Evidence from Fryer Nokomo, BBA Project Manager and later Team Manager, regarding the certification and review processes for the Reynobond cladding product used on Grenfell Tower.
00:00:08 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing we're going to hear evidence today from further people who were involved uh on behalf of the british board of
00:00:19 uh on behalf of the british board of agreement
00:00:21 agreement uh today's witness is mr first witness today
00:00:24 today mr prayer como and my first step is to see whether he's there and can see me and hear me clearly are you there yes i can hear you clearly ah good
00:00:35 yes i can hear you clearly ah good morning well i'm mr mccombe i'm here together with my fellow panel members
00:00:41 members miss surya istafan and
00:00:45 good morning good morning good morning good morning um now you've already confirmed that you can see me and hear me clearly i think you would like
00:00:57 hear me clearly i think you would like to
00:00:58 to uh make the oath is that right yes and you should have the words of the oath on the screen in front of you
00:01:08 you do yes i do and do you have a copy of the new testament with you yes could you take the testament in your right hand please and read the words on the screen i swear
00:01:20 and read the words on the screen i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the world truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much indeed no um and one or two things we need to
00:01:33 and one or two things we need to deal with before we start uh taking your evidence
00:01:37 evidence first of all can you confirm that you're alone in the room from which we're giving evidence yes i can confirm that thank you very much can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you
00:01:48 documents or other materials with you that's correct thank you and finally can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages
00:01:59 messages that's quite lovely thank you very much indeed um
00:02:03 indeed um i hope we shall not have problems with sound or vision but if we do we'll probably take a short break while the technical support people sort them out so um
00:02:13 so um we'll see how we get on um
00:02:17 we're planning to have a short break part way through the morning and another one this afternoon it'll probably come around 11 15 but if you uh feel that you need a break
00:02:29 but if you uh feel that you need a break at any time in addition will you just indicate that and we'll do our best to accommodate you okay thank you all right good uh is there anything you'd like to raise with me or any questions you have
00:02:40 raise with me or any questions you have before you begin no i don't have thanks all right thank you very much well now uh i'm going to invite ms heinz to put some questions to you when you're ready miss holmes good
00:02:51 when you're ready miss holmes good morning i am thank you thank you sir good morning and good morning to members of the panel good morning mr nicomo can you hear me and can you see me yes i can good thank you for attending
00:03:03 yes i can good thank you for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence we're very grateful to you if you've any difficulties in understanding my questions or if you need me to repeat a question please do just let me know also can i
00:03:14 please do just let me know also can i please ask you to keep your voice up so the transcriber who can so that she can hear you and so that she can record all of your answers please don't nod or shake your head please answer yes or no
00:03:26 please answer yes or no is that all right that's fine yes can we go to your witness statement which is bba 3010783
00:03:40 this was made on the 30th of december 2019
00:03:44 2019 and can we go to page 24 please
00:03:50 do you see there at the bottom that there's a statement of truth yes can you confirm that that's your signature under it it is yes have you read this statement recently
00:04:00 recently yes can you confirm that the contents of this statement are true yes they they are except one thing that i
00:04:09 i i send to our solicitors in one of the days i quoted was a 2017 date
00:04:16 date which would have been a 2014 date do you remember which approximately which paragraph that would be in i can't quite remember it's earlier in
00:04:27 i can't quite remember it's earlier in the statement itself was which which review would that have been or which um which episode would that have been related to the s153
00:04:38 related to the s153 give me a moment i'll see if i can turn that off
00:04:43 that off i will we'll come back to that uh and we'll let you clarify that okay have you discussed your statement or your evidence with anybody uh here today no
00:04:55 uh here today no when you were working at the bba there was an entity known as alcoa that later became archonic and today i'm going to refer to that entity as arconic do you know uh do you know who i mean
00:05:07 do you know uh do you know who i mean yes i do
00:05:09 yes i do and today i'll be mostly talking about arconic's bba certificate for rayner bond architecture wall cladding which was first issued on the 14th of january 2008.
00:05:20 14th of january 2008. can we go to that briefly at bba 6040
00:05:34 i just wanted to show you this certificate so we're both clear on which one i mean do you recognize that
00:05:41 that yes i do thank you can we go back to your witness statement please bba 3010783 at page two
00:05:54 at paragraph four you say i graduated with a degree in civil engineering in 1998 and i've worked for consulting engineering firms as a design engineer
00:06:05 engineering firms as a design engineer between 1999 and 2009 and then you set out a number of tasks that you did in that role now i understand from that that you worked for around 10 years as a design
00:06:16 worked for around 10 years as a design engineer is that right correct and that was as
00:06:20 was as specifically as a civil engineer a civil structural engineer structural engineer can you tell us who you worked for i started off with a company in botswana called mt
00:06:32 called mt and associates consulting engineers and then i moved on to dublin in an island
00:06:39 island and i worked for a company called nile fitzsimons consulting engineers and then i moved on to another consultants in ireland as well that was
00:06:52 consultants in ireland as well that was called
00:06:52 called acs consulting engineers i see in your career as a design engineer did you do any over cladding projects no
00:07:03 any over cladding projects no so you weren't directly involved in any design of any facade or cladding structure no now if we returned to you were still on your witness statement at paragraph
00:07:15 your witness statement at paragraph five you tell us that you became a chartered engineer what did what did you do to attain that title
00:07:23 i to submit a a report basically of my experience and um qualifications and following that i had to do an
00:07:35 and following that i had to do an interview where i was questioned on on my experience and the work that i had carried out to be ascertained whether i met the requirements to be confirmed as a chartered engineer
00:07:46 to be confirmed as a chartered engineer i see
00:07:47 i see and you joined the bba in november 2010 is that right correct did you have prior to joining the bba did you have any
00:07:58 joining the bba did you have any training
00:07:59 training on cladding or cladding products no
00:08:03 so you've joined the bba from the first of november and that was in the role of project manager is that right correct and what division or section were you in
00:08:14 were you in in the engineering uh department and did you
00:08:17 you at that time report to a team manager when i i reported to the head of approvals there were no team managers at the time
00:08:26 the time and who was that that was brian chamberlain i see and in that role did you assess products for new certification and review existing certificates it was
00:08:38 and review existing certificates it was both
00:08:38 both both um and in that role were you looking at cladding products um declaring yes as well i started looking into cladding that was when you started working in
00:08:50 that was when you started working in cladding did you look at other products as well
00:08:52 as well yes i did i see what proportion of products were cladding products yeah i i can't remember what it was now you tell us in your witness
00:09:03 now you tell us in your witness statement i don't think we need to go back to it you tell us that as a project manager for those years you were not involved in the review of the rainy bond certificate in 2011. is that right
00:09:15 in 2011. is that right as far as i recall that's correct yes that was done by another project manager alfio malotta is that right would you have expected to have known what he was doing on that on that review
00:09:29 i might have but i don't remember because he was my mentor at the time so i see yeah i can't remember whether he discussed the review with me or not i wouldn't remember that was that an
00:09:42 i wouldn't remember that was that an official mentor or was that a an ad hoc sort of process it it was official he was assigned to to
00:09:53 it it was official he was assigned to to help me settle into the pba when i joined
00:09:55 joined i see and what sorts of things would you go to your mentor about based on how because obviously i i was new to to the job in terms of learning how to do the job learning how
00:10:06 learning how to do the job learning how to access products learning how to do reviews
00:10:09 reviews so it was mostly a do i understand correctly it was mostly a um learning the procedures and processes of the bba and not only procedures and processes
00:10:20 and not only procedures and processes but also from a technical point i see so you would learn from mr milota all about
00:10:26 all about among others yes i see i see and from i think around the 5th of january
00:10:33 january you became a team manager is that right correct
00:10:37 correct was that a promotion
00:10:41 yes it was yes the position became a valuable i applied and i quoted and you said at the time you started there weren't any team managers was this a role that was create was created yes can you tell us why it
00:10:54 was created yes can you tell us why it was created the bpa was growing at the time and what the company wanted to do is to group products uh into into teams so there's one team that
00:11:06 into into teams so there's one team that focuses on certain product areas and other teams focusing on others i see well
00:11:12 well [Music]
00:11:14 [Music] about a cladding team is it is it right have i
00:11:19 have i surmised correctly that that that your team was the cladding team correct so when you became team manager was that was that when the cladding team was formed or was there a cladding team
00:11:31 was formed or was there a cladding team previously it wasn't called like there was a team so everyone who worked in gliding was under under that team so when i became team manager then
00:11:42 manager then uh gladding as a as a product area was separated from the other team that was covering gliding and building systems and just so i'm clear that happened in
00:11:54 and just so i'm clear that happened in early january 2015. when i became team manager yes i see and am i right that there was effectively an interstitial layer of management inserted into the management structure that you
00:12:05 into the management structure that you became when you became team manager
00:12:11 yes so there was there was a new layer of management inserted into the into the structure the management structure and you took off took up that management role the layer was already there the structure of team
00:12:23 was already there the structure of team managers
00:12:23 managers it's just that one team was separated into two
00:12:27 into two i see well i'm glad i clarified that because i hadn't quite understood so thank you
00:12:32 thank you did you as team manager did you still report to brian chamberlain yes i see and did miss valentina amarosa report to you
00:12:43 miss valentina amarosa report to you in the new cladding team that's correct i see does that mean that the focus of your team
00:12:51 your team was on cladding exclusively not exclusively there were other products that we're covering as well i see were they related products or just other miscellaneous products
00:13:06 just other miscellaneous products systems and other wall related products i say yes and from the first of october 2016
00:13:14 2016 you took on the role of technical expert is that right correct and you held that role at the same time as being team manager yes right yes and um do you understand
00:13:25 yes right yes and um do you understand correctly that your expertise was external wall cladding correct did the bba always have an external ball-cladding expert
00:13:41 i believe i was the first one in terms of the title it was those titles were not there before but they were people were experienced in
00:13:52 but they were people were experienced in including
00:13:53 including even more than myself previously to that i say
00:13:56 i say and you say there were people experienced in cladding even more than yourself
00:14:01 yourself would you say and you may not be able to comment would you say that there was people with cladding experience in your time when you were project manager
00:14:11 manager yes and would you be able to comment about before then so when you came to the pba there was people perhaps from as early as 2007 2008 who'd been there who were cladding
00:14:22 been there who were cladding who were very experienced in cladding
00:14:26 i don't know before i joined but when after i joined they were people who were very experienced in cladding and when you were project manager who would you go to for questions about
00:14:37 would you go to for questions about cladding
00:14:39 cladding it was either as i said a film lota or there was kyro randall was one of the most senior in cladding and there was another gentleman as well
00:14:50 and there was another gentleman as well called zoltan and i would go to brian chamberlain as well and brian chamberlain and that's carrie randall who went to the who went to ucas eventually is that right yes i see um
00:15:03 yes i see um excuse me now i've understood that from march
00:15:07 march 2019 you stopped being team manager is that right correct and you focused exclusively on your technical expert role have i got that right correct and you're still employed at the
00:15:18 correct and you're still employed at the bba in that role i am yes can we go to your statement at page two
00:15:23 page two that's vba 3010
00:15:29 at paragraph six can you paragraph six please can you look at the last sentence there four lines from the bottom in my role i'm responsible for providing
00:15:41 in my role i'm responsible for providing technical guidance and support to project managers mentoring checking and authorizing assessment contracts checking and authorizing assessment work and draft certificates mr nokomo is that the description of
00:15:53 mr nokomo is that the description of your role as technical expert or is that of another role
00:16:06 that's that's part of my description here says a technical expert correct i see staying with your witness statement can we go to page 24 please
00:16:22 we go to page 24 please and you'll see that in bold there's a question
00:16:25 question number 32 and it says has your understanding of fire performance testing
00:16:31 testing certification or compliance with relevant regulations and guidance changed
00:16:36 changed since the issue of certificate in 2008. if so please explain in what ways it has changed and why when you say page you say paragraph 98
00:16:47 when you say page you say paragraph 98 note i am still with the bba and paragraph
00:16:50 paragraph 99 i just want to look at that first line my understanding of fire has not changed
00:16:58 do you mean by that that since the beginning of your time at the bba you had a good understanding of reaction to fire testing of products
00:17:10 i wouldn't call it good because there is a technical excellence team at the bpa that
00:17:15 that generally handles fire related matters so
00:17:19 so i i wouldn't say i'm putting fire myself i say
00:17:23 i say i see but do did you have a shall i say working knowledge a general idea of fire related methods i see do you
00:17:34 methods i see do you would you have understood and do you understand the difference between the two regimes the bs-476 suite of tests two of which can lead to the designation class zero and the
00:17:45 the designation class zero and the european tests that lead to the en13501 classification is that something you would appreciate no
00:17:53 no i see does do we take from your statement
00:17:59 statement that from the beginning of your time at the bba you had a good knowledge of approved document b on fire safety i wouldn't say good knowledge general knowledge as i said
00:18:11 knowledge as i said i see do you have a general knowledge about the necessary fire performance of materials before they can be used on different parts of buildings
00:18:25 in general terms s5 as the reaction fire itself and what it might mean in terms of
00:18:30 of any possible any applicable restrictions i see at the bba have you had any training on reaction to fire testing
00:18:43 reaction to fire testing we've been given yes over time um in-house
00:18:47 in-house and seminars have taken place by the technical excellence team i see do you can you give us an approximate time frame of when you might have had
00:18:58 time frame of when you might have had those
00:19:00 those i can't quite recall there have been a a few of them over over my ten years at baby i can't remember exactly i see were these um seminars mandatory
00:19:12 uh an invitation will be sent out to say there is this seminar and you register to attend i i don't know whether they were mandatory or not i see yeah did you have any training
00:19:25 i see yeah did you have any training or guidance on approved document b on fire safety i think some of the training uh the in-house training was in relation to our proof document in
00:19:37 in relation to our proof document in relation to approved document b specifically yeah correct i see when you started at the bba would you have had any training on the approved documents
00:19:48 after i joined the bbo before well when you started as part of your initial days at the bba no i see um valentina omarosa told us yesterday
00:19:59 yesterday that she spent some time reading them and asking questions was it a similar sort of process for you
00:20:10 i can't quite say when you join um there's an induction program generally that's
00:20:17 that's that's set up and that's not going into the specific technical details of various topics is more of a cycling into the organization and then
00:20:28 cycling into the organization and then as you started the work then it's kind of you you learn as you do the work with either asking colleagues or if there are any internal seminars like the ones i mentioned that
00:20:40 seminars like the ones i mentioned that are held by the bba i see
00:20:46 did you ever have occasion to ask for advice or assistance on fire matters from
00:20:50 from external bodies like the bre or warrington who you may know as x over
00:20:58 and personally myself yes and not directly
00:21:02 directly i have in other in other projects where there is a system that's set up that if we had any fire related queries we would
00:21:13 had any fire related queries we would complete a form then that's sent to warrington uh by with an individual who is a contact person here the bba so specifically warrington uh who in warrington would you ask do you
00:21:26 who in warrington would you ask do you know i don't know because it wasn't going directly from me you had to go through
00:21:30 through there's a pba project manager that we used to go through i see what sort of period was this i can't quite quite remember the period
00:21:41 i can't quite quite remember the period was it when you were a project manager or when you were a team manager
00:21:48 i can't quite remember for sure either was it only on was it on routine questions or was it on just when the project manager would come across a
00:22:00 the project manager would come across a problem a difficult question that you would go to warrington yeah it would have been on on a difficult uh questions that come up with things that were not clear
00:22:11 with things that were not clear i see so am i right that just as a day-to-day you wouldn't go and check any statements about fire performance
00:22:22 performance just routinely it would just be of something exceptional or difficult came up
00:22:27 up is that right you mean go and check externally yes check externally yes no generally if if it's
00:22:34 if it's a routine questions you'll check internally first either with individuals within the company who are more experienced with fire metals or the technical excellence team which
00:22:45 the technical excellence team which handles such matters mainly so tell me a little bit more about the internal process
00:22:53 who in the bba would be the fire person to go to
00:22:57 to go to in your time as project manager or team manager
00:23:01 manager i think they say john john dania and john urban who are in the technical excellence team i see
00:23:08 i see this technical excellence team that has that always existed or is that a more recent
00:23:14 recent no it's i can't remember exactly when but i think it would have come into place in the last few years in the last few years so in the time you were say project manager
00:23:26 were say project manager there wasn't perhaps a technical excellence team but am i right that there would have been
00:23:33 been someone to ask about fire yes those two individuals were still within the company people would go and and ask those individuals i see and would it be routine to always
00:23:45 i see and would it be routine to always check
00:23:46 check fire performance statements in a certificate with john denier or john alvin it wasn't always routine when would you go to john denier or john alvin
00:24:01 at the moment is is we do go to them quite a lot but in in times gone by uh normally you would follow the wedding that was there
00:24:14 would follow the wedding that was there for
00:24:14 for any um reaction to fire that any product achieved
00:24:19 achieved i see so you wouldn't necessarily go to john denier or john alvin in times gone by and can i take that as
00:24:30 in times gone by and can i take that as being
00:24:30 being between 2010 and say 2015 would that be fair
00:24:39 not quite as i said i mean unless unless it was a general question normally project managers will either ask one another or you know the head of approvals who was
00:24:51 you know the head of approvals who was brian chamberlain at the time you you'd ask him because at the end of the day he would go through your your technical file once you have finished the job in order to give comments
00:25:02 give comments on that i see what i'm getting at is was it a necessary step in the process to check fire statements with any one of these people john denier john alvin or
00:25:14 these people john denier john alvin or brian chamberlain or was it something that came up from time to time if the project manager felt he or she needed to ask it was
00:25:26 needed to ask it was it wasn't a necessary step in terms of during the assessment but once you have completed the assessment itself and we have drafted your your certificate and prepared
00:25:38 certificate and prepared your evaluation report which contains basically
00:25:41 basically the in detail what you have done under that work then those two documents will then be passed on uh to brian chamberlain who then check so if it wasn't directly to john alban
00:25:53 so if it wasn't directly to john alban or john dania it will go through brian chamberlain at the end there wasn't really a process by which say you're assessing a new product
00:26:01 product and you write your statements i think you said
00:26:06 you said you might take statements from a previous certificate there wasn't a process by which you would take the written document the written certificate alongside the test data to mr chamberlain or mr alvin mr
00:26:18 to mr chamberlain or mr alvin mr chamberlain would just get the final certificate and look at that is that right
00:26:24 yes correctly i understand i just want to ask one more question about uh the arrangement with warrington did the bba pay warrington a fee
00:26:35 did the bba pay warrington a fee to answer questions about fire i don't know that detail i understand can you help us with another matter that came up from miss amoroso's evidence
00:26:47 came up from miss amoroso's evidence she said yesterday that she would have expected the cstb to notify her if there'd been changes to certified products
00:26:55 products and she talked about a mutual agreement between the bba and the cstb was there any to your knowledge was there any mutual agreement
00:27:06 there any mutual agreement between the bba and the cstb about the sharing of information relevant for example to the rhinobond product
00:27:17 i don't know if there was a contractual agreement
00:27:21 agreement um there is basically an appreciation that notified bodies can depend on the work that was done by another body for their own certification so in terms
00:27:32 for their own certification so in terms of contractual basis i don't know what i'm asking about is if there was
00:27:37 there was an ongoing agreement that say we've we've taken the cstb data to do a confirmation certificate
00:27:49 to do a confirmation certificate was there an agreement or an arrangement or even an understanding that the cstb would continue to provide updates to that data to the bba
00:28:00 as far as i remember i think we would have to
00:28:04 have to uh specifically ask the cstb i see what about the sharing of information in relation to surveillance of the factory processes
00:28:16 surveillance of the factory processes which the cstb was carrying out we understand that they were um happening or they were supposed to be happening
00:28:23 happening from the issue of the certificate until around 2015 when the bba set up their own surveillance what would your expectations of the cstb be then
00:28:36 it would be for them to provide the bba then with the reports of those surveillance visits and now the mechanism of that i'm not
00:28:47 and now the mechanism of that i'm not sure how it actually went in terms of who actually requested the reports to be sent on a regular basis i see and would you i think you may have
00:28:58 and would you i think you may have somewhat answered the question would you have expected those to be sent on a regular basis or by exception so if something went wrong you would get that
00:29:05 that report if they were requested i would have expected them on a regular basis and i just want to clarify your evidence what about um test evidence data or data
00:29:17 what about um test evidence data or data more generally so for example if the cstb did additional testing on say the rainer bond product would you expect them to notify the bba
00:29:29 would you expect them to notify the bba about that additional testing and those results
00:29:35 results i don't know if there is a such an arrangement we have with them i see was the cstb ever made aware of contents of the bba certificate to your knowledge
00:29:46 knowledge i don't know
00:29:49 and are you aware of any arrangement with the cstb that's been formalized in writing
00:29:59 other than the one when the certificate itself was originally assessed the project manager who carried out that assessment i know he did uh say to the
00:30:12 he did uh say to the cstb to be able to notify the ppa of any major non-conformities that they were to pick up during their surveillance that's as far as i know in terms of
00:30:23 terms of formal i see and no other inter-body contract or arrangement i'm not aware of that i see i want to
00:30:34 i'm not aware of that i see i want to ask you some general questions about reviews and the review processes and you've told us that as project manager you would have conducted assessments for new products and reviews for
00:30:46 for new products and reviews for existing products can you help me with how many certificates would you be working on at any one time
00:30:54 i think it varies from project manager project manager i mean i think once you have been at the bba for
00:31:01 bba for at least two years or so i think you generally find people with anything between
00:31:09 between 10 and 20 projects some of them may be new assessment some of them may be reviews some of them may be re-issues of existing certificates i see and beginners perhaps new people
00:31:22 i see and beginners perhaps new people would have fewer yes correct i see how many project managers reported to you when you're a team manager
00:31:33 you when you're a team manager i can't quite remember but i think it would have been between five and six there about i think i see can we please go to your weakness
00:31:44 i see can we please go to your weakness statement at page 5
00:31:49 paragraph 12
00:31:53 and you set out the steps there for conducting a review can we zoom in on paragraph 12 please
00:32:03 you say steps for conducting a review are as follows a requesting information from the certificate holder b reviewing the contents of the certificate to establish
00:32:14 certificate to establish if the information in it is still up to date slash relevant e.g if the version of standards building regulations etc quoted have been updated since the certificate was
00:32:26 been updated since the certificate was last issued c reviewing the certificate holders product literature to establish there are no contradictions with the contents of the certificate d reviewing the factory surveillance
00:32:38 d reviewing the factory surveillance report's history for the previous three years
00:32:41 years to establish that any matters raised were addressed and confirming the qp by which i think you mean quality plan
00:32:50 plan is up to date and greed e completing a review checklist which details the findings of the process and preparing a review letter summarizing the key findings
00:33:02 summarizing the key findings the review checklist templates list the areas to be covered in the review a review letter to the certificate holder would be prepared once the checklist is completed you tell us below that that the sign off
00:33:14 you tell us below that that the sign off process changed after you became the team manager can we now just go over the page to page six of your witness statement paragraph 14
00:33:27 and you say that once a project manager pm
00:33:30 pm completes the review they would pass the review checklist and letter to their team manager to check and sign off before the letter is sent
00:33:39 sent to the certificate holder whether review identifies serious issues resulting in recommendation of limited validity suspension or withdrawal of certificate
00:33:50 suspension or withdrawal of certificate the letter is approved and signed off by the operations manager and just to get your evidence completely right is that a description those two um those two paragraphs we've
00:34:02 those two um those two paragraphs we've just looked at of how you as team manager would have operated
00:34:07 operated a review generally yes uh though in in 14 in there will be a lot of discussions between a team manager and their project manager
00:34:18 a team manager and their project manager during the course of the week itself and then at the end then i would then go through the final report in the letter to comment and sign it off i see in fact
00:34:29 to comment and sign it off i see in fact i think we see that at page 12. can we go to that paragraph 41
00:34:36 certainly the end of that process you say
00:34:40 say as team manager i manage the pm responsible for the review oversaw the signing off of the review at the end of the work after checking it and the work you say that you checked
00:34:51 and the work you say that you checked the work you mean by that you checked the project manager's work is that right that's correct yes and you've told us about discussions with the project manager
00:35:01 manager would that be part of your checking their work
00:35:07 not necessarily me going to them it's a question of mainly if they have any questions or queries that would come to myself
00:35:14 myself for discussions so the project manager was to raise questions with you and that that is how you'd come to know of any issues or details that you should be
00:35:26 issues or details that you should be aware of
00:35:27 aware of yeah that's correct yes and also the other thing that we would have would have one-to-one meetings project managers just to go through
00:35:35 through uh the list of jobs that they they have just to
00:35:39 just to maintain progress and see if there were any issues i see and in terms of checking would you go over everything they did would you spot check would you focus on specific
00:35:50 spot check would you focus on specific areas can you give us a feel for what you would do with these checks it's a combination of all that you have mentioned sometimes i will sports check
00:36:01 will sports check it depends on the contents of the um the review uh checklist itself so you kind of get a feel as you work with different people some
00:36:13 with different people some with the experience i had on certain aspects if i read something and it rained a bell sometimes i would think to say well let me go and actually check the document behind that whereas if it's clearly laid out
00:36:25 that whereas if it's clearly laid out i would read the report and leave it at that
00:36:30 that i see so the review checklist was the key document in your in your checking work that's correct
00:36:37 correct i see if you're would you say you were not
00:36:41 not checking literally everything that project manager was doing no we are not required to check everything of course that would mean that you would be relying on the project manager to get
00:36:53 relying on the project manager to get everything right and be thorough is that right that's correct that would mean that you would rely on the bba processes being robust and being able to get all of the right information out of the
00:37:04 of the right information out of the certificate holder do you agree with that yes i would agree with that as i said also with the experience i would have on other aspects sometimes i would just decide to spot
00:37:17 sometimes i would just decide to spot check something specifically if something rings a bell i see and when you had a new recruit to the bba would you check his or her or their work more thoroughly
00:37:29 their work more thoroughly than someone with a lot of experience generally that's what i tend to do i see now i'd like to ask about the rainer bond certificate itself
00:37:40 bond certificate itself and in particular the review that we started in 2013 and for your reference the project number is
00:37:48 number is s153
00:37:51 s153 so we'll see that number coming up on documents so you will know that that's related to that project now we can see on the documents that this review was commenced in october 2013
00:38:02 october 2013 by maria barbato and at the time she would have been a project manager is that right correct and i think i've got this right that she was a person in your team
00:38:13 that she was a person in your team at your level is that about right yes you're both project managers at the same time that's correct can we please go to bba 408090
00:38:31 we're going to see the letter that maria barbato sent to our clinic dated 8th of october 2013 in fact it was sent the next day but it's all around the same time
00:38:44 it's all around the same time can we now go to the second page please bottom of the page and we see a header submission of data and it says this it is necessary for the
00:38:55 and it says this it is necessary for the bba to see to be supplied with the following information in order to carry out the review of your ag remote certificate zero eight four five one zero one it is our normal practice to conduct
00:39:06 one it is our normal practice to conduct a written survey of users of the product could you therefore please provide them details of a minimum of ten installers and 10 major users of stone light cladding panels who can
00:39:18 of stone light cladding panels who can be contacted to establish the practicability of installation and performance in use going down to the second paragraph written confirmation
00:39:29 written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design specification context of use or other details that would invalidate the certificate alternatively please specify any changes
00:39:41 alternatively please specify any changes number three regarding factory production control please supply full details of any changes to a raw materials we go for page b the manufacturing process c
00:39:55 b the manufacturing process c quality control procedure paragraph four copies of your current uk technical literature and installation instructions relating to the product five a list of customer complaints if
00:40:06 five a list of customer complaints if any relating to the product quality for projects in the uk in the last three years and the action taken to resolve them paragraph six an estimate of the annual volume of production of the product
00:40:18 volume of production of the product for the uk market since the issue of certificate in paragraph seven recent copies of typical production slash quality control records for the manufacturer of the product
00:40:30 for the manufacturer of the product um mr nokomo was that the standard form of the request at that time
00:40:40 i'm not quite sure if it was the the uh standard form i think some just looking at it i think some of the information may be slightly different in other
00:40:52 may be slightly different in other reviews
00:40:54 reviews but in general yes that's the sort of information that will be asked was this was this a template or was this perhaps copied from another letter
00:41:07 perhaps copied from another letter i'm not aware that with a template as it were um
00:41:11 were um i think oftentimes what we would do is
00:41:16 use the list that we had already compiled
00:41:21 compiled in other jobs like in this case it's a review so if you're doing another review you would refer to the probably the most recent review that you you have done i see
00:41:34 that you you have done i see i'm sorry mr nakami quiet please sorry i missed that oh go ahead i see um can we just go up to the page before
00:41:47 to the page before page two thank you at the bottom in that paragraph
00:41:51 paragraph paragraph one do you see on the second line
00:41:54 line that maria barbatos referenced stone light cladding panels
00:42:01 that does not appear to be the product that was being reviewed at the time does that seem does that seem to be the case to you yes that was not the product okay so
00:42:12 yes that was not the product okay so that's a possibly a copy and paste error yes i i think this as i explained we would normally go in terms of the information but go to
00:42:23 go in terms of the information but go to the list that we have compiled for another job so it appears here that uh
00:42:29 uh it was copied from another job but the name of the product not not changed i see i'm not quite sure how to put this to you mr nicoma but is that is that a little sloppy
00:42:43 is that a little sloppy it's an editing era clearly i see now we know that maria barbato tried to contact
00:42:51 contact arconic and we know by this letter dated the 8th of october and we know because we saw yesterday the correspondence from uh miss barbato to various people in arconic that she
00:43:04 to various people in arconic that she chased
00:43:05 chased on email on the 21st of october 2013 29th of november 2019 13th of december 2013. sorry if i said
00:43:16 13th of december 2013. sorry if i said 19 i mean 13. um 10th of february 2014 28th of february 2014 7th of may 2014 and from time to time it appears
00:43:28 2014 and from time to time it appears that she was in contact with claude verla
00:43:31 verla on the telephone and she also managed to arrange a factory surveillance visit for the 10th of september but we know she did not get the
00:43:42 but we know she did not get the information she requested in her october letter 2013.
00:43:47 2013. and although you were project manager at the time
00:43:52 the time would you have known that there had been any difficulties in getting a response from iconic while maria barbato was chasing them
00:44:03 unless she discussed it with me i would i wouldn't have known i see do i understand that you don't have any independent recollection of that at the time no i don't i see and we know that
00:44:15 no i don't i see and we know that valentina amoroso took over this review in december 2014 and that was in fact before you became team manager wasn't it and she was still quite new at the bba
00:44:27 and she was still quite new at the bba at the time wasn't she yes can we now go to bba 3010550
00:44:42 this will be an email chain between you and valentina amoroso and can we go to the very bottom of page three
00:44:55 we see at the very bottom of the screen right now
00:44:58 right now that there's an email from valentina amoroso on the 1st of december 2014 and if we scroll over to the page page four we can see that it's to you
00:45:09 page four we can see that it's to you and the subject is info cladding panels and she says hi prayer
00:45:14 prayer i'm working on one of maria's jobs and you've been advised as quote the expert unquote about cladding systems
00:45:22 systems i need to ask a couple of things can you tell me what is a suitable time for you can we scroll back up to the middle of page three email dated first of december timed at
00:45:34 email dated first of december timed at 1432.
00:45:35 1432. thank you we can see your reply hi valentina
00:45:39 valentina don't believe everything you hear valentina or exclamation marks i'm no expert at all i'd be interested to know who said i'm the expert it's putting pressure on me because if i'm unable to answer your
00:45:51 me because if i'm unable to answer your questions
00:45:52 questions slash help you i'd feel embarrassed dot dot dot
00:45:55 dot dot you can come at 3 pm now did you have some expertise in cladding at this time
00:46:04 i've been at the bba that time for four years i believe so i i did have some some expertise in glad english you had at least enough for someone in your team to be able to
00:46:17 for someone in your team to be able to ask you
00:46:17 ask you about cladding is that something you can agree with
00:46:23 yes i would say so but obviously i wouldn't class myself as an expert as it was you know characterized in that email i see and is it right people would come to you
00:46:36 is it right people would come to you with
00:46:36 with questions about cladding and you would help them if you could if i characterized that fair that's correct
00:46:43 correct can we continue with this chain and go to the bottom of page two
00:46:49 there's an email times 1635 thank you and it says it's from valentin amoroso it's on the same day and she says hi prayer this is the
00:47:00 and she says hi prayer this is the contact person for alcoa architectural products sas job s1 5379 she gives the details for claude verla and then she says bottom sorry for
00:47:12 and then she says bottom sorry for leaving you in the position of contacting them sad face thank you very much cheers now might we guess from that that you did speak
00:47:22 did speak with miss amaru so at some time that afternoon
00:47:30 i assume so yes and it looks from this that you were asked to contact claude verla
00:47:37 verla at iconic is that right that's correct were you being asked to intervene
00:47:47 i can't quite remember what exactly it was
00:47:50 was it was in connection with i see so you're not sure if you were told something about needing to intervene that they needed to be perhaps someone more senior
00:48:03 contacting iconic making that initial contact
00:48:09 i can't quite quite tell from just from that email what exactly i i was contacting them for okay well perhaps the next document will help but before we go there did did
00:48:21 will help but before we go there did did you know
00:48:22 you know arconic before this time had you worked on any
00:48:26 on any other iconic products for example raynalux
00:48:32 i don't recall having worked on on on any of their products up to that time no i don't recall i see can we please go to claude verla's
00:48:43 i see can we please go to claude verla's exhibits part 18 that's met three zeros five three one five eight underscore p18
00:48:57 and i'm going to go to page four please
00:49:05 and we can see there that there's an email from you it's stated the 2nd of december 2014 and you say dear claude verla thank you
00:49:17 and you say dear claude verla thank you for taking my call earlier this afternoon
00:49:19 afternoon i note the following issues we discussed i'm going to skip the first paragraph and go straight to the second paragraph you say outstanding information
00:49:30 you say outstanding information for the review of bba certificate 008 4510 under contract s1 53729 my colleague maria barbato has asked for the information a number of
00:49:42 asked for the information a number of times
00:49:43 times you indicated you provided information to the inspector who visited the factory and therefore did not respond to maria's emails as you considered maria's request addressed
00:49:53 addressed unfortunately the information provided to the inspectors during the factory audits
00:49:58 audits is different to the one required for the review of the certificate as requested by maria
00:50:03 by maria thank you that you have agreed to send this information if we can send you the list again my colleague valentina amoroso who took over the review job s153729
00:50:14 who took over the review job s153729 after maria left the bba we'll send you an email with a reminder of what information we require this will enable her to complete the review of your certificate zero eight four five
00:50:25 four five one zero now we see at the bottom that you've signed that off as project manager
00:50:31 manager so even though you were project manager you were making this initial contact with arconic is that right that's correct
00:50:41 correct could that be on the basis that you were more experienced
00:50:50 i'm not it might be but i'm not sure okay we can see that you refer to maria barbato as having asked for information a number of times at this point
00:51:04 a number of times at this point do you think you understood that there had been difficulties in contacting and getting information from our connect
00:51:14 in as far as the fact that maria had asked for the information and she still multiple times but hadn't received their response that's how i understood it well you say
00:51:25 that's how i understood it well you say multiple times did you have sight of the volume of requests that had been made
00:51:34 judging by the statement that paragraph number two i think i i i would have had an idea that maria had tried
00:51:42 had tried before because i think when the one thing when maria left and at the time that valentina was given the job
00:51:50 the job some questions were being directed at me in the interim period just to help so i imagine i would have had sight of the fact that maria had
00:52:01 had sight of the fact that maria had been
00:52:02 been chasing them but hadn't managed to get any information from them i see let me just understand that correctly so maria barbato left say in october
00:52:13 maria barbato left say in october or november and valentina amoroso joined the team in around november december i think her evidence was november that you were sort of covering
00:52:25 november that you were sort of covering maria's projects until valentina picked them up have i understood that not cover i don't recall covering but i think by default uh either the team manager would direct
00:52:37 uh either the team manager would direct people to me in the meantime being i've been at the bba for for four years i imagine i had a little bit more knowledge than than others at the time official you know uh bridge before a new
00:52:51 official you know uh bridge before a new manager took over i see and in that time perhaps is it your evidence that you became aware of the volume of correspondence that had passed and not in their
00:53:03 that had passed and not in their entirety the fact that maria had chased them and had important information i see yes now in that document we saw you say
00:53:13 you say the information provided to the inspectors during their factory audits is different to the one required for the review of the certificate as requested by maria you can see that
00:53:25 as requested by maria you can see that um four line paragraph two four lines down starting with unfortunately do you see that yes by that do you mean that the the documents that
00:53:38 do you mean that the the documents that are not have not been provided the information that is missing is that information that was in maria's maria barbatos letter of the 8th of october 2013.
00:53:53 i think that's what i would have been in play
00:53:57 play sorry please please carry on mr nicoma i think that's what i would have been implying that the information is detailed in in maria's letter was
00:54:09 letter was still outstanding compared to what they had claimed they had given the inspector i see and am i right that you would not expect an inspector
00:54:20 that you would not expect an inspector to collect that sort of information on a surveillance visit that's correct and am i right that it was your view that
00:54:31 am i right that it was your view that the certificate holder had to send those documents to the bba that it was a necessary part of of the review that's correct
00:54:42 of the review that's correct can we please go to vba 408098
00:54:55 and this is an email excuse me this is an email from valentina amoroso on the 2nd of december 2014 we can see that it's time 1617 so it follows the email
00:55:08 1617 so it follows the email that we just saw and we can see that it's written to claude verla and she says my name is valentina amoroso and i've been designated as the new project
00:55:19 been designated as the new project manager
00:55:20 manager responsible for coordinating the review of your bba certificate zero eight four five one zero following on from your conversation with my colleague gren como
00:55:30 como please find the list of information required to complete the review report one details of a minimum of 10 major installers and 10 major users
00:55:42 major installers and 10 major users of stone light cladding panels in the uk who can be contacted to establish the practicability of installation and performance in use going down now to the second paragraph
00:55:55 going down now to the second paragraph written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design specification context of use or other details that would invalidate the certificate alternatively please specify any changes
00:56:07 alternatively please specify any changes paragraph three regarding factory production control please supply full details or any changes to a raw materials
00:56:18 any changes to a raw materials the manufacturing process c quality control procedure and we see four five six and seven there under
00:56:26 under that that i think is very similar to the letter that maria barbato wrote some 14 months previously
00:56:37 some 14 months previously is that right
00:56:40 it looks similar yes in fact we can see in paragraph one the stone light cladding panels has been cited again so that looks like
00:56:51 has been cited again so that looks like perhaps another copy and paste error is that is that your understanding i i wouldn't say a copy and paste error because the letter had already
00:57:02 error because the letter had already gone out first from maria so what engineer was doing effectively was resending the letter that contained the information i wouldn't have expected here to proofread unless someone had known
00:57:14 to proofread unless someone had known that there was an error in the in the wedding i see did it strike you as unusual to have to send out more or less the
00:57:25 to have to send out more or less the same letter to arconic
00:57:31 no it didn't because i think from from my understanding at the time the information hadn't been provided so we were reminding them
00:57:42 reminding them of what maria had asked them which they hadn't sent what i'm what i'm sorry please continue now i'm saying it would have been i would have expected us to resend the exact letter to remind them of the information yes
00:57:56 to remind them of the information yes yes what i'm what i'm asking really is was it unusual to have to resend a letter to a certificate holder setting out once again everything
00:58:08 setting out once again everything that you asked for 14 months earlier
00:58:14 if you're talking in terms of the time frame the 14 months perhaps it may have been unusual but if you are asking sending the exact letter it wasn't unusual because we wanted them to know
00:58:26 unusual because we wanted them to know exactly what we had asked for before was it common to have such a lack of engagement by a certificate holder during a review
00:58:42 it wasn't normal it was not normal it wasn't there will be delays in in many jobs
00:58:50 many jobs but a delay of this length it did appear quite
00:58:54 quite uh quite long i see was that significant to you at the time
00:59:10 i just took it as it is as a delay whether significant or not i i didn't think in those terms okay can we look at paragraph two and paragraph three we can see that
00:59:22 and paragraph three we can see that they're very different requests it seems to me that paragraph
00:59:27 paragraph three is focused on production and quality whereas paragraph two is about making sure that nothing else has changed have i understood that distinction
00:59:44 correctly yes that seems to be the case and it seems to me from your previous email
00:59:53 email to claude verla that getting information from paragraph three and information from paragraph two was not negotiable
01:00:05 from paragraph two was not negotiable have i understood that right
01:00:10 hey i wouldn't say not nicosia it was an essential part of the review
01:00:21 all the information ultimately is is essential to the review because it it all adds up to helping us come to a conclusion
01:00:32 come to a conclusion on on on the suitability of the product so i wouldn't sing that one out to say is the only one that was
01:00:40 that was essential but it was one of the ones that was essential yes and it was part of bba process to have what's said there in paragraph two was it
01:00:58 yes it would have been part of part of the process as i said earlier the list
01:01:07 does look slightly different to to others that i've seen on other jobs but in general yes it it is a list that would have been considered essential
01:01:19 would have been considered essential among one of the essential aspects in terms of two and three now we know that valentina picked up the communication with iconic at this point and we know
01:01:32 with iconic at this point and we know that she
01:01:33 that she got a quality plan agreed with iconic and that she set up eba surveillance to start on a rolling basis from 2015
01:01:45 to start on a rolling basis from 2015 but what she still didn't have was that information that we're looking at in this letter of december 2014 and we heard yesterday and we saw the
01:01:56 and we heard yesterday and we saw the documents of her attempts to get that information on the 18th of december 2014 she wrote to lilia koskuk 7th of january 2015 12th of january
01:02:07 7th of january 2015 12th of january 2015.
01:02:09 2015. now you're not copied on all of these emails
01:02:12 emails but would you have been aware of them at the time
01:02:19 i don't recall but it is possible if i didn't
01:02:22 didn't discuss some of the aspects with me that i would have been away if she discussed with me i see do you recall if she discussed with you all of these emails or any of them i
01:02:33 all of these emails or any of them i don't recall i see did you um become aware of all of these
01:02:40 these attempts by miss amaroso to contact uh arconic at some later date i suspect i would have been away at some
01:02:51 i suspect i would have been away at some point
01:02:52 point i see before the close of this review you would have been aware of it i suspect so can we please go to bba 4080
01:03:08 now at the top we see an email dated 22nd of january 2015 times 1609 it's from valentina amoroso to lilia koskook it's also to claude
01:03:19 to lilia koskook it's also to claude verla but i noticed that that email is spelt wrongly and to celine ernay of alcoa and it says this hi lilia sorry for the late reply
01:03:31 hi lilia sorry for the late reply unfortunately in the last year we have experienced several problems in getting in touch with you and receive the required info to progress our job this leading to severe delays in closing this review job
01:03:44 severe delays in closing this review job for this reason bba has decided to go ahead with the information already in hands i drafted a copy of the review report and i am waiting for my for approval
01:03:55 and i am waiting for my for approval from my team manager after that you will receive it for your personal record now just so i can understand the timing you became team manager on the 15th on the 5th of january 2015
01:04:08 january 2015 uh so a few weeks before this is that right
01:04:11 right correct so you were newly in the position
01:04:14 position of team manager at the time of sending this email is that right that's correct were you aware personally of this email
01:04:25 i don't recall um i'm not copied there but i don't recall if i was aware of it i see were you aware of a decision as she puts it to go ahead with the
01:04:37 as she puts it to go ahead with the information already in hands i think i would have been aware of that yes because the report ultimately came to myself
01:04:46 to myself for checking and signing off yes would valentina amoroso have had the authority to make that decision
01:04:57 and not just valentina generally we we would close reviews if we were not receiving all the email we wouldn't keep them open forever
01:05:08 wouldn't keep them open forever you just finish it up make conclusions with what information you have and close the job that was a common practice
01:05:16 practice i see we'll come we'll come back to that answer i just want to know who was the decision maker who would have had the authority to close the review
01:05:29 to close the review with the information already in hand in this case i would have signed off to close the review with what we have because that was the process we were
01:05:40 because that was the process we were following at the time if you are not getting all the information and you have been chasing chasing
01:05:46 chasing the instruction was you complete the review
01:05:50 review with what you have and we close the job with the decision obviously of what the information gives you i see and was there
01:06:04 and was there a conversation or a meeting about what information you already had that would inform that decision
01:06:19 that would inform that decision i'm not sure in my case in this case i would have looked through the the report itself the review report and made conclusions based on that you wouldn't and to understand correctly
01:06:31 you wouldn't and to understand correctly you you just looked up the review report you wouldn't look at everything that valentine amoroso had managed to gather in hand as it were the review report
01:06:42 in hand as it were the review report feeds from what information the project manager will never if you reviewed i see um
01:06:52 i see um was this was this a positive decision or was it
01:06:56 was it something that just kind of occurred naturally when you receive the review report
01:07:02 report as in what i'm getting at was was there a discussion in which valentine amoroso said
01:07:10 said hello um i've got all of these documents i don't really know what to do they're not responding can we have a decision to carry on
01:07:22 can we have a decision to carry on or was it perhaps more like valentina understood that she could just go ahead
01:07:29 go ahead provide you with the review report and it was bba process that that would be enough
01:07:40 i think it would have been it would have been you know both cases you have outlined
01:07:45 outlined as i said we were allowed to uh to complete reviews with whatever information we held we had on file ultimately and also probably valentina would have
01:07:57 and also probably valentina would have discussed also with me or alerted me to the fact that she has this review that she hadn't managed to progress in terms of the information i think she would have discussed with me
01:08:09 would have discussed with me i see do you you don't have any positive recollection of a discussion about this review no not a not a positive recollection no i see am i right to understand therefore that
01:08:20 am i right to understand therefore that the
01:08:21 the documents in hand would have been the original assessment file s341014 the 2011 review and
01:08:33 the 2011 review and whatever else mrs amoroso could get from the internet
01:08:41 yes that would that would have been the case yes there wouldn't have been any other documents that i've missed there unless they did send something i don't know whether they
01:08:52 send something i don't know whether they completely sent nothing i i don't remember that but whatever they would have sent we would have gone ahead with that to make a conclusion and complete the review well on the
01:09:04 and complete the review well on the basis that arconic indeed sent nothing except for the agreed quality plan
01:09:13 what the bba did not have specifically was written confirmation that there have been no changes in the design specification context of use or other details that
01:09:25 context of use or other details that would invalidate certificate i'm right on that aren't i sorry i mean that you're writing but you did not have what was in paragraph two of that letter
01:09:37 what was in paragraph two of that letter written confirmation that there'd be no changes that's what you could never get from an internet search that's correct
01:09:47 and nothing she did have would be a substitute for that kind of information do you accept that
01:09:56 that's correct can we please go to your witness statement at page seven paragraph 20
01:10:11 and you can see that we've asked what would you expect project manager to make of the technical dossier that is compiled at issue which is that original assessment file
01:10:22 which is that original assessment file s341014
01:10:24 s341014 and your answer is this together with the contents of the certificate the pm should check the data slash information init is still relevant
01:10:36 my question is in checking the data or information on the certificate is still relevant would you have expected miss amoroso to have done an internet search
01:10:48 have done an internet search of the cstb's website to check the fire performance statements on the certificate and that they were still correct no we don't sorry as part of reviews we
01:11:00 we don't sorry as part of reviews we don't
01:11:01 don't we we don't get reports from websites test reports that is and normally reviews don't involve looking at test reports
01:11:12 involve looking at test reports is a review of the certificate itself the technical literature and as i said looking at a surveillance as well not test reports which would they have
01:11:25 not test reports which would they have been looked at during the original assessment itself i see
01:11:29 see you say in your witness statement though that the pm should check the data slash information in it is still relevant are you saying that you wouldn't check the
01:11:42 you saying that you wouldn't check the fire performance data even by looking at the cstb website
01:11:49 we wouldn't look for reports on on the cstp website is not common practice
01:11:56 i see would you have expected miss amoroso to contact the cstb in another way to check that the data was still up to date
01:12:10 i think with confirmation certificates we would
01:12:14 we would we would ask the certificate holder if they can
01:12:18 they can get a confirmation from the other certification body to confirm to us that there's been no change in the product i see that wasn't in the letters that
01:12:32 i see that wasn't in the letters that were sent
01:12:33 were sent are you telling me that when they sent written confirmation it could be from iconic or from the cstb or it was supposed to be from the cstb
01:12:45 or it was supposed to be from the cstb ordinarily with confirmation certificates will be asking it from the certification body so which would have been the cstb i see and that is in the particular instance
01:12:57 and that is in the particular instance of this certificate being a confirmation step
01:13:00 step confirmation yes i see now in this case it was the bba's standard request to ask for written confirmation
01:13:11 confirmation and we saw that you told arconic that they had to provide this information can you explain why the decision to go only with the documents in hand was made
01:13:26 as i said that that was bba process if you are not receiving the information you conclude the review with what you have
01:13:37 the review with what you have and then make a conclusion based on that information i see so is that a convenient moment yes it
01:13:48 so is that a convenient moment yes it suits you does it miss science it does thank you sir right well as i said mr cameron we will have a break during the morning and now we're going to take it so we'll stop now we'll resume at half
01:14:00 so we'll stop now we'll resume at half past 11 please and i must ask you one we're on the break please don't speak to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it okay right thank you very much half past 11 then please
01:27:16 oh
01:30:09 welcome back everyone we're now ready to continue taking evidence from mr and como just check that he's there and can see me and hear me is that the case mr como that's the case yes
01:30:20 como that's the case yes very good thank you very much well then when you're ready miss science you carry on
01:30:24 on thank you very much sir mr nacomo can you hear and see me i can yes thank you um in your evidence earlier you said i don't think we need to turn it up we can if you need you said
01:30:37 we can if you need you said in this case i would have signed off i would have signed off to close the review with what we have because that was the process we were following at the time if we were not if we are not getting all
01:30:50 if we were not if we are not getting all the information and we have been chasing chasing the instruction was you complete the review with what you have and we close the job with the decision obviously of what the
01:31:02 with the decision obviously of what the information gives you and i'm really interested in the words the instruction you had was it was it an instruction
01:31:13 was it was it an instruction an official in the sense of an official policy of the bba to close a review with what information you had
01:31:21 you had yeah i don't know without officially but that was the the process we we would follow i see and was that for all certificates you
01:31:31 you just had a general it was a general it was a general yes a general process and was that general process understood at the levels above you so the head of approvals
01:31:45 the head of approvals i i don't i think it would have come from from above i see and in coming from above what i'm what i'm really asking is was this something was this the way that
01:31:57 was this something was this the way that bba
01:31:59 bba worked officially
01:32:03 i would say so as i said you will close obviously then the decision is based on the information you already have then a decision is made on the validity of that certificate
01:32:14 certificate yes in fact i'll come to that exact point in just one minute i'm just trying to understand your use of the word you had an instruction did somebody instruct you or did you come to understand that there was a
01:32:26 come to understand that there was a general instruction within the bba that you would close a review
01:32:31 review if a certificate holder wasn't providing information i'd come to understand that was the general
01:32:38 general approach and would this have been written down anywhere i've never seen it returned down i see would you expect it to have been written down
01:32:52 a lot of what we do is based on written down procedures uh this one i don't i've never seen it written down i see and you've mentioned
01:33:04 i see and you've mentioned this closing the review and then making a decision um i just want to understand is that effectively a two-stage process
01:33:15 is that effectively a two-stage process you would
01:33:16 you would make a decision to close the review then look at what you had and then make some decision about the validity
01:33:24 validity or or any other action that needs to be taken have i understood that correctly no is you actually at the closing of the review at the you know signing off
01:33:35 know signing off of the review letter that decision is made at
01:33:39 made at that point not after i see so there's not let me see if i understand it you you have all of the information you gather it into a review report
01:33:51 gather it into a review report or checklist depending on which methodology you're using at the time and gathering all of that information you then make a decision as part of that signing off process
01:34:03 as part of that signing off process correct
01:34:04 correct i see i want to just turn to the decision in this case which we were talking about before the break we heard from miss amoroso that the
01:34:15 we heard from miss amoroso that the review
01:34:16 review was in fact supposed to have been completed by june 2014 and as at the end of january 2015 when miss amaroso sent
01:34:28 2015 when miss amaroso sent her letter about having the documents in hands
01:34:33 hands by that time this review was more than six months overdue that's that's right isn't it
01:34:40 yes by those time frames you give yes was that an unusual period to be overdue by
01:34:52 reviews some reviews did tend to to become overdue to go beyond the six months
01:34:59 months i now i don't know the proportion of those that will go to being six months overdue i wouldn't have that data
01:35:06 that data well looking at it now does it strike you as as quite a lengthy period of being overdue
01:35:12 it is a lengthy period yes would the fact that it being this lengthy period overdue would that have any bearing on the decision to go with the documents
01:35:23 on the decision to go with the documents that you already had at that time i'll i'll say so ms amoruso told us about there being some pressure to
01:35:36 about there being some pressure to close the reviews by the end of the financial year which was march was that your understanding
01:35:45 because there had been a lot of reviews that were falling behind becoming overdue with the project managers i think they're busy with the with other assessment work so the company combined a list of reviews
01:35:58 company combined a list of reviews which is what this one was part of a list of those reviews that were already um either overdue or coming to be overdue and that
01:36:09 and that during that time frame that was referring to the january um end of 2014 beginning of 2015 the teams were specifically doing the
01:36:20 the teams were specifically doing the project
01:36:20 project of focusing on reviews that we're getting over to i see and i think it's your evidence that this review was in fact on that
01:36:31 that this review was in fact on that list
01:36:32 list um if it was overdue then it should have been
01:36:35 been on that list i see i see um who would have compiled that list
01:36:42 i think it would i think it would have come either from head of approval or from the and then cascaded down to team managers i see was there therefore
01:36:56 i see was there therefore quite a big push to get all of these reviews closed off in a timely manner
01:37:03 yes in terms of resources as i said then pms were asked to focus on those reviews uh to complete them as i said from a resource point of view
01:37:14 as i said from a resource point of view because a lot of them were falling behind because project managers were dealing with a lot of the assessment work that was in hand so now we were asked to focus on finishing those
01:37:25 asked to focus on finishing those reviews
01:37:26 reviews so take project manager resource from assessment work and put it back on review work to get this set of reviews
01:37:38 review work to get this set of reviews finished yeah essentially yes focusing more on those reviews it was it was basically there was a backlog yeah there was that's why the list was compiled i see and was there with this list was
01:37:51 i see and was there with this list was there a
01:37:51 there a time period by which these reviews needed to be finished by
01:38:00 i can't quite remember but i i'm pretty certain there was a time frame that was that was given did did that factor into
01:38:12 did did that factor into the decision to close this review without the information from our connect
01:38:19 from my point of view no because the information hadn't been provided and um maria had changed the valentine's chest
01:38:29 chest and i i wasn't sure whether continuing to chess will eventually get the information as i said the process was you complete the review
01:38:40 the review with whatever information you already had in hand if you're not getting any more from the client yes my my question really is the decision to focus on closing
01:38:52 the decision to focus on closing the backlog was that was that any part of the decision to just take what arconic what what ms
01:39:04 just take what arconic what what ms amoroso could find on the internet as being the information from iconic was that
01:39:09 that was that a reason to close this review i i don't think so it was that same that process that i i talked about earlier on of completing a review with the information that you had it was there
01:39:21 information that you had it was there even long before that as far as i understand i see yes i see can we go to bba 408073
01:39:38 and we'll see an email from you to miss amoroso
01:39:42 amoroso on the 10th of april 2015. subject line is
01:39:46 is s1 53729
01:39:52 s1 53729 and we recognize that as the project number for this review and you say valentina find attached the above
01:39:59 above review report with my comments i've tracked the changes so you can just accept if you agree and the report will be as good as finished i had a few questions on the surveillance visit
01:40:10 questions on the surveillance visit table as shown i will have all your six reports commented on by monday so we have them closed by friday at the latest i hate losing to the other teams and the
01:40:22 i hate losing to the other teams and the other teams are creeping up the closed review leaderboard as can be seen on the board behind rakesh two exclamation marks once you have the report ready bring me hard copies of both the report
01:40:34 bring me hard copies of both the report and a request log for sign off now is rakesh we see mentioned there is he
01:40:40 he a team manager for another team yes he was a team manager for for another team which team it was a building systems team i see and
01:40:51 building systems team i see and including cluttering as well at the time some people in gliding way under another team manager in some way under ruckus i see and was there a physical
01:41:03 i see and was there a physical leaderboard hanging in the office showing the number of completed reviews per team
01:41:09 per team yeah i think we had a
01:41:13 not a list but number just say okay we we have two closed we have three closed with four closed noted the actual list i see but there was a there was a tally perhaps yes correct
01:41:25 perhaps yes correct i see was there some internal rivalry as to which team could finish the most reviews
01:41:34 i wouldn't call it driver no what would you call it we're focusing resources on completing reviews
01:41:41 reviews that um we're outstanding
01:41:47 you expressly say there i hate losing and the other teams are creeping up
01:41:53 up the closed reviews leaderboard was that not perhaps light-hearted but was that not at least some sort of competition going on
01:42:07 out in quality competition i think we're motivating ourselves to focus on on this work to finish the reviews which had been you know which had
01:42:18 which had been you know which had led behind in being completed and part of that motivation was keeping a score
01:42:27 yeah it was were you incentivized to have a certain number of reviews closed
01:42:35 closed you mean from management yeah from management no there was no incentive did you have a deadline with management though i believe there was a deadline for completing the the wall project of
01:42:47 completing the the wall project of completing the list of reviews i believe there was one yeah do you remember when that deadline was no i don't remember i see were the bba project managers aware of that deadline
01:42:58 aware of that deadline i think they would have been away um were they
01:43:02 were they in some way incentivized to close these reviews
01:43:07 not according to my knowledge
01:43:12 was this as you put it motivation was this a factor in the decision to close
01:43:19 close the review of the rayna bond certificate no it wasn't motivation the reason for closing the renault bond was that was all the information that we had
01:43:30 that was all the information that we had and we followed what uh we had been made to understand if a client is
01:43:36 client is is still not providing all the information you complete the review with what you have and then a decision is made at the completion of that review i see but i still want to ask was
01:43:48 i see but i still want to ask was do you think that this leaderboard that this motivation at these deadlines might have put some pressure on project managers
01:43:59 managers to close reviews without full
01:44:04 investigation i don't think so
01:44:10 okay we can see in that email that we were just looking at that the process was to issue a review report
01:44:20 report can we just see what you have to say about that in your witness statement at page 10
01:44:25 page 10 that's bba 3010783
01:44:32 now near the top you can see a header saying review
01:44:37 s153729
01:44:41 and at the um at the bottom below where the screen is there's a question in bold at b
01:44:53 thank you it says we've asked about your knowledge
01:44:56 knowledge of what documents slash information slash assurances were requested from the certificate holder and what was received and your answer is
01:45:07 and what was received and your answer is at paragraph 33 other than the information that was referenced in the review report i don't know the rest of what was requested specifically there is generally a standard list of
01:45:19 there is generally a standard list of information that is requested for all reviews
01:45:22 reviews when checking the report i asked about the availability of tolerances information due to the nature of the statement in the report which the pm confirmed in the final report that it had been
01:45:34 in the final report that it had been received
01:45:35 received i don't specifically know what was received as far as the rest of the review
01:45:39 review is concerned now mr nokomo can we take from that
01:45:44 from that that you did not check everything that valentina amoroso looked at for this review
01:45:55 yes that's correct would it have been wise to check what she'd done given she was still i think relatively new at the bba
01:46:09 i think the review itself if you look through it the review itself that she had prepared outlined her findings from looking at the information that she had in hand
01:46:21 information that she had in hand whether it from their website or not to me
01:46:26 her opinions of that information was clear from the review report and would you take her opinions as expressed on the review report
01:46:37 as expressed on the review report and would you investigate those or did you just trust that those opinions were correct
01:46:48 i'm not entirely sure i did comment on the report itself i think i believe i made a few comments on more interesting sorry mr nicole carry on
01:46:58 carry on no i think i made a few comments as part of that checking process yes well we can see in your witness statement you said that you commented on the availability of tolerances information
01:47:10 tolerances information but do i understand you just took her opinion on the rest of it as it was set out in the review yes because to me it was clearly laid
01:47:22 yes because to me it was clearly laid out in the review report should we take a quick look at the review report it's bba 408072
01:47:35 and we can see at the bottom there that it's dated 10th of april 2015. and is is it right this is your signature
01:47:48 is it right this is your signature that's correct and in this report you can take it from me she doesn't mention anything about checking fire and she doesn't mention
01:48:00 checking fire and she doesn't mention anything
01:48:01 anything about not having received any written confirmation whether it be as part of this being a confirmation certificate or otherwise now would you have noticed that at the
01:48:16 now would you have noticed that at the time
01:48:18 time regarding fire no because there is no expectation when we are carrying out reviews to look at test reports i see yeah and there's no mention of not
01:48:30 yeah and there's no mention of not having received any written confirmation yeah with the confirmation is the way the uh
01:48:37 the uh the way the the report template is laid out
01:48:41 out i think it's not it's not obviously clear that someone uh can populate it with that information to the effect that they haven't received the confirmation would that would that
01:48:53 the confirmation would that would that um
01:48:56 how should i put an insight that you had not received that confirmation would that have been recorded in any other document
01:49:08 i'm i'm not sure because the um basically the two documents that form the review sorry in this case at that time it was the review report was the document that
01:49:19 the review report was the document that basically
01:49:20 basically contained the findings of the review so if it wasn't mentioned here i i don't expect it to get been mentioned elsewhere other than on emails
01:49:31 emails where a project manager did not get any response
01:49:35 response from the certificate holder does that mean there wasn't any bba record that arconic had failed to provide
01:49:46 arconic had failed to provide this information that was requested
01:49:50 other than from emails i don't think there was
01:49:53 there was any other record well the next person coming to do the next review let's say miss amoroso moves to another role she goes she leaves the bba and let's
01:50:06 she goes she leaves the bba and let's say that
01:50:06 say that you as we know you did become a clouding expert you're not so directly involved in
01:50:11 in all of this process the next person that comes to review this certificate how would they know of the long history of our chronic
01:50:22 of the long history of our chronic failing to provide information if it's not in this review report
01:50:28 i think they may not at least at that time
01:50:32 time they may not know i mean since then the review process is kind of evolved with with with the new checklist it one of the sections specifically asked
01:50:45 one of the sections specifically asked that question has this difficult order responded appropriately to all the questions and provided all the confirmations and they also a certificate law
01:50:56 and they also a certificate law where if a project manager working on a certificate now comes across any any aspect that uh it needs to be recorded they will go on that certificate log
01:51:07 that certificate log which every other manager whenever is your turn to work on the certificate you would go there you gave a bit of history
01:51:15 history so when did that process change i believe it changed uh in 2015 i think the early part of 2015 that's when we started using the review checklist i see so yes i see and we'll see a
01:51:27 i see so yes i see and we'll see a review checklist later later today um
01:51:33 in the case that you were not using the review checklist as in this review you were using a review report was that a weakness in the bba procedure
01:51:46 i would say it certainly didn't provide in term a
01:51:49 in term a continuity of knowledge about that certificate if someone else came along who wasn't familiar with the previous work i see just correct something not correct just
01:52:00 just correct something not correct just to clarify something as well with the um review checklist when it was introduced in 20 i believed early 2015 it didn't have that section sorry about
01:52:12 it didn't have that section sorry about con confirmation by the pm to say can you confirm that the certificate order has provided all the necessary
01:52:19 necessary responses appropriately i believe that aspect
01:52:22 aspect was added to the checklist probably in 2019
01:52:27 2019 i believe so really quite recently or 2018 or 2019 therefore i see and we saw that you signed the report and really just to close this part of the topic off you've
01:52:40 close this part of the topic off you've accepted responsibility for the contents of that report is that right that's correct now can we go to your witness statement at page
01:52:49 at page six please
01:52:54 paragraph 17.
01:53:00 and we see we've asked you about suspension a certificate could be suspended in situations where the certificate holder is no longer meeting the conditions of certification and have not rectified
01:53:11 of certification and have not rectified the situation in a timely manner given the volume of correspondence from the bba with no helpful answer from our clinic
01:53:22 no helpful answer from our clinic whatsoever and given the amount of time that had passed dealing with archonic and given that the fact was that this review
01:53:31 review was months overdue should the certificate have been
01:53:38 suspended
01:53:44 possibly was suspension ever discussed with you
01:53:51 i don't recall a a discussion regarding a suspension of the city
01:53:58 was suspension considered
01:54:01 i don't recall
01:54:05 now i've understood that it was in fact the bba process to carry on with these documents to close the review carry on with what you had
01:54:19 is that a weakness in the vba process
01:54:29 i'll probably say so and but the new process i think is is that is coming kind of addresses that as i said
01:54:37 as i said the new checklist specifically has that section being asked directly i see changing the subject slightly i want to ask you about
01:54:48 slightly i want to ask you about cladding fires around the world and when you made your witness statement we asked you about what you knew about the lacrosse fire the torch fire and the address fire and they were they
01:55:00 and the address fire and they were they happened
01:55:00 happened between november 2014 and december 2015. do you recall those fires yeah i remember yes they talk about the
01:55:11 yeah i remember yes they talk about the fires
01:55:13 fires you you talked about the fires who did you talk with about fires oh no i say i i remember they talk about fires at the time it's something that i think was when they happened they were people were talking about it
01:55:25 they were people were talking about it in the engineering department i see so other project managers other team managers perhaps yeah i don't know about team managers i believe
01:55:36 believe someone had four did the video i think there was a video of it soon after it happened i think that's how come
01:55:42 how come people started talking about it i see were you aware of them i'm just going to tell you about two more fires were you aware of the tamworl fire in the uae in november 2012
01:55:53 in the uae in november 2012 or the al hate fire in the uae in april 2013.
01:55:59 2013. i'm i don't remember so what i'm really asking is slightly earlier than the period 2014 so earlier fires
01:56:11 did knowing about these fires perhaps indicate that care should be taken to check the fire performance in bba certificates
01:56:26 i i don't know about checking fire performance in in the existing certificates as such with the certificates themselves once they're done they go through layers of checking you know like they'll
01:56:39 layers of checking you know like they'll go through the team manager checking ahead of approvals checking and at the moment they'll go through the technical excellence team checking and so i i wouldn't have imagined
01:56:52 and so i i wouldn't have imagined that then we would go back to check the fire reports on all these certificates at that time i see so even though there were international clouding fires you you didn't you didn't
01:57:04 clouding fires you you didn't you didn't therefore pay more attention to the claimed fire performance on the certificates is that right me specifically i don't know i'm not speaking i can't speak for
01:57:15 speaking i can't speak for everyone at the dba i'm saying myself i didn't necessarily go into the files to think i need to scrutinize you know the file data that was on the files you told us
01:57:26 files you told us um earlier and you are now a technical expert
01:57:30 expert in external facades i think forgive me if i've got the title exactly wrong um but you're not
01:57:41 um but you're not yourself very expert in fire have i understood that and to be a technical expert in external cladding what what expertise
01:57:54 in external cladding what what expertise do you do you bring
01:57:58 it's a general assessment of of um wall cladding i mean a lot of the technical
01:58:05 technical aspects regarding uh the assessment itself
01:58:09 itself and obviously there are specialized aspects i.e fire is one of them and i said
01:58:14 said something where we have people understand fire more within the bba and naturally if there are queries we would go to those people or aspects like durability if there are
01:58:25 like durability if there are issues or queries with them will go to our construction products department so as they technically expect you are not expected to be an expert in all aspects
01:58:37 to be an expert in all aspects neither can you be i see and your background is structural i've understood is that right correct yes is that is that where your expertise lies in cladding
01:58:49 lies in cladding would you say
01:58:52 yes i would say it's not just structure but i think an appreciation of a holistic approach to assessment i mean assessment of clatting itself is more than just the structural aspect
01:59:05 more than just the structural aspect i think there are many nuances to it i see
01:59:09 see um i'm turning to a new topic i'm turning to the reissue contract in 2015 and for your reference the number is s1
01:59:20 and for your reference the number is s1 57262
01:59:23 57262 my understanding is the 2015 review concluded that arconic had to take up a reissue
01:59:29 reissue contract do you recall that yes can we go to claude verla's exhibit part 18
01:59:36 18 at page 41 please
01:59:52 that's met3053 here it goes 158 part 18 page 41. we see here a reissue contract number s157262
02:00:07 number s157262 and it stated the 1st of may and we see that at the top if we scroll to the bottom we can see that claude verla signed this
02:00:18 we can see that claude verla signed this on the 5th of may 2015 and if we go up to page 38 in this exhibit
02:00:27 exhibit we can see at the very top that mr verla has
02:00:31 has sent this to mr dicker at the bba and he says hi gary please find enclosed the signed reissue certificate contract arena bond now you and not just you
02:00:45 arena bond now you and not just you um every bba witness who we've asked about this has said that the certificate holder did not take
02:00:52 not take up or sign the contract but what we see here is that arconic did in fact
02:00:59 in fact agree to enter a contract to reissue the reinabled certificate can you account for why the bba thought the contract was not signed
02:01:12 no i i can't when contracts go out and they are they are signed first and then they are paid for and then an
02:01:24 and then they are paid for and then an instruction is then given to us in the technical department saying you can start the work i don't recall we are receiving any instruction to the effect that the job is now valid
02:01:36 to the effect that the job is now valid as we call it it's a combination of the job the contract being signed plus it's being paid for so i can't account for why
02:01:45 for why then it didn't go the extra step of being
02:01:49 being paid for and then made valid i see um you say in your witness statement that it wasn't signed though does that mean that somehow the signed contract
02:02:01 somehow the signed contract was missed as far as i know i've never actually seen a signed a signed division that's why
02:02:08 why i assumed it was never signed that's why the job was abandoned i see um was it your department that was responsible for monitoring this
02:02:20 uh no the department will prepare the contracts themselves from a technical point in terms of what work is required and the contracts then are passed on to um our commercial team
02:02:35 um our commercial team and the next that we would really get involved is when a contract has been signed and paid for and authority has been given for us as technical people to start working so it was the commercial team will chase
02:02:47 so it was the commercial team will chase contracts
02:02:48 contracts i see i'm turning now to talk about the with the third review of this certificate which started on the 12th of october and again for your reference
02:02:58 reference 0286 and
02:03:01 0286 and by the 12th of october i've understood that you've moved into a dual role you were the team manager but also technical expert from a few weeks previously so new in that dual role
02:03:13 that dual role is that right yeah that's correct did being technical expert have any impact on the amount of time you were able to devote to being a team manager or over time yes
02:03:29 to being a team manager or over time yes it did
02:03:31 it did did you still have the same number of project managers to manage
02:03:38 i can't quite remember the exact numbers i think because there were quite numerous departures and new people coming in
02:03:46 coming in so i would say roughly it's probably that's probably correct roughly i see and you said that over time being technical expert had an impact
02:03:59 being technical expert had an impact on the amount of time you're able to devote to being team manager can you explain what you mean by that do you mean that at the beginning it was okay and you could manage all the
02:04:10 okay and you could manage all the project managers you had but at some later date the burden of being
02:04:15 being technical got um got greater
02:04:20 okay yes because the i think they were quite as i said there were quite numerous departures and incomings in in the cladding team and there was a lot of i think support
02:04:33 and there was a lot of i think support uh required of of those so i as time went on more and more i had a lot of
02:04:40 lot of technical support and guidance and mentoring to do i see yes at this time and i'm talking about
02:04:47 about october 2016 you were still the team manager for valentina amoroso weren't you
02:04:53 you correct can we please go to bba 3011059
02:05:08 we're going to see correspondence with our conic
02:05:11 our conic in october 2016. can we please go to page four
02:05:19 this is an email we see at the top dated the 12th of october 2016 timed 1709
02:05:29 and she says dear claude verla down to the first substantive paragraph i've been designated as the project manager
02:05:38 manager responsible for coordinating the review of your bba certificate zero eight four five one zero and your name has been advised to me as our main liaison contact for this work
02:05:49 liaison contact for this work our estimated time for the completion of this project is approximately four months
02:05:53 months and to initiate the work required for this review within that period we require the following information to be provided to the bba by alcoa architectural products one
02:06:04 by alcoa architectural products one written confirmation from alcoa architectural products that there have been no changes to the raw materials manufacturing processes or quality control procedure other than those already notified vba
02:06:18 other than those already notified vba two a copy of the current uk technical literature ce marking the applicable and installation instructions relating to the certificated product three
02:06:29 three a list of customer complaints if any relating
02:06:32 relating to product quality for the projects in the uk
02:06:35 the uk and the action taken to resolve them four
02:06:39 four recent copies of completed quality control sheets for the manufacturer of the product now that's a
02:06:46 that's a much shorter list than we saw in the 2013
02:06:51 2013 2015 review isn't it
02:06:56 yes it is and was that
02:07:00 was that the practice to send that shorter list at that time
02:07:07 i'm not sure whether at the time as i said earlier on um in in the year i think there used to be
02:07:14 be a pool of um in terms of information that would be requested
02:07:21 requested it depends on which reference point the project manager was was using you could have two jobs that is as we can see here one having this list another one having
02:07:32 one having this list another one having a previous list
02:07:35 so was it was it up to the project manager
02:07:40 manager to select what information they would request from the certificate holder
02:07:52 it's not necessarily a question of uh which information for them to select i think there was basically a a full list of what we requested from clients i think it
02:08:04 we requested from clients i think it just depended on which reference point or which which job a project manager was referring to uh for that information one may not
02:08:15 uh for that information one may not realize that one list was shorter than the other because of the job that they are using as a reference point for going forward well this is this is a review and we've got the same project manager
02:08:26 the same project manager who would have had access to what had been asked of our comic in the past mostly because she asked it and here we have a much
02:08:38 have a much shorter list was it was it a matter of her judgment what she would ask from arconic
02:08:47 i think it's not a method of judgment it is a
02:08:50 is a it's a matter of generally as i said the way
02:08:54 way kind of defined list of information that we we would ask it's not a question of you going in and saying okay i won't ask for this i won't ask for this i will choose this one so sorry carry on i think as i said
02:09:06 so sorry carry on i think as i said it's a question i think it's a question of which reference point a project manager used or some jobs may have had this list it is possible this list was taken from
02:09:19 is possible this list was taken from a previous job that had only these four compared to the slightly longer list in the that we looked at previously when you say reference point i'm not sure i quite understand
02:09:30 sure i quite understand do you mean perhaps that miss amaroso was working on another job where she used this
02:09:36 used this short list and she took that as a reference point and that then became the list to ask our conic
02:09:44 conic yeah that's what i'm saying that that may have been the case here i don't think she
02:09:50 think she she went through at least and said no i would exclude this or or include this i think this was a this may have been a list from a a previous request we sent somewhere else well was that was that
02:10:04 somewhere else well was that was that right of her to do that to take a short list from from another job
02:10:09 job and to send that to iconic was that an acceptable thing for her to do i don't know if she she realized it was a shorter
02:10:20 if she she realized it was a shorter list i don't know that much because what we don't see in this list is that question at paragraph two of those previous
02:10:32 previous requests that we've seen written confirmation that there's been no changes we don't see that anywhere in this list do we no and so my question is was it was it
02:10:43 no and so my question is was it was it by this time a standard or a habit or a practice to not ask for that written confirmation that there have been no changes
02:10:55 that there have been no changes in the design specification context of use or other details that would invalidate the certificate i'm not aware that it was now the new
02:11:07 i'm not aware that it was now the new the new standard i see
02:11:14 we saw in the evidence of miss amaroso that she never did ask for that confirmation and archonic never provided it
02:11:27 was it acceptable for iconic to never provide that written confirmation by this time
02:11:44 i think by by the time of this this review
02:11:48 review we may not have realized um
02:11:54 that the confirmation that was included in the previous review still hadn't been provided
02:12:03 i see because we would do this review then based on generally on this list that we had send out unless someone realized that all the lists
02:12:11 lists realized during the course of the review that the the new list is now shorter than the original we would have progressed on the assumption that what we have um
02:12:22 on the assumption that what we have um asked for here is what we required for the to complete the review i see so relied on someone noticing i would say so yes
02:12:35 i would say so yes now in this case doesn't that mean that you were just not getting that important confirmation from the certificate holder
02:12:47 i think that's what that's what it would mean here
02:12:53 can we go to the checklist for this review you've spoken of this checklist and it's at bba 3011
02:13:12 and by this time this was the method for signing off reviews um well and truly if it began in some time in 2015. i've understood that correctly haven't i correct and we see at the top there i
02:13:24 correct and we see at the top there i think is that your signature it is yes and your initials pn and the date 15th of november 2016. is that right that's correct can we go to page four please
02:13:37 and at the top we see section 12 certificate check data and it says our data's still relevant calculation or
02:13:48 our data's still relevant calculation or test
02:13:49 test methods up to date not in conflict with a harmonized standard still meet required performance etc can you tell us what was the project manager supposed to
02:14:00 what was the project manager supposed to look at
02:14:01 look at for that task
02:14:10 i think here you you check this these standards that are listed in that particular certificate and number one to to see whether they are still up to date like has the standard been revised it
02:14:22 like has the standard been revised it could have been a 2010 standard but has it been replaced let's say by 2015 standard so you check all the standard references that they are they are up to date and as the checklist says they are all
02:14:35 and as the checklist says they are all data still relevant as well so when you go through the certificate is the data that's there in the certificate is still relevant
02:14:44 relevant is it still up to date well just about that
02:14:47 that is data still relevant would you have expected
02:14:51 expected the project manager as part of this checklist
02:14:54 checklist to check that the data pertinent to fire performance was still relevant
02:15:06 not not necessarily
02:15:10 the default data because i will do it you
02:15:14 you while you are going through the all the technical literature and and product brochures that you have received from the client you will check that whatever they are claiming in the in their brochures
02:15:25 the in their brochures is it consistent with what's in the certificate or is it consistent with what's in the file
02:15:31 file or sometimes some data may have been assessed but it's not necessarily the case that all data is then put forward in the public document of of the file
02:15:44 in the public document of of the file itself and specifically you in this review we we understand that the fire test data itself was not checked
02:15:55 fire test data itself was not checked was that in line with the bba standard process time
02:16:01 i would never expected if the fire data to be specifically checked itself as i say as i explained the way if the technical literature or the brochures themselves are claiming
02:16:14 or the brochures themselves are claiming values that are different to what's in the certificate or what's in the file if there is a claim in the brochures you'd go and check with the certificate is it similar
02:16:25 certificate is it similar if it's not in the certificate you'd go and check in the file is it similar it's the nature of a marketing brochure isn't it
02:16:33 isn't it to not set out all of the test data particularly if some of that test data is unattractive that's right isn't it
02:16:45 i can't speak for for certificate older than how they do brochures really well what i'm getting at is if you don't go and check with the
02:16:56 if you don't go and check with the certificate holder that the test data is up to date the bba would be at risk of meeting new fire test data wouldn't it
02:17:09 i believe as part of as part of certification the conditions of certification certificate holders are required to inform the bba should there be any change to their
02:17:20 should there be any change to their product anyway as part of the terms and conditions i see can we look now at section 13 the certificate check wording
02:17:33 and can we look particularly at that long paragraph the third paragraph down and bear with me see it is a long one miss amaroso wrote a general rewording is necessary as the
02:17:46 a general rewording is necessary as the certificate has never been reissued since its first issue in 2008 the only reissue job ever raised s157262 in 2015
02:17:59 s157262 in 2015 was never taken up and then abandoned particularly since the product has a reaction to fire classification of b heightened boundary restrictions apply and section 6 needs to be consistently
02:18:11 and section 6 needs to be consistently revised
02:18:12 revised in accordance with our latest templates also the client has confirmed in email date 26 of october 2016 that they don't manufacture the cassette
02:18:23 that they don't manufacture the cassette so the description part of the certificate needs to be revised to make clear that the client is only manufacturing flat sheets
02:18:30 sheets and that the use as a cassette is outside scope
02:18:36 she goes on
02:18:40 and if we can just drop down to where she goes she picks it up at some 9.1 which is some seven lines from the bottom she says also 9.1
02:18:52 also 9.1 have you got that mr nokomo yes also 9.1 needs to be revised as it is not appropriate to give a service life of 30 years based on historical evidences a thorough
02:19:04 based on historical evidences a thorough investigation in the initial assessment folder file
02:19:10 [Music] s34101408
02:19:13 s34101408 4510 has revealed that no tests were actually assessed for the panel the durability statement was issued on the basis of the cstb approval and some tests data carried out of the
02:19:25 and some tests data carried out of the al coated sheet so dealing with that in reverse order really
02:19:33 really you saw there that she said a thorough investigation of the initial assessment folder file that number she gives there s three four one zero one four
02:19:44 s three four one zero one four that's the assessment conducted by hammer gregorian now when mr samaroso did this thorough assessment of that file would you
02:19:55 assessment of that file would you expected her to have looked at all of the data in that file not necessarily all the data as
02:20:06 not necessarily all the data as i think as you can see here the reason she went to the original certificate file was when she she read obviously the statement in the certificate that the durability was based on historical
02:20:18 durability was based on historical evidence so she basically went in looking at durability data which is what we will do if i spotted something
02:20:29 we will do if i spotted something that raises questions in my head then i i would then go into the actual original certification file and if you
02:20:40 original certification file and if you had that question about durability am i right you would be looking at just the records of the assessment on durability you wouldn't expand that to look at the
02:20:52 you wouldn't expand that to look at the rest of the data other other issues for example i wouldn't expect yes he had to be looking at everything else than under that folder
02:21:03 that folder we see in the section 13 that miss amoroso proposed two specific changes she said references to the cassette variant were to be removed and a height restriction
02:21:14 to be removed and a height restriction was to be added i want to talk first about removing the references to the cassette variation do you know what i mean by removing those references in that certificate i
02:21:26 those references in that certificate i do yes
02:21:27 do yes was that removal of those references because readers might think that the certificate covered cassette
02:21:37 yes but the technical performances claimed
02:21:40 claimed in the certificate would apply equally to rivet and cassette
02:21:48 was that your understanding of how a reader might read that
02:21:52 yes but most specifically this particular aspect was as a result of the bba discovering that there were no factory surveillance visas
02:22:04 there were no factory surveillance visas taking place to the companies that actually
02:22:07 actually manufactured cassettes it was based on that one aspect of surveillance no surveillance and the certificate holder specifically had said they bought no responsibility
02:22:18 had said they bought no responsibility for the
02:22:19 for the for the cases that was the reason yes yes but up until that point a reader of the bba certificate verena bond might think
02:22:31 verena bond might think that the fire performance for example for cassette would would apply to cassette just as much as it would apply to rivet and that was the problem am i right on
02:22:43 and that was the problem am i right on that
02:22:48 yes i think the reader would assume the information that's in the certificate was
02:22:52 was applicable to to both unless otherwise stated in the certificate which format it applied to and what ms amoroso discovered was that that couldn't be relied on
02:23:04 was that that couldn't be relied on am i right on that
02:23:07 based on the fact that there was no surveillance it was purely a surveillance and surveillance concern lack of surveillance concern
02:23:18 surveillance concern and if the reader did rely on that certificate for cassette the reader would be wrong yes sir could you repeat the question
02:23:30 yes sir could you repeat the question again if if the reader had this certificate and it said and they understood from it that they could
02:23:41 put a cassette form on their building and all of the technical performances that
02:23:48 that were stated in the certificate they could take all of those technical performances and say yes they definitely applied to cassette because the bba certificate says they do or
02:23:59 or i've understood from the bba certificate that they that those technical performances will apply the reader that does that could be making a mistake
02:24:13 yes that's that's correct unless the technical information that they were specifically reading about was clarifying that we're talking is is relating to a flat sheet alone or a
02:24:24 relating to a flat sheet alone or a cassette
02:24:25 cassette if it wasn't a specific which format errata cooled and really happened he says applying to everything i see and that that was really the
02:24:36 i see and that that was really the problem
02:24:36 problem because the certificate didn't distinguish between cassette and rivet
02:24:44 do you accept that so what do you mean be cassette and rivet what you mean by rivet
02:24:47 rivet the cassette fabrication and the rivet fabrication aren't set out differently okay so a reader wouldn't understand there to be any distinction
02:24:58 yes and having made this discovery will come to his conclusion
02:25:09 the bba certificate would actually have something that was wrong on it do you see that you accept that yes so changing the certificate
02:25:21 yes so changing the certificate to no longer refer to the cassette variant
02:25:26 variant was that not an urgent change
02:25:38 was that not an urgent change it was a necessary change i i don't know without characterize it as is agent as i said when going through this the reason why the um
02:25:50 going through this the reason why the um the decision to remove the cases was based on
02:25:56 based on the aspect of no surveillance i don't think myself i thought beyond at the time i thought beyond surveillance
02:26:05 was this a case where the certificate might have been suspended
02:26:13 i don't know whether immediately or
02:26:19 or after you know an attempt to have it
02:26:25 revised uh quickly i i wouldn't know in terms of time frames i don't have a time frame in my head did are you aware of any consideration
02:26:38 did are you aware of any consideration given to suspending a certificate
02:26:43 at the time i i don't believe i was a way of consideration to suspend i don't recall i see am i right that no information about
02:26:54 am i right that no information about this change would have been published on the bba website at the time i don't think we have a mechanism on the website to um
02:27:07 to inform what certificate is being is being revised or changed i don't believe there is a mechanism as far as i
02:27:15 far as i i see now we saw in the review checklist at
02:27:19 at section 13 a moment ago that there was to be a new statement added to certificates with regards to a height restriction and miss amoroso referred to that
02:27:31 and miss amoroso referred to that as being the latest templates do you recall that wording yes i believe so would you like to see it again
02:27:39 it again no i remember that very well does that reference to latest templates does that mean that this was standard wording
02:27:52 i think that there was a way of presenting the default data which was basically stating what the reaction to fire was of a product and then what valentina is
02:28:04 of a product and then what valentina is referring to now with the latest templates it was now to go further than that
02:28:09 that and actually put the interpretation of what
02:28:14 what the reaction to fire means in terms of any
02:28:17 any height or boundary restrictions well let's have a look at an example of that
02:28:24 that in the bba certificate for rayna bond at bba 6046 this was the certificate as issued on
02:28:36 this was the certificate as issued on the
02:28:37 the 4th of august 2017
02:28:42 first of all do you recognize this certificate yes and we know it's it's the later one because you can see at the top right there's a different building in there isn't there that's correct it's shorter isn't it yes
02:28:55 that's correct it's shorter isn't it yes and we can see at the bottom date of issue
02:29:00 issue it says um 4th of august 2017. so we know that that's the date of this certificate can we now go to page seven
02:29:14 and section seven point three and it says the products are not
02:29:26 and it says the products are not classified as being non-combustible or of limited combustibility non-combustible in scotland and so their use is restricted to 18 meters in height and there's a full scale fire test to
02:29:37 and there's a full scale fire test to either bs 84141 2015 or bs8414 to 2015 has been conducted for the specific wall construction under consideration
02:29:49 wall construction under consideration and the other requirements of vre report br 135 2013 have been met now is that the standard template wording
02:30:03 i don't know whether it is word for word but in terms of the including the height and the boundary
02:30:11 boundary restrictions i would say yes and i understand what this statement is really saying is that unless a product was of limited combustibility or better non-combustible
02:30:24 combustibility or better non-combustible it couldn't be used over 18 meters is that your understanding
02:30:36 according to that statement i'll say so yes what do you understand limited combustibility to mean
02:30:45 as i said i'm not really an expert on on fire
02:30:49 fire but in in general i think um limited combustibility will be
02:31:00 limited combustibility will be a reaction to reaction to fire of a glass a2 other than a2 s1 d naught
02:31:12 other than a2 s1 d naught yes so if one looks at the european classifications in approved document b limited combustibility is a2 or better really um
02:31:25 i can hear dr lane already screaming that i've got that slightly wrong it's a2
02:31:30 a2 uh a non-combustibility with the a1 or you could follow the british standard bs 476 part 11. does that does that ring any bells with you
02:31:42 you vaguely as i said i'm not really a fire wasn't my or rather fire is not my my area of expertise
02:31:52 so am i right that was there an instruction to add this this statement to the relevant certificates for acm
02:32:05 the relevant certificates for acm is that have i got that right
02:32:09 not at
02:32:12 pre-grenfell fire i i think the there was no instruction to add to acms i think what we were doing at the time is to add any
02:32:23 is to add any applicable height and boundary restrictions based on the reaction to fire whatever the certificate was not necessarily that it was acm i see so brain fell that we then
02:32:37 so brain fell that we then the company rather than looked at all say acm
02:32:41 say acm certificates in one go i see so it was any product that might come into these
02:32:52 that might come into these the rules about height restrictions and the bba was looking to add this wording have i got that right as far as i understand yes
02:33:03 understand yes who would have made the decision whether it was appropriate to add this wording
02:33:10 i don't i don't recall i think there were numerous discussions that have been going on
02:33:14 going on over over a long period of time so i i don't recall specifically a would have made that final decision so
02:33:26 made that final decision so i'm really asking at the moment about what a project manager on a case-by-case basis say pre-fire
02:33:38 on a case-by-case basis say pre-fire a case-by-case places look at the product
02:33:43 product and make a decision based on their understanding of approved document b and the building regulations and make a decision about whether the height restriction had to go
02:33:55 height restriction had to go on is is that how before the grenfell fire was that how the decision was made to add the height restriction
02:34:04 it wasn't running on an individual pm basis i think there was a an understanding at the time that for certain reaction to fires a height and boundary restrictions
02:34:18 a height and boundary restrictions were to be considered so whenever a certificate came up for let's say a review or a reissue and the project manager you know spotted that there were no
02:34:29 you know spotted that there were no height or boundary aspects included then they will flag that up to be considered at the next reissue
02:34:35 reissue i see and were they given some training as to when it would be appropriate add this height or boundary restriction
02:34:52 i do i don't recall specifically at that time but
02:34:55 time but um as i said earlier on in the hearing numerous seminars have been held internally or given internal by the technical excellence team and some of them have focused on
02:35:10 what will constitute a heightened boundary restrictions being applicable but in terms of time frame i don't know whether
02:35:18 whether any of it was at that time i i can't say i see you you've said i think that you yourself don't have a and do correct me if i'm wrong on this you yourself don't have a very
02:35:30 don't have a very precise understanding of the definition of limited combustibility and perhaps when the height restriction should
02:35:38 should come on my my question is how did a project manager know that they should consider putting this height restriction on
02:35:50 height restriction on the way they and template statements are are prepared by the technical excellence team that would identify to say
02:36:00 say if the reaction to fire is this then these are the uh sort of statements that we should be putting in and some of those then would refer to the height and
02:36:11 then would refer to the height and boundary
02:36:13 boundary so there were template statements that were met that would guide a project project manager whether it was there at that time precisely or not i can't quite remember i see did the technical excellence team write
02:36:24 did the technical excellence team write these uh templates yes i see now you touched on this before i think
02:36:31 i think my question now is how was the decision made was this decision made by the technical excellence team by someone else sort of which decision the decision that
02:36:42 sort of which decision the decision that height restrictions would be considered for any product which comprises part of an external facade ultimately it was the excellence team
02:36:53 ultimately it was the excellence team hence them preparing this guidance documents and standard statements for for all project managers to refer to now during this 2016
02:37:04 to refer to now during this 2016 review was it was it mandatory sorry not doing this review
02:37:10 review um let me take take a different um point at the beginning of 2017 before the fire was it mandatory for
02:37:24 product manufacturers to have the height restriction added to their certificate i don't know if it was mandatory
02:37:36 i don't know if it was mandatory uh but it's something that we're beginning to do i think the way they've been already certificates that had been revised for height restrictions whenever they came up for review
02:37:48 they came up for review so i can't say whether it was mandatory so it wouldn't automatically trigger a reissue this decision
02:37:55 decision that height restrictions should be considered didn't mean that all of the certificates that needed a height restriction would have to be reissued immediately it was more of an as and when they came up for
02:38:06 more of an as and when they came up for reissue it would be added am i right that's correct yes now we spoke earlier about
02:38:12 about cladding fires in 2014 and 15 can we look at your witness statement there now at page page nine
02:38:28 page nine and we see at the bottom at question d you see at the top sorry to the operator you can see at the top we've listed those fires the torch the address and the lacrosse
02:38:42 the torch the address and the lacrosse building
02:38:43 building now if we scroll down to the question d
02:38:49 you can see we've asked if those files was a consideration of such events part of reviewing certification in paragraph 28 you say yes with respect
02:39:00 in paragraph 28 you say yes with respect to clarifying any applicable height restrictions do i understand correctly that these fires
02:39:08 fires were part of the reason that the bba added the height restriction wording as far as i understood it yes they were
02:39:16 they were they were part of that process and if that's right given that fires were known about in 2014 and 15
02:39:27 2014 and 15 do you know why this clarification was not made much earlier
02:39:36 i i don't know now the certificate that we were looking at the new certificate that was reissued after the file we saw the date the fourth of august 2017
02:39:50 the date the fourth of august 2017 and it was reissued along with eight other
02:39:53 other acm certificates and i think you touched on that in your evidence and all of them had the height restriction warning was that because
02:40:04 because of some new policy that came in after the grenfell tower fire
02:40:16 i think acms were already were already being
02:40:19 being not just acms as i said earlier uh certificates uh we're now being clarified for height and boundary uh restrictions
02:40:30 before the fire after the fire then senior management decided rather than amending them as and when they came up for every issue
02:40:41 they came up for every issue the bba would amend them all at the same time
02:40:45 time and amend them without permission or discussing with the certificate holder have i got that right i'm not speaking to the mechanism of how it was that i'm
02:40:57 to the mechanism of how it was that i'm just speaking to the principle i see i wasn't involved in in in the actual
02:41:02 actual conversations with the certificate holders myself and just as a matter of principle did you understand it to be an urgent change
02:41:11 that's how i understood it because initially i think the company was it planned to do this very quickly and all
02:41:19 and all in one go and was that because of the fire
02:41:26 i think that that contributed to that because
02:41:29 because before the fire they were not being revised all at once it was as and when they came so i think it was instigated by the fire to locate them all together in one go
02:41:41 to locate them all together in one go i see mr nacoma when you were team manager you signed off the 2015 review
02:41:48 review and you also signed off the 2016 review and those reviews did not discover that arconic had test reports data and classifications for rayner bond
02:41:59 data and classifications for rayner bond pe
02:42:00 pe that were completely different and substantially lower than those claimed on the bba certificate by that i mean in 2011 rayna bond p e cassette
02:42:11 in 2011 rayna bond p e cassette was classified e january 2014 all rayna bond pe was classified e december 2014 rayna bond p e rivet was
02:42:22 december 2014 rayna bond p e rivet was class
02:42:23 class cs2d0 december 2014 raynabon pe cassette remained class e
02:42:30 e in september 2015 reynabond pe rivet was classified again with the black core as cs2d0 and in september 2015 rayna bond p
02:42:42 and in september 2015 rayna bond p cassette was still class e at those classifications rainer bond p could not meet either the european classification stated in diagram 14 of a proof document
02:42:55 stated in diagram 14 of a proof document b
02:42:55 b could it
02:43:02 i imagine no and it's a matter of fact that the review process
02:43:10 process didn't uncover this information did it no it didn't would you agree that the bba's review processes had significant weaknesses
02:43:27 i i don't know whether his weakness is um in terms of the test of course as i said
02:43:36 said the reviews themselves don't look at test reports that way and that we assess that original certification perhaps the weaknesses as you say it is
02:43:48 perhaps the weaknesses as you say it is if we had
02:43:51 if we had had the client confirm to us if there had been any changes so i would say from that point of view to me that would have been the weakness that we never got that confirmation would you agree that
02:44:04 that confirmation would you agree that mistakes were made in not getting clear statements that no changes had been made and in not getting up-to-date information i would say so mr chairman i've come to the end of my
02:44:16 mr chairman i've come to the end of my prepared questions is it appropriate to take a short break well i think it's necessary isn't it um do you think 10 minutes might be long enough just look towards yes 10 minutes should be
02:44:30 look towards yes 10 minutes should be enough mr
02:44:32 enough mr camo when council gets the end of her questions we always have a short break so that she can check that nothing's been omitted and also to enable others who are following the proceedings to
02:44:43 following the proceedings to put forward questions that they think we ought to ask you so we're going to take a short break now um we'll
02:44:50 um we'll come back and continue it five to one please
02:44:54 please uh and see if there are any more questions for you there may or may not be i don't know um so that's what we'll do can i ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence
02:45:04 evidence during the break or anything to do with it and we'll see you at five to one okay thank you thank you very much
03:00:06 welcome back everyone we'll see now if miss heinz has any any more questions for mr
03:00:12 for mr como mr komo first are you there can you hear me see me all right i can't good thank you very much well we'll see now if the science has got any more questions for you yes for science thank you very much sir
03:00:23 yes for science thank you very much sir mr nicomo can you see and hear me i can yes i'm afraid i do have a few very short questions my first is thinking back to when you were
03:00:32 were doing project when you were a project manager
03:00:36 manager doing review work and when you were first managing miss amoroso's review can you tell us who the fire experts were that you would refer to
03:00:51 i don't quite recall at the time but uh john daniel and john urban were there since the time i joined the bba now i'm not particularly sure whether
03:01:02 whether uh valentina and myself were referring to them at that specific moment in time were they recognized as people to go to for
03:01:13 for fire expertise at that time and not expect his guidance i understand i want to now just ask about
03:01:21 about suspension miss amoriso said in her evidence yesterday that it was common practice within the bba that uh suspension of a six of a certificate would happen when there was active
03:01:33 would happen when there was active denial of the certificate holder to allow factory visits and is she is she right about that was that the bba policy at the time i think she is right yes and who would
03:01:45 i think she is right yes and who would have decided that
03:01:50 i think normally in those cases if the project manager came across that fact that the certificate holder obviously was as you put it denying surveillance
03:02:02 as you put it denying surveillance then there is a form that is either project manager will go and discuss with their team manager or the order of approvals
03:02:09 approvals or in any case there is a form that would be required to be filled and the project manager would need to put the reasons for the proposed
03:02:20 need to put the reasons for the proposed suspension so mr moroso said that it was when there was active denial were there any other circumstances in which suspension would be considered
03:02:32 yes not not on not only surveillance i think also it depends on on a case-by-case basis um as i said if it
03:02:43 um as i said if it if if we came across a situation where there was something um that's not quite
03:02:54 a query that i think we are looking for a response and we aren't getting that response but that response is fundamental to our our our ability to decide that
03:03:06 our our our ability to decide that the certificate in this entirety is valid i think that will be another cause but there are numerous different reasons for suspending have you ever personally raised a
03:03:17 have you ever personally raised a certificate as a candidate for suspension i have yes and what were the circumstances of that i think we we had risen to believe as a
03:03:28 i think we we had risen to believe as a bba in in that case that um the the product that was now being sold was drastically different to what we
03:03:39 drastically different to what we assessed
03:03:41 assessed and um efforts to get the situation rectified uh i think he hadn't progressed for quite a while how often would a suspension
03:03:52 how often would a suspension occur was it a relatively infrequent event was it something discussed more regularly
03:04:03 i i can't i can't i can't say i said in my case
03:04:06 my case the one i can remember that i was involved in this suspension i think can remember definitely one but it wasn't an uncommon discussion to be had
03:04:17 be had to say should we consider suspending this certificate because of abc it wasn't
03:04:22 wasn't an uncommon conversation to be had with either a team manager or a head of approval
03:04:27 approval who ultimately signs off on that um action and i think it's your evidence can you clarify that you don't recall any conversation
03:04:38 that you don't recall any conversation about suspending the rainer bond certificate at least before the fire i i don't specifically recall myself well sir those are my questions mr nocomo i just want
03:04:50 are my questions mr nocomo i just want to say thank you very much for coming and helping us today it's very much appreciated thank you yes mr nakamura well those are all the questions we have for you
03:05:01 all the questions we have for you on behalf of myself and the whole panel i'd like to thank you very much for making yourself available to give your evidence to us it's been very helpful to hear what you have to tell us so we are indeed very grateful
03:05:13 tell us so we are indeed very grateful and that's the end as far as you're concerned thank you very much indeed thank you
03:05:18 thank you thank you very much right well we'll break now for lunch in the usual way and we'll resume at five past two please thank you
03:05:48 you