British Board of Agrément (BBA) Evidence - Thursday 18th March 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:06 good afternoon everyone welcome to this afternoon's hearing we're going to continue hearing the evidence of mr albon so my first task as always is to check

00:00:17 so my first task as always is to check that mr alvon is there and can see me and hear me clearly mr alban are you there yes good thank you very much is there anything you'd like to

00:00:28 there anything you'd like to raise with me before we carry on no thank you

00:00:33 thank you so you're ready to go on and i'll invite miss grange to carry on putting questions to you if i may yes mrs yes thank you mr chairman and uh yes properly good afternoon mr alvin

00:00:45 properly good afternoon mr alvin um we go back to your third uh witness statement at this point bba three zeros 105 107 51 page two i want to look at paragraph

00:00:56 page two i want to look at paragraph seven again

00:01:07 so we we looked at this paragraph earlier and i've asked you some questions about ms sharma who you are describing in the second sentence and if i can look at what you say from

00:01:19 and if i can look at what you say from the third line up from the bottom you say and she and the bba senior scientist have made a number of presentations to project managers on fire related issues with respect to product certification

00:01:31 with respect to product certification and you exhibit copies of these presentations now can you help us exactly when were those presentations delivered do you know that

00:01:42 i can't give you specific dates it is a rolling program in that when we have a an intake of new project managers we will

00:01:55 managers we will give these presentations on a fairly regular basis so that the new staff are given the same training as existing staff but it's as and when required as opposed to in a

00:02:07 required as opposed to in a six monthly basis or whatever right i i see so this is these are presentations primarily targeted at new staff is that correct

00:02:18 when first introduced it was for existing staff but obviously on a rolling basis they are repeated so that everyone has the same information yeah i see and um upon checking your

00:02:31 yeah i see and um upon checking your exhibit ja 28 that you refer to there there appear to be only two presentations with any fire related content and they appear to be dated 2011 2012 and uh april 2016.

00:02:46 2012 and uh april 2016. let's just bring those up this is bba three zeros 10762

00:02:53 and if we look first at page five

00:03:03 this is the first um of the presentations if you can zoom in on the top left hand corner

00:03:13 we can see it says fire presentation 2011 updated december 2012. so we have that one and then there's an april 2016 one at page

00:03:24 april 2016 one at page seven

00:03:29 we can see the date of this one at page seven of your exhibit um in the top left-hand triangle john denier principal scientist nisha sharma project manager and tech

00:03:41 sharma project manager and tech coordinator fire 26th of april 2016. now um can you help us with this were there any such presentations before 2012

00:03:55 not the time aware of i don't remember right so it's possible is it that these are the

00:04:03 are the well the one we saw before the 2011 2012 one that that's the first such fire presentation that was uh delivered within the bba yes possibly yeah okay

00:04:15 yes possibly yeah okay if we uh look at your third witness statement uh at this point this is um bba 3010751 page four and i want to look at

00:04:27 page four and i want to look at paragraph 12.

00:04:34 you say this you say over the period under consideration the bba had in place a consultancy agreement with x over warrington fire this organization was known by several

00:04:45 this organization was known by several names over this period this allowed the bba to seek expert consultancy on particular fire issues where it was considered that these fell outside of the bba's competence to

00:04:56 outside of the bba's competence to address

00:04:57 address internally

00:05:01 um now if we go back um to your exhibit ja 28 that's

00:05:12 to your exhibit ja 28 that's bba 3010762

00:05:18 if we go to um page one this is the fire presentation and we looked just a moment ago at page five

00:05:29 looked just a moment ago at page five which was the date of this presentation

00:05:36 and then so the i think it's right can you help us that these notes appear to go with that uh slideshow is that correct

00:05:47 they appear to match i don't know i would need to look at them in detail i see if you say so i'm sure you're right yeah um if we go to page

00:05:59 um if we go to page four back into the slides

00:06:04 and we look at the bottom left-hand side of these slides it tells us item one at the bottom the bba has a consultancy agreement with warrington

00:06:15 warrington whereby under a monthly fee arrangement advice is available free of individual charge

00:06:20 charge as a result warrington should always be consulted before bre although bre can carry out certain tests that warrington do not offer so that

00:06:31 that warrington do not offer so that appears to be what you're telling staff we think in 2011 2012 does that does that sound right to you it's a little earlier than i think i said earlier um

00:06:43 said earlier um yes it's reasonable right when did you think that that arrangement with warrington came into being i thought it was slightly later but clearly not

00:06:54 clearly not yeah so it's right is it that the bba entered into a consultancy agreement with warrington or x over warrington fire

00:07:03 fire but not the bre that's correct yes yes was there ever a written agreement between the bba and warrington yes

00:07:15 and warrington yes it says that the agreement was uh for a monthly fee arrangement and advice was available free of charge does that mean that the consultancy agreement was a kind of retainer

00:07:25 retainer the bba would pay a flat fee and warrington would provide advice at any time is that how it worked yes and what about if advice was sought

00:07:37 yes and what about if advice was sought from the bre would the bba at that time have been paying for advice from the bre

00:07:46 we did still have conversations with boe on an informal basis if there had been a substantial piece of work that we asked the bre to carry out i would expect us

00:07:58 the bre to carry out i would expect us to have been charged for it i see so to take an example that we'll come back to when mr haynes speaks to um sarah colwell that was mr gregorian's evidence and

00:08:09 that was mr gregorian's evidence and picked up the phone and asked her some questions about the first rainerbond certificate would that be just free of charge advice that the bre were providing in good faith

00:08:21 faith i don't know i wasn't involved the baba and ere share a site we have long established working relationships in some cases

00:08:32 in some cases i believe brian haynes knew sarah colwell through committee work it may be they had an informal basis but i really don't know right yes and you've just confirmed that it's right isn't it that the

00:08:44 it's right isn't it that the the bba and the bre are located on the same site

00:08:47 same site in watford is that correct yes yeah and and how far apart are your offices it's a large site um certainly walking

00:08:58 it's a large site um certainly walking distance

00:08:59 distance right yeah was the arrangement can you help us with warrington in place in 2007 when mr gregorian

00:09:07 gregorian was working on the first reyna bond certificate assessment

00:09:12 i'm not sure what i don't think so right miss amoroso when she gave oral evidence said that she was unaware of any formal consultancy

00:09:23 unaware of any formal consultancy arrangement with warrington or warrington fire or x over that was day 106

00:09:31 day 106 pages 19 and 20. she started at the bba in november 2014 and she worked through to july 2018. can you help us understand

00:09:43 2018. can you help us understand why miss amaroso as project manager was unaware of that formal consultancy arrangement with the with warrington fire

00:09:55 the with warrington fire no i would be very surprised that she wasn't aware why would you be very surprised that she wasn't aware because i thought we had communicated this to all project managers

00:10:06 this to all project managers but clearly not right um we have not found any evidence of contact with warrington fire x over regarding the initial assessment of rayna bond 55 panels

00:10:20 assessment of rayna bond 55 panels nor have we found any evidence of contact during any of the subsequent reviews of that product um are you aware can you help us whether

00:10:31 um are you aware can you help us whether warrington firex over ever assessed any aspects of the statements about fire performance made in certificate zero eight four five one zero for the raynabon panels

00:10:46 one zero for the raynabon panels i have seen nothing on the retained files to suggest there was any such correspondence

00:10:53 as i was just mentioning we did see some evidence and we'll come to these emails specifically of emails being sent to sarah

00:11:00 sarah colwell of the bre on fire performance uh relating specifically to the fire performance of the back face of the panels

00:11:08 panels um can you help us would you have expected

00:11:12 expected the bre or indeed x over to have reviewed

00:11:15 reviewed all of the statements made on certificate 084510 about fire performance before that certificate was issued

00:11:26 before that certificate was issued no that would not be normal practice and can you explain why that wasn't normal practice

00:11:35 it would be normal practice if we felt it was outside of the expertise available to us within the bba to ask for external advice in this case apparently we did not feel that was

00:11:47 apparently we did not feel that was necessary

00:11:50 and can you help us um would that not have been normal because statements about fire performance were considered to be within the capabilities

00:12:02 considered to be within the capabilities of the bba staff who were drafting and reviewing the certificate that would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis

00:12:10 basis in this case the technical manager would decide whether or not the draft should be circulated externally if he felt that we had the internal competence clearly that wouldn't be

00:12:21 competence clearly that wouldn't be necessary

00:12:23 necessary in your experience how common would it be for

00:12:26 be for a draft certificate to be circulated to external

00:12:30 external fire experts by the bba most product types would have been assessed before they would be circulated

00:12:42 assessed before they would be circulated on

00:12:44 on the first certificate of a given type thereafter if the wording product and use

00:12:52 use are very similar we wouldn't see the need to circulate it again so relatively uncommon right and where you say most product types would have been assessed before they

00:13:04 would have been assessed before they would be circulated on the first certificate who who would it have been assessed by i didn't explain that very well sorry um

00:13:15 we try to maintain if you like a level playing field for any given type of certificate so if we have a similar product being used for the same use we have a certificate template which

00:13:26 we have a certificate template which sets out the wording to be used it's not a cut and paste exercise but it's a template and that is established by circulation on the first

00:13:37 on the first certification of that product type once the wording has been agreed and established there seems no point in just circulating it a second time provided

00:13:48 circulating it a second time provided that the wording is appropriate i see and can you help us you may not be able to but can you help us as to whether such a template existed to assist with the drafting of

00:14:00 existed to assist with the drafting of the first rainer bond certificate in that came out in 2008

00:14:06 i don't know did you find on the certificate log which would be on the file right um going back to the the presentations

00:14:17 um going back to the the presentations you exhibited at bba3010762

00:14:24 we've seen that there's a second presentation dated april 2016 this is at page seven of that bba three zeros 107 62 page seven

00:14:41 so we can see that the the title of this presentation um is fire safety part b and fire presentation do you see that in the little red rhombus at the top of that

00:14:56 little red rhombus at the top of that page yes and um so this appears to be directed at part b

00:15:03 part b of the building regulations and you can see that on the right hand side of the page if we come back out again there's a heading pan back out yeah building regulations

00:15:15 pan back out yeah building regulations current regulations sources of approved documents part b fire safety principal aims statutory instruments fire safety requirements so we saw that this is training from april

00:15:26 we saw that this is training from april 2016

00:15:28 2016 and if we go to page 15

00:15:35 we can see at the very top of that page it explains safety part b and fire presentation this presentation is part of fundamentals training program

00:15:46 training program which commenced in february 2016 all pac staff with less than three years experience at the bba are required to attend in addition to staff working in the area under consideration

00:15:59 in the area under consideration now can you help us what was it that prompted the vba to in to institute this particular training program in february 2016.

00:16:14 i'm not aware of any particular catalyst if you like that started it we try to operate a process of continuous improvement within the bba we have

00:16:25 within the bba we have the technical excellence team or the technical team at the time one of whose roles is training of staff technical training and staff so i imagine

00:16:35 imagine we decided it would be an idea to formalize the training and improve the training that we had in place at that time

00:16:43 that time can you help us what is meant by pac staff it says that all pac staff with less than three years experience are required to attend what's meant by pac staff it's an abbreviation for product

00:16:55 abbreviation for product approval and certification these these are the staff that the technical staff that work on using certificates and can you help us as to why we don't see a training

00:17:06 as to why we don't see a training package like this on the building regulations relevant to fire and fire safety

00:17:11 safety before this time

00:17:16 as i say we have a process of continuous improvement there was training for staff before this time it was less formalized and we decided to introduce

00:17:28 and we decided to introduce if you like a better process through this series of presentations and the training for staff before this time was that the on-the-job training you were referring to earlier yes

00:17:40 yes yes now

00:17:43 yes now just finally on this topic if we can go to a later document than this this is bba 3010486

00:17:58 this is a memo uh it seems to be a kind of position paper it was drafted we believe for the eba board it's dated the 20th of june

00:18:09 eba board it's dated the 20th of june 2017

00:18:11 2017 and we can see the authors if we go to page five of this document

00:18:17 you can see the authors you are there together with jordan adams and brian moore

00:18:22 moore who was jordan adams she was um an administrator i'm not manager of the administrators in our auditing inspection team right

00:18:34 in our auditing inspection team right now we'll come back to look at this memo later in your evidence but just for now i want to look at page one paragraph three

00:18:46 and at the beginning of that paragraph three it says there the bba does not have in-house fire experts on a national scale and relies on external consultancy for research

00:18:57 on external consultancy for research issues but we do have significant experience of interpreting the requirements of the building regulations and can make judgments on such compliance with some confidence can you just help

00:19:09 with some confidence can you just help us

00:19:10 us what did you mean in the first line sorry i ought to clarify did you actually draft this document

00:19:18 yes yes well i say yes yes in consultation with brian moore yes thank you and where you say in the first line that the bba does not have

00:19:29 first line that the bba does not have in-house fire experts on a national scale can you help us as to what you meant by that

00:19:36 as i tried to explain earlier we have a very narrow focus on the interpretation of fire and the application of fire within the bba relating to the requirements of the

00:19:47 relating to the requirements of the approved documents and equivalent documents for the rest of the uk

00:19:53 the uk we are not fire experts in any other sense

00:19:59 i see

00:20:02 but you are certifying products in relation to their fire performance yes yes

00:20:10 yes yes yes and where you say in in that paragraph three that it relies on external consultancy for research

00:20:19 research issues what does that mean

00:20:23 we would be competent to take a ucas accredited file laboratory test report

00:20:30 report and assess that classification in relation to the requirements of the national building regulations if there were wider judgments to be made perhaps if

00:20:41 perhaps if the scope of that document did not cover the scope of the products that we were actually assessing we would not be competent to expand the scope of that classification

00:20:54 expand the scope of that classification and in that situation we would seek external advice

00:21:00 i see what about being competent to notice if there was fire performance information missing would you consider

00:21:11 you consider that the bba was competent in that regard

00:21:16 regard could you be more specific well i think it'd be better let we'll come to it when we get to the raina bond certificate in a moment but and i'll ask you some specific questions on that um

00:21:28 specific questions on that um can you just with reference to paragraph three here can you explain how the bba was able to make

00:21:35 make authoritative assessments about the fire performance of construction products and materials

00:21:41 materials without having in-house fire expertise

00:21:48 i would argue that we do have in-house prior expertise that is appropriate to the role that we perform we know the limits of our competency and

00:21:59 we know the limits of our competency and if we are required to go beyond those limits we will seek external advice i see the way that's written there you say we rely on external consultancy for

00:22:10 say we rely on external consultancy for research issues that doesn't sound like you rely on the extent those external consultancy for routine queries that crop up as part of your certification

00:22:21 up as part of your certification assessments is that fair we have a very good understanding of the depths of our competency we will make judgments within that

00:22:33 we will make judgments within that competency we will not go outside what we understand in those circumstances we will seek advice

00:22:42 advice did you ever question whether you needed to bolster your expertise in fire performance and fire safety matters

00:22:53 fire safety matters we are always looking to bolster the experience and competency of individuals within the bba we are not a fire test house we do not intend to carry out fire testing so

00:23:06 intend to carry out fire testing so we staff the organization on the basis of the knowledge that we need to carry out the work that we undertake

00:23:13 yes let me put it a different way did there ever come a time when you became aware

00:23:19 aware that the bba was lacking in terms of its ability to interpret fire test information there are limits yes and this is the

00:23:31 there are limits yes and this is the reason we put the consultancy of agents in place with x over wellington so that's we could obtain specialist advice when we needed it

00:23:41 it but what about after that time for example and we'll come to it in detail later when mr martin of the dclg intervenes in july 2014 pointing out serious errors with the k-15 kingspan

00:23:54 serious errors with the k-15 kingspan certificate at that point did anybody within the bba ask itself the question are we competent

00:24:02 competent to be certifying on fire performance issues

00:24:12 we are continually reviewing the competence of the organization this forms part of our annual appraisal process and yes we were aware of the limits of our knowledge we had put in place a mechanism whereby

00:24:24 we had put in place a mechanism whereby we could attain additional knowledge as and when we required it because we are in full recognition of the limits of our competency there would be little point in our

00:24:36 there would be little point in our employing

00:24:37 employing a number of highly qualified fire engineers when our routine day-to-day business does not require that expertise because i don't think that's quite an answer to my question

00:24:48 answer to my question but can i go back to it at that point so this is july 2014 did anybody within the bba ask itself the question are we competent to be certifying on fire performance issues

00:25:02 why would we ask that question what specific question should we be asking ourselves

00:25:07 ourselves sorry i don't understand the line of questioning i see what i'm getting at is when you became aware

00:25:14 aware in july 2014 and we'll come to it do you do you remember when mr martin got in touch with you about k-15 yes so i think you said yes yes yes

00:25:26 so i think you said yes yes yes what i'm getting at is at that time did you seriously question the competency of the bba on certifying fire performance of products

00:25:38 certifying fire performance of products we carried out an in-house investigation we established what had happened the reason it had happened

00:25:45 happened and the likelihood of its recurring and i we were satisfied that we had the necessary experience and that that would not happen again

00:25:56 not happen again so to answer your question i suppose yes we did

00:25:59 we did i see okay let's move on now um and i'm going to ask you some questions more specific questions now about the rainer bond certificate certificate zero eight

00:26:09 eight slash four five zero now in 2007 2008 when the rainer bond product was first assessed and certified you were in a different department is that right yes

00:26:21 that right yes you were section head of the materials department at that point is that correct yes and you tell us in your witness statement

00:26:29 statement we don't need to go to it this is paragraph 16 of your second witness statement that you are not responsible for the technical content of that certificate as this fell within the scope of another

00:26:40 as this fell within the scope of another technical department yes i supplied some specialist internal consultancy relating to the durability of the coating i also i think

00:26:50 think sent an email relating to the possible contribution of color to the fire classification other than that no yes thank you um but is it right that responsibility

00:27:04 um but is it right that responsibility for this certificate did subsequently come under your remit in particular that well to this extent that the processes and procedures

00:27:17 that the processes and procedures relating to this certificate would have come under your remit from 2009 after you became technical manager is that correct

00:27:28 not for that specific certificate in the context i think you're applying i was responsible for the processes policies and procedures of the

00:27:39 policies and procedures of the organization as a whole i did not have responsibility for that individual certificate no i understand that but in terms of say the procedure of reviewing the certificate you had

00:27:50 of reviewing the certificate you had overall responsibility within the bba for that

00:27:54 for that procedure yes

00:27:58 yes yes and for any policies or practices surrounding the review of bba certificates yes

00:28:09 of bba certificates yes yes yes thank you

00:28:12 now you do tell us in your first witness statement

00:28:15 statement if we can go to that page one paragraph one this is bba 50158

00:28:27 we look at that paragraph you tell us you're a senior technical manager at the bba

00:28:31 bba that's in the top line and then three lines down you say i'm therefore well placed to comment on the bba certificate issued for the reign

00:28:42 bba certificate issued for the reign reynabond pe and fr products to explain the technical assessment processes leading to their issue and the subsequent surveillance procedures operated in order to maintain

00:28:54 operated in order to maintain their validity and it's right isn't it that you did have as you've already just explained some limited involvement in the original certification process yes

00:29:06 certification process yes yes and you were also involved were you not

00:29:10 not directly in review processes related to that certificate in 2017 is that right i don't think so i was responsible for the principles

00:29:23 the principles not sure i was involved in the specifics of that particular review okay well we'll come on to that okay um can we just go to that bba certificate bba

00:29:38 6047

00:29:43 this is the the first issue of the certificate it's dated right at the bottom of the page 14th of january 2008 um and it's a certificate that uh

00:29:55 um and it's a certificate that uh we are familiar with now can i take it that you

00:29:58 that you are also familiar with that certificate that you have looked at that prior to giving evidence to us today yes yes in which case i'm not going to

00:30:09 yes yes in which case i'm not going to go through it just in general now um can you remember when you first read this certificate

00:30:20 i think it was immediately in the aftermath of the grenfell fire right so that was the first time you actually came to look at this particular certificate is that correct

00:30:31 certificate is that correct i can't honestly say i wasn't aware of it previously i can't remember having read it previously there is little reason why i would have done it right so you didn't ever have reason to

00:30:42 right so you didn't ever have reason to check the technical content of this certificate prior to that time um no this would have been in a different department yeah now we know that our comics

00:30:53 yeah now we know that our comics interactions with the bba regarding the certificate began in 2004 and i want to pick up the story with you in 2006.

00:31:03 in 2006. now in june 2006 mr verla sent some documents

00:31:07 documents to you if we can go within mr vella's exhibits

00:31:11 exhibits uh this is m e t three zeros five three one five eight p14 at page 35.

00:31:32 p14 at page 35. so we can see this is an email to you from mr verla it's dated the 7th of june 2006 that the date reads in the

00:31:45 2006 that the date reads in the with the um month first and then the day and he says uh just dear mr albin please find enclose the french heavy technique system rivet

00:31:57 heavy technique system rivet do you see that there yes and attached is a document if we go to page 36 in this same exhibit next page and attached was the avi technique

00:32:09 and attached was the avi technique report

00:32:11 report from the cstb we can see it's the cstb in the bottom left and we can see it's for the rivet system

00:32:18 system do you see that yes and we know that means the riveted uh raynabon fabrication method and if we can go to

00:32:30 method and if we can go to uh page 98 of this exhibit this is your email in response

00:32:38 so this is on the 8th of june 2006 you reply

00:32:43 reply and you say thank you for sending the information i hope to examine the two sets of data in the next few days and we'll send you a fuller response

00:32:50 response then

00:32:54 and then if we go to page 99 of this exhibit

00:33:03 there's a further email from you in response at the top of that page and this is on the 13th of june 2006 and you say

00:33:12 you say sorry for the delay in replying to you on this it would appear that the documents applied would be useful to us in any future bba assessments of the type that we discussed

00:33:22 discussed during my visit unfortunately we would need to have english translations before we could be sure how much of the information is relevant should you decide to proceed with any of the proposed vba assessments

00:33:34 the proposed vba assessments could you please supply us with translations so that we can ensure that we take full account of the existing data and we can see that you sign off as section head in that email yes

00:33:48 as section head in that email yes yes now we know that there were two avi technique

00:33:52 technique reports for rayna bond at this time one was for the rivet fix system and one was for the cassettes the cassette method of

00:34:03 the cassettes the cassette method of fabrication and you refer in your email we just saw it

00:34:08 it of the 8th of june 2006 just looking back at that page 98 we saw there that you refer to two sets of data

00:34:19 you say in that second sentence i hope to examine the two sets of data in the next few days uh can you help us and we appreciate it is a long time ago are you referring

00:34:30 is a long time ago are you referring there to the two separate abbey technique reports i'm sorry i don't know it was 15 years ago yeah

00:34:39 there is reference as well to a a visit um we saw we see we see that we saw that on page 99

00:34:50 see we see that we saw that on page 99 if we just go back to that in your slightly fuller response you say in that second paragraph um the documents would be useful

00:35:01 documents would be useful in any future baba assessment of the type that we discussed during my visit

00:35:08 can you remember anything about that visit

00:35:12 yes we discussed my career progression briefly earlier at one time i was a bba inspector carrying out factory inspections

00:35:24 factory inspections um we had a slight issue with resourcing although i had moved to back to the technical assessment team i retained

00:35:35 the technical assessment team i retained the ability to carry out factory inspections in exceptional circumstances where for whatever reason the normal bba inspection staff were not available

00:35:46 inspection staff were not available this was a routine factory visit that i carried out for an existing um archoic iconic certificate um

00:35:58 archoic iconic certificate um and it was purely a factory audit

00:36:02 right i see can you remember which existing

00:36:07 existing um archonic product you were auditing at that time

00:36:12 that time it was an aluminium coil coated product aluminium coil coated can you explain exactly what an aluminium coil coated product is yes it's is as it's

00:36:25 yes it's is as it's as it sounds it's a coil of aluminium a very large coil of aluminium that is painted on both sides and supplied to site

00:36:36 supplied to site as a coil which is subsequently fabricated by specialist fabricators as roofing or cladding

00:36:43 cladding right thank you um and can you help us did you discuss during that factory visit arconic

00:36:54 during that factory visit arconic applying for a bba certificate for its rainer bond panels

00:37:00 it would appear so from this email i don't remember the conversation i'm afraid

00:37:07 and to the best of your recollection was mr vela providing these cstb reports to you to see if a bba certificate could be based on them

00:37:18 certificate could be based on them possibly as i say i don't remember the details but that's certainly a possibility and just to be clear is that's what meant is that what's meant by a confirmation certificate the bba confirms the data of

00:37:30 certificate the bba confirms the data of another body yes and the cstb in france was one of those bodies from whom the bba would accept data as being technically sound yes

00:37:40 yes yes and was it cheaper for an applicant to get a confirmation certificate if it was based on other data was that a less expensive

00:37:51 other data was that a less expensive process

00:37:53 process yes it was

00:37:56 now after this our conic sent an uh an application form in august 2006

00:38:05 um now in terms of the just the process generally

00:38:09 generally i think it's your evidence is this right that it's up to the client to decide what products are being assessed the bba itself doesn't decide it's the client to decide what the product is that's to be assessed is that correct

00:38:22 that's to be assessed is that correct the clients will request this yes and i think you also say in your statements that uh it is what the client writes in the application form that the bba takes as the product which the client wishes to

00:38:34 the product which the client wishes to have assessed yes yes but is it right that the bba would not just take statements made in the application form as being final would the bba always consider the

00:38:47 final would the bba always consider the underlying and supporting data to determine what product it was appropriate to be certifying

00:38:58 i'm sorry i'm not sure what you mean could you explain please so in terms of what product the certificate actually covered would it be a matter for the bba

00:39:09 covered would it be a matter for the bba to determine once it had looked at all the underlying and supporting data what product they felt able to cover in the certificate

00:39:23 yes we would normally carry out an assessment of the products defined for the purpose for which it was defined unless we had a good reason why that wouldn't be appropriate

00:39:34 wouldn't be appropriate right yes now if we look at the 2006 application form in claude burles exhibits

00:39:41 exhibits this is met3053158 underscore p13 page 167

00:39:58 that's the cover page of their 2006 application form and this was materially identical

00:40:04 identical to an application that they'd made in 2004

00:40:07 2004 and if we go to page 173 of this form

00:40:14 we can see a table of available assessment calculation and test data and in the first two rows of that

00:40:28 in the first two rows of that we can see avi technique reports uh and it says characteristic covered and then someone's written structural and system for cassettes

00:40:40 and system for cassettes and underneath that structural and system for rivet riveted

00:40:47 now do you remember seeing this application form at the time no

00:40:56 now but this tells us on the face of it doesn't it that the cstb considered it appropriate to treat

00:41:03 treat the riveted and the cassette product separately yes i would expect the cstb would have a very

00:41:11 very similar process to that at the bba whereby they would assess what they were asked to assess by their client

00:41:19 yes but can we agree it was clear from the face of the form on this form that avi technique had produced separate reports for the cassettes and

00:41:30 separate reports for the cassettes and for the rivets yes yes now those avi technique reports they do deal with fire performance uh under the french national system i just want to show you

00:41:42 national system i just want to show you that

00:41:43 that if we go within part 14 of mr verla's exhibits

00:41:47 exhibits e t three zeros five three one five eight

00:41:50 eight underscore p fourteen at page ten

00:42:06 so this is the avi this is within the abbey technique report for the cassette um and what we see in the right hand column

00:42:17 column is that there is a heading just around the middle of the page on fire safety can you see that yes we zoom into that

00:42:26 yes that's helpful so these avi technique reports did have some fire safety information in them even though iconic was not relying on that particular

00:42:38 was not relying on that particular fire safety information in its application to the bba and what we can see if we go two paragraphs down under fire safety is it says the fire reaction classification of the wall

00:42:49 of the wall used is m1 for all plate thicknesses do you see that yes so we can see under the french system the cassettes have m1 classification

00:43:02 have m1 classification and then if we go within this to page 65 this is uh in contrast the avi technique

00:43:15 this is uh in contrast the avi technique for the riveted system you can see that just to be clear under 1.1

00:43:22 under 1.1 in the top left it says external wool over cladding fixed by rivets to a flaming framing of aluminium sections and then

00:43:33 framing of aluminium sections and then if we go on the right hand side under fire safety in the second paragraph down you can see that it says under the first bullet the fire reaction rating of the baked enamel

00:43:46 fire reaction rating of the baked enamel panels

00:43:47 panels is m1 to m3 according to the covering used

00:43:51 used do you see that yes so there's different parts of the french national fire classification system being quoted for the cassette

00:44:03 system being quoted for the cassette versus the rivet yes well it seems to say according to the covering used rather than the method but yes

00:44:14 yes now would you have expected a project manager who was provided with all this information to have read it all thoroughly including this avi technique report

00:44:26 avi technique report no that's not how the confirmation process works the confirmation process does not copy the content of the overseas certificate

00:44:39 the content of the overseas certificate it takes the base data on which that certificate was based and carries out an assessment of that underpinning data it is not a rubber stamp exercise it's a separate

00:44:50 separate assessment carried out on the same set of data

00:44:54 of data yes mr alvin i think you've misunderstood my question i wasn't asking whether it was a rubber stamping exercise or whether the information was simply copied the question i asked was would you have expected a project manager

00:45:05 expected a project manager who's provided with all this information to have read it thoroughly including this avi technique report

00:45:16 yes and would you have expected anybody supervising that project manager such as brian haynes or jeff gurney who was head of the

00:45:27 or jeff gurney who was head of the relevant engineering assessment section would you have expected them to have at least seen the application form

00:45:38 yes and what about would you have expected them to have read all the underlying reports that were put forward

00:45:50 possibly it would depend on the context i i wouldn't expect them to take any real recognition of the french national fire classification system

00:46:01 system why not because it is irrelevant to the uk

00:46:05 uk regulatory system which requires either a british or european standard we have no knowledge of this french classification system

00:46:16 would you have expected them to have noticed that the panels had different french national fire classifications even if they didn't know the detail of what those french tests were

00:46:29 what those french tests were they may have noticed but i would question the relevance the relevant classification systems would be those defined in the uk building regulations well

00:46:41 building regulations well might the relevance have been to suggest that the panels performed differently in fire depending on whether they were cassettes or rivets

00:46:52 we were not certifying cassettes or with it so we were certifying the sheet i see your evidence uh and i think we see this from your statements and we'll come back

00:47:04 from your statements and we'll come back to it is that that certificate merely covers a flat panel

00:47:08 panel yes that was my interpretation of the documents on the file yes when you say that was my interpretation of the documents on the file when when did you do that interpretation

00:47:22 when did you do that interpretation exercise

00:47:24 exercise i think it would have been when i was asked for statements by the inquiry right

00:47:32 let's go to claude verla's exhibits um in part 14 now um again so this is met3053158

00:47:43 met3053158 underscore p14 page 114.

00:47:58 this is an internal iconic visit report so you probably won't have seen this before

00:48:05 before um we can see it relates to a visit the the date of the visit is thursday the 2nd of november 2006. and i think elsewhere we're told that

00:48:16 and i think elsewhere we're told that this was prepared just shortly after that on the 6th of november 2006 and it concerns a meeting that the iconic had with the bba in watford on the 2nd of november 2006.

00:48:31 and we can see in that top section of this visit report that those that were present included bob keys business manager and then you are present john alban

00:48:43 and then you are present john alban technical manager and mr gregorian the engineering system department yes yes although i was not technical manager at that point that's a mistake

00:48:55 at that point that's a mistake uh what was your um what was your job title at that point i believe i was section head at that point yes

00:49:02 point yes section head of the materials department yes yes

00:49:05 yes yes yeah and for iconic we can see that present on the right hand side of that same

00:49:11 same row was colin southgate and andrew rich yes yes do you remember that visit that arconic uh made to watford in november 2006

00:49:24 i remember meeting colin southgate i don't remember andrew rich so possibly not this meeting no right if we look at item one we can

00:49:35 no right if we look at item one we can see it says reason for the visit exploratory call to assess situation as follows with lord berler in attendance um one possibility is that mr verla wasn't

00:49:48 one possibility is that mr verla wasn't physically in attendance but perhaps was in attendance some other way perhaps by telephone can you help us on that sorry no i don't remember yeah and we can see that the two points uh as the reason for the visit

00:50:00 points uh as the reason for the visit are investigate adding dg 5000 paint system to current vba

00:50:05 vba search eighty seven one one nine six four and then number two negotiate reinaborn 55 proposal sent 22nd of august 06 value around 20

00:50:17 sent 22nd of august 06 value around 20 000 pounds

00:50:22 now and then at point two under details of visit it says this after a general discussion with bk and and cs

00:50:33 bk and and cs threat to stop all dealings with bba unless a satisfactory solution was found we both the above potential approvals bk had arranged for the bba persons

00:50:45 bk had arranged for the bba persons responsible to be in attendance that seems to be uh bob keys this bk there um now do you recall

00:50:57 um now do you recall anyone at our conic threatening to stop dealing with the bba at a meeting around this time

00:51:06 no you can't recall that at all i don't remember it no what we see then underneath that is a heading meeting a

00:51:19 is a heading meeting a and it says rlx is that reynalux can you help us presumably yes yes were you involved with the rainalux project product at this time

00:51:32 project product at this time um looking at this document it appears to be related to certificate 871964 yeah which was the core coding certificate i was referring to earlier

00:51:45 certificate i was referring to earlier yeah that did fall under the responsibility of my team right that was under the department for materials yes yeah i see

00:51:56 um and then if we so that's meeting a and we can see some notes we don't need to go through them where your initial is mentioned so you appear to be active in that

00:52:07 active in that part of the meeting and then if we go over the page to 115 we can see that there's meeting b

00:52:18 we can see that there's meeting b which is about the rainer bond 55 proposal

00:52:21 proposal from august 2006 and it says with hammer gregorian um it may be from your previous answers you can't help at all but do you know whether you were

00:52:31 were present at meeting b or just meeting a

00:52:37 i'm sorry i don't remember it it's possible i was in meeting b i don't know do you remember contributing at all to a discussion about rayna bond panels in part b of the meeting no

00:52:50 in part b of the meeting no okay

00:52:56 just staying with this just for a moment just to check whether this might jog any memory um in the second paragraph under um meeting b so

00:53:09 um meeting b so you can see there's a line beginning i have suggested it says i have suggested it could be better to validate the material rather than the whole system this way a cross-connection can

00:53:20 system this way a cross-connection can be put together bba certification for four millimeter thick

00:53:25 thick rain upon 55 cstb certification for reynabond plus systems this way our two products materials rayna lux and rayna bond

00:53:36 rayna lux and rayna bond can be approved on paper which will cover most needs such as the nhbc nbs organizations now does that help as to whether you can recollect a discussion along those lines

00:53:48 recollect a discussion along those lines about

00:53:49 about um certifying or validating the material rayna bond rather than the whole system

00:53:59 i'm sorry i don't remember you can't help us

00:54:02 help us as to what that discussion was about i'm sorry

00:54:06 sorry can you recall ever being told what had been agreed about what was actually to be covered in the rayna bond certificate are you able to help us with that

00:54:20 i don't think i would have been aware my my input was restricted to the performance of the material itself i wouldn't have been consulted on the structural aspects

00:54:32 i see is it your understanding that the bba agreed to certify the reynabond product

00:54:45 agreed to certify the reynabond product without it being linked to a specific cladding system

00:54:51 i should emphasize i was not involved in this all i have the opportunity to do is to review the documents but from the contracts documents that is how i would interpret it it was

00:55:03 i would interpret it it was the material not to the system and does that mean that it's your interpretation that the bba agreed to certify the plan the panel

00:55:11 the panel as a raw flat panel product regardless of how it was fabricated

00:55:18 that is how i have interpreted it yes and that understanding just to be clear is what from your reading of the documents on the file yes yes

00:55:31 just some some general principles now about

00:55:34 about what these certificates are are intending to do can we look at your second witness statement page 8 that's bba 3010723 page 8.

00:55:51 and if we look at paragraph 22 you tell us there that a bba certificate is an expression of the bba's opinion of the fitness for purpose of a product

00:56:02 of the fitness for purpose of a product for a defined purpose

00:56:06 and you say something very similar in your third statement if we could go to that page 11 bba 3010751

00:56:15 3010751 page 11.

00:56:22 so in 37 right at the bottom of that page

00:56:28 you tell us it is my understanding that a certificate holder will use a certificate as an independent means of demonstrating their products fitness for its intended purpose to potential customers

00:56:43 and um that's what the bba certify in the certificate itself that's right isn't it it's fitness for its intended purpose

00:56:53 purpose yes if we look for example at this rainy bond certificate bba five zeroes sorry six zeros 47

00:57:08 in the blue box immediately above the signature at the bottom of that page we can see the words there the bba has awarded this agramond certificate for

00:57:19 awarded this agramond certificate for rayna bond architecture wall cladding panels to arcoa as fit for their intended use provided they are installed used and maintained as set out in this agreement certificate

00:57:31 as set out in this agreement certificate yes

00:57:32 yes yes and is it right that by providing an independent assessment of a product's fitness for its intended use the bba certificates play an

00:57:44 use the bba certificates play an important role in establishing the construction industry enabling the construction industry

00:57:50 industry to meet the requirements of regulation seven of the building regulations 1984 which requires adequate sorry 2010 which requires adequate and proper materials

00:58:00 materials to be used which are appropriate for the circumstances in which they are used

00:58:07 it is one of the ways that compliance with regulation 7 can be demonstrated yes

00:58:12 yes yes and and following on from that certification by the bba is a recognized and established scheme for the independent certification of construction products

00:58:23 construction products in accordance with the requirements of approved document b yes

00:58:30 i'm sorry could you say that again yes the certification by the bba is a recognized and established scheme for the independent certification of construction products

00:58:41 construction products in accordance with the requirements of approved document b for example

00:58:48 well approved documents b is is one aspect

00:58:52 aspect the bba certificate is an overall statement to fitness for purpose taking all aspects into account so it is not specific to approved document b or any other of the approved documents

00:59:06 but is certification by the bba a recognized and established scheme for the independent certification of products

00:59:16 yes now in terms of the specific product we're considering here it's right isn't it that rayna bond 55 cannot be used unless it is fabricated into a rivet fix

00:59:29 unless it is fabricated into a rivet fix or a cassette fix yes and in fact the material itself was unusable unless it was fabricated that's right isn't it

00:59:40 right isn't it yes and can we agree therefore that in order to make any statement about reyna bond

00:59:46 bond in a bba certificate the bba would have to consider that purpose namely that it was always going to be a fabricated product

00:59:58 yes and isn't it or doesn't it follow from that

01:00:03 from that that any technical claims made in the certificate issued by the bba to arconic would unless otherwise stated be taken by a reader of the certificate to apply to

01:00:14 reader of the certificate to apply to the panels irrespective of the manner of their fabrication or installation now that would depend on the specific text of the certificate the scope of the certification

01:00:27 the scope of the certification is defined within the certificate and it is individual

01:00:33 do you know whether the bba appreciated at the time that the fabricated form of a panel can have a significant effect on its technical performance including

01:00:44 on its technical performance including its fire performance

01:00:48 i don't know but there is nothing on the fire oh excuse me nothing on the file to suggest that

01:00:55 well there was wasn't there we've just seen it the cstb reports the abbey technique reports on the file

01:01:04 the file gave different french classifications for the rivet and for the cassette as i've explained we would not consider the french classification system because

01:01:16 the french classification system because that has no relevance in the uk regulatory environment

01:01:22 so you wouldn't expect where this is a confirmation certificate and you're confirming fire test information that's been provided by say the cstb

01:01:33 provided by say the cstb you wouldn't expect the bba to be able to have some appreciation of the french national classification system

01:01:44 system no it is completely irrelevant in the uk environment the requirements for the bba are set out in the contracts produced and they will define

01:01:53 define the fire test data that is required to carry out the assessment we would not be supplied with copies of the fire test reports supporting the french classification

01:02:04 supporting the french classification system they won't be on our files and there is no reason why we would want them they are irrelevant well i was just focusing on the information that you were provided with that we've just looked at

01:02:16 that we've just looked at and but just going back to the point i was on just a moment before that um did the bba appreciate at this time that the geometry really matters

01:02:27 geometry really matters that there can be substantial differences in a product fire performance depending on its shape that's not an assumption we would make we would ask for the fire test

01:02:39 we would ask for the fire test data relating to the products that are to be

01:02:42 to be assessed

01:02:46 we would not make an assumption without data

01:02:51 yes that's not an answer to my question i'm going to put it again did the bba appreciate at this time that the geometry really matters that there can be substantial differences

01:03:02 there can be substantial differences in a product's fire performance depending on its shape

01:03:10 clearly the configuration of a sample can have an effect on the performance in a fire test yes yes

01:03:26 we saw that the cstb treated rivet and cassette separately in their avi technique

01:03:31 technique reports in those circumstances can we agree that it was obvious that the bba

01:03:39 the bba should check that the two types of fabricated panel did not perform differently

01:03:49 we were not asked to certify the two configurations off the panel we were asked to certify the plain sheet that is subsequently fabricated

01:04:04 but if you're provided with information relating to only one of those fabrication methods can we agree that it was incumbent upon the bba

01:04:15 the bba to check that the performance of the other

01:04:18 other fabricated version was no different

01:04:22 but we weren't certifying the performance of the other fabricated system we were certifying the performance off the plane sheet

01:04:34 mr gregorian's oral evidence was that the bba

01:04:37 the bba only added reference to the rivets and cassettes in the certificate as details just to show how the material could be used in a cladding system he said that day 105

01:04:48 said that day 105 page 81 lines 21 to 23. now is is that your understanding as well

01:04:59 that would seem consistent with the information on the file yes

01:05:05 when you say that would seem consistent with the information on the file can you explain

01:05:09 explain what it is on the file that leads you to the conclusion that the bba only added reference to the rivets and cassettes as details just to show how the material

01:05:21 as details just to show how the material could be used in a cladding system

01:05:30 i'm struggling to give you a specific example

01:05:33 example perhaps if we looked at the contract documents whether they referred to separate rivet and cassette configurations or if they just referred to plain sheet

01:05:44 to plain sheet that is the basis of the assessments the contents of the formal contract right so are you speculating that there might be something in the formal contract documents

01:05:56 contract documents that assist as to whether or not the rivets or the cassettes were included in the certificate as mere details just to show how the material could be used in the cladding system

01:06:08 the cladding system well i'm struggling to give you a specific example on the file because i don't have it in front of me but the overall impression i followed from a review of that file was that this was the situation um

01:06:23 can you help us you you told us you were familiar with the certificate and we can go back to if we need to how is that consistent with the amount of detail

01:06:33 of detail that we see on the certificate including pictures

01:06:37 pictures about the rivet and the cassette methods of fixings

01:06:43 if i am correct in my interpretation of the intention of that certificate i think the inclusion of those illustrations was potentially misleading

01:06:57 right so are you accepting that for readers of that certificate that they would have understood that for example the statements about fire performance

01:07:09 the statements about fire performance would have applied equally as between the rivet and the cassette products we were not aware that there was a difference and so there is no differentiation in the certificate yes

01:07:21 differentiation in the certificate yes yes so are you accepting that for readers of that certificate they would have understood that the statements about fire performance would have applied equally between the rivet and the cassette and thereby the certificate was

01:07:40 misleading

01:07:44 i think the data given in the certificate were consistent with those that were made available to the bba

01:07:52 the bba and that they were an accurate reflection of the information that was placed at our disposal right let's look now at the documents that

01:08:02 that support the statements which are made on the bba certificate if we can return to the bba certificate this is bba 6047 page five

01:08:22 this is the behavior in relation to a fire section and i just want to start with paragraph 6.2

01:08:30 6.2 the second paragraph down there it says a fire retardant sample of the product with a metallic gray pdf finish when tested in accordance with the s476 achieved a fire preparation

01:08:42 the s476 achieved a fire preparation index

01:08:42 index of i of naught and when tested in the corners with four seven six part seven achieved a class one surface spread of flame

01:08:53 flame now can we agree based on your understanding now and your reading of the file that it was only the fr the fire retardant version of the product for which the bba had any bs 476 part

01:09:07 for which the bba had any bs 476 part 6 and part 7 test reports yes and just for the transcript the reference to that test data is that bba

01:09:19 four two 408042 one six three and page one

01:09:22 one seven seven now we know that there were in existence some other bs four seven six part six and part seven and class naught summary test results

01:09:33 and class naught summary test results for some of uh some of the rainer bond products including something called rayna bond 33 which was a signage product

01:09:41 product and rayna bond 160 pe there was a test completed in 1997 but you have told us in your first in

01:09:52 but you have told us in your first in your statement that the bba were never provided with these if we look at your first witness statement at page 10 that's bba 50158 page 10 paragraph 35

01:10:05 page 10 paragraph 35 you say dr lane's report includes reference to fire reports on rayna bond 160 pe and raynerbond 33 we have not received any reports

01:10:16 received any reports relating to those and then you say this nor would we expect to as these were not certified products buy not certified products do you mean

01:10:28 buy not certified products do you mean that they were not the products that the bba

01:10:29 bba was assessing for this certification yes

01:10:40 so you wouldn't have expected to have seen those because they related to a different

01:10:45 different rayna bond product yes as far as i know yes

01:10:49 yes and they would be irrelevant to the certificate because they were for a different product yes unless we received

01:11:02 unless we received supplementary evidence from an accredited fire organization that we could use them in isolation they would be irrelevant yes

01:11:14 when you say unless we receive supplementary evidence from an accredited fire organization that we could use them what does that mean sorry that was very badly expressed

01:11:26 badly expressed it is sometimes possible that a fire test laboratory will give a letter of opinion on the likely performance of a product

01:11:32 product relative to the one that we are assessing

01:11:36 assessing so in those circumstances we may be able to use the reports but we would not make such a judgment within the bba right so just to be clear you wouldn't ever within the bba

01:11:49 ever within the bba make an assessment based on a different product about another product fire performance yes not if it was a different formulation or specification it was the same product

01:12:02 specification it was the same product just simply renamed then possibly but certainly wouldn't we would not extend the scope of applicability of a fire test report in that way right now if we go to the 2007

01:12:15 right now if we go to the 2007 application form on the technical file this is at bba 408042 at page 29.

01:12:32 just looking right at the very top um under section 3.1 the standard information that's included here in this application

01:12:43 that's included here in this application form

01:12:44 form it says this if suitable data is available it may significantly reduce the cost and duration of the contract please identify all data relevant to the product and its use being assessed

01:12:55 product and its use being assessed and then it says this the data should contain an accurate and detailed description of the samples used and should have been produced within the last three years

01:13:06 so is it right that in terms of

01:13:11 this appli these application forms and this application process that the bba would only accept data that was produced within the last three years

01:13:24 my current position is the figure is five years not three i'm not sure what point that changed but yes that is what it says do you remember

01:13:35 yes that is what it says do you remember how long it was three years or when did that change to five take place to be honest it's it's more i don't remember is ever having been three years i think it's always been five

01:13:46 i think it's always been five i think this may be a very old form

01:13:49 i see

01:13:52 and um it's right isn't it that that may have been a reason for our comic not to have sent for example 1997 data on the rayna bond 160 pe test

01:14:03 on the rayna bond 160 pe test as we see that statement there about the last three years yes yeah so whether it was three or five i don't think we would have accepted uh data from 1997 at this point

01:14:15 uh data from 1997 at this point right if we look at your first witness statement page 16

01:14:21 vba 50158 page 16 and in particular paragraph 66

01:14:32 we see this you say dr lane states that it's good industry practice to review the relevance of fire tests that are more than

01:14:39 more than five years old she notes that at the time of the second issue of the certificate in 2017 the class naught test reports were at least 11 years old i exhibit as part of one of your exhibits a copy of the 2017 certificate

01:14:52 exhibits a copy of the 2017 certificate and then you say this the bba did not require retesting after five years because there had been no changes to the regulatory requirements and the vba operates a surveillance

01:15:03 and the vba operates a surveillance process

01:15:04 process which is intended to establish whether product manufacturing has changed and then you go on the principle that the bba follows is that if the composition and specification of the product is unchanged

01:15:16 product is unchanged the performance of the materials can also be expected to be unaltered the manufacturer is obliged by our contractual arrangements to notify us of any changes in this way we seek to ensure that the validity of

01:15:27 ensure that the validity of data are maintained now we will come back to the second issue of the certificate in 2017 later but what i wanted to focus on now is the bba's approach

01:15:38 is the bba's approach to historic fire test data you say there that the bba does not require re-testing after five years and yet your application form requires test data within the last three years

01:15:50 test data within the last three years can you account for that difference in approach

01:15:56 as part of the initial assessment of a product

01:16:00 product we would expect any data supplied to be less than

01:16:04 less than i believe is five years old it may then have been three years old

01:16:11 because we have the product post certification under close production surveillance we can be sure that the composition

01:16:24 we can be sure that the composition formulation specification are unchanged and therefore the product should be identical to that that was originally assessed if that is the case

01:16:36 originally assessed if that is the case there is no reason to suppose that the performance would be any different if an identical product was retested and i think that this

01:16:47 was retested and i think that this five-year period of validity is imposed because of the likelihood of change of

01:16:55 change of formulation and specification over time our surveillance process should eliminate that possibility and therefore we can continue to accept to the existing data

01:17:07 to the existing data i see but it's right isn't it that your surveillance is directed at the manufacturing process and it wouldn't necessarily pick up

01:17:18 and it wouldn't necessarily pick up if there had been fire testing within that period which for example contradicted earlier fire tests

01:17:26 tests that isn't the purpose of the factory surveillance no no mr chairman i think that would be a very good moment for for our break yes all right um

01:17:39 well miss melvin i said we'd have a break during the afternoon and say we shall we'll have it now we'll come back and continue your evidence please at half past three and while we're on our break please

01:17:51 and while we're on our break please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or

01:17:53 or anything to do with it all right yes thank you very much we'll see you at help us through them thank you

01:33:33 welcome back everyone we are now ready to continue with mr alban's evidence so i'll just check mr alvin you can see me i hope and hear me

01:33:42 me yes i can good thank you very much and you're ready to carry on yes thank you well then miss grange when you're ready yes thank you mr chairman um can we go back now to the bva certificate again

01:33:54 back now to the bva certificate again bba 6047 at page five

01:34:11 and we if we could blow up the top of section six behavior in relation to fire again we were looking at 6.2 and the class naught

01:34:23 and the class naught evidence for the fire retardant sample of the product i now want to focus on the top paragraph 6.1 it states that a standard sample of the product with a grey green duragloss 5000

01:34:35 product with a grey green duragloss 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of bs2d naught in accordance with the en 13501 2002 a fire retardant sample of the

01:34:49 2002 a fire retardant sample of the product with a gold colored duragloss finish when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classic

01:34:54 classic classification b s one d naught in accordance with en 135 2002. i want to focus on what uh underpinned those statements in 6.1

01:35:08 uh underpinned those statements in 6.1 if we go to the technical file now this is bba

01:35:12 is bba 4080 at page 147

01:35:25 this is the cstb classification report to en 13501 and the document we can see is number

01:35:37 ra05305a and we've been calling this classification 5a um and we can see if we go on um

01:35:48 um and we can see if we go on um sorry on that page under commercial brands so we've got owner is alcoa architectural products and underneath that it says commercial brand

01:36:00 underneath that it says commercial brand and it says reinaborn 55pe riveted system do you see that yes and then if we go to page 149

01:36:15 under section 2 the product description it says composite panel consisting of a low density polyethylene core thermally bonded

01:36:25 bonded using a 70 micron thick polyethylene film between two pre-coated aluminium sheets and then the tested system underneath that it says

01:36:36 that it says riveted on metallic substructure and at the bottom we can see the color is grey-green and then if we go to page 153

01:36:48 and then if we go to page 153 we can see that classification of the s2d nought for that panel so that's the pe riveted

01:36:59 so that's the pe riveted panel

01:37:03 now this cstb report was the basis for the first sentence of paragraph 6.1 of the certificate that's right isn't it yes

01:37:15 and

01:37:19 the second sentence of para 61 which relates to a fire retardant uh sample of the product if we go now to the bba technical file page so it's

01:37:31 to the bba technical file page so it's the same file page 155

01:37:37 this is a separate reaction to fire classification report from the cstb this time number ra0630372

01:37:48 this time number ra0630372 in that top uh heading there

01:37:53 and we can see that under commercial brands

01:37:57 brands after under own after owner we've got commercial brands again and this is for the rayna bond fr product

01:38:05 product and if we can go within this separate report to page 157

01:38:12 we see the product description and we've got that description and then tested system riveted on metal substructure

01:38:25 riveted on metal substructure do you see that yes and the color is gold colored there and if we go to the final page of the report at page 161

01:38:39 we can see the classification there of b s one d

01:38:42 s one d naught now that cstb report is the basis of the second sentence of paragraph 6.1 in the

01:38:49 in the certificate isn't it yes and we know that arconic did a reaction to fire test on rayna bond p e cassette in late

01:39:00 on rayna bond p e cassette in late 2004 that was the single burning item test to en13823 and that was terminated when the heat release rate

01:39:11 release rate got too high we just looked briefly at that test report that's at arc50536

01:39:26 that's at arc50536 we can see the test there and the number this time is [Music]

01:39:34 [Music] ra05305b

01:39:35 ra05305b and we've been calling this test 5b and we can see on the front that this is not a classification report it's merely a test report to en13823

01:39:48 to en13823 and at the top right someone's written um

01:39:52 um k 7 system which we think was a shorthand for cassette system not classified because the test had to be interrupted and if we look briefly on page three we can see this is for the cassette system

01:40:07 yeah under commercial brands it's got rainerbong p e cassette system and on page seven we're told that only one specimen was tested

01:40:18 tested and under the table there are comments and in bold it tells us that the test was stopped after 850 seconds the results are not usable but give an idea of the fire behavior of the product

01:40:30 idea of the fire behavior of the product and if we could look at your first witness statement again this is on page 11 paragraph 40.

01:40:44 you um you you say this you say dr lane has included csdb report and then we can see it's the 5b report

01:40:53 report that we were just looking at relating to the reinaborn 55pe cassette this report was not made available to the bba at the time of the initial assessment or subsequently and the disclosure of her appendix

01:41:05 disclosure of her appendix naught appendix oh sorry is the first time that we've been aware of its existence

01:41:10 existence dr lane noted that this report was unclassified noting however results could be used to demonstrate class e this means that alcoa was aware that

01:41:21 e this means that alcoa was aware that the cassette version should have been classified as e at the time of the initial bba assessment they also had a report at the same time test 5a

01:41:29 test 5a that showed that the riveted version of the product was a was class b only the latter report was submitted to the bba and as far as we can tell that is correct there is no evidence that test 5b was

01:41:41 there is no evidence that test 5b was sent to you

01:41:45 but in terms of the classification reports that that were sent um as we've just seen each of them had a field of application perhaps you can just bring that back

01:41:56 perhaps you can just bring that back up if i can bring up on the left hand side

01:41:59 side bba four zeros eight zero four two at page one

01:42:03 page one five three

01:42:08 and on the right hand side if we could bring up in the same document run bba 8042 page 161

01:42:23 now um so what we can see is underneath the classification that each of these tests get is a heading

01:42:31 heading 4.3 called field of application we look on the left hand side first it says field of application this classification is valid for the

01:42:42 this classification is valid for the following product parameters for a thickness of four millimeters and then underneath that it says this only for the system riveted on any metallic substructure

01:42:57 metallic substructure do you see that mr alban yes and we see on the right hand side field of application it's actually in slightly different

01:43:09 slightly different but the same intent is there we can see under the second underline heading this classification is valid for the following end use conditions

01:43:20 following end use conditions we see it says riveted system on metal substructure now can we agree they're slightly different but in both cases it is made clear that the classification

01:43:31 it is made clear that the classification report that the results relate to is only valid for the product in rivet fabrication can we agree that yes

01:43:43 so does it follow and again can we agree that the results quoted in the certificate these certificates cannot be applied to the cassette end use condition do you accept that

01:43:57 from this information we don't know what the performance of the cassette version was

01:44:02 was but from the information subsequently disclosed yes i would agree

01:44:10 and sorry if i can interrupt for a moment the strange witness to alban not neither of these reports relate to tests on a raw panel is that right

01:44:23 no they are the panels in vivid form and so i don't know whether that affects their value if you're seeking to produce a confirmation certificate

01:44:36 confirmation certificate for a raw panel

01:44:39 i think the european classification system requires that the products are tested in a configuration that is representative of that which will be applied in

01:44:51 of that which will be applied in practice

01:44:52 practice so you can test it in this way yeah that i understand but it still remains the case that these are not tests on a raw panel doesn't it yes yes ms grange

01:45:04 yes yes ms grange yes precisely and so it follows doesn't it that the moment these test results were cited in the certificate you had departed if this was the

01:45:17 you had departed if this was the intention

01:45:18 intention from the raw panel and into the fabricated product yes yes there is an inconsistency yes and indeed if you had been confining the

01:45:31 and indeed if you had been confining the certificate to just the raw product no european test classification could have been cited could it

01:45:42 been cited could it no

01:45:46 should a bba project manager reading this information we have it up in front of us have understood that the european classifications for the rainer bond product were limited

01:45:58 the rainer bond product were limited by their fabrication form

01:46:04 i would have expected the project manager to recognize the facts this only applied to the riveted system and to ask the question

01:46:14 yes and that question would be or one of the questions would be where is the data for your cassette version of your product yes yes

01:46:27 version of your product yes yes and that should have been asked for shouldn't it yes thank you

01:46:38 and just to be clear this information put the bba project manager on notice that there might be another test for the cassette fabrication condition can we agree that too yes and given that

01:46:54 can we agree that too yes and given that these classification reports um say what they say shouldn't the bba certificate have expressly referred to this limitation in the section six one that we've looked

01:47:07 in the section six one that we've looked at i

01:47:07 at i should have said that the classifications of b that we see here only applied to the riveted system yes yes

01:47:20 and that would have been a true and correct reflection of the data as presented to you yes yes

01:47:30 now if we just look at your first statement

01:47:33 statement we go to bba 5015 page 12 at paragraph 43

01:47:44 you say this you say no fire test data for the cassette version in the 2008 certificate was presented to the bba this led to the reasonable assumption that the riveted version was

01:47:55 assumption that the riveted version was representative of both versions had test data noted in dr lane's report been available to the vba then this assumption would have been avoided

01:48:05 avoided now that was the evidence you you gave in your first witness statement i've taken you now to the underlying test data and the limitations of it

01:48:16 limitations of it that were provided to the bba do you maintain

01:48:21 maintain that that it was a reasonable assumption that the riveted version was representative of both versions or do you now accept that that was not a reasonable assumption

01:48:35 i think that the

01:48:39 manufacturer made no distinction in their technical literature they made no distinction in their application and the assumption was made on that basis i would agree

01:48:50 basis i would agree if the field of application had been noted

01:48:53 noted there would have been good reason to ask a further question

01:48:58 yes and can can we also agree that the field of application should have been noted those were the very test reports that arconic were relying on for its uh fire performance information

01:49:11 for its uh fire performance information in this certificate those field of application limitations should have been noted shouldn't they yes and it was wasn't it the project manager's job

01:49:23 manager's job to check precisely that information and ensure that the certificate was accurate in terms of what it stated on fire performance yes yes this forms a large part of the

01:49:35 yes this forms a large part of the training we currently apply to project managers

01:49:40 yes so does it follow from your answer that that there's been a recognition within the bba that the training that was applied to project managers at this time was deficient

01:49:52 managers at this time was deficient it's clear that this particular project manager did not understand it i don't know what training he was provided with because as i've explained at that time it was less formalized and on the job

01:50:03 on the job but we have eliminated that possibility recurring by putting additional measures in place

01:50:10 in place yes i mean isn't it possible that this stems from the structural deficiency i was putting to you earlier that you have project managers with with very little knowledge or expertise

01:50:23 very little knowledge or expertise in fire performance having to look at data just like that that we've just looked at and determine what fire performance statements should be made

01:50:34 statements should be made isn't it that structural deficiency that may be in part at least responsible for why this situation occurred

01:50:44 as we discussed i don't think mr gregorian had any competence in the area of fire assessment i don't know who carried out the file assessment on this particular job it's not clear

01:50:55 on this particular job it's not clear i would have expected somebody with an understanding of the principles to carry out that part of the assessment

01:51:04 yes and um wouldn't one option had this test data have been um appreciated wouldn't one option have been to remove

01:51:15 wouldn't one option have been to remove all references to the cassette version of the product in the certificate in circumstances where no fire test data was provided for that

01:51:26 that would have been one option there are others but yes that would be one can you help us to why that was not done at any stage prior to the grenfell fire no i don't know do you accept that by

01:51:40 no i don't know do you accept that by leaving references to the cassettes in the certificate the reader would be left with the impression that paragraph 6.1 applied to both the rivet and the cassette fixing methods

01:51:51 rivet and the cassette fixing methods yes and indeed that was the understanding of miss amoroso when she came to look at this certificate in her 2016 review she's told us in her oral evidence that at that stage

01:52:04 oral evidence that at that stage she thought that if the cassette was not removed readers would be misled into thinking it was covered by the certificate that was day 106 page 161 9 6 to 10. do you agree with that

01:52:19 we come back again to what was actually intended to be covered in that certificate but i would agree that the fact there is a difference between riveted and cassette is not clear from

01:52:30 riveted and cassette is not clear from that certificate and it should have been clear yes depending on what the scope of that certificate was i don't believe we intended to cover the riveted and cassette options but it is

01:52:41 riveted and cassette options but it is not clear from that certificate yes thank you i think you're drawing a distinction between perhaps what the bba in intended to try and do with the certificate and what the certificate itself actually conveys yes

01:53:00 i think there is the opportunity for confusion as to the scope of that certificate yes yes um mr nakome's evidence was very

01:53:11 yes um mr nakome's evidence was very similar to miss amaroso's he accepted that removal of the references to cassette later was necessary because readers might think the certificate covered cassette

01:53:22 think the certificate covered cassette again um was he right about that i think that was more to do with the

01:53:31 surveillance processes over the cassette manufacturer in that we did not have it under surveillance we did not have the fabrication process under surveillance yeah

01:53:44 under surveillance yeah can we agree that um

01:53:49 one of the key european tests the single burning item test en en13823 is is a test which is key to determining whether the product gets a b

01:54:01 whether the product gets a b a c or a d yes can we agree that yes and um would you have expected project managers and those supervising them to have been aware of that at the time

01:54:14 to have been aware of that at the time this certificate was being put together yes

01:54:21 and um if we just look at that european test standard i don't think we've looked at it before one three eight two three it's a bsa bsi five zeros one one nine

01:54:46 this is the test standard for the single burning item test you can see that at the end of that title

01:54:53 title it's a reaction to fire tests for building products building products excluding floorings exposed to the thermal attack by a single burning item and if you go to page 15 of this test

01:55:05 and if you go to page 15 of this test standard

01:55:06 standard at section 5.2

01:55:10 we can see there at the bottom 5.2 mounting of specimen and under 5.2.1 when products are tested mounted as in their end-use application

01:55:22 mounted as in their end-use application the test results are valid only for that application

01:55:29 so um and can we agree that anybody with familiarity of this european fire testing system would have appreciated that this key test the single burning

01:55:41 that this key test the single burning item test

01:55:44 is only carried out in an end-use application so i.e on a on a riveted or a cassette version of the raynabon product yes yes i think i just said that yes

01:55:58 yes and i think you make the point yourself

01:56:02 yourself in your own statement um paragraph 129 of your second statement for the transcript you make the point there that the european tests better represent real-world conditions

01:56:13 better represent real-world conditions because joints and edges are incorporated in the test yes yes did you know that throughout the period we're dealing with i.e from 2007 onwards

01:56:27 european standard methods were quite new in 2007 i'm not sure that i would have known in

01:56:33 known in 2007 unless i had occasion to look at a report

01:56:37 report i'm not sure when i looked at the first report but whenever that first report was presented i would have familiarized myself with it yes and would you have expected project

01:56:48 yes and would you have expected project managers

01:56:49 managers when these reports were presented to familiarize themselves with the standards underpinning it certainly certainly for this key test this single burning item test

01:57:01 test this single burning item test we're not a test laboratory i wouldn't necessarily have expected them to understand all the details of the test method

01:57:08 method certainly the principles i would expect and i would expect them to pay attention to the field of application of the classification or test report

01:57:19 classification or test report but you say i wouldn't necessarily have expected them to understand all the details of the test method i appreciate there might be some details that may be too far but given that the bba is certifying

01:57:31 but given that the bba is certifying fitness for purpose of these panels wouldn't you have expected them to have understood how these test methods

01:57:42 go about testing these panels and in particular that they test them in real world conditions

01:57:51 i would expect them to understand that principle yes yes so in circumstances where you had a rivet

01:57:57 rivet test rivet test data again can we agree that for that reason too it should have occurred to the bba that arconic were likely also to have tested the

01:58:09 were likely also to have tested the cassette fixed variant

01:58:15 i keep coming back to the scope of the assessment i don't think we were intending to convey convey an assessment of the assessed uh sorry of the cassette and riveted

01:58:26 uh sorry of the cassette and riveted versions

01:58:28 versions but if we were then yes we should have expected there to be two different tests or classifications yes but i think we've agreed that the moment you descended in section six fire performance into the

01:58:41 in section six fire performance into the european tests you were by definition entering into an assessment of cassette or rivet

01:58:53 an assessment of cassette or rivet not a flat panel if we were representing the european classification and it applied only to rivets we should have said so

01:59:01 said so yes can we look at another document that was provided by arconic um if we go within the technical file that's bba

01:59:12 file that's bba 408042

01:59:14 408042 to page 139

01:59:24 here we can see this is classification report number ra0701

01:59:31 ra0701 and we can see in the middle of this page under commercial brands this is a classification of the raynolux product

01:59:40 and if we go to page 141 under product description

01:59:47 we can see that effectively it's describing the reinolux product aluminium sheet coated on the backside of the polyester resin back coat etc and then

01:59:58 polyester resin back coat etc and then with a primer and polyester finishing coat

02:00:02 coat now that is effectively a solid in aluminium panel with no core that's right isn't it yes i think so and if we go to page

02:00:13 yes i think so and if we go to page 145

02:00:17 we can see that that reynold lux solid aluminium panel achieved a european classification of a1 so that that information was also on

02:00:28 a1 so that that information was also on the

02:00:28 the on the technical file and we know that that came to be on the technical file because mr gregorian was seeking

02:00:37 seeking data showing that the unexposed side of the panels was a class naught and we know that our connect mr verlais

02:00:48 and we know that our connect mr verlais sent this reynoldux certificate and if we can go now to page 499 of this uh technical file same document run

02:01:02 we can see in the top email there on the 5th of december 2007 that mr verlet sends to mr gregorian a the reino lux this rayna lux a1

02:01:14 the reino lux this rayna lux a1 pdf which is the same document the railroad certificate and mr verlais says hello hey moe after checking after having checked with our paint laboratory

02:01:26 our paint laboratory and the different certification we have today i give you those two information in order to qualify the back face of our rainer bomb panels uh he says at item one the only difference between front and back side

02:01:37 difference between front and back side is the thickness of the coating which is six microns instead of 35 microns so we have 4.2 grams per meter square coating weight on the back face for 47.2 grams per meter squared on the

02:01:49 for 47.2 grams per meter squared on the front side and then he says this at item two like you can see in the attached reaction to fire classification report number ra070182

02:02:01 classification report number ra070182 our coated aluminium used for the skins of rayna bond are classified as a1 non-combustible and then can you please now let me know

02:02:13 and then can you please now let me know if you have all the required information to close our certification process and we heard during the oral evidence of mr gregorian that this topic was referred to

02:02:24 was referred to sarah colwell at the bre

02:02:29 if we can look at the bba certificate on this point if we go to bba 6047 page five

02:02:45 we can see at section 6.3

02:02:51 in the very last sentence it says that the unexposed side of the product may also be regarded as having a class naught

02:02:59 naught surface can you see that in the last sentence

02:03:04 sentence yes can we take it from that that someone at the bba on advice or otherwise thought that it was acceptable to use a rayno lux certificate to support a claim that the

02:03:16 certificate to support a claim that the back face

02:03:17 back face of the raynabon panel may be regarded as class naught i'm afraid i don't know the basis for that conclusion

02:03:28 basis for that conclusion so you can't help us as to why what appears to have happened is that data in relation to a different product has been used in relation to that statement

02:03:41 statement i think the coil coating the subject of the the other bba certificate is is used to form the outer and inner faces

02:03:50 faces um enclosing the polyethylene but that's speculation i don't know

02:03:58 right

02:04:01 so um can you help us as to why the bba accepted a rainy lux certificate to make this statement about the reyna bond product well if it is a component of that

02:04:13 well if it is a component of that product then maybe someone made that judgment i'll say i don't know i'm afraid if it's right that the rainer lux certificate can be used for the back

02:04:24 certificate can be used for the back face

02:04:24 face then does it follow that rayna locks could have been used to support claims about the front face sorry i don't know the basis for the conclusion i can't help you

02:04:35 conclusion i can't help you i'm speculating was relying on a rain a lux certificate in this way contrary to the approach which should have been adopted had proper processes been followed

02:04:48 proper processes been followed i can't answer that without knowing the process that was actually followed well let's look at some email chains because you did have some involvement with this issue if we can go to bba three zeros one

02:05:00 if we can go to bba three zeros one zero seven zero one

02:05:09 and if we can look at page four

02:05:15 this is an email chain on the 20th of november 2007 between you mr gregorian and mr haines and if we pick it up at the top of page four in that email

02:05:26 at the top of page four in that email there timed at 1354 what we can see is mr gregorian saying to mr haines you're not on the email at this point

02:05:38 you're not on the email at this point he says um brian the back face is also a coil coated sheet of the same thickness as the front but with a polyurethane or epoxy primer coating only

02:05:49 coating only about 20 microns thick for improved corrosion resistance it's worth noting that our certificate for becquery tech 5000 which has an identical primer the

02:06:01 5000 which has an identical primer the back face has been given the same class naught rating as the front and then he goes on as to whether we are making too much of this i think we are however john alban will

02:06:12 i think we are however john alban will need to consider this when looking at the coil coated sheet contract a separate project

02:06:21 do you know what he's referring to there by the coil coated sheet contract

02:06:28 i don't know may well be this was the subject of we called it meeting a where they were looking to add to the scope of the call coding certificate

02:06:41 at the bottom of page three in an email timed at

02:06:45 timed at 3 16

02:06:46 3 16 [Music]

02:06:49 [Music] we can see that you are copied in [Music]

02:06:54 [Music] and um mr haynes says back to mr gregorian homo i'm not sure it will arise in the same way for john's job for you there's a specific requirement to declare the reaction to fire performance

02:07:05 reaction to fire performance of the back face of the rain screen i assume john's sheet is multi-purpose and the back face may well not be exposed an opinion from warrington will be acceptable for the back face in my view and then

02:07:18 in my view and then if we go to the top of page 3 you then reply

02:07:24 reply at 1525

02:07:28 at 1525 you say this you say um to to mr haynes and mr gregorian but what it's worth we always make a comment on the reaction to fire performance of the reverse side of a coil

02:07:38 coil coating and then above that mr haynes says this

02:07:47 in the bottom of page two now he asks it asks you back just you and how often does it differ from the front face

02:07:59 and then if we go on in the chain

02:08:03 you say back to him in my experience the reverse sides are always class naught but then so are the face sides exclamation mark

02:08:17 and then i'm going to ask you some questions about that in a moment but just let me just finish this this chain this run and then i'll ask the questions if we then go up to page one second email from the top

02:08:29 email from the top yes um mr haynes says back to you john i can't see we're running any serious risk if we make this assumption based on experience what do you think

02:08:40 based on experience what do you think brian and then at the very top of the chain

02:08:43 chain you say i would be amazed if the coating isn't fast naught but can't see what we're gaining by not asking them to prove it it also seems unfair to other certificate holders who have commissioned

02:08:54 commissioned the necessary tests could we compromise by proceeding to issue but asking them to provide the confirmatory data retrospectively

02:09:06 retrospectively now just with that chain in mind where you said that the reverse and face sides would always be class naught were you talking about coil

02:09:17 naught were you talking about coil coated products as per your previous email yes i don't think i said always i think i said in my experience but yes it would be called coatings yes

02:09:29 be called coatings yes and would you describe rayna bond as a coil coated product

02:09:35 no but it has the intermediate polyethylene core it includes cold coating material but it is not in itself i call coated material

02:09:46 is not in itself i call coated material no so would you expect that both the front and the reverse of the raynabon panels would have achieved class naught is that what you were saying in this string it's not clear i assume we know the

02:09:59 it's not clear i assume we know the performance of these coatings as core coating materials and we are discussing the possible influence of inserting apollo polyethylene core

02:10:13 yes and how would you know what the fire performance of that composite product would be without testing it two four seven six

02:10:24 without testing it two four seven six part six and part seven i either the tests that are necessary before it can be established whether it does have class knowledge or not well we would have tested them to ps476

02:10:35 well we would have tested them to ps476 parts six and seven to establish that the coil coatings are class naught yes but what about the composite product why are you speculating here

02:10:48 why are you speculating here that a product with a polyethylene core might behave in the same way as the coil coated product because by the nature of the test the

02:10:59 because by the nature of the test the panel is cut out the cores are not exposed and i would expect

02:11:03 expect it to have little influence but i am not certain which is why i'm suggesting we should carry out a test

02:11:12 yes you said in that last email that you couldn't see anything that would be lost by asking arconic to prove this by class naught on the back face with test evidence

02:11:23 evidence did you subsequently come to learn that the rainer lux certificate was apparently accepted as being sufficient evidence of this without arconic providing that separate test data for the

02:11:35 that separate test data for the reynabond product i was providing advice to the bba technical manager on request it was his decision as to what actions were taken as a result of that advice

02:11:50 yes but did you subsequently come to learn

02:11:53 learn that in fact the rainer lux certificate was accepted as being sufficient without arconic providing that separate test data

02:12:05 so was the first time you were made aware of that when you saw the technical file for the purposes of uh

02:12:13 uh assisting the inquiry i think so yes i don't remember this correspondence obviously i don't dispute it but this is the first time i can recall it i don't recall any subsequent

02:12:25 i don't recall any subsequent correspondence or conversation about it so you can't help us as to why that test evidence wasn't insisted upon by the bba as per the view you're expressing here

02:12:38 expressing here i don't know and while we're on this point

02:12:42 point can we look at um bba four zeros zero page 507

02:12:59 this is an email from mr gregorian to sarah colwell

02:13:08 if we go to the page before i think we can see

02:13:12 the date um yes so 29th of november 2007 right at the bottom of the page 1740 from mr gregorian to sarah colwell

02:13:24 1740 from mr gregorian to sarah colwell copying in brian haynes the subject is reaction to fire rain screen cladding and if we could go to the email now um

02:13:35 and if we could go to the email now um he says this he says dear sarah we are currently assessing a composite panel comprising two aluminium sheets bonded to a polyethylene core for use in back ventilated and drained rain screen

02:13:46 back ventilated and drained rain screen padding systems the panel is coated on both faces with a six

02:13:50 six micron thick polyester primer the exposed face is additionally protected by a 30 micron flick duragloss or pvdf coating

02:14:01 duragloss or pvdf coating based on testing and classification to en 13501 part 1 and bs 476 part 6 and 7 the exposed face has been assessed as

02:14:12 the exposed face has been assessed as having a class naught surface in relation to approved document b of the building regulations as i'm sure you're aware for buildings other than dwellings the regulations

02:14:23 other than dwellings the regulations also require classification of the surface facing the cavity caused 12.9 no test data for the back face exists however

02:14:31 however as it has a much thinner coating and therefore less energy content than the exposed face we think it's not unreasonable to assume a class naught rating for the back face too

02:14:40 too this has indeed been demonstrated by tests on similar products in the past could you please comment on the validity of our assumption so that that's the request now

02:14:52 so that that's the request now i just want to focus on the sentence about a third of the way down that paragraph that i just read which reads based on testing and classification to en13501 and bs 476

02:15:05 en13501 and bs 476 part 6 and 7 the exposed face has been assessed as having a class naught surface

02:15:10 surface in relation to approved document b now can we agree that that sentence gives the impression that all

02:15:21 sentence gives the impression that all the panels have been assessed as having a class naught surface according to those standards and can we agree that that's how it reads

02:15:33 um well it's in singular isn't it so presumably a panel was tested

02:15:40 yes but the reality wasn't it that it was only the fr panel that had achieved class nor under the 476 part 6 and part

02:15:51 class nor under the 476 part 6 and part 7

02:15:52 7 yes yes and not the standard pe panel yes now wasn't that potentially information that miss colwell ought to have been

02:16:04 that miss colwell ought to have been aware of when seeking advice yes so can we agree that even though mr gregorian is trying to take some advice on the back face point he is inaccurately summarizing the

02:16:17 he is inaccurately summarizing the position for miss colwell in this email

02:16:21 yes but sarah carl would not make a judgment on the basis of this email this is an introductory email if she were to make a technical assessment she would i am sure require

02:16:33 assessment she would i am sure require all of the data to be provided to her

02:16:37 well we don't know that all that we know is that mr gregorian has told us that there was a conversation with mr haynes on the phone with miss colwill

02:16:47 colwill at which this point was discussed and we have no

02:16:51 have no written documentation suggesting that data was passed to miss colwell and that there was a formal fire opinion that came back

02:17:02 came back so um we don't know that that happened can we agree that yes now just concentrating on this email doesn't this email demonstrate the

02:17:14 doesn't this email demonstrate the problem with having project managers who are

02:17:17 are wholly inexperienced in fire matters taking the lead on drafting certificates and deciding when they do and when they don't need fire advice i think with respect it's

02:17:29 fire advice i think with respect it's brian haynes that's asked hammer gregorian to get in touch with sarah caldwell i think it's a case where ryan haynes needed additional information and perhaps it would have been better if

02:17:41 and perhaps it would have been better if ryan himself had sent this email in which case it would have been more accurate

02:17:47 accurate but i think it's slightly different to the position you're suggesting well you're speculating are you not about if brian had sent the email whether it would have been more accurate i am but we it has been suggested that

02:18:00 i am but we it has been suggested that brian and sarah had a conversation at some point so i think he was involved

02:18:06 yes but whether it was whether brian saw this

02:18:09 this or not the basis upon which advice is being requested is erroneous it's not an accurate statement of the true position in this

02:18:21 statement of the true position in this request for advice and what i'm suggesting to you is that exemplifies the problem of having project managers whether overseen by mr haynes or not

02:18:32 whether overseen by mr haynes or not taking the lead on drafting certificates and deciding when they do and when they don't need fire advice

02:18:40 i don't think he took the lead on the fire section and i don't think he made the decision as to whether or not to fire advice was required i do agree that this email

02:18:51 was required i do agree that this email could have been better written yes well whether or not he took the lead on it and actually made the decision he is summarizing the position for miss colwell in this email

02:19:03 colwell in this email and he's inaccurately done so yes it's incomplete i think the additional data would have been required to carry out

02:19:11 out the assessment

02:19:19 well it's not just incomplete is it it's misleading because it suggests that there's four seven six part six and seven data for all of the panels when in fact it

02:19:30 for all of the panels when in fact it was only the fr panel that had that data

02:19:37 i agree only the fr panel had the data this only talks about one of the panels and so until sarah caldwell or another expert had a chance to review the complete set of data

02:19:48 complete set of data that would not be clear yes but um it's clear from these exchanges that he's not just seeking advice about the back face of the fr panel is he he's seeking advice generally

02:20:00 advice generally yes yes thank you mr chairman um i appreciate it's nine minutes um before 4 30. um i i don't really want to

02:20:11 before 4 30. um i i don't really want to start the next topic and then go part heard on it if that makes sense so um i'm doing well for time better than i

02:20:20 than i expected all right i'm confident that we are

02:20:24 are comfortable for time so um i would rather do the next run of questions in one go um on monday morning if that's acceptable yes i understand well it may be that mr albon won't mind finishing a

02:20:36 be that mr albon won't mind finishing a little bit early this afternoon michelle won you've heard what council said i think we will call a halt at that point um i think you were expecting to come back next week

02:20:47 were expecting to come back next week weren't you yes yes well i'm sorry to have to bring you back but there are more questions we need to

02:20:52 need to ask you so we will resume at ten o'clock on monday please again i must remind you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything

02:21:03 anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the intervening period

02:21:07 period and we'll look forward to seeing you 10 o'clock as i say next week on monday okay thank you thank you and for everybody else that's the end of the proceedings for today thank you very

02:21:24 much

02:21:36 you