concerns did you agree with him that this was a serious safety matter

02:10:16 matter i don't think i ever found out the basis of his concerns

02:10:22 sorry i don't understand that answer aren't the basis for his concerns very clearly set out in this email i never had a conversation with brian martin on the subject we twice offered to meet with mhclg and they declined our

02:10:34 to meet with mhclg and they declined our invitation are you saying that you didn't understand the basis of his concerns based on this email and a reading of of amended issue one of the certificate

02:10:46 amended issue one of the certificate i understood the question he was asking me yes and we responded an explanation i did not understand the background that had caused him to raise this concern

02:11:00 i see let's look at your response to mr martin it comes five days later on the 16th of july we can see it in the email above on page two timed at

02:11:11 in the email above on page two timed at 12 14

02:11:13 12 14 we could go to that

02:11:22 now i can i'll i'll read it to you in a moment but can you remember had you discussed mr martin's email with any colleagues before you sent this response

02:11:35 before you sent this response yes five days later on the 16th of july 2014.

02:11:39 2014. yes as i've explained um my colleague john denyer carried out an investigation aided i think by gatorade ramcon and i believe the three of us discussed

02:11:50 and i believe the three of us discussed it certainly john and i discussed it so you discussed it with john denyer and you think with mr ram miss ramkarin it's myth isn't it is that

02:12:01 miss ramkarin it's myth isn't it is that right yes

02:12:02 right yes yeah so you think the three of you discussed it before you sent this email is that correct i am sure i discussed it with john denier i can't be sure about daytree and can you help us what was the

02:12:15 daytree and can you help us what was the nature of those discussions what did the three of you discuss the wording of the certificate the basis for it

02:12:25 for it um justification for it or otherwise and consequences

02:12:33 and what consequences did you discuss based on the wording of the certificate

02:12:41 was that certificate still valid was the wording still in place were there

02:12:47 there other certificates of the same type that had the same wording that were valid how did the events come about who came up with the wording

02:12:59 wording and what was the likelihood of that wording

02:13:03 wording occurring in future certificates i see and as you've explained and as you also tell us in your witness statement you said that your colleague john denyer

02:13:14 you said that your colleague john denyer conducted an initial investigation can you help us what did mr denier's investigation consist of what did he do

02:13:25 it's difficult for me to recall he certainly would have read the certificate and looked at the basis for the statements made presumably discussed it with colleagues who had drafted it

02:13:36 who had drafted it i'm afraid i don't remember the full details

02:13:40 details can you help us as to what his uh findings were because you tell us at paragraph 184 page 47 of your third witness statement that your response to brian martin was

02:13:51 that your response to brian martin was guided by information generated by the investigation can can you help us what was what were his findings that that investigation had generated

02:14:04 investigation had generated that that statement was open to interpretation and potentially misleading right if we

02:14:17 right if we go back to that email that you write to mr martin let's look at your response

02:14:25 so you say brian and then you say read that certificate and you quote the number and the title thank you for your mail regarding the above certificate the amendments made on the 6th of april

02:14:37 the amendments made on the 6th of april 2010 to certificate 084582 included a new reference to paragraph 12.7 of approved document b this was not intended to imply that the

02:14:48 this was not intended to imply that the product was of limited combustibility and as you have observed was removed in the subsequent reissue dated the 17th of december 2013. the reference to paragraph 12.7 seems to

02:15:00 the reference to paragraph 12.7 seems to have been an unfortunate and rare oversight that would not escape the internal checks and measures that bba currently operate a review of other

02:15:11 bba currently operate a review of other certificates has confirmed that this has not been

02:15:13 not been reproduced elsewhere

02:15:18 now i just want to pause there and we've just been through your witness statement

02:15:26 statement um and we just heard your evidence on the point

02:15:29 the point where you've told us that the reference to 12.7 of adb was inserted into the certificate due to the potential use of the product in masonry cavity wall construction

02:15:42 and you've told us that the reference to 12.7 was only removed as a result of coincidental and wider changes in the formatting applying to all references to the building regulations

02:15:53 references to the building regulations and

02:15:54 and the guidance so that's what you've told us in your statement and in your evidence but here in the email we've been looking at you tell mr martin that the inclusion of

02:16:05 you tell mr martin that the inclusion of 12.7 was

02:16:06 12.7 was an unfortunate and rare oversight which was subsequently removed can you help us why do you tell him that in this email

02:16:21 well firstly if i said in my witness statement

02:16:24 statement that this was inserted because it was intended to cover a masonry construction i apologize that wasn't the intention that is the only way i can see that that statement would be correct

02:16:35 statement would be correct i think there is a difference

02:16:38 yes i see in terms of the specific reference it was removed as part of a policy if that policy had

02:16:49 as part of a policy if that policy had not been in place it would have been reviewed and i think it would have been removed on the basis that it was potentially confusing that judgment was not made because of the policy that overrode it

02:17:02 in terms of my statements to brian martin i think it was included in error because it is potentially misleading and that was as i described there

02:17:13 and that was as i described there unfortunate and i think a rare oversight

02:17:19 i see so i think you're telling us is this right that the inclusion of it was an unfortunate and rare oversight and all you're doing in your statement

02:17:30 you're doing in your statement is speculating about how that reference might potentially have been at least partly correct is that right yes

02:17:42 partly correct is that right yes why do you say in your email that it would not escape the internal checks and measures that the bba were operating in july 2014 can you help us with that

02:17:54 yes at that point we would not be making changes of this type by amendment amendments should only be for very straightforward and simple

02:18:06 straightforward and simple non-technical corrections to a certificate for that reason there was a lower level of checking and oversight applied to an amendment than would have been the case for

02:18:17 been the case for a reissue of the certificate

02:18:22 in addition since this amendment was instigated in 2010 we had put in place additional levels of checking

02:18:30 checking and different additional levels of management within the organization which meant it was significantly less likely that this type of oversight could recur

02:18:43 i see

02:18:48 and what was the review of other certificates that you refer to in your email you can see in the third paragraph down you say a review of other certificates has confirmed that this

02:19:00 certificates has confirmed that this has not been reproduced elsewhere

02:19:05 we checked to see there were no other rain screen insulation certificates that would parallel k-15 and in which we could have made the same mistake

02:19:17 could have made the same mistake and there wasn't what do you mean by no other rain screen installation certificates that would parallel k15 what do you mean by that well as i've tried to explain in this

02:19:28 well as i've tried to explain in this email we have a system of leader certificates whereby any certificate of a given product type should have as far as is technically possible the same technical wording so

02:19:40 possible the same technical wording so they are consistent and comparable so we looked to check there were no other rain screen insulation certificates where we might expect to see this same wording

02:19:51 wording i see and who carried out that review

02:19:57 either john denier or me i can't remember

02:20:00 remember i see we'll come back to that in a moment but can i just ask you um can you tell us why did you not mention the diagram 34 masonry

02:20:12 mention the diagram 34 masonry exception to brian martin in this email can you explain that

02:20:22 i think we had accepted that this wording was open to misinterpretation and wasn't ever um i don't think there would have been any value in trying to

02:20:34 any value in trying to qualify that at the time i wrote this email

02:20:38 email the certificate had been reissued with new wording it was no longer current we didn't understand the background and the nature of his concerns other than the email

02:20:51 other than the email which is why the bba's chief executive and i offered to meet with brian to discuss this to better understand his concerns

02:20:58 concerns he chose not to take up that invitation and we offered a second time and again he chose not to meet with us yes i understand but can you explain what is the value

02:21:09 what is the value as you've tried to do today and in your witness statement what's the value of qualifying that statement now if if that wasn't a position that you took with mr martin back then

02:21:23 well i think in my response to the questions of the inquiry i've been dealing with the situation from 2008 up until

02:21:31 until mid 2017. this was in relation to a specific certificate that had only been in place for a matter of months and had since been reissued so that the wording was no longer current

02:21:44 you see now going back to this review of other certificates um when had that taken place was that between

02:21:52 between your return to the office and your response to mr martin on the 16th of july

02:21:57 july 2014 can you help us with that yes it would have been and how could you be certain that the error had not been reproduced elsewhere without a wider form of

02:22:10 elsewhere without a wider form of investigation

02:22:15 there are a very limited number of certificates of this type the bba has records of all of those certificates we identified them and we checked all of them i think there was only one other at

02:22:27 them i think there was only one other at the time

02:22:29 i see can we go now to bba four zero four two two four this is a series of internal vba emails on this subject

02:22:41 if we start at the bottom of page three and mr denyer's email to you and miss ramkaran there on the 15th of july yet at 9 40.

02:22:55 there on the 15th of july yet at 9 40. we can see he writes um paragraph 12.7 of a pre-document b requires insulation above 18 meters to be of limited combustibility unless it is contained within a masonry

02:23:06 unless it is contained within a masonry cavity wall complying with diagram 34 and then over the page

02:23:14 to page four while the certificate contains a lot of subsections that are clearly taken from cavity wall insulation certificates it may not have been the intention to

02:23:25 it may not have been the intention to imply that the use of the product within masonry cavity walls is within the scope of the certificate i can't find anything on jobconfs relating to the amendments made on the 6th of april 2010 and signed off by

02:23:37 6th of april 2010 and signed off by cross fris hunt this may also be the first and only rain screen insulation board and then he proposes a draft reply and he sets out that draft reply

02:23:49 reply and he sets out that draft reply to mr martin which essentially you adopt when you reply to mr martin do you agree

02:23:56 you agree yes and mr denier was at the time a senior scientist within the bba that's right isn't it yes

02:24:11 if we move up the chain to the next email on page three we can see you send an email to miss ramcaron

02:24:19 ramcaron at 9 21 on the 16th of july 2014

02:24:26 and no so note the time 16th of july 2014

02:24:30 2014 9 21 you say gay tree i need to know urgently i.e today whether this era has slipped into any other certificates of this type

02:24:40 this type could you get someone to check this please thanks and sorry for the lack of notice

02:24:48 now did the review of other certificates that you referred to in your email to mr martin

02:24:55 martin take place on the 16th of july between this email 9 21 and when you sent your email to mr martin which was at 12 14

02:25:06 to mr martin which was at 12 14 on the same day

02:25:13 clearly it must have done there was i thought only one other certificate of this type

02:25:20 this type from john deny's email it appears that this was the only certificate at this time so the check would not have taken very long

02:25:29 i see but you say that that was nevertheless a thorough review do you taking place in around three hours if it was identified there was no other certificate of this time

02:25:40 certificate of this time it would not have taken very long to establish that now staying with this email chain on page two we see that miss ramkaran responds to your urgent message at 9

02:25:52 responds to your urgent message at 9 55 so about 35 minutes later on the same day we look at page two

02:26:03 and she says hi john as discussed this was a first of its kind that is a certificate for the insulation only in a cladding system without actually covering the cladding system and hence perhaps required fire tests

02:26:16 and hence perhaps required fire tests for fitness for purpose we have offered kingspan another contract for similar purpose but in any case it will follow the current version which has the proper firewording as explained in the next paragraph

02:26:27 as explained in the next paragraph having said that if you recall when we did the reissue last year

02:26:31 last year we did agree that the fire statement was indicating cwi when actually it was not so the wording got changed and any argument from the client was sent to x over for their expertise opinion

02:26:43 their expertise opinion as attached and then she goes on my thoughts bearing in mind that the original certificate was the first of its kind and hence would have been commented by technical

02:26:54 been commented by technical i do know the pm who worked on it originally used to be careless and it's easy to blame him

02:27:01 blame him however other people have actually commented on the draft also the revision was done by somebody who was normally very dependent on technical and seems unlikely would have included reference to 12.7 without checking first

02:27:17 now just can you help us um

02:27:23 what did you understand her to mean when she refers to the proper fire wording in the third and fourth lines of the first paragraph of that email

02:27:34 so she says but in any case it will follow the current version which has the proper fire wording as explained in the next paragraph i would assume that means the wording in

02:27:46 i would assume that means the wording in the second edition

02:27:50 so wording that does not include the statement

02:27:53 statement that it may be used in accordance with 12.7 yes

02:27:56 12.7 yes yes and what was meant by cwi in the second paragraph can you see the second paragraph second line she says having said that if you recall when we did the reissue last year we did

02:28:08 when we did the reissue last year we did agree that the fire statement was indicating cwi when actually it was not can you help us

02:28:14 help us as to what that might mean cavity wall insulation i see so she's saying last year we did agree that the fire state was indicating cavity wall insulation when actually it

02:28:25 cavity wall insulation when actually it was not yes yes and is she right to say that the k-15 certificate was a first of its kind in the first line of the first paragraph

02:28:36 in the first line of the first paragraph i believe it was yes and als and can we take it as well the reference to pm under my thoughts in the second italicized

02:28:48 thoughts in the second italicized line she says i do know the pm who worked on it originally used to be careless do we take that that that's project manager yes and which project manager is miss

02:29:01 yes and which project manager is miss ramkaran referring to there

02:29:06 well it's not clear do you want me to speculate

02:29:10 speculate well what did you understand when you received this email who was she referring to when she said i do know the project manager who works on it originally used to be careless what did you understand that to me

02:29:21 what did you understand that to me probably george lee yes

02:29:26 and how would miss ramkaran know this is at the third line of that that other people have commented on the draft she says i do know that other people have actually commented on the draft

02:29:39 i don't know i don't know which draft she's referring to yes we don't have those or any version of this certificate with comments from others

02:29:47 others nor do we know who might have commented on the draft

02:29:52 so you don't know either no sorry no i don't

02:29:56 don't did you carry out any further investigation into who might have commented on or checked the draft

02:30:08 why not

02:30:13 as far as i was aware it was george lee and chris hunt who had worked on

02:30:20 on the amendment neither of those individuals were still employed in a technical capacity by the bba

02:30:31 technical capacity by the bba so that was the reason why you didn't

02:30:35 carry out any further investigation into those individuals yes yes

02:30:49 yes mr chairman i think that is an appropriate moment sorry that i've gone on a couple of minutes past 4 30. i'm doing

02:30:55 doing i'm doing well and um i anticipate tomorrow i would be around no more than 45 minutes an hour with this witness right thank you very much well we'll

02:31:07 right thank you very much well we'll have to go into into tomorrow yes well there we are mr alvon i'm sorry we've got to ask you to come back tomorrow i think not for too long if that's any consolation

02:31:19 that's any consolation and i think you can expect to be away by lunchtime anyway so we'll stop there um we'll we'll continue please at 10 o'clock tomorrow and once again i must ask you not to

02:31:30 and once again i must ask you not to discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else over the adjournment all right okay okay thank you very much then we'll see you at 10 o'clock tomorrow please

02:31:41 you at 10 o'clock tomorrow please okay and that's the end of today's business thank you very much