British Board of Agrément (BBA) Evidence - Thursday 11th March 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:08 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing as usual i'm joined by my fellow panel members mysterio estefan and mr ali akbar good morning good morning good morning

00:00:22 good morning good morning good morning today we're going to hear evidence from mr hammer gregorian who is the first of the witnesses we're going to hear from the british board of agreement

00:00:33 agreement so my first task is just to check that mr gregorian is with us and can see me and hear me clearly

00:00:40 clearly good morning mr gregorian are you there good morning yes and you can hear me and see me all right just fine yep very good thank you very much indeed now on the screen in front of you you should

00:00:51 on the screen in front of you you should have

00:00:52 have the words of an affirmation which uh you're going to make do you have them there yep good could i ask you to make the affirmation please by reading the words on the screen i do solemnly sincerely and truly

00:01:05 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare

00:01:07 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth very good thank you very much indeed now there are a couple of things we need to

00:01:18 there are a couple of things we need to sort out before we start putting some questions to you first can you confirm please that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence yes i am thank you can you confirm that

00:01:29 yes i am thank you can you confirm that you don't have any documents or other materials with you none whatsoever no very good and finally could you confirm please that your mobile phone is in another room and that

00:01:40 mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages i confirmed that yes thank you very much indeed

00:01:48 indeed now um i hope we shan't have any problems with sound or vision you never quite know of course but uh if we do we'll have a short break while the technical support team are on the mat all right okay we shall

00:02:00 are on the mat all right okay we shall have a break during the morning and the afternoon in any event probably around about 11 15 during the morning and around about 3 15 in the afternoon

00:02:11 and around about 3 15 in the afternoon uh if you need any additional break at any time will you just indicate that and we'll try and accommodate you thank you very good um

00:02:24 is there anything you would like to ask me or raise with me before you start answering questions i can't think of anything

00:02:32 anything mr chairman good well thank you very much well in that case i'm going to invite mr millet to put some questions to you okay thank you thank you very much yes mr chairman good

00:02:44 thank you very much yes mr chairman good morning

00:02:44 morning members of the panel good morning and mr gregorian good morning and and uh thank you for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence we are we are very grateful to you

00:02:55 grateful to you uh before i start could i just confirm that you can see me and hear me yes if you have any difficulties in understanding any of the questions i'm going to ask you or you'd like me to put the question

00:03:06 you or you'd like me to put the question in a different way or repeat the question please tell me and i can do that can i also ask you please to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who is on this call

00:03:17 on this call can hear you can i also just advise you that if you nod or shake your head that doesn't go onto the transcript so you'll have to say yes or no as the case may be and if you feel you need a break at any

00:03:29 and if you feel you need a break at any time other than those the chairman has indicated

00:03:32 indicated please just say and we can take a short further break now can we please start by looking at your witness statement at bba three zeros one one zero nine six

00:03:48 is that the first page of your witness statement that you see on the screen there

00:03:52 there yes now you can see that it's dated the 29th of october 2020 at the top right hand corner of the screen yeah and it's it's nine pages long can we go to page nine please

00:04:06 long can we go to page nine please you can see a signature there above the date and your printed name is that your signature it is indeed have you read this witness statement recently uh yes and can you confirm that the

00:04:19 uh yes and can you confirm that the contents of this statement are true yes have you discussed your statement or your evidence with anybody before coming here today no now when you were working at the bba and

00:04:31 now when you were working at the bba and we'll come to the dates shortly you knew an entity called alcoa didn't you

00:04:37 you oh alcoa yes i i have this with alcoa yes and now we've been we've been calling it arconic in this inquiry because it had a change of name after your involvement

00:04:49 of name after your involvement so i'm going to call it arconic so that you understand that when i use the word arconic i'm referring to alcoa

00:04:57 alcoa is that is that clear to you that's fine yeah

00:05:01 yeah i'm going to be asking you mainly about the initial assessment and the certification of reyno bond acm cladding panels which was certified by the bba under certificate zero

00:05:13 certificate zero eight stroke four five one zero dated january 2008 which is the document we can see and we don't need to go to it now at bba 6047.

00:05:26 at bba 6047. now looking back at the history is it right that you were the project manager or product assessor who coordinated the assessment um for the original issue of that bba

00:05:37 um for the original issue of that bba certificate in 2007. that's correct yes and the project was bba number s3 stroke 41014 do you remember that

00:05:48 stroke 41014 do you remember that i believe that was the project number yes and is it right that for that assessment the bba created a technical dossier or technical file

00:06:01 sorry what was the question again um for yes for that assessment the the bba created a technical dossier or technical file yes yes and i'll call

00:06:13 or technical file yes yes and i'll call the contents of that the technical file and the for reference purposes for our records uh it's bba four zeros eight zero four two right

00:06:24 eight zero four two right uh now i'm going to start by asking you some questions about your background and your training uh you were at the bba is this right between 2004 and july 2010 that's correct yes

00:06:37 and july 2010 that's correct yes and you retired from the bba in july 2010

00:06:41 2010 does that mean you retired from your career or you finished working at the bba

00:06:45 bba and went somewhere else i retired from my career i retired period right okay now can we look at your

00:06:56 right okay now can we look at your witness statement please at page two and look at paragraph four together

00:07:07 um you set out your qualifications there and we can see them on the screen um in the um in paragraph uh 4c you refer to the fact that you are a

00:07:18 4c you refer to the fact that you are a chartered engineer mi uh mece uh is the mi uh meced is that a reference to you being a chartered engineer in the institution of

00:07:29 engineer in the institution of mechanical engineers that's correct the chartered engineer would be a member of an institution uh one of which was institutional mechanical engineers i was

00:07:41 institutional mechanical engineers i was a member

00:07:42 a member yes i see and if we look at paragraph five you say my working background has been primarily in the field of design with the construct within the construction industry i worked for the bba from january 2004

00:07:55 i worked for the bba from january 2004 to july 2010 as as product project manager that's correct is it right that you

00:08:02 you had a lengthy career in design uh and construction before joining the bba yes i've had a lot of experience in design and assessment of uh

00:08:15 in design and assessment of uh structures mainly uh relating to the construction industry of course i worked for clearly woodrow as they were then for about 12 years right and what were the dates during

00:08:26 right and what were the dates during which you worked for taylor woodrow uh

00:08:32 i think i've come

00:08:35 i worked 12 years and i think i uh i was made redundant from there because taylor woodrow started uh slimming down their operations i

00:08:46 uh slimming down their operations i think i was there from 19 maybe 19 late night the 1988 possibly to 2000 something like that

00:08:57 something like that right um when you joined the bba um did you join it as a project manager yes and when you joined did you have any experience from your previous work of

00:09:10 experience from your previous work of cladding projects um not cladding such no yeah

00:09:20 now did you have any uh experience of construction on the exterior of high-rise buildings at all

00:09:31 high-rise buildings at all i've dealt with structures [Music]

00:09:35 [Music] mainly steel structures but i've done analysis work uh mainly stress analysis work uh a variety of components variety of

00:09:46 a variety of components variety of structures right we'll come back to that in a moment can i ask you to look at your witness statement on page three please paragraph ten if we can just scroll down to that

00:10:00 uh you say in paragraph ten at the top of the page uh behavior in relation to fire is not my area of expertise so

00:10:11 is not my area of expertise so compliance of the product with fire regulations would have been checked by fire expert eg

00:10:18 eg bre would you routinely ask a fire expert to check data on behavior in relation to fire yes in all projects i seem to remember

00:10:31 yes in all projects i seem to remember we always consulted the fire expert and would you uh routinely ask a fire expert to check any statements that were made by the client about

00:10:44 that were made by the client about the fire data the statements would generally come from as far as i remember they would come from the fire expert where a client made statements about

00:10:57 where a client made statements about what the data represented would you ask a fire expert to check those statements um

00:11:09 i can't um i can't answer that to be honest i i'm not sure whether

00:11:22 i'm not sure whether they were informed before the certificate was issued or i can't remember that all i know is that the classification

00:11:33 all i know is that the classification and so on came from a fire expert i see so is it right then that conclusions about whether a product complied with for example the english

00:11:44 for example the english and welsh building regulations would come from a fire expert not from you that's correct yes yes i see i have no knowledge of fire

00:11:56 yes i see i have no knowledge of fire yes now looking at the end of this paragraph paragraph 10 you say for example

00:12:01 example eg bre was that compliance check for fire normally outsourced outside the bre

00:12:11 bre outside the bba or was it ever done in-house by an in-house bba fire expert uh i think

00:12:24 uh i think with regard to this particular project as a generally speaking i would say bre have got their own facility and they would they would conduct

00:12:35 tests to arrive at the at the classification that would normally do that in this case again i don't know whether the assessment was done

00:12:47 assessment was done without the test or i can't remember that

00:12:51 that yeah my question was slightly different my question was what would happen normally

00:12:55 normally um when you checked compliance or when compliance of a product with fire regulations was checked by a fire expert would that fire expert normally be outside the bba such as the

00:13:07 normally be outside the bba such as the bre

00:13:08 bre or would it be done by an expert in-house within the bba

00:13:17 i don't think we have a fire expert in bba

00:13:21 bba internally so bre would actually assess the product by fire expert i see was there any training on fire

00:13:32 i see was there any training on fire regulations and fire testing ever done in-house during your time at the bba no not i can't remember no

00:13:43 so when we're looking at uh going for fire expertise would it normally be the bre who would provide that expertise

00:13:56 provide that expertise [Music]

00:14:00 um i think the the report could come from from bre but there's also other organization which would come up with a

00:14:12 organization which would come up with a report

00:14:13 report and we would base our statement on that and biari was one of the experts we would

00:14:21 would we would consult to arrive at the fire performance now as at 2007 did you have any experience yourself of fire safety testing of

00:14:33 yourself of fire safety testing of products

00:14:34 products no had you any familiarity with for example the british standard 476 suite of tests

00:14:45 suite of tests uh i must have consulted during my employment but i can't remember anything from it now so i have no knowledge of

00:14:58 from it now so i have no knowledge of i don't know the details how the test is done

00:15:02 so again it's outside my area of expertise

00:15:07 expertise uh with the same apply in relation to the european tests and classification yeah were you aware and i think it would follow that the

00:15:18 and i think it would follow that the answer is no but let let's see what you say we

00:15:20 say we were you aware that there was a difference between the uk testing regime the british standard 476 uh suite of tests on the one hand and

00:15:32 uh suite of tests on the one hand and the european testing uh e13 501 regime on the other i have no knowledge of fire issues so i i really wouldn't know the difference

00:15:46 going back to a question i asked you a moment ago and you said you would uh you would uh go to the bre as one of the experts

00:15:57 uh go to the bre as one of the experts that you would consult who generally was the individual at the bre that you would normally consult on matters of fire safety and fire compliance if help was required as in this case i believe

00:16:10 was required as in this case i believe it was

00:16:11 it was that's what i would do uh i would first of all approach my technical manager who was brian haynes

00:16:19 haynes because of his long-standing relationship or association with the bre uh he's quite knowledgeable uh on fire issues so i would probably

00:16:30 uh on fire issues so i would probably consult him first right but when you went outside the bre who which individual at the bre would you consult when you went outside the bba i think

00:16:46 again i can only concentrate on on this particular project and my contact with regard to this project was sarah caldwell yes i

00:16:57 this project was sarah caldwell yes i see

00:16:58 see sarah colwell on this project can you remember any any names on other projects no no

00:17:06 daniel in your time at the bba do you remember whether um the bba or the bba's customers had a preference for

00:17:17 customers had a preference for using the british national standard uk national standards uh for surface spread of flame

00:17:26 of flame leading to class naught uh all the european standards uh or no preference

00:17:34 um

00:17:37 i can't answer that to be honest i i as i said i have no knowledge of fire at all uh so say anything any issues relating to fire i would uh

00:17:48 any issues relating to fire i would uh consult an expert if if it was required i think in the light of the exchanges we've had so far i think we can take the next

00:17:58 next few questions quite quickly um did when you joined the bba did you have a any knowledge at all of the building regulations um with regard to fire you mean

00:18:09 um with regard to fire you mean well generally number one um yes of course i mean but not not not fire i know very little

00:18:20 not fire i know very little uh with regard to fire safety issues uh does that also mean that at the end of 2007 when you started discussing the content of the bba certificate

00:18:31 content of the bba certificate then in draft with arconic that you had very little knowledge of the requirements of adb that's correct

00:18:42 that's correct uh can we look at the technical file please vba four zeros eight zero four two please look at page

00:18:54 19. and this is on the technical file uh and uh if we go to page one two nine this is section d

00:19:07 to page one two nine this is section d which has got the safety information in it at d as you can see there yeah but if we go to one two nine we can see um a an extract from approved document b namely section 12 construction of external walls

00:19:19 external walls um does the fact that this document was on the technical file indicate that you would have had some familiarity with it at the time it was placed on the technical file uh

00:19:31 the technical file uh we would include this just for the record but i say i don't i never had any many details i never went into details

00:19:42 many details i never went into details uh

00:19:44 uh it was just there as a record who put this document on the technical file the project manager would normally

00:19:55 compile a technical dossier and for this project by which i mean the issue of the iconic

00:20:03 iconic bba certificate in january 2008 you were the project manager were you yes yes and so did you put this document on the technical file uh yes i must have almost have done yes did

00:20:15 yes i must have almost have done yes did anybody tell you to put this document on the technical file or did you work out for yourself that it was relevant we yes i decided it would have been

00:20:26 we yes i decided it would have been relevant

00:20:27 relevant because it's to do with safety issues fire safety issues right was this the first time that you had encountered approved document b uh no i think i may have come across it

00:20:41 uh no i think i may have come across it before

00:20:42 before but i say i've only got a very limited knowledge of the approved document

00:20:49 document can you remember and i know it's difficult uh so many years ago can you remember what it was that prompted you to think that section 12 of approved document b was relevant to the task you had

00:21:09 i to be honest i can't this is to do with cladding and as far as i was concerned

00:21:14 concerned it was relevant construction of external walls

00:21:19 walls so i think it was relevant were you ever given any training specifically on approved

00:21:27 approved the approved documents within the building regulations or and specifically approve document b no

00:21:35 can we and again i think we could take this quite quickly but just to put it in front of you can we look at page 133 please 133 still within the technical file

00:21:46 still within the technical file this is an extract from a proof document b

00:21:49 b known as diagram 40 as you can see which is entitled provisions for external surfaces or walls and if you look at the diagrams at the

00:22:01 if you look at the diagrams at the bottom

00:22:02 bottom of the screen

00:22:06 you can see that there is a letter d any building and letter e any building uh and uh uh with letter d you've got a

00:22:19 uh uh with letter d you've got a boundary of less than one thousand millimeters for a building of 18 meters or more in height and e uh same again but this time a thousand millimeters or more um

00:22:33 a thousand millimeters or more um and can you see that but there are parts of this build these two diagrams which are shaded yes yes and next to uh

00:22:44 yes and next to uh so you've got one on the left which is fully shaded and the one on the right letter e which is partly shaded any dimension over 18 meters is the part that's shaded and then on the right hand side of the

00:22:55 and then on the right hand side of the screen you can see under the rubric key to external wall surface classification the second box down which has the corresponding shading uh says class naught national class or

00:23:07 uh says class naught national class or class b

00:23:07 class b s3 d2 or better european class were you familiar with diagram 40 this page of adb and specifically

00:23:18 this page of adb and specifically this part of it that i've just shown you all i

00:23:21 all i knew in this regard was um uh approved document b allowed the use of materials of

00:23:33 allowed the use of materials of limited combustibility to be used above 80 meters that's all i know with regard to this

00:23:42 i may have looked at the details as as shown here but i can't remember i mean i i never went into details because as i

00:23:53 i never went into details because as i say this wasn't my this wasn't my area but we're way outside my area of expertise really yes i understand and the reason i'm asking you is i know very little about

00:24:05 asking you is i know very little about the uh

00:24:09 approved document and that i do it was it was um within my knowledge the the 18 meter restriction was i was aware of that i'm asking you

00:24:22 i was aware of that i'm asking you because

00:24:23 because this page is on the technical file did you

00:24:26 you did you read this page when considering uh the bba certificate in 2007. uh yes i must have i must have

00:24:39 in 2007. uh yes i must have i must have read this yes uh did you uh understand what was meant or signified by the shaded area class naught national class or class b

00:24:51 naught national class or class b through s3 d2 or better european class again i can only repeat what i've said just

00:25:00 just um i mean did anything when you saw this give you give you pause to question it um [Music]

00:25:10 [Music] yes i really can't go into detail at this stage because i have very very little knowledge of fire all i know is limited

00:25:24 materials of limited combustibility could be used above 18 meters but as to whether the

00:25:34 the panels in question were of limited combustibility that i would leave to the um to the fire expert yes i i have very

00:25:48 to the fire expert yes i i have very at the moment i i can't i mean these details don't mean very much to me but i am i know that at the time i was aware of this 18 meter restriction i understand um

00:26:01 restriction i understand um let me just try two questions on you with the

00:26:04 with the caveat you've given um the first is you say you knew that there was a restriction above 18 meters save in relation to

00:26:15 above 18 meters save in relation to materials of limited combustibility did you understand or think at the time that there was a difference between the

00:26:26 that there was a difference between the concept of limited combustibility on the one hand and the concept of class naught national class or class b s3 d2 or better european class on the

00:26:37 s3 d2 or better european class on the other

00:26:38 other but they were different ideas uh again i don't know the details that i've mentioned this before

00:26:48 the statement was given to me with regard to fire performance and i just included in the certificate everything all assessments relating to fire came

00:27:00 all assessments relating to fire came from a fire expert and i have no i had no input in that at all let me just try one more question on you and forgive me if you look at the bottom of diagram 40

00:27:12 if you look at the bottom of diagram 40 you can see that there's a note we can just go back to it

00:27:19 uh as a note uh note one which says the national classifications do not automatically equate with the equivalent european classifications therefore products cannot typically

00:27:30 therefore products cannot typically assume a european class unless they have been tested accordingly um that note there is that something that you noticed at

00:27:41 is that something that you noticed at the time

00:27:42 the time you think yes i must have must have read it and

00:27:52 yes i must have read it what did you understand by it do you remember

00:28:07 uh the relationship between the european classification and the building regulations cannot be assumed to be the same they

00:28:19 cannot be assumed to be the same they cannot be assumed exactly the same so they uh so i'm just guessing that

00:28:32 um

00:28:35 so let's say class one european might be different to class class not in uk so all i'm saying is that you can't it's saying you're not

00:28:46 saying you're not well it's exactly what it says you can't exactly equate uh the european classifications to the

00:28:56 uk but other than that i really don't know i just don't as i say again at the risk of repeating myself

00:29:09 fire was not within my area of expertise so i i just cannot i must have read it at some stage

00:29:22 but as i say all statements and fire performance assessments came from the fire expert

00:29:32 let's turn to your role then you have to confirm that you are a project manager at the bba that's correct as a project manager am i right to understand that you don't necessarily have all the technical

00:29:44 necessarily have all the technical skills to make all the relevant assessments yourself that's correct and you would manage other people's input into the assessment is that right and there is other areas

00:29:56 is that right and there is other areas you would have the technical skills to assess yourself uh my main role within the bba was i was assigned to the structural department

00:30:09 and

00:30:12 i would just manage projects as normal by by consulting various um sections would have the input

00:30:24 various um sections would have the input into the draft certificate which i would make a start on and [Music]

00:30:32 [Music] i also as i say i i looked at the structural aspect my area of expertise in

00:30:37 in was in structures strength of materials structures that i could i could make assessments but on top of that i would also

00:30:50 but on top of that i would also offer any advice or technical support to any of the departments as required now i'd like to ask you some questions about the reporting lines at the time in 2007

00:31:04 at the time in 2007 did you report to jeff gurney uh i believe so i think uh somewhere around that time i think the bba was undergoing some organizational

00:31:16 bba was undergoing some organizational changes

00:31:18 changes so uh i

00:31:21 so uh i say jeff gurney was my section head and who did he report to he reported to the technical manager brian haynes he reported to brian haynes did brian

00:31:32 he reported to brian haynes did brian haynes

00:31:33 haynes have any expertise in fire regulation i think you mentioned earlier he did yes he well i wouldn't i wouldn't call him an expert in the bba but i think he's had

00:31:45 in the bba but i think he's had long association with pre and he's gained a lot of knowledge with regard to fire so certainly he knows he knew

00:31:56 knows he knew much more than i did so

00:32:01 and jeff gurney did he have any fire expertise no no um perhaps more than me because of his longer service

00:32:12 did brian hayes have input uh generally to the technical work of the sections

00:32:19 sections uh in relation specifically to fire um

00:32:26 i'm sure he would have uh see the the draft certificate would circulate uh in a loop going between the various sections and they

00:32:37 between the various sections and they would make a comment and eventually the um

00:32:40 um certificate would uh would be looked at by

00:32:44 by brian and i'm sure he would have looked at the fire quite carefully

00:32:51 who was responsible for the technical sign off of certificates which were issued as a result of your work uh in my case

00:33:02 uh in my case the section head would sign again as i say bearing in mind

00:33:09 there was an organizational change going on i'm not sure if jeff gurney was our section head but normally that's what would have happened section head would sign off but only

00:33:21 section head would sign off but only only with respect to the particular discipline

00:33:26 which was structures in my case and specifically at the end of 2007 beginning of 2008 who was the section head was that jeff gurney uh again i can't remember um

00:33:41 uh again i can't remember um did brian hayes do you remember czech statements um specifically asking you about 2007 early 2008 at that time did brian haynes

00:33:53 early 2008 at that time did brian haynes check statements made in bba certificates about a product or a system's behavior in relation to fire sorry the question was did sorry did

00:34:06 sorry the question was did sorry did brian haynes check statements which were made in bba certificates i'm sure i'm sure that was his sort of main

00:34:13 main interest in actually being fire so i'm sure they would have he would have looked at fire aspects quite carefully and specifically in relation to the renault bond

00:34:24 renault bond 55 panel did brian haynes in fact check the statements made about fire performance yep in 2008 yes

00:34:38 um can i then get back to the question we were looking at earlier about the bre and you've given us a little bit of information about that um going back if we can to

00:34:47 we can to page three of your statement of paragraph 10.

00:34:52 uh you given the example of the bre there at the end of paragraph 10 as an ex as an example of an external fire expert that the bba would consult in relation

00:35:05 that the bba would consult in relation to matters of fire safety and you i think have also said that the bba would also use other organizations did that include uh warrington or xova

00:35:19 yes we might have we might have uh consulted warrington for some tests and so on

00:35:26 so on yes to the best of your recollection during your time at the bba did the bba have any formal agreement or consultancy agreements with the bb bre or with warrington

00:35:42 i never got involved in the contractual matters um i'm guessing there was uh there was a contract

00:35:49 contract between the various parties you're guessing can let me be a little bit more focused do you remember whether the bba paid for example the bre to check statements

00:36:00 for example the bre to check statements about fire performance on certificates yes um again i'm not sure how what the contractual agreement was i'm sorry i can't i can't answer that to be honest

00:36:11 answer that to be honest okay um again focusing on paragraph 10 and you say compliance of the product with fire regulations would have been checked by a fire expert was that invariably the case

00:36:23 was that invariably the case in other words did the bre or other external

00:36:27 external fire expert check every certificate issued by the bba where performance in relation to fire was stated

00:36:38 the report would come up with a classification of some sort and we would include that within the within the body of the certificate

00:36:49 of the certificate the report which report

00:36:53 the test reports

00:36:57 yes sorry i'm not sure i perhaps made my questions

00:37:00 questions clear when

00:37:04 you say in your statement compliance of the product with fire regulations would have been checked by a fire expert uh did the bre check every certificate for fire performance

00:37:18 certificate the bba issued i don't think that was the norm i don't think that was the norm you don't think that it was the norm so

00:37:29 you don't think that it was the norm so on what occasions would the bba go to the bre or other external

00:37:34 external fire expert for assistance in a case such as this where where there was

00:37:41 uh there was a query there was a something to be to be clarified

00:37:48 with regard to with regard to the um coatings on the panels and so on uh whenever there was a problem we would consult a fire expert like bre i see but do i take it from

00:38:01 like bre i see but do i take it from what you've told us that when you didn't think there was a problem you wouldn't need to

00:38:05 need to go to the bre or other similar external expert i think we would generally again i can't remember all the

00:38:16 all the projects i've been involved in but

00:38:20 but generally the test report would give a classification and we would include a statement accordingly can you give us some sort of idea about

00:38:31 can you give us some sort of idea about what sort

00:38:32 what sort of queries or need for clarification

00:38:38 would arise

00:38:41 which would prompt you to go to the bre for example yes in this case of course we had to get some information from alcoa

00:38:55 and

00:38:59 bearing in mind this was a confirmation certificate we had to be absolutely sure as regards the fire performance so just to make sure

00:39:13 we had to consult bre

00:39:24 was there a particular problem that you perceived in the records uh leading up to the issue of the certificate or or what you saw on the technical file which prompted basically apparently i understand the

00:39:36 apparently i understand the actual color for instance has got a major bearing on the fire performance so

00:39:49 i needed clarification with regard to that and of course with regard to the back face of the panel

00:39:56 panel again i again because of my lack of familiarity with fire issues i had to consult to make sure

00:40:08 that the right classification goes on to the certain kill yes now um let's turn to uh bva certificates uh and types of them um you mentioned a moment ago that because

00:40:20 you mentioned a moment ago that because this was a confirmation certificate uh can i just understand what that is um is it a certificate which confirms data

00:40:31 is it a certificate which confirms data which has come from another organization not confirming data but basically to check

00:40:38 check that the the product put forward complies with the requirements of the uk building regulations of course that

00:40:51 uk building regulations of course that just confirming that it's good enough to put

00:40:55 put to be put onto the onto a cladding system

00:40:58 system and what would you sorry go ahead with your i'm sorry i overspoke do you want to continue yeah basically to confirm

00:41:09 yeah basically to confirm to confirm that this particular product which was assessed by a ueatc member do i need to expand on uatc

00:41:21 ueatc member do i need to expand on uatc or you're not familiar with that uh well do you tell us what you want the atc

00:41:27 atc uatc is a european technical approvals body and certification bodies like bba and the cstb

00:41:38 cstb are members of it and all assessment work

00:41:41 work by any of the certification bodies is acceptable mutually acceptable to other certification bodies within the approval

00:41:52 certification bodies within the approval body it's a it's a european group of certification bodies yes and when you issue a certificate such as

00:42:04 when you issue a certificate such as this one um are you confirming uh the um fire safety for example um against particular underlying data

00:42:18 again fire i cannot comment because i have

00:42:22 have have very little knowledge of fire issues

00:42:25 issues but basically basically confirm to confirm that the this particular product for instance uh met with the building regulations

00:42:37 uh met with the building regulations in this country

00:42:40 it's not it's not confirming the data it's confirming whether based on the data the product could meet our building regulations and standards

00:42:58 our building regulations and standards and in order to make that confirmation you would have to look at the data wouldn't you yes indeed and would the data that you would normally look at to issue a confirmation certificate include

00:43:10 certificate include test data or classification data which had come from uh uatc bodies such as the cstb exactly yes yes i see

00:43:21 the cstb exactly yes yes i see um now is it right that some certificates were leaders and some were followers

00:43:26 followers uh using the bba panels that's correct yeah and is it right that leaders

00:43:33 leaders uh would be submitted to a panel of experts to review as well as to the certificate holder and others

00:43:40 others at the bba yes

00:43:44 and am i right in thinking that the bba certificate for renault bond that was issued in january 2008 was both a confirmation certificate and a leader i think that was the case

00:43:57 and a leader i think that was the case yes

00:43:58 yes would a leader certificate require more attention

00:44:02 attention and expertise to assess than a follower

00:44:07 not necessarily it just depends on the complexity of the product really

00:44:15 now can i show you the certificates sorry i

00:44:18 sorry i apologize for that um with the avi tech with the confirmation certificate the the time span was shorter uh

00:44:30 the the time span was shorter uh instead of nine months which was the normal

00:44:34 normal um time given to a normal certificate with confirmation it was shorter so because all data

00:44:45 so because all data were for all intents and purposes acceptable to be a so that's all i can say with regard to this

00:44:54 this particular type of certification right well then can you just explain as briefly as you can what the difference is or was between a

00:45:05 what the difference is or was between a leader certificate and a follower certificate if if a similar

00:45:09 similar product or a system was was already given a bba certificate

00:45:20 that would be a follower if [Music]

00:45:25 [Music] in case of a leader certificate it would have been

00:45:30 have been the first time such a such a thing was being assessed so in this case i think i think this was a

00:45:41 in this case i think i think this was a leader

00:45:41 leader having said that i think we had covered similar similar products bearing in mind this is not a system we have assessed it's a

00:45:51 it's a product the panel was the product we were assessing and just to confirm something i think you said a moment ago is it right but just to be clear that a leader certificate would have to be

00:46:02 leader certificate would have to be submitted to a panel of experts to review

00:46:07 yes and those would be outside the bba

00:46:19 i think so yes yes from memory uh i think

00:46:23 think that was the case now i'm going to show you the certificate uh we'll come back to it in detail but just just to fix it in your memory um it's bba6047 if we could just have

00:46:34 um it's bba6047 if we could just have that up please

00:46:45 this is the certificate in its final form

00:46:49 form and you can see the number on the top right hand corner of the screen zero eight stroke four five one zero yep and uh product sheet one rayno bond architecture wall cladding panels

00:47:00 architecture wall cladding panels and if you go down to the bottom of the screen um you'll see that there's a date of issue

00:47:06 of issue and it's the 14th of january 2008. so that's the certificate just to be clear do you recognize that yes i do yes thank you and that's the one you project managed

00:47:18 one you project managed when you were at the bba that's correct now

00:47:21 now can we have a a run-up to that in in chronological terms and we'll start in 2004 do you remember that arconic first made an application to the

00:47:32 arconic first made an application to the bba for assessment in march 2004. i was never i can't remember that uh right can we go to bba at four zeroes

00:47:46 right can we go to bba at four zeroes eight zero four two technical file at page six

00:47:49 page six two seven

00:48:01 at this at the bottom of the page you'll see that there's an email from you to claude verlay on the 1st of june 2004 in which you say dear

00:48:12 of june 2004 in which you say dear claude

00:48:12 claude i'm in the process of drawing up a contract for the subject please confirm whether the subframe to which the panel is attached is to be included in the assessment uh can we take it from that mr gregorian

00:48:25 uh can we take it from that mr gregorian that you read the application form uh in some detail at that stage yes what was your role in drawing up a contract

00:48:36 contract for the subject

00:48:46 um

00:48:50 i think the project project manager would

00:48:53 would draw up a contract

00:48:57 and with the approval of the section head it would just go through

00:49:04 so i'm i do recognize this this particular email yes would you read the technical file thoroughly in the process of drawing up a contract such as this

00:49:17 of drawing up a contract such as this the technical file was was compiled after the project was completed i see let's move forward then to 2006

00:49:29 to 2006 because we know that the bba offered this contract but it wasn't taken up um do you remember that in 2006 arconic again sent an application form to the bba

00:49:39 bba um materially identical to the application they've made in 2004

00:49:49 again i can't remember that

00:49:53 let's um look at a document m e t three zeros five three one five eight underscore p14 page 100 please that this mr gregorian is an exhibit

00:50:05 that this mr gregorian is an exhibit from

00:50:06 from claude verlet's exhibits to his witness statement to the inquiry it's a letter um which uh is uh sent by the bba

00:50:20 is uh sent by the bba as you can see to colin southgate of arconic

00:50:23 arconic dated the 23rd of august 2006 uh and its title assessment of rayna bond 55

00:50:31 bond 55 you see that uh and uh if you go to the second paragraph you can see that there was a fee and although it's not very clear the figure is at 20

00:50:42 figure is at 20 495 pounds you see that yes and if you uh yeah do you recognize that document

00:50:54 uh yeah do you recognize that document do you think uh yes i remember having seen it yes uh let's look at let's look at what's attached to it there's an attachment can we go to page 102 please

00:51:10 and this is an assessment specification uh which was part of that document and you can see at the top it's got a new reference

00:51:18 reference s3 stroke 41014 uh and it's dated the 22nd of august 2006.

00:51:25 2006. um and just looking at it do you think this was a document you drew up

00:51:31 yes this is sort of standard format of offering a contract and if you look under the items under general

00:51:43 yes

00:51:46 you can see uh number one point one it is one point one product name renault bond 55 and then product type

00:51:57 renault bond 55 and then product type aluminium stroke polyethylene composite wall cladding system and note the word system there and then if we look at section 2.1 product range uh it says composite

00:52:10 product range uh it says composite panels

00:52:11 panels this is at the bottom of the screen uh no it's at the top of the screen composite panels made up of a polyethylene core sandwiched between two pre-painted half millimeter thick aluminium sheets

00:52:22 aluminium sheets three thicknesses and uh it goes on to explain what those are and the sizes and then below that and under ancillary items it says alcoa aluminium support rails or similar

00:52:33 aluminium support rails or similar approved and fixing any subframing and its attachment to the substrate walls are outside the scope of this

00:52:38 this assessment as are other miscellaneous construction details

00:52:43 am i right in thinking that if this offer had been accepted by arconic at the time

00:52:48 the time then it's this assessment specification that we'd be looking at which would define the final scope of the product certified

00:52:58 i think if at some stage you must have decided

00:53:01 decided to approach this assessment differently by

00:53:05 by to approve just a panel on itself by itself

00:53:09 itself rather than the whole system well your your yes and i'm going to ask you in detail about that but generally speaking uh just on the face of it

00:53:20 face of it would it be this assessment specification which would define the final scope of the product certified uh i really wouldn't

00:53:32 uh i really wouldn't i can't comment because i um

00:53:37 this this was a contract which was offered uh but i don't think we're under obligation to

00:53:44 to uh

00:53:47 to sort of

00:53:50 stick to this particular detail so we were at liberty i think to uh to do the assessment in the way bba would approach

00:54:03 in the way bba would approach this assessment i think we were i think we were at liberty to divert to some extent from the contract yes from

00:54:13 yes from as it stated here but i'm quite sure it was the panel that was uh being assessed and the certificate actually makes that clear

00:54:25 actually makes that clear when you look at 1.2 if we can just scroll back up please to the top of the screen same page with the top of the screen uh under paragraph 1.2 under product

00:54:36 uh under paragraph 1.2 under product type

00:54:36 type where you see that it says system opposite wall cladding system uh what would be what was indicated by the

00:54:47 what would be what was indicated by the word system there remember i think the i said the intention was to draw attention that these these composite

00:54:59 composite wall panels would be used in a cladding system but it's not meant to be an accurate definition of the um of what we were assessing was it um were you were you

00:55:12 was it um were you were you intending to capture uh the simply the flat product the panel itself or the product as fabricated into cassette or rivet fix

00:55:23 as fabricated into cassette or rivet fix or attached to a fixing system um our

00:55:31 um our assessment was was to ensure that the cladding material this composite material could be used in any

00:55:43 could be used in any any cladding system be it cassette or riveted our assessment stopped at the fixings anything beyond that

00:55:55 that would not be covered by the certificate i think this sort of get makes that

00:56:00 clear yes can i then ask you about the avid techniques if that's the right way of pronouncing it can we please go to uh page one

00:56:13 can we please go to uh page one seven three i'm sorry we want um met3053158 underscore p13

00:56:25 page 173

00:56:33 uh this is uh part of the application form sent to you by mr verle in 2006 and you can see that this is a list of reports that supported the application at that time

00:56:45 the application at that time and in the top two rows you see it says uh iv technique can you see that on the left hand side there yes and then in the next cells you can see that these are offered um for structural and system for

00:56:57 um for structural and system for cassettes

00:56:58 cassettes structural and system for riveted um did you see this document in 2006 do you think

00:57:06 think yes um what did what did uh what did avis technique structural and system for cassettes

00:57:16 cassettes and for riveting mean to you at the time i think

00:57:20 i think csdb

00:57:23 had a different approach with regard to assessment they would assess

00:57:30 different types of cladding system cassette or riveted they would assess the whole system that's the impression i got

00:57:38 got and obviously when you ask for information that's what they had that's what they provided but our job was to extract information with regard to the panel

00:57:49 with regard to the panel on its own from the document when you saw structural and system uh did you think that included or excluded at fire

00:58:03 sorry with regard to fire yes when you saw

00:58:06 saw avid's technique structural and system for both cassettes and rivets did you think that that included or excluded an assessment for fire

00:58:19 i'm only guessing for different

00:58:24 fixing systems they would have they would have their own assessment in relation to fire yes did you look do you remember at the

00:58:35 yes did you look do you remember at the cstb

00:58:37 cstb avi technique documents themselves that underlay

00:58:40 underlay uh this part of the application yes i must have seen the avid technique yes yes

00:58:50 yes yes can i just show you uh those then can we um

00:58:53 um go back to mr verle's exhibit part 14. met3053158 underscore p 14 page 8.

00:59:06 um you can see this is technical opinion uh

00:59:09 uh it's 2 0 4 1083 and if you scroll um down a little bit you can still look down a little bit you can see it says rename cassette system

00:59:21 says rename cassette system and if you go and let's have it at the same time on the same screen please page 64

00:59:26 64 of the same exhibit run please we can see

00:59:31 see uh that this is technical assessment uh two zero

00:59:37 two zero four ten eighty three uh and this is

00:59:41 this is 1081 on the right hand side of the screen got 1083 on the left 1081 on the right and this one is for the riveted system when you looked at this application did you notice that

00:59:53 you notice that there were two different technical opinions from the cstb one for cassette system and one for riveting system yes basically because their approach to assessment

01:00:05 assessment was different they were assessing the system

01:00:08 system uh rather than just the panel on its own yes and uh did you did you notice did you read these do you think at the time some i think uh yes i regularly remember

01:00:20 some i think uh yes i regularly remember this yes

01:00:21 this yes yes uh and as you say there's nothing about these these uh assessments these technical assessments um are about fire safety

01:00:32 um are about fire safety uh i suppose not when you say you suppose not uh do you remember that um i mean i don't read it or not take

01:00:43 um i mean i don't read it or not take them through you take i think with regard to fire i think uh we were concentrating on the actual panel and that's why we asked uh that um

01:00:56 uh that um test results be provided for us to assess

01:01:00 assess the actual panel rather than the system when you say system uh do you mean specifically as fabricated i mean i mean the the the panel and including

01:01:11 i mean the the the panel and including the substructure

01:01:14 right so that would be the panel as fabric as fabricated and the substructure and the substructure yes i think that's the uh the std approach

01:01:25 uh the std approach but i think in this country the approach was different people just approved the actual panel and whether it was suitable to be incorporated in a

01:01:36 was suitable to be incorporated in a cladding system yes but just to be very clear

01:01:40 clear when you say um

01:01:44 the panel and including the substructure do you mean the panel as fabricated in other words as a rivet or as a cassette and the substructure

01:01:55 or as a cassette and the substructure yes yes now

01:01:59 can i then turn to the discussions that you had with our comics starting in november 2006 and can we stay in this exhibit run please and go to page 114.

01:02:11 please and go to page 114. this is an internal iconic document mr gregorian

01:02:15 gregorian so you may not have seen it before and you are unlikely to have seen it at the time uh it's dated to the uh the 2nd of november 2006

01:02:27 november 2006 and you can see that it's a visit report uh

01:02:30 uh created by arconic and written by colin southgate as you can see from the right-hand side of the document at the top location gaston watford uk

01:02:43 location gaston watford uk were those the bba offices at the time

01:02:47 yes and the date of the visit 2nd of november 2006 and you can see who was present

01:02:53 present uh we've got for the bba we've got bob keys

01:02:56 keys john albon and you you see that yeah and on the other side the iconic people present were colin southgate and andrew rich

01:03:07 andrew rich just just pausing on the words next to your name there aim system depth is that engineering system department engineering system department yes right

01:03:16 yes right do you remember this meeting at all um late never late 2006 i can't remember to be honest i know all

01:03:27 i can't remember to be honest i know all right i can't remember let's look down at the document and see how much of it you can help us with uh if we go to item one you can see reason for visit exploratory call to access situation i

01:03:39 exploratory call to access situation i think that means assess situation as follows with see there that's claude verlet in attendance uh now um that

01:03:51 uh now um that well do you remember whether mr valet attended in person or whether he attended by telephone

01:04:00 i can't remember right can we go down to point two

01:04:04 point two details of visit it says after a general discussion with bk and cs threats to stop all dealings with bba unless a satisfactory solution

01:04:15 solution was found re both the above potential approvals

01:04:18 approvals bk had arranged for the bba persons responsible for each product to be in attendance then if we scroll down to page 115 please

01:04:29 we can see that there's a meeting b and it says

01:04:33 it says meeting b uh rb55 proposal dated 23rd of august 2006 with hammer gregorian bba confirmed that they would look at the original proposal and try to reduce the cost

01:04:45 and try to reduce the cost they will use cstb as details as basis of validation that are concerned that uk building regs are more demanding than french regs also enclosed was fire regulation input this will not be needed if bba have

01:04:57 this will not be needed if bba have latest certs from warrington research covering pe cores and then it says on the right hand side

01:05:04 side claude vela stroke cs we think that's called

01:05:08 called schmidt both of our conic to send full certs to bba

01:05:15 can you confirm what cstb details means there when it says they will use

01:05:23 will use cstb details as a basis of validation basically the assessment done by cstb uh leading to the

01:05:34 done by cstb uh leading to the technique so that's a reference is it to the avi technique documents that are iconic so mainly but they might have they might provide other information as well right is it right that the bba was still

01:05:47 right is it right that the bba was still looking for fire safety certification

01:05:54 from this obviously fire was an important issue and as i say i can't remember the actual meeting

01:06:05 actual meeting but

01:06:09 just concentrating on on the fire aspect right when it says

01:06:17 they are concerned that uk building regs are more demanding than french regs looking at the document it looks as if that's a reference to the bba

01:06:26 bba having that concern do you remember whether that's right that the bba did have a concern at the time that uk building regulations were more demanding than french regulations

01:06:39 demanding than french regulations at some stage i must have consulted possibly brian haynes to to make sure that that was the case and was that the case specifically in relation to fire uh

01:06:51 fire uh yes especially on on fire yes yes now we'll come back to this document in just a moment do you recall

01:07:01 recall a discussion at that time about reducing the cost

01:07:04 the cost of the assessment contract for arconic i can't remember do you remember whether arconic wanted

01:07:15 do you remember whether arconic wanted to reduce the cost of the assessment by providing data rather than conducting more tests do you remember that no going back to the document just underneath where we were it says

01:07:31 just underneath where we were it says i have suggested can you see in the middle of the screen i have suggested that it could be better to validate the material rb rather than the whole system this way

01:07:42 rb rather than the whole system this way a cross connection can be put together that goes on below that bba certification for four millimeters thick times rb55 material

01:07:53 material cstb certification for rb plus systems then it goes on this way our two product materials

01:08:01 materials rlx and rb against raynolux and renault bond

01:08:05 bond can be approved on paper which will cover most needs such as the nhbc straight nbs organization

01:08:15 do you recall this discussion or at least the gist of the discussion suggested by this note this was what i was referring to i think the approach

01:08:26 the approach with cstb and bba were different in this respect and i think we were trying to push this idea that the panel

01:08:35 the panel could be assessed separately from the from the rest of the system

01:08:43 i i see say by whole system here in that line where it says it could be better to validate the material or be

01:08:54 material or be rather than the whole system did did that mean

01:08:58 that mean validating the material rather than the fabricated panel in other words cassette fixing system or rivet fixing this is correct yes see

01:09:09 or rivet fixing this is correct yes see and

01:09:12 what what was the so-called cross-connection that was desired here that's referred to sorry i don't understand the question well i i'm just asking you about that

01:09:24 well i i'm just asking you about that second sentence in that paragraph where it says this way a cross connection can be put together what was that cross connection can you recall

01:09:47 i'm not sure what two products were to be honest um no i can't remember that um a little bit earlier in your uh answers you said that you think you were trying

01:09:58 you said that you think you were trying to push this idea that the panel could be assessed separately from the rest of the system but when you say

01:10:08 the panel as opposed to the system um can you just explain a little bit more what you mean about that difference what was the panel and what was the system

01:10:19 system uh as i say the the approach the bba adopted was to try and assess the panel on its own and

01:10:31 try and assess the panel on its own and whether it is suitable to be put on a system

01:10:38 so i think the the vba certificate actually makes it clear that

01:10:47 the panel could be incorporated in a cladding system which would have to be designed

01:10:51 designed by a consulting engineer let's say yes so

01:10:58 yes so anything anything beyond the actual fixings

01:11:02 fixings was not covered by the certificate uh it's probably a much safer approach than the covering the whole system when you say to try and assess the panel

01:11:14 when you say to try and assess the panel on its own i just want to be as clear as as i can here do you mean the raw panel before it's fabricated into a fixing

01:11:25 before it's fabricated into a fixing system rivet or cassette or do you mean the fabricated panel uh

01:11:34 the actual panel itself would have certain physical properties which should be used to design uh the fabric category

01:11:46 uh the fabric category does that answer your question not not really

01:11:51 when you when you're drawing this distinction between the panel uh and the system i understand what you mean by system but when you say panel

01:12:02 when you say panel do you mean the panel before it's fabricated for fixing as rivet or cassette

01:12:09 cassette or the panel as fabricated for rivet no it could be just the panel as a material right now when we come back then to this document

01:12:20 document this way a cross-connection can be put together

01:12:24 together what did that mean do you think do you remember

01:12:32 sorry which paragraph is that it's the paragraph on the in the middle of the screen which says i suggested that it could be better to validate the material rb rather than the

01:12:43 validate the material rb rather than the whole system this way a cross connection can be put together what was the cross connection um i think they must have

01:12:54 um i think they must have referred to the two systems and the cross collection would be uh the fact that it's just just a panel being being assessed i'm guessing that's what this

01:13:06 assessed i'm guessing that's what this means

01:13:10 right yeah the idea being is to

01:13:14 stay away from the cstb approach which was covering the two types of system and concentrate on the composite panel material itself

01:13:28 i see so when you refer to when this says the material rb rather than the whole system your understanding or your

01:13:40 system your understanding or your recollection was that this was a a suggestion relating to the raw panel that's correct rather than the fabricated panel as opposed to yes yes i see now

01:13:51 yes yes i see now just a question of going back to the assessment specification which we saw earlier which defined the scope as being the system and you said well that could change would it be normal um

01:14:03 normal um for such a change to be made or would it be or would it be exceptional it's not very often we came across something like this and to the best of my recollection

01:14:18 and to the best of my recollection this is probably the first one i've ever come across normally products or systems are quite straightforward this was slightly different

01:14:31 this was slightly different you say it was the first one you'd ever come across did that raise any suspicions in your mind about what what arconic was trying to do no i think i said the bba approach was

01:14:44 no i think i said the bba approach was that it's

01:14:45 that it's it was much better to assess a product

01:14:50 than than the system and before we leave this document two things first of all you can see that here it says i have suggested and that's an iconic person and

01:15:01 and that's an iconic person and suggested that it could be better to validate the material rb rather than the whole system you you said earlier that it was you who were pushing or the bba who was pushing the idea that the panel could be assessed

01:15:13 idea that the panel could be assessed can you remember who whose idea it was

01:15:18 to have the panel as you define it assessed as opposed to the system

01:15:26 system i can't remember who it was or agent had this but i think uh i think the bba policy was to uh somebody decided that it's

01:15:38 uh somebody decided that it's much safer to approve a product than uh than a system because control over a system

01:15:44 system is a lot more difficult than control over the

01:15:49 over the quality of a product of a of a panel for instance

01:15:54 did your understanding that the bba was only certifying the raw panel as opposed to the fixing system rivet or cassette

01:16:08 the fixing system rivet or cassette ever change between the date of this meeting

01:16:13 meeting november 2006 and the date of the issue of the certificate in january 2008. no as far as i know we were assessing the panel and its suitability for inclusion in a cladding

01:16:25 suitability for inclusion in a cladding system

01:16:26 system can we then go to the bottom of this screen and the conclusion according to this meeting note and it says very positive meeting and hard tactics

01:16:37 tactics may have helped our situation rb proposal will be lower prepared to work with the cstb data aap m that's iconic do need bba for uk market

01:16:51 can you help us with what is meant there by hard tactics um let me ask the question this way did you detect that arconic were driving a hard bargain with

01:17:02 arconic were driving a hard bargain with you

01:17:03 you no i i can't remember the details of this meeting at all uh obviously i mean marketing were involved

01:17:11 involved in this and

01:17:15 it must have emanated from marketing yes i see that but before i leave this uh note uh can i just correct one thing um i said that cs stood for claude schmidt in fact

01:17:27 that cs stood for claude schmidt in fact it stands for colin southgate just to correct that for the record um do you remember that after this meeting um bob keys told you that

01:17:41 um bob keys told you that you could can you could reduce the technical time on the certificate

01:17:48 uh i must that must have happened i can't remember

01:17:55 let's look at the document bba zeros that's the technical file page 623.

01:18:06 this is an email chain between you and bob keys

01:18:09 bob keys at around this time that's uh the technical file bba four zero eight zero four

01:18:15 zero four two on page six two three yes there it is

01:18:19 is and if we if we see the bottom uh uh of the screen as an email from you to bob key second of november yeah and you confirmed to him that the technical time can be reduced to 120

01:18:30 technical time can be reduced to 120 hours

01:18:31 hours uh and

01:18:35 do you remember that yeah i can't remember it but that's what i must have said the reason for that

01:18:42 for that being a different approach to the assessment and the fact that the ivy technique would provide all the information we need

01:18:52 need yes uh and uh do you remember that well if we go to the top of the page we'll see it top of the page second email down the new cost

01:19:03 the page second email down the new cost was as you can see uh 18 015 pounds that was a reduced cost wasn't it i suppose yes yeah yes yes

01:19:14 i suppose yes yeah yes yes uh the cost reduction that was uh agreed and the reduction in technical hours that was agreed was that as a result of the meeting on the second

01:19:25 as a result of the meeting on the second of november 2006. it must have been i yes i can't remember it must have been right and was that reduction made because you could use the cstb data for some of the aspects of the assessment

01:19:36 some of the aspects of the assessment uh that would be my guess and bob keys um would have agreed to that i guess yeah

01:19:44 yeah is that a convenient moment yes i think we've run rather long but that'll do yes mr chairman i'm sorry about that you're quite right did you go in uh this time we had a break i'm sure you'd like one we're going to stop nerve

01:19:55 you'd like one we're going to stop nerve until 25 to 12 please okay thank you please while you're on the break not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right no

01:20:06 anything relating to it all right no problem thank you very much we'll see you a bit later

01:36:56 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing from mr gregorian i can see you there mr gregorian can you see me and hear me all right

01:37:04 right yes good thank you very much well then if you're ready mr millet we'll carry on yes mr chairman thank you can we please go back to the note of the meeting at watford on the 2nd of november 2006

01:37:17 2nd of november 2006 at met five three 30 five eight underscore p14 page one one four

01:37:31 and uh i showed you this note before if we just go to the top of the page please on the screen you and i showed you this as uh when we first looked at this note

01:37:43 first looked at this note it says that the one of the people present was john albon do you recall whether mr albon was present

01:37:50 present throughout the entire meeting which you attended

01:37:53 attended i can't remember no specifically if we can go down please um to page 115 the next page you can see that there's meeting b

01:38:06 you can see that there's meeting b which we've just been examining in detail can you confirm do you know do you remember whether mr alban was present for meeting b i can't remember no moving forward in

01:38:18 i can't remember no moving forward in time there was a further meeting with arconic on the 7th of february 2007 that's in the same uh document run at page 131

01:38:28 page 131 where we will find uh again an iconic internal um visit report

01:38:37 date of the 7th of february 2007. now again this is not a document that you are likely to have seen before um you can see that the date of the visit in the title block at the top is

01:38:49 visit in the title block at the top is as i say

01:38:50 as i say the 7th of february 2007 and in the header

01:38:53 header you can see that it was a a visit to the bba

01:38:57 bba at garston in watford uh and um you can see underneath the line uh who the people attending were you've got um

01:39:08 um colin southgate and rich and shy decker as well

01:39:12 as well and then on the other side you've got you hammer gregorian and also bob keys do you remember this meeting

01:39:20 meeting no i don't if we look under the head of raynaud please at the second paragraph down

01:39:26 down under that heading it says the need of bba

01:39:30 bba certification is always more and more important

01:39:34 important and then that's the first first paragraph there and uh they say at the end of that paragraph

01:39:42 paragraph a luco bond is the only acm supplier with this approval at the time being but it will be a real differentiation point for the coming month do you remember that being said or words to that effect being said

01:39:55 to that effect being said [Music]

01:39:57 [Music] i think the impression i got was that was generally the case just talking to colleagues uh bba certification was very important to any prospective

01:40:10 was very important to any prospective potential certificate holder

01:40:16 so although i can't remember this particular incident but i think it was generally accepted that the bba certificate was very important to all manufacturers

01:40:31 all manufacturers was that for commercial reasons marketing reasons i think so yes and if we look under the um in the second paragraph it says uh if you read with me it says the bba agrees to make the

01:40:43 it says the bba agrees to make the certification on the product without to be linked to a specific system

01:40:48 system possible fixing system will simply be simply mentioned in the in the certification it means we will have only one approval for all our application instead of to make one

01:40:59 our application instead of to make one approval per system if people will ask for more details we will use the cstb specific approvals initially there was quotation was on 24

01:41:10 initially there was quotation was on 24 000 pounds but after negotiations cso obtained to have it for 16 500 pounds actions sent our french building approvals in english

01:41:21 building approvals in english sent our documents of our cst bat approval

01:41:25 approval uh and technical literature and then if you look at the bottom of the action list confirm the assessment specification he's certified also fr query

01:41:38 now um do i take it that you have no independent recollection of this meeting um

01:41:50 i can't remember this meeting oh all right but let's see how we go with the document

01:41:55 document i'm looking at that second paragraph i've just read out to you where it says the bba agrees to make the certification on the product without to be linked to a specific system did that mean do you remember

01:42:07 system did that mean do you remember at all that you agreed to certify the panel

01:42:10 panel as the product regardless of what fixing system was used to put it on the wall that's right i must have discussed it with uh

01:42:18 with uh marketing people and most probably with brian haynes as well now this was that was the approach that we would normally take in a case like this

01:42:30 normally take in a case like this instead of instead of the system we would approve the material whether it was suitable for inclusion in a cladding system yes now at this time were you aware

01:42:43 yes now at this time were you aware do you remember that rb55 could be applied in either rivet fix or cassette fix

01:42:57 or cassette fix um again bearing in mind it was the material

01:43:02 material we were assessing it would have been suitable for both systems yes it's suitable for both certainly but were you aware that

01:43:14 certainly but were you aware that to be used at all reynabon 55 had to be fabricated into a fixing system either rivet or cassette

01:43:23 cassette that's correct yes and indeed do you accept that you had seen that fact from the cstb avi technique approvals that were on the file for the 2006 application yes yes

01:43:35 for the 2006 application yes yes did you realize that in fact the panel itself in its raw form was unusable unless it was fabricated

01:43:49 well the fact that the material was suitable for fabrication we would consider we would make sure that it could be

01:44:00 we would make sure that it could be fabricated

01:44:05 for uh installation in the cladding system

01:44:12 that wasn't quite my question let me try it again were you aware did you realize that the panel itself in its raw form couldn't be used at all unless it was fabricated into one or other

01:44:24 into one or other of those two fixing systems you mean at this stage

01:44:31 that was the whole purpose of the assessment to make sure that it could be based on the

01:44:38 the ivy technique and the csdb data that it could be fabricated

01:44:47 when you say it could be fabricated are you saying that the purpose of the certification by the bba was to cover the fabricated product fabricated as a rivet

01:44:59 fabricated product fabricated as a rivet fix or a cassette fix the bba certificate would cover uh the suitability of the material for fabrication which would be used in a

01:45:11 for fabrication which would be used in a cladding system right that is the whole uh purpose of the bba certificate to make sure that whether that material was suitable

01:45:23 whether that material was suitable uh to be fabricated and put in a planning system yes can we agree that the the the the bba was or bba's purpose

01:45:35 the bba was or bba's purpose was to certify the panel whether it was used in a rivet system or a cassette system that's correct yes why did the bba agree to to do that

01:45:49 it's a much safer way of certification than

01:46:01 and obviously cheaper in this case it's a simpler

01:46:06 a simpler assessment so i think it's appropriate to do that and that was the bba approach

01:46:17 that was the bba approach if you include the grading system right back to the brickwork for instance uh there's too many unknowns which you have to

01:46:25 have to take care of and

01:46:29 and we try to stay away from that

01:46:36 just to be clear again i want to make sure that we're not across purposes that there are three concepts there's what i would call the raw panel

01:46:45 raw panel ignoring the fixing ignoring the fabrication into a fixing there's the fabricated panel which is fabricated for a particular fixing rivet or cassette and there's the system

01:46:58 rivet or cassette and there's the system into which you put the fabricated panel do you understand what i mean by those three separate concepts yes yes so my question is was whether the bba was agreeing to certify

01:47:10 the bba was agreeing to certify the raw panel regardless of whether it was

01:47:13 was fabricated into a rivet or cassette the bba assessment was to make sure that the

01:47:22 the raw panel material was suitable

01:47:27 whether it be rivet fixed or cassette fixed that was immaterial as far as the the bba certificate was concerned we

01:47:39 the bba certificate was concerned we just concentrated on the suitability of this material to be fabricated and put in a cladding system did you have any

01:47:50 cladding system did you have any thoughts at the time about what our conics rationale for having you certify the raw panel as i would call it was uh to my recollection

01:48:04 uh to my recollection uh there was no objection to that but they had a different approach to assessment of these of these panels and to to what dba did

01:48:21 what was their approach their approach was to

01:48:25 was to approve each cladding system on its own rivet and

01:48:29 rivet and as far as i remember they would approve the whole system cladding system riveted or cassette what was the purpose

01:48:41 riveted or cassette what was the purpose of simply mentioning the possible fixing systems in the certification if all that you were certifying was the raw panel

01:48:51 raw panel uh

01:48:54 the drawings that were included were just to

01:48:58 just to draw to the draw attention to the fact that

01:49:02 that the panels the the main use of the panels were to be included in a cloud

01:49:09 a cloud system why was that relevant to your certificate um

01:49:15 um well as i say the intention was to make sure it was suitable the product was suitable to be included in a cladding system but i think we make it clear in the well the

01:49:27 i think we make it clear in the well the bba made it clear that

01:49:31 it's the panel that's the object of the assessment we'll come back to this topic later when we look at the certificate itself mr gregorian but can i ask you whether you

01:49:45 can i ask you whether you remember any discussion of why they wanted uh approval for both fixing types

01:49:58 sorry why be why the cstb wanted yes no why did why the client iconic wanted it

01:50:08 wanted it uh

01:50:12 i guess that's that's where the um that's um in compliance with the abbey technique

01:50:18 technique that's i think that's probably why you know they had the ivy technique before the bbs certificate so i suppose that's why they were asking for that

01:50:29 for that when you look at the paragraph that we've been looking at you see four lines down

01:50:32 down if we can have the document back on the screen please it says it says if people will ask for more details

01:50:41 details can you see it says four lines down in that paragraph if people will ask for more details we will use the cstb specific approvals uh what did you understand doing the

01:50:53 uh what did you understand doing the best you can with your recollection what cstb specific approvals were

01:51:01 sorry i can't quite locate the line you were referring to

01:51:07 second paragraph or second block of text under that and four lines done it says if people will ask for more details

01:51:15 details we will use the cstb specific approvals do you remember what those cstb specific approvals were i can't remember no

01:51:27 i can't remember no specifically what i'm really trying to get at was whether that was a reference to the avi technique approvals which didn't

01:51:35 didn't deal with fire so far as we can see or whether that's a reference to cstb fire tests yes um i think i think the intention there is to

01:51:47 i think the intention there is to try and use the heavy technique

01:51:54 as much as possible for our purposes for our assessment yes and do you know looking at the line above it says it means we will only have one approval for all our application instead of to

01:52:05 for all our application instead of to make one approval per system do you know can you remember what arconic's rationale for only wanting one approval

01:52:13 approval uh instead of one approval per system

01:52:18 i can't no i can't comment on that to be honest

01:52:21 honest can i suggest something to you and see if you can comment was it because it would be cheaper for arconic to have one approval for all the applications as opposed to i'm guessing uh

01:52:30 uh yes that that might have been one of the considerations right but you don't you don't know you're guessing is that is that yours no i can't comment on that fair enough

01:52:46 and we saw from the 2006 file as i mentioned a moment ago that that um the bba had on its file the ctsb avi technique

01:52:57 had on its file the ctsb avi technique approvals didn't it yes and do you remember i showed you these they were two separate ones one for cassette and one for rivet yes why wouldn't it have made sense for

01:53:09 yes why wouldn't it have made sense for the bba

01:53:10 the bba to make its own assessment on each fabricated system in other words a bbas assessment on rivet and a bba assessment on

01:53:20 on cassette in the same way that the cts cstb have done as i say bba philosophy was i think from engineering standpoint

01:53:33 i think from engineering standpoint probably more sensible because

01:53:36 the variables in a system or much more complicated than just approving a panel for suitability

01:53:46 yep so we adopted that that approach for assessment of this particular product could the bba have insisted on looking at the assess the

01:53:58 at the assess the assessing cassette and rivet separately in the same way that the cstb had done under the abbey technique approach no as i say i i thought

01:54:09 no as i say i i thought uh from quality control point of view it was a much more sensible approach to assess the product rather than the than the system

01:54:20 than the system right who would have made the final decision to assess just the product as you call it uh or the raw panel as i as i call it as opposed to the fabricated uh version i can't remember

01:54:32 fabricated uh version i can't remember um this must have been discussed among several parties

01:54:41 now we we move forward a month to march 2007.

01:54:46 2007. after this meeting do you remember that our comics sent another application form at the end of february 2007.

01:55:00 remember that sorry could you repeat yes do you remember that after this meeting

01:55:06 meeting uh arconic sent another application form for a contract

01:55:14 i can't remember it uh well let's skip ahead uh can we go to um page one of the technical file bba four zeros eight zero four two page one

01:55:32 eight zero four two page one this is uh the certificate contract as you can see there uh and there's a reference on it s3 if you look at the top right hand corner

01:55:44 if you look at the top right hand corner s3 slash stroke um four one zero one four and it still bears the date 22nd of august 2006. um can you just confirm that that in

01:55:55 um can you just confirm that that in fact was the the original date of the 2006 application that just hasn't been changed

01:56:01 changed in this document yeah now um we can see that there's a price if you look a little bit down further down the page

01:56:14 further down the page uh under item roman five the fee it's 16 527 pounds uh and no vat and if we turn um uh up a little bit up the screen

01:56:28 um uh up a little bit up the screen to i roman two item roman two you can see the subject and proprietary name renault bond architecture somebody's written architecture in in

01:56:41 somebody's written architecture in in there

01:56:41 there in manuscript and then underneath that nature of product or process aluminium polyethylene composite wall cladding system was typed but then

01:56:52 cladding system was typed but then that's been deleted in manuscript and somebody has written in hand panels you see that yeah you know who wrote that i can't remember who wrote that but

01:57:03 remember who wrote that but uh obviously at some stage we have decided we have decided that this is a better approach and the the contract was changed

01:57:14 and the the contract was changed accordingly i see does that change reflect the agreement or arrangement arrived at in watford uh in the meeting earlier in february 2007

01:57:24 2007 that we've been discussing it must have been as a result of that i suppose i can't comment on that right now we know as i've shown you the certificate that was eventually issued

01:57:35 certificate that was eventually issued in january 2008 want to look a little bit more closely at the assessment that led to that certificate can we turn on in the technical file please to page 11.

01:57:47 this is the assessment program sheet if one looks at the top left hand side of the screen you could see that and the product name there is rainer bond 55 wall cladding system as you can see in the middle of the page

01:57:59 as you can see in the middle of the page and again it still bears the date of the 22nd of august 2006. um do you recognize this document yes i do

01:58:08 do did you prepare it i think so yes uh looking at the date of this document uh

01:58:15 uh and i know it says august 2006 would you have prepared it for the initial contract pricing

01:58:28 yes i think so yes right can we just be clear do you think you might have prepared this uh at the same time as preparing the offer for the contract in 2006 and then

01:58:40 offer for the contract in 2006 and then just not updated it when it came to finalizing the contract in 2007.

01:58:45 in 2007. yes i suppose yes yes i don't want us to leak to lead you into error by suggesting that but we're trying to work out the dates it clearly says cladding system but

01:58:57 it clearly says cladding system but obviously the contract has been changed and so does the pricing and the number of hours i think it must have

01:59:07 must have been changed as well accordingly yes i see can we then um uh just be clear whether even though there was that change

01:59:18 that change from system to panels that we've discussed you would still have followed the assessment program set out in this document

01:59:24 document when doing your assessment for the certificate that was ultimately issued as soon as it was established that we were assessing the cladding panels uh i would uh assess the product uh

01:59:35 uh i would uh assess the product uh accordingly let's look at item 4.1 uh about a third of the way down the screen safety and then under assessment slash test

01:59:46 and then under assessment slash test work it says strength and stability behavior under wind loads resistance to hard and soft body impacts behavior under thermal action and then fire behavior under fire

01:59:58 and then fire behavior under fire do you see that yeah and if you look at the columns to the right of that we can see that the assessment for strength and stability is to is 25 hours uh assess cstb data

02:00:10 uh assess cstb data you see that but for fire it's five hours

02:00:13 hours consult bmh and why would more hours be needed to be to be devoted to strength and stability rather than fire

02:00:24 uh that's my area of

02:00:30 expertise generally and there's a lot of details to look at so bearing in mind this this is an estimate of ours it's not meant to be a

02:00:42 meant to be a there's no way you can estimate these things occur accurately and the csdb data again that presents a challenge as well

02:00:53 again that presents a challenge as well so

02:00:55 so i think 25 hours was [Music]

02:00:58 [Music] sort of sensible why would more hours be given to strength and stability rather than fast

02:01:05 than fast there's quite a few things you need to check when it comes to i mean i would by calculation or analysis i would i would have to confirm that the product was good enough for

02:01:17 was good enough for wind loads and so on in the uk with the same

02:01:21 same degree of care and analysis not be required

02:01:25 required to confirm whether the product was good enough for fire in the uk with fire it's just a matter of looking at test data and checking against compliance with our

02:01:38 and checking against compliance with our building regulations so there's no as far as i know there's no analytical method to

02:01:44 method to confirm uh one way or the other would you do i think accept that you would need to look at the test data are you fine yes yes of course yes who would decide

02:01:57 yes yes of course yes who would decide how many

02:01:58 how many hours would be required for each of these safety elements i think i would probably consult with my section head and uh bearing in mind he had a lot more experience than i

02:02:10 experience than i um we would come up with a bearing you can see the hours going steps of five so it's not meant to be

02:02:21 steps of five so it's not meant to be very accurate at all it's just an estimate in the far right column we can see the steps uh and for strength and stability it says assess cstb data is that referring to the cstb

02:02:34 data is that referring to the cstb avi technique documents we saw on the technical file yes some some information would have come from iv technique yes and for fire as we've seen it says

02:02:45 yes and for fire as we've seen it says consult bmh is that brian haynes yes why did it say consult brian haynes uh well because of the issue regarding the

02:02:56 the uh perhaps lack of information that we had in the cstb documents

02:03:05 right rather basically because i wasn't sure how to assess fire aspect

02:03:12 aspect i had to consult ryan haynes

02:03:17 what precise question or query led you to think

02:03:21 to think that you needed brian haynes's input

02:03:26 um as i say brian was stay was my main port of call with regard to assessment of fire and

02:03:38 and [Music]

02:03:41 [Music] just to confirm that the material with the appropriate coating was suitable so i had to confirm that with brian there was no

02:03:56 with brian there was no there was no way i could assess it myself so i had to consult brian did you know yourself what test data or classifications you were looking for

02:04:07 looking for in order to be able to assess this product for fire safety no i see so would did it would it follow from that that even in respect of that question you would have to consult

02:04:19 that question you would have to consult brian haynes exactly i see did you consult brian haynes as a matter of fact i referred the matter to brian who then consulted bre

02:04:30 consulted bre for their advice do you know what he did do you know what brian haynes did i remember strangely enough i remember the

02:04:37 the conversation he had with um sarah caldwell

02:04:41 caldwell uh because i didn't get a response from sarah

02:04:44 sarah in writing uh i asked brian to contact her and as i said because of his long association with bre he was advised that

02:04:56 bre he was advised that [Music]

02:04:58 [Music] as to the classification of this this material

02:05:03 and we included the appropriate state in the

02:05:06 the in the certificate um were you party to that conversation uh i actually yes i i was strangely enough i do remember being in the

02:05:18 enough i do remember being in the in the room while he was talking to sarah

02:05:22 sarah was there a meeting it wasn't a meeting uh

02:05:25 uh he was talking on the telephone i remember that and um and soon after that he signed off the the certificate

02:05:36 he signed off the the certificate right can i just see if we can explore this

02:05:40 this a little bit more um first of all when was the conversation between brian hayes and sarah colwell uh after i must have consulted uh

02:05:53 uh after i must have consulted uh talked to after i talked to brian i think

02:05:57 think he and i mentioned the fact that i'm not getting a response from bre uh he immediately got on the phone and spoke to

02:06:06 spoke to sarah that's my recollection so in terms of timing you said earlier it was

02:06:13 it was soon after the conversation that he signed off the certificate that was january 2008 by reference to that when do you think this conversation took place i can't remember all right now you say

02:06:26 i can't remember all right now you say you were you went you you were in the same room as brian haynes and he telephoned sarah colwell is that right that's correct yes could you hear both sides of the conversation or only brian no yes brian i see it wasn't a long

02:06:39 no yes brian i see it wasn't a long conversation but brian was advised that as to the as to the suitability of the particular material for

02:06:51 particular material for fire performance right do you know whether sarah colwell had in front of her at the draft certificate or any test data

02:06:59 data related to fire for renamon 55 no i wouldn't know that i obviously we must have applied some information with regard to the product i forget forgive my interrupting

02:07:11 product i forget forgive my interrupting um

02:07:12 um mr mr gregorian just help me with this you said a moment ago that you couldn't get any response from bre you remember saying that yes i took it from that that you had

02:07:25 yes i took it from that that you had contacted bre yourself to ask for their assistance again is that correct yes would i be right in assuming that you sent some form of information to the bre

02:07:37 sent some form of information to the bre in order to obtain their assistance exactly yes can you tell us what it was please

02:07:44 document appropriate documents and maybe test test data and so on

02:07:50 anything to do with anything that was necessary

02:07:54 necessary to make a make a fire assessment i can't tell you exactly what it was but it was all

02:08:03 the information that sarah would need to make an assessment now some of that information was presumably going to it was um test reports is it or i s well yes i'm sure yes there must have

02:08:15 well yes i'm sure yes there must have been some test reports right can you remember in what form you sent them or how you sent them um most probably by email uh right thank you very much yes mr

02:08:28 uh right thank you very much yes mr milit

02:08:29 milit thank you thank you we we we are going to come to some of that later on i think um when we'll explore the the precise documents in a bit of detail can i just understand

02:08:42 detail can i just understand as this conversation did mr haines report to you what sarah colwell had told

02:08:50 told him after the conversation had ended he he didn't he just um he he just

02:09:01 basically he just approved or rather checked and okayed okay the particular statement relating to fire

02:09:11 to fire yes i see i i have no details as to what conversation went on i have no idea all i know is that i distinctly remember

02:09:22 all i know is that i distinctly remember him talking to sarah and to be clear am i right in thinking that the data in the cstb avi technique documents were not considered at all

02:09:33 considered at all to the best of your knowledge either by sarah colwell or brian haynes in relation to any claim about the fire performance of reynabon 55 i think it would be safe to assume that

02:09:45 i think it would be safe to assume that there was no not enough information in the in the abbey technique

02:09:53 that's probably why we had to check

02:09:59 with fire expos yes uh

02:10:05 now just getting this covering is off can we go to your witness statement please uh at uh page four i just want to look at something you say in your

02:10:16 something you say in your statement of paragraph 5d you say in response to the question in particular what consideration the bba gave

02:10:26 gave to little raymond one the fire performance information there in your responses are paragraph 20 and you say fire safety is a specialist area it would have been normal for an internal

02:10:38 would have been normal for an internal or external fire expert to confirm compliance with uk building regulations the statement in the certificate would have been based on the advice given by the fire expert

02:10:49 on the advice given by the fire expert and am i right in thinking that on this occasion in relation to this certificate ultimately that was sarah colwell

02:10:58 um that ex that fire expert was sarah colwell

02:11:02 colwell yes i think it's yes yes

02:11:07 yes yes true true brian

02:11:12 our assessment of fire

02:11:18 would have come from a fire expert and this k in this case it was sarah sarah caldwell yes now you say through brian

02:11:25 brian uh did brian haynes himself perform any assessment uh on the fire safety of renee bond 55 with with sarah caldwell's help no i think he must have been advised

02:11:38 think he must have been advised by sarah um based on what sarah had uh in front of her as regards test data and so on okay you say

02:11:51 test data and so on okay you say that this statement in the certificate would have been based on the advice given by the fire expert did brian haynes actually draft actually word those

02:12:03 actually draft actually word those statements for the certificate all did the wording come from sarah colwell

02:12:09 colwell no the wording didn't come from circle well we just we put the put the wording in and if the classification was

02:12:20 and if the classification was in accordance what the fire expert had advised uh brian would okay he would he would sign it off do you

02:12:31 he would he would sign it off do you remember whether brian haynes checked his wording with sarah colwell after he had put it in the certificate but before it was

02:12:42 in the certificate but before it was signed off not to my knowledge i mean as i said all all brian would want to know was whether this particular material um

02:12:53 this particular material um classification is what the what the statement uh says i see so just to be as clear as we can on fire safety

02:13:07 as clear as we can on fire safety can we take it that the precise language of

02:13:11 of the wording of the certificate was brian haynes's

02:13:15 haynes's based on what he had understood the advice from sarah colwell was the statement wasn't brian hayes in entirety

02:13:24 entirety no in relation to these all right yeah these statements are quite a standard format in bba certificates so where a classification was involved he

02:13:35 where a classification was involved he would most probably check that the classification was compliant with building regulations the wording doesn't come from didn't

02:13:46 the wording doesn't come from didn't come from

02:13:47 come from brian

02:13:52 well we'll come to the certificate shortly i'm just trying to get a an understanding of the role sarah colwell played in the precise wording of the certificate

02:14:03 precise wording of the certificate uh in relation to matters of fire safety was it brian haynes who actually drafted the language based on what he understood from sarah

02:14:14 based on what he understood from sarah colwell's advice

02:14:17 the draft would most probably have come from a similar certificate and the as i say that the standard format that we use uh brian would have checked that the

02:14:28 brian would have checked that the statement

02:14:29 statement was correct and he would have

02:14:33 i was most probably with with him when he actually signed off the certificate yes but now were you responsible for drafting the technical content

02:14:43 content other than fire and selecting the diagrams and images in the certificate yes i normally would decide what goes on the circuit and did the bba have uh

02:14:54 and did the bba have uh stock phrases or generic statements that could be slotted in from used from other certificates yes yes

02:15:02 yes yes that was common procedure and who decides whether it's appropriate to copy across phrases

02:15:13 to copy across phrases uh from other certificates would that be you or would that be brian haynes when it came to fire safety i would i would draft a certificate based on a similar product for instance just to make sure

02:15:24 product for instance just to make sure that

02:15:25 that well i would try and make sure they were relevant

02:15:30 relevant and then circulated within the different sections

02:15:33 sections well let's turn to the certificate in detail now can we go to bba 6047 i showed you this earlier on in your examination but we now need to look at the detail

02:15:45 the detail on the first page you can see that there's a dark blue header as i showed you

02:15:49 you product sheet one raina bond architecture wall cladding panels and then you can see underneath product scope and summary of certificate it says the certificate of confirmation relates

02:16:01 the certificate of confirmation relates to renault architecture wall cladding panels aluminium

02:16:06 aluminium polyethylene composite panels used to provide a decorative stroke protective facade over the external walls of buildings and there's an image

02:16:17 of buildings and there's an image on that right hand side uh and first question is what was that title uh

02:16:28 was that title uh rainbow architecture wall cladding panels chosen to indicate that it was certifying the product

02:16:37 in other words the panels

02:16:43 it was just the picture would be supplied

02:16:48 supplied by the certificate holder and

02:16:54 the intention there is to uh

02:17:02 to make sure that they uh that the cladding material could be used in a cladding system such as this there's no there's no

02:17:13 there's no there's no other way that you can depict uh a panel a panel would wouldn't make any sense so unless you put a picture in there you

02:17:26 you wouldn't know what the function of it was

02:17:29 it was we'll come back to this page shortly but can we go to page three please

02:17:36 and at the top there you'll see in the blue band the dark blue band the word general and under it you see it says this this certificate relates to rayner bond architecture wall cladding panels comprising an aluminium

02:17:49 cladding panels comprising an aluminium straight polyethylene composite material fixed to an aluminium subframe to provide a decorative straight protective rainscreen facade over the external walls of buildings as we saw on the front and then it says

02:18:00 as we saw on the front and then it says the

02:18:01 the subframe and its attachment to the substrate wall are outside the scope of this certificate as are other miscellaneous construction details does that mean the metal rails that the

02:18:13 does that mean the metal rails that the cladding is fixed to

02:18:20 uh that's correct yes it's not covered by the certificate that's correct

02:18:28 yes and

02:18:34 what about other elements of the facade build up such as the insulation and the cavity barriers they're presumably no they're not covered at all outside no now if you go

02:18:46 outside no now if you go um down to the next blue header technical specification you can see description and underneath that it says 1.1 the

02:18:57 and underneath that it says 1.1 the rayna bond architecture wall cladding panels comprise two 0.5 millimeter thick aluminium alloy sheets

02:19:04 sheets and then there's a a specification there bonded to either side of a a core of low density polyethylene ldpe the panels are available either plain

02:19:16 the panels are available either plain edged riveted system or flanged cassette system

02:19:19 system to suit architectural requirements c figure one a duragloss or pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed face a polyester primer protects the unexposed face

02:19:30 primer protects the unexposed face the products are also available in a fire retardant grade fr if we skip down to sub section 1.4

02:19:41 sub section 1.4 it says this if you just read with me plain edge panels are riveted directly to the aluminium subframe flanged panels are hung from the subframe using t-slots fitting onto pintle

02:19:52 onto pintle on the subframe

02:19:55 and it says flange widths can vary to suit the design requirements c figure one and there's a little footnote uh as you can see underneath that

02:20:04 that which relates to the word subframe and again it says not covered by the certificate

02:20:12 now the figure one that's referred to there is uh apparent if you look a little bit lower down the same page if we can scroll down to

02:20:24 same page if we can scroll down to figure one have that fully on the screen you can see that it says figure one reynold architecture panels and typical fixing systems

02:20:35 panels and typical fixing systems and there within figure one you can see two systems you've got on the left riveted system and on the right cassette system uh do you remember where those diagrams

02:20:49 uh do you remember where those diagrams came from

02:20:50 came from uh they must have come from the cstb documents

02:20:55 documents they're not from iconic is that right they might have come from our iconic but normally

02:21:02 normally i would imagine cstb would include some details of this nature in their certificates do you recall how figure one came to be on

02:21:13 on this certificate

02:21:17 it was considered appropriate to include these just to show what can be done with

02:21:25 with this cladding material with this um paddle material was you who decided that um figure one should be inserted in this certificate we

02:21:37 in this certificate we it is quite normal accepted practice within bba to include some details construction details of this nature well it's a bit more isn't it than showing what can be done with this

02:21:49 showing what can be done with this cladding material isn't the certificate telling the reader that the the panels are whether riveted or cassette

02:22:03 are whether riveted or cassette are covered by the certificate i think we we do make it clear that uh

02:22:14 that any substructure would not be covered

02:22:17 covered or insulation or any fixings would not be covered this is just to show how the material could be used in a clearing system well you you say that let's just go back

02:22:28 well you you say that let's just go back to 1.4

02:22:30 to 1.4 um you could see the footnote sorry the yes it's the footnote one there not covered by this certificate and that relates doesn't it to the subframe and that's consistent

02:22:41 to the subframe and that's consistent with the exclusion of the metal subframe on the front of the certificate yes yeah so what this certificate is clearly excluding is this right

02:22:52 right is the subframe that's correct anything anything to do with the fixing to the subframe and the subframe to the brickwork substructure

02:23:08 is irrelevant but this these are just details to show how the material could be used by athletic system yes anything to do with the fixing to the subframe

02:23:20 the subframe and the subframe to the brickwork the substructure you say would be irrelevant what i'm suggesting to you is not excluded

02:23:28 excluded is the the form of fabrication in other words the panel as fabricated in rivet

02:23:35 in rivet and as fabricated in cassette is included

02:23:43 the dimensions of the panels

02:23:50 would be decided by design by a suitably qualified engineer so it could be any any dimension providing it satisfies

02:24:01 resistance for instance to wind load or impact load there's so many structural considerations so a structural engineer could design this material to span

02:24:12 could design this material to span between

02:24:15 the metal metal rails for instance depending on the wind load if it's if the wind loading the design wind load is too high obviously the

02:24:27 obviously the uh the metal rays will be uh closer closer to each other did you draft paragraph section 1.1 and section 1.4

02:24:38 section 1.1 and section 1.4 uh sorry i can't i can't see 1.1 so yes can we just scroll up please to the

02:24:46 the the 1.1 and 1.4 are now visible on the screen i think mr gregorian for you do you remember whether you drafted

02:24:53 drafted those parts of this certificate that would have been based on the based on the contract though right based on the contract yes but did you was it you i'm asking

02:25:05 yes but did you was it you i'm asking whether

02:25:06 whether yes yes i must have done that can we go to your statement please page four uh and i'd like to go uh back to uh where we were

02:25:18 uh back to uh where we were which was the question that question d in particular what consideration the bba gave to

02:25:24 gave to and you've seen little roman one i'd like to go to little raymond two um the question is what consideration the bba gave to the fact that cstb issued separate certificates for

02:25:36 issued separate certificates for cassette and for face fixed riveted fixings and your answer there is in normal operation both types were considered suitable for incorporation in a cladding system but behavior in relation to fire

02:25:49 system but behavior in relation to fire consideration would have been by a fire expert c answer to d1 above if you look at the bottom of the page i i just want to look at question seven

02:26:05 question seven question seven what products did certificate zero eight stroke four five one zero cover in particular please address the variance a chord type standard p e or uh fr and

02:26:17 chord type standard p e or uh fr and then over the page looking at little b is what i want to focus on fixing method face fixed rivet riveted or cassette your answer is both

02:26:29 your answer is both and looking at that answer there can i take it from that but as far as you were concerned

02:26:34 concerned the certificate covered raino bond uh both in its fabricated form uh in rivet and in its fabricated form

02:26:47 uh in rivet and in its fabricated form as cassette

02:26:53 the certificate would cover the material could be used either as face fixed or

02:27:04 riveted and both were considered suitable so in other words the material could be used to uh

02:27:16 to uh any of these two configurations and the certificate covered the product in use

02:27:23 in use in those two situations yes yeah yes yes so so you agree though i think that the reader of the certificate would expect that any technical claim

02:27:35 expect that any technical claim made in the certificate would apply equally to the panel fabricated into a cassette as to the panel

02:27:42 the panel fabricated into a rivet yes yes thank you so can we agree that when the certificate says

02:27:53 that when the certificate says product or uses the word product it means product in both forms of fixing system as opposed to the subframe and the other fixing again the product has got certain

02:28:06 again the product has got certain fire resistance properties which uh which were covered but all this is saying is that

02:28:17 both fixing methods were suitable uh as regards the material use yes i understand can we then stick with

02:28:28 yes i understand can we then stick with your statement and uh go back to the question i i showed you you'd answered a second or two ago

02:28:36 two ago on the previous page please um you i i read it out but i skipped over it uh question seven a

02:28:47 what products did the certificate cover in particular please address the variance core type standard pe or fire retardant and your answer is at paragraph 23 if we just

02:28:59 is at paragraph 23 if we just uh go to that on page

02:29:05 at the top of page five you see it says samples of the product covered are described in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the certificate

02:29:18 and also let's cover these off while we can if you look at c coating type duragloss p e p b d f f r and coating color grey green p e metallic grey fr

02:29:30 metallic grey fr um that so that's what you say in your statement let's look at the statements in the certificate itself now please can we go back to the certificate bba 6047 and look please at page two

02:29:48 um blue header at the top says regulations as we can see there uh and it says in the opinion of the bba reynabond architecture wall cladding panels

02:29:59 panels um if used in accordance with the provisions of this certificate will meet or contribute to meeting the relevant requirements of the following building regulations and then if you go down uh to the uh second item down b

02:30:13 uh to the uh second item down b four point or four bracket one do you see

02:30:16 see uh external fire spread can you see that yes it says under comment or next to comment

02:30:23 comment the panels are judged to meet the class naught requirements c sections 6.1 to 6.6 of this certificate

02:30:34 to 6.6 of this certificate now first

02:30:37 now first do you remember who drafted or formulated those words the panels are judged to meet the class not requirements

02:30:50 i think this was standard format of expressing classification of products right

02:30:57 right so is that an example of you as it were cutting and pasting or copying across yeah yeah

02:31:04 yeah yeah yes i think sorry yes so just to be just to be crystal clear this isn't a form of words that had come from brian haynes or perhaps suggested by sarah colwell no it's something that i would put forward for comment

02:31:16 for comment to the appropriate um department yes i see now let's go to page five please and let's look in detail at section six

02:31:26 i i'll read to you sections six point one to six point three start with uh uh uh in fact probably best to read the whole thing

02:31:37 the whole thing forgive me this may take a moment or two but let it's been important that you see the whole thing i think it's under the rubric behavior in relation to fire and it says uh a standard sample of the

02:31:48 and it says uh a standard sample of the product with a grey green duragloss 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of b s 2 d naught in accordance with e m 13501.1 2002

02:32:01 13501.1 2002 a fire retardant sample of the product with a gold-colored duragloss finish when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification bs1 d-naught in accordance with em13501 2002 a fire retardant sample of the

02:32:13 2002 a fire retardant sample of the product

02:32:14 product with a metallic grey pvdf finish when tested in accordance with bs 476 part 6 1989 achieved a fire propagation index i of naught and when tested in

02:32:25 i of naught and when tested in accordance with bs 476 part 7 1997 achiever class 1 surface

02:32:29 surface spread of flame and then 6.3 says as a consequence of section 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a class naught surface in relation to

02:32:41 a class naught surface in relation to the approved document b of the building regulations etc and a low risk material as defined in the building scotland the unexposed side of the products

02:32:53 side of the products may also be regarded as having a class naught surface uh and then 6.4 says these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and the designations of a particular

02:33:04 and the designations of a particular color should be confirmed by and then it sets out various tests in various different uh subordinate jurisdictions uh and then 6.5

02:33:13 6.5 for resistance to fire the performance of a wall incorporating the product can only be determined by tests from a suitably accredited laboratory and is not covered by this certificate and then 6.6

02:33:24 and then 6.6 cavity barriers should be incorporated behind the cladding as required by the national building regulations but should not

02:33:30 not block essential ventilation pathways particular attention should be paid to preventing the spread of fire from within a building breaching the cladding system through window and door openings now i just want to look at some of those

02:33:41 now i just want to look at some of those statements i've read you in the entirety of section six since you had it in your mind can we start with the statement of section 6.2 please a fire retardant sample

02:33:52 please a fire retardant sample of the product with a metallic gray pvdf finish

02:33:56 finish can we go to page 163 of the technical file that's bba 408042 page one six three

02:34:07 now this is uh the warrington fire test report number one three two three one

02:34:14 one six as you can see done under part 7 of bs466

02:34:19 bs466 and if we look at the second page of that report at page 165 you can see paragraph 3 there's a description of the test specimens there and in the second paragraph it says the

02:34:30 and in the second paragraph it says the product was renault bond 55 fr color reference ral9006 metallic gray a composite coated aluminium panel having an overall thickness of four

02:34:41 having an overall thickness of four millimeters comprising a three millimeter thick fire retardant

02:34:46 retardant core if you skip to the next paragraph the decorative test phase aluminium sheet

02:34:51 sheet was coated on the exposed face with a five micron thick epoxy primer and a 20 micron thick pvdf coating if you look at the next page of this of this report at page 167

02:35:03 this report at page 167 there are blank pages in between i'm afraid at the very bottom of page 167 you see the test results and classification and in the capitals in bold at the bottom of the page it says this in accordance with the test

02:35:16 it says this in accordance with the test in accordance with the class definitions given in bs 476 part 7 1997 the specimens tested are classified as class 1. now if we get on to page 169

02:35:29 this is the second issue of this report and it's dated the 12th of september 2003

02:35:34 2003 as you can see and if we look at the test that goes with it this is the part six test this is in the technical file at page 177 and we can see that it's a warrington

02:35:45 and we can see that it's a warrington fire test report uh number one three two three one seven this time under part six of ds476 if you go down to page one seven nine paragraph three

02:35:57 to page one seven nine paragraph three uh you can see again the description it's in the same format second paragraph the product was rendered on 55 fr color reference ra 9006 botanic et cetera

02:36:08 cetera and the same decorative again uh and it says again it's it comprises a three millimeter thick retar fire retardant core so this is the test uh on the same product as the one we

02:36:19 uh on the same product as the one we were just looking at but done under part six

02:36:22 six and we have the test results at page 181 and at the bottom of that page we can see the test results there uh and there they are set out and for completeness

02:36:33 completeness uh we can go to page 183 and see the date of issue 12th of september 2003. now that those are

02:36:41 are the fr uh tests from 2003 done under bs476 parts six and seven can we now go back please to page five

02:36:52 can we now go back please to page five of the bba certificate the bba six areas forty seven and look again at section six point two uh it and it says there i read it before to show to you again a

02:37:03 i read it before to show to you again a fire retardant sample of the product with a

02:37:05 with a metallic gray pvdf finish and tested in accordance with bs 476 part 6 1989 achieved a fire propagation index capital i naught and when tested in

02:37:16 capital i naught and when tested in accordance with bs 476 part 7 1997 achieved a class 1 surface spread of flame um is it right that the two tests i've just taken you through quite quickly

02:37:27 just taken you through quite quickly are tests of the specimen mentioned in section 6.2 of the bba certificate

02:37:36 again i'm i'm not familiar with the uh i'm guessing at some stage the fire expert would have looked at this but

02:37:46 this but it really i can't go into detail as regards

02:37:50 regards the

02:37:53 statements i think whatever we have said in paragraph 6.2 must have been a statement of fact yes do you want to continue i'm so sorry

02:38:06 yes do you want to continue i'm so sorry i overspoke across you do you want to say something more

02:38:12 have you finished your answer

02:38:27 i suggest to carry on just a minute right um

02:38:30 right um mr gregorian we've seen those summary reports

02:38:33 reports stating that these two tests amount to a class naught result do you know why that is no i have no knowledge of as i've mentioned before

02:38:47 i would rely on the assessment by fire experts

02:38:51 experts right was it your maybe you can't help with this in the light of that answer but was it your experience at the time late 2007 that there would normally be a a summary report which would consider

02:39:03 a summary report which would consider the test data that i've just shown you and say whether the material met the requirements of class naught

02:39:15 sorry if there's a summary report would it nor would it be normal for there to be in your experience at the time a summary report saying class naught as a result of these tests i can't remember i can't remember do you

02:39:28 i can't remember i can't remember do you remember whether you or somebody else anybody looked at the data from these two uh fr test reports and decide that they met

02:39:37 met the criteria for class naught some say a fire expert would have looked at this document and come to this conclusion and we would include it in the certificate

02:39:48 certificate [Music]

02:39:50 [Music] as appropriate and you would have understood would you at the time that these results together amounted to achieving a class naught result i wouldn't know about that i i i don't

02:40:01 i wouldn't know about that i i i don't know how the assessments are done i would just include the appropriate statement

02:40:10 statement and make sure that the technical manager

02:40:20 also also approve the statement yes uh i i and again bearing in mind your last answer at least looking at the

02:40:31 your last answer at least looking at the scheme of

02:40:32 scheme of section six were you clear in your mind at the time that sex section 6.2 and the results i identified in it only applied

02:40:42 applied to reyno bond with an fr core and not to rename bond with

02:40:51 [Music] that's what the statement seems to suggest yes were you clear in your mind that that's what it meant

02:41:02 that that's what it meant i would take this as relevant to fire retardant sample of the product yes that's that's all i can uh i can conclude that

02:41:14 uh i can conclude that this is a statement of fact yeah that's that's all it is did you know at the time

02:41:23 well let me let me ask it this way did you have any understanding at the time about whether reynabon 55 with a pe call had been tested under

02:41:35 call had been tested under bs 476 parts six and seven oh i i can't i can't remember did you understand at the time that the

02:41:47 did you understand at the time that the statements in paragraph 6.2 did not apply to reynabon 55 with a pe call

02:41:57 again this is a detail that um that i can't i can't comment on let's then look at section 6.1 just above it

02:42:09 then look at section 6.1 just above it and again i've read this to you but i'll just read you this precise words again uh a standard sample of the product with a gray green duragloss 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire

02:42:20 when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of b s2 d naught in accordance with en 13501 part 1 2002 a fire retardant sample of the product with a gold colored duragloss finish when tested for

02:42:32 duragloss finish when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of bs1 d-naught in accordance with en13501 2002.

02:42:40 2002. did you understand at the time uh or intend by the wording that standard sample

02:42:47 sample referred to rayner bond with a pe chord no i have no uh the details are quite alien to me to be

02:42:58 the details are quite alien to me to be honest

02:42:59 honest say that did you not draft this part of the report or did somebody else draft this part of the city i would put it in this format but the actual classifications and so on don't mean very much to me

02:43:11 mean very much to me did you not understand that when you were writing a standard sample of the product

02:43:16 product even as a formula from another document you were referring to the non-fr uh standard pe version of the product uh that's right that's what the

02:43:27 what the statement seems to suggest yes you say it seems to suggest that i'm just trying to get inside your mind at the time this document was produced

02:43:37 produced when you wrote a standard sample of a product did you understand that you were referring

02:43:41 referring to the pe core as opposed to the fr core yes yes can we look at the technical file please at page 147

02:43:52 file please at page 147 bba 408042 at page 47. this is what we've called test 5a or classification 5a and just

02:44:04 test 5a or classification 5a and just looking at it with me it's a reaction to fire classification report number ra050005a under 13501.1 and it's

02:44:15 under 13501.1 and it's at the bottom of the page you can see that it's dated issue is 7th of january 2005. and just a little above that the commercial brand is reynabon 55 pe riveted system

02:44:27 55 pe riveted system uh you see that and if you go to page 149 please

02:44:38 149 please you can see that there's a product description

02:44:45 uh under paragraph two on that page and you can see that it's described as a composite panel consisting of a low density polyethylene core thermally bonded uh using a 70 micron thick polyethylene

02:44:58 uh using a 70 micron thick polyethylene film between two pre-coated aluminium sheets tested system riveted on metallic substructure and then underneath that at the bottom of the next block of text it says finishing code

02:45:09 block of text it says finishing code jira gloss by a thousand colored gray green

02:45:12 green and then if we go down to page 153

02:45:16 we can see the classification

02:45:21 bs2d naught and below that you can see there's a date 7th of january 2005 and

02:45:33 the um signatures at the bottom from the cstb

02:45:37 cstb but a little bit above that on the field of application you can see it says this classification is valid for the following product parameters and then the second bullet point there says only only

02:45:49 says only only for the system riveted on any metallic substructure

02:45:54 now my first question is is this document familiar to you uh i must have looked at it at some stage but

02:46:02 stage but i can't remember the details right okay it was on the technical file and we most know from other evidence will come to you but

02:46:10 you but that you were sent it by by arconic in 2007 so i'm going to assume you were familiar with it can we go back then to section 61 of the

02:46:21 can we go back then to section 61 of the bba certificate at page five of that document bba60 is 47. and can we have that up on the screen at the same time as test 5a classification 5a

02:46:35 test 5a classification 5a we put the two up together

02:46:46 that's that's um bb84084 eight zero four two at page

02:46:55 one four seven you can just have that keys at the same time

02:47:03 pba yes thank you very much um just just looking at those side by side uh does the certificates at section 6.1 record classification 5a

02:47:24 um

02:47:30 let me see if i can help if you go to page 153

02:47:33 page 153 as i showed you it's where you've got the actual classification in there uh and i appreciate this is a long time ago so you need to see the documents you can

02:47:44 you need to see the documents you can see the classification report 5a has the classification b s to d naught yes past your eye to the left hand side of the screen under 6.1

02:47:55 of the screen under 6.1 you can see it says that the standard sample of the product when tested for reaction to fire achieve the classification of bs2 d naught yep the m13501 looking at those two

02:48:07 yep the m13501 looking at those two documents now together can you confirm that the city will tell us that at section 6.1 the reference to the classification

02:48:18 the reference to the classification there is a reference to this classification in this classification report yes i can confirm that yes yes and that pertains doesn't it to pe called renault bond yes yeah

02:48:32 called renault bond yes yeah in riveted system and only in riveted system

02:48:36 system yes again this was a document provided by cstb so that is how they would assess uh fire performance

02:48:47 uh fire performance yep yes uh my question was that it it pertains not only to pe called reynogon but to the riveted but to pe renee bond

02:48:59 but to the riveted but to pe renee bond in the riveted system yes yes but as far as our assessment was concerned

02:49:07 concerned uh it's

02:49:11 uh it's quite immaterial or irrelevant how the fixing was done as far as as was bba was concerned it was the product we were assessing so

02:49:24 whether it's riveted or cassette fixed was to some extent irrelevant well we'll come

02:49:32 come i'd like to come back to that answer in a few moments if i can can i just back up a little bit and let's see together because it will help your recollection i think how you came to see this document

02:49:44 think how you came to see this document um can we uh go please uh to uh met three zeros five three one five eight underscore p15

02:49:55 five three one five eight underscore p15 at page 90.

02:50:00 this is an exhibit to mr verla's

02:50:05 statement and this um is an email

02:50:14 uh from you to mr verle on the 15th of may 2007.

02:50:22 may 2007. and you tell him that good progress is being made in relation to the assessment but you need further information and you've set up four paragraphs there the first one says

02:50:34 there the first one says uh reaction to fire test data for the standard pe panel if not available you'll need to arrange for the tests to be done as for the fr product please note that

02:50:45 as for the fr product please note that the french classification as described in the avi technique is not recognized in the uk fire test reports for the fr product already submitted with your application and then if you um if you look uh

02:51:02 up the screen you can see that he sends you on the 25th of may 2007 uh the classification report 5a

02:51:16 uh the classification report 5a and we take it from me that that is what he sends you uh hello hammer please find and close the fire reaction certificate for our product brenner bond pe

02:51:27 product brenner bond pe and then if you look a little bit above that please if you go to page 96 i think you'll need you go back to him page 96

02:51:37 and you say in response to him also on the same day 25th of may claude the document is acceptable thank you i look forward to receiving

02:51:48 thank you i look forward to receiving your response to items two three and four of my email below so you asked him for the test date of a pe and he sent you

02:51:58 you classification report 5a that i've shown you

02:52:03 you when he sent it to you did you did you study it

02:52:10 again not having enough knowledge there was no point in me all i was interested in is was the classification that i i couldn't study it in detail just i

02:52:23 i couldn't study it in detail just i would just look at the classification so when you told him that the document was acceptable but what acceptable for what acceptable for our purposes which were

02:52:35 acceptable for our purposes which were which were to assess the fire performance of the product let's see

02:52:45 did you notice if we go back to page one five three please technical file i showed you this did i want to show it to you again

02:52:56 want to show it to you again uh vba 408042 page 153 this is uh under the field of application did you

02:53:07 under the field of application did you notice that it said only for the system riveted on any metallic metallic substructure yeah you did yes

02:53:18 yeah you did yes did that tell you that the fire classification result contained in classification report 5a that mr verle had sent you at your request

02:53:29 had sent you at your request was valid only for reyno bond that was four millimeters thick and for the riveted variant again i must have discussed this with

02:53:41 again i must have discussed this with somebody most probably brian haynes to see whether the the data supplied was sufficient for our purposes i

02:53:53 was sufficient for our purposes i other than other than that i couldn't do any assessment at all i mean uh

02:54:02 did you notice that the fire classification report he was sending you applied only to rivet

02:54:10 yes but as i say because we're assessing the product the fact that it's riveted i thought was immaterial it was irrelevant well you you say that did you ask your let's

02:54:22 you you say that did you ask your let's take that in stages did you ask yourself how if the classification report mr verlay had sent you only covered the rivet system how it could apply validly to the cassette system that is all the information we had from

02:54:35 that is all the information we had from from

02:54:35 from cstb so

02:54:37 cstb so [Music]

02:54:41 going back to section six one of the certificate please dba six zeros four seven page five you can see what's said though i've read it to you now twice

02:54:53 it to you now twice but you can see it doesn't refer to the fact that classification five a was of the rivet system only cutting to the heart of the point the question is why not

02:55:05 question is why not why doesn't it say which paragraph is that

02:55:08 that 6.1 6.1 yeah you say a standard sample of the product achieved a classification of bs 2 dna the question is why doesn't it say

02:55:21 the question is why doesn't it say a standard sample of the product in rivet fixing

02:55:27 again because it it was as far as the fire performance was concerned it was irrelevant in what context you it was just the

02:55:40 in what context you it was just the actual surface the spread of flame i think i i believe these things refer to and it was really irrelevant how they were fixed they i say the the information we got from

02:55:51 from cstb was a riveted one but i believe maybe as a result of my discussion with brian we decided

02:56:05 that's that's suitable irrespective of the fixing methods given that the cstb had had provided test data

02:56:14 test data on the product in riveted form and to be used only in that fabrication why did you consider

02:56:25 fabrication why did you consider that drawing the distinction between rivet and cassette in this subsection of the certificate was irrelevant

02:56:33 because i say we were covering the the parallel material not the fixing method

02:56:41 method and with regard to resistance to fire

02:56:46 i would suggest it could have been irrelevant as to what fixing method was used well that may be true in relation to resistance to fire but of course this is

02:56:57 resistance to fire but of course this is about reaction to fire isn't it again that shows my ignorance of this material this particular subject i have no i have very little knowledge of fire

02:57:07 of fire fire issues right regardless of the amount of knowledge you had could you not see that the test data you were being sent related only to the product

02:57:19 related only to the product in rivet form and therefore any claim for fire performance that you could make in the certificate had to relate to the product in rivet form and not generally

02:57:31 no i say i must have discussed this with somebody

02:57:35 somebody with a fire expert possibly and as i said it was just

02:57:43 the material we were covering and i felt i must have felt uh the fixing method was irrelevant you could you knew

02:57:55 could you knew at the time you drafted this certificate that there were two fixing methods because

02:57:59 because they're clearly spelled out in the certificate aren't they fixing and cassette yes yes you've nodded but you say yes uh why there

02:58:11 you say yes uh why there did you therefore realize that there should also have been an equivalent test and classification report for the cassette fixing system i think the bba certificate makes it clear that the fact that we've

02:58:23 clear that the fact that we've included some details

02:58:26 as to how it could be fixed to a

02:58:30 substructure is just to just to show what the product can be used in what context it could be used

02:58:38 used nothing more did you did you discuss with a

02:58:42 with a a fire expert whether you could safely ignore the distinction between rivet and cassette

02:58:49 cassette when identifying the p the standard samples

02:58:54 samples fire performance as you do in section 6.1

02:58:57 6.1 uh not i can't remember any conversation with regard to advice from a fire expert but i must have discussed it with um with brian

02:59:11 i didn't make the decision that that the fixing method was relevant with regard to fire performance who did

02:59:22 with regard to fire performance who did i can't remember i mean i must have been advised by somebody that it's

02:59:30 the data that the cstb is supplied could be used to assess the panel product on its own without distinguishing between rivet and cassette that's right

02:59:43 cassette that's right and you say i must have been advised by somebody can you tell us who that would have been

02:59:47 have been i can't to be honest i mean as i mentioned i've got very little knowledge of fire issues and i must have consulted with somebody and then

02:59:58 and then they must have thought yes we could use this data

03:00:01 this data to assess the panel product mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes mr miller i think it is um we're going to take a break now mr gregorian

03:00:12 going to take a break now mr gregorian um so we can all get some lunch you included

03:00:15 included we'll come back please at two o'clock and during the break please take care not to discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else certainly good thank

03:00:26 with anyone else certainly good thank you very much see you at 2 o'clock then yep thank you

03:01:12 you