C S Stokes and Associates Ltd Evidence - Wednesday 26th May 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:46 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr carl stokes would you ask mr stakes to come in please

00:01:10 good morning mr stixx good morning sir we're ready to keep going i hope so when you're ready mr miller mr chairman good morning uh good morning members of the panel good morning mr stokes

00:01:21 good morning mr stokes mr stokes last night when we finished your evidence for the day we were discussing evacuation plans and communications with residents can i next take you to

00:01:32 with residents can i next take you to uh or take you back perhaps to your 30th of september 2009 fire risk assessment that you did for grenfell tower while at salvus that's at cst403128

00:01:45 that's at cst403128 and in that document please go to page 16

00:01:48 16 and let's look at your recommendation at line 5.2

00:01:52 line 5.2 middle of that page and you say there it is recommended that the tmo establish contact

00:02:00 contact with tenants to confirm that the letter indicating response in the event of a file has been fully understood and tenants are aware of the emergency plan did you yourself ever check if the tmo had established

00:02:13 ever check if the tmo had established contact with residents to confirm that the letter had been sent let alone understood

00:02:21 specifically no why was that because uh when i went or undertook the next

00:02:30 next um fra i would have checked up on this and it was part of my briefing i think the letter um i checked to see whether the tenants had

00:02:41 to see whether the tenants had information via the handbooks information link etc later on so did you check or didn't you check

00:02:50 you check this i wouldn't have checked no right even even at the next fra

00:02:57 i would have checked that the action would have been undertaken yes it would have been checked that way sorry did you check at any time

00:03:09 sorry did you check at any time to see whether the tmo had established contact with tenants to confirm that the letter indicating the response in the event of a fire had been fully understood by them and that they understood the emergency plan as you would recommend it

00:03:22 would recommend it confirmed as much as that a letter had been

00:03:25 been given to the tenants or but i would never have known of every tenant because of the turnover of the tower of the residence whether everyone understood it that was a tmo responsibility yes indeed

00:03:36 responsibility yes indeed my question was whether you ever checked that the tma had established contact i would have asked the question has has the letter or has this item been ticked off

00:03:48 and you say you would have when did you do that i would have done it before the next fra

00:03:52 next fra right now um you said to paragraph 150 of your first witness statement cst 40306 page 51 please apparel 150

00:04:04 page 51 please apparel 150 that bottom of page you say um

00:04:09 sorry top of the page you say under little roman one uh the dc-lg high-rise guidance gra 3.2 states

00:04:19 states that an evacuation plan where there is a stay-put policy should be part of the fire service's contingency planning and then roman two it was the kctmo who

00:04:30 and then roman two it was the kctmo who were aware of the particular needs of individual residents three as noted in parallel graph 50 above this wording was included in the sample fra that the kc tmo and lfb had reviewed and

00:04:42 that the kc tmo and lfb had reviewed and which neither organization had at any point queried then you say i do not know for certain whether such a contingency plan was prepared but i was never made aware of one that would however in my view be an issue for

00:04:53 would however in my view be an issue for operational firefighting and not fras so just to clarify going back to the meeting of the 24th of september 2010 that you had with janice ray is it right that you had received

00:05:05 that you had received no assurances from janice ray that the fire service would arrange a general evacuation of any of the buildings in the tmo stock

00:05:16 so i'm answer what the question what you actually asked me i would not have any input or as you know knowledge of lfb's operational procedures now no my

00:05:27 operational procedures now no my question is did you am i right in thinking that janice ray gave you no assurance at the 24th september 2010 meeting

00:05:38 at the 24th september 2010 meeting that the fire service would arrange a general evacuation of any of the buildings in the tma stock

00:05:45 correct yeah she wouldn't would she know what the operational fire service procedures or policies and it's also right that you were not told about any plans that the tmo had

00:05:56 told about any plans that the tmo had put in place so that tmo staff could arrange a general evacuation of any building in the tmo stock i i had no significant plans for any

00:06:10 i i had no significant plans for any building no but there would be a general understanding that they could evacuate a building

00:06:17 general understanding did janice ray ever tell you or give you reason to think that the tmo had

00:06:23 had any plans or arrangements in place for any building in the stock by which the tmo staff as opposed to the lfb

00:06:32 lfb would arrange for a general or partial evacuation of that building in the event of a fire no no

00:06:40 is it right that when you uh

00:06:45 um when you drafted your fra for grenfell on the 29th of december 2010 and each subsequent fra for grenfell thereafter you received no assurances from the tmo

00:06:57 no assurances from the tmo that they had made any evacuation arrangements that its employees would be able to activate in the event of a fire at grenfell

00:07:05 grenfell correct yes

00:07:10 do you agree that given that you didn't know and were not told of any specific information about whether a general evacuation could be carried out for grenfell tower then you shouldn't have included that

00:07:21 then you shouldn't have included that information in the fra at all

00:07:26 there would always be you could always evacuate a building if it's an emergency situation the emergency services would take over the situation where it would be the tmo

00:07:37 situation where it would be the tmo would evacuate a building would be a non-emergency situation where they had other reasons to undertake that evacuation so it would be in slow time knocking on doors sending

00:07:50 in slow time knocking on doors sending people in it would be a very general evacuation plan

00:08:02 if we go back to

00:08:05 uh cst403181 page five please

00:08:17 we were looking at this yesterday

00:08:22 this is the part of this fra which uh refers to the evacuation strategy for this building and we were looking at it shortly before we finished last night if

00:08:35 shortly before we finished last night if you look at the last sentence in that paragraph it says the landlord relies upon the tenants to respond to any emergency in accord with agreed emergency plans

00:08:46 with agreed emergency plans and does not facilitate any fire drills or other emergency evacuation exercises given that this was the section of the fra which was meant to contain specific details about the evacuation strategy

00:08:57 details about the evacuation strategy for grenfell tower specifically uh is it it's right isn't it that there were no agreed emergency plans the emergency plan was the stay put

00:09:08 the emergency plan was the stay put policy

00:09:10 policy so the resident would in event of a fire or affecting their dwelling they would leave

00:09:18 leave otherwise it's stapled and looking further up the box to the middle of the first paragraph where it says the fire service or tmo

00:09:30 the fire service or tmo or or rbkc all the tmo employees will arrange for a general evacuation of the building at any time if this is appropriate

00:09:41 it was wrong and misleading i would suggest for you to suggest that the tmo employees would arrange for a general evacuation of the building in circumstances where

00:09:52 of the building in circumstances where janice ray had never given you any reason to believe that there were any arrangements by which the tmo staff would do so

00:10:00 partially correct but it's common sense that

00:10:03 that there would be if there was an emergency the if it was a fire emergency the fire brigade would take over any other sort of emergency the police would take over

00:10:14 would take over if it was non-emergency and an evacuation was needed for some other reason

00:10:20 reason the tmo would have facilities to do that that would be you could knock on doors you could ring the um buzzer on the ground floor and they would have contact details of telephone numbers of people so in an

00:10:32 telephone numbers of people so in an emergency it was reasonable from in my view and also checked with them because this paragraph would have come out of the meeting i had with janus ray to start with

00:10:44 to start with to say that the tmo could arrange an evacuation of the building anytime if they needed to an emergency situation would be the fire service if it was a fire and that would be covered by 3.2

00:10:56 that would be covered by 3.2 but there's no distinction in this paragraph where you're setting out the evacuation strategy for this building that says that the tma employees would only arrange for a general evacuation in a non-emergency situation

00:11:08 a non-emergency situation that distinction doesn't appear in this text does it no no on the contrary do you accept that the impression given to the reader of this document is

00:11:20 given to the reader of this document is that in the event of a fire either the fire service or our bkc or tmo employees would arrange for a general evacuation i disagree because and if there was a

00:11:31 i disagree because and if there was a fire under the fire services act the fire service would automatically take control so they would be in control of the situation and rbkc would just be helpers to the fire service

00:11:44 fire service and they would have contingency plans anyway it's a requirement that you have contingency plans the same as the fire service

00:11:51 service would have a requirement this makes no sense with great respect mr stokes because

00:11:55 because if you read on it says tmo employees will re will arrange for a general evacuation of the building at any time if this is appropriate or the resident can leave at any time if they say wish well in an emergency a non-emergency situation

00:12:07 non-emergency situation why is it relevant that the resident can leave it any time if they say wish this is talking about a fire isn't it this is talking about the evacuation strategy for the building

00:12:18 strategy for the building it doesn't say if there is a fire it is to do with fire but there could be other emergencies within the building with great respect you are a fire risk assessor assessing the risk of fire for

00:12:30 assessor assessing the risk of fire for the purposes of the rrro yes and the first sentence of this part of this

00:12:36 of this part of the fra is all about what happens in the event of a fire in the building that's what it says and it's staple policy uh indeed so my question to you is what were the arrangements under which the tmo would

00:12:48 arrangements under which the tmo would arrange for a general evacuation of the building in the event of a fire they would follow what the fire service asked them to do

00:12:58 because the fire service would take control do you accept that that idea is not not only not reflected in what you've drafted here but is in fact completely contrary to

00:13:09 but is in fact completely contrary to what you've reflected what you've drafted here because you say here that the that the fire service or rbkc or the tmo employees will arrange for a general evacuation

00:13:26 if that's the way you read it yes

00:13:30 it's right to say isn't it that you used the same information about the evacuation strategy from your meeting on the 24th of september 2010 in all of your fire risk assessments for the tmo regardless of the building

00:13:42 the tmo regardless of the building that you are assessing do you accept that no

00:13:45 that no well let's look at some of the other properties that were deemed by the tma to be high risk and which were also high-rise

00:13:52 high-rise buildings uh let's start with adair tower

00:13:56 tower fire risk assessment 28th of october 2010 please three cst40430 seven page five

00:14:11 and what i'd like to do is leave the existing one up on the page on the screen and have this one next to it please

00:14:22 so

00:14:26 let's keep that on the screen that's the adair tower fire strategy for october

00:14:39 the 2010. let's have at the same time the document we were just looking at please

00:14:48 that's cst403183181 page five

00:14:56 and let's compare and contrast we will look if you look at the right hand side of your screen that's what we've just been studying in some detail this morning mr stakes already on the left hand side we have the adair

00:15:07 on the left hand side we have the adair tower

00:15:07 tower fire risk assessment of the 28th of october 2010 page five same section and it says if you cast your eye to the left it says evacuation strategy for this building and then you can compare the text

00:15:20 and then you can compare the text and uh the text is identical isn't it at least down to the last three lines the only thing that's different is the

00:15:31 the only thing that's different is the last three lines isn't it that's correct because the buildings are similar they do not have a um fire alarm system installed within them in the common parts therefore they are similar buildings they would

00:15:43 they are similar buildings they would not this

00:15:44 not this evacuation strategy would not be for a building that had a fire alarm installed in their common parts so identical is it that you cut and pasted

00:15:54 pasted from one to the other correct because that's

00:15:57 that's the letter we had at the beginning which was went through with the tmo this would be used on all the buildings with a similar layout systems etc within that building

00:16:09 systems etc within that building including the typographical errors as you can see just picking one up uh just below halfway down on the left hand side the text articles has got a a rogue apostrophe in it

00:16:20 has got a a rogue apostrophe in it and so is the one on the right so you've actually cut and pasted even the typographical errors because this would be used as in per the letter this would be used for all their buildings unless there was a fire alarm

00:16:31 buildings unless there was a fire alarm system installed so it was your approach one size fits all no it's a site specific but the evacuation strategy for each building would be the same

00:16:41 [Applause] if you notice on this dare though there is no um employees in idea where so it is different it's only for

00:16:54 where so it is different it's only for the residential parts that's the same well

00:17:00 indeed five lines down in the box on the left hand side you say the fire service or tmo employees will arrange for a general evacuation of the building at any time

00:17:11 evacuation of the building at any time if this is appropriate so we still got the reference there to to tmo employees arranging for a general evacuation haven't we yes yes uh although i notice in fact although i said to you that it

00:17:23 in fact although i said to you that it was identical for some reason that the reference to the royal borough of kensington and chelsea

00:17:29 chelsea arranging for a general evacuation is not there

00:17:32 not there in that sentence on the left-hand side why is that i can't answer that maybe it's

00:17:37 it's updated slightly with information given let's look at the gilray has fire risk assessment tmo double zero eight five four nine three zero

00:17:51 i'm going to assume that the text i've been showing you for these two risk assessments is now reasonably familiar to you let's go to this one this is now gilray house 19th of november 2012 as you can see

00:18:02 19th of november 2012 as you can see from page one if we go to page five same sections of the fra evacuation strategy for this building

00:18:12 building and there again we have the same text as we've seen uh down to the last three lines as we saw in the adair tower

00:18:23 as we saw in the adair tower november 2010 so this was 12. the first one you showed me was 10 so it's obviously changed with information been given to me over there in the uh two-year period except that it hasn't changed does it in

00:18:35 that it hasn't changed does it in respect of all of it down to the last three lines it's the same this is um you've corrected the apostrophe i'll grant you that but the rest of it's identical

00:18:46 yes because the policy wouldn't change within the building no matter when it was taken it was still a residential building and that was still the staple if you notice on this one it doesn't say defend

00:18:58 notice on this one it doesn't say defend in place anymore it just says stay put

00:19:04 and i do a slight disservice there is also a reference here to the tma providing information to all residents in tenants handbooks by this stage had you seen the tenants

00:19:15 by this stage had you seen the tenants handbook

00:19:16 handbook yes and what was the information provided in it i can't remember per se but there was information in the tenant's handbook and i think over time it was a case of

00:19:28 and i think over time it was a case of that was given to them and i asked questions on whether they signed for the handbook et cetera et cetera right as the pro persist as my risk assessments progressed we got more

00:19:39 risk assessments progressed we got more and more information but the essential advice is identical yes stay put and if we look at hazelwood tower 20th of february 2014

00:19:49 tm01043804 four page five

00:19:59 you could see page one to pick up the date of the hazelwood tower fra first of all

00:20:03 all page one 20th of february 2014. page five top of page evacuation strategy for this building uh and the first second and third

00:20:15 uh and the first second and third paragraphs are identical to the virus that fire risk assessment we've just seen in relation to gilray house two years earlier yes similar yes i think without reading it but yes similar yes

00:20:29 and we can move forward two years on to 21st of january 2016 your fra from markland house tmo10047159 one double zero four seven one five nine

00:20:42 one double zero four seven one five nine page one first of all there's markland house there's the date 21st january 2016.

00:20:48 2016. page five please top of the page same block of text again uh same text again and note like all of these

00:20:57 these it says fire service or tmo employees will arrange for a general evacuation of the whole building at any time if this is appropriate to do so

00:21:05 so [Applause] and then finally in this run of comparatives trellic tower 26th of april 2017 at tm008

00:21:18 let's have page one

00:21:29 tmo double zero eight four two two five five page one there it is trellic tower 26th of april 2017 and page six

00:21:40 26th of april 2017 and page six in that uh second box evacuation strategy for this building and again the all familiar text including the words that the tmo

00:21:51 text including the words that the tmo employees will arrange for a general evacuation of the building

00:21:56 and it's essentially exactly the same for all the fras we've seen back to 2010 isn't it

00:22:05 isn't it it's similar but there's always site specific so like on this one there is information in the last paragraph about a fire on the balcony

00:22:16 a fire on the balcony and which flat number so they're all site specific but the policy of evacuation is still going to stay the same no matter what date it is or what building if it is a residential tower block so can we take

00:22:28 a residential tower block so can we take it the paragraphs we've seen in all of these

00:22:31 these fras across the years in respect of the evacuation strategy was for the most part taken from your meeting with janice ray on the 24th of september

00:22:40 september 2010 correct and the way the buildings were constructed has stayed up

00:22:48 and i'm right in just reinforcing the point to you you never received any specific assurances from janice ray or anybody else at the tmo that the evacuation procedures set out in these paragraphs that we've

00:22:59 set out in these paragraphs that we've seen were specifically in place for those buildings and were going to be followed on a building by building basis and i was never given any adverse comments either the tmo have these documents they revised them

00:23:10 revised them the fire service looked at these documents the fire service revised them and issued broadly compliant letters for these buildings and they were happy with that statement as well that they

00:23:22 with that statement as well that they would

00:23:22 would evacuate the building and had procedures in place now after your meeting with janice ray on the 24th of september 2010 did you ever check whether the evacuation procedures that you wrote

00:23:33 evacuation procedures that you wrote about in any of these fras were in fact in place for each building or did you just assume that that what you told you at that meeting applied to all the buildings at least all the high-rise residential buildings in the tma stock

00:23:45 buildings in the tma stock well stay put would have been a given because the it's not it would be up to the individual as it says there if it affects your flat you would leave the building

00:23:56 you would leave the building i would have no access at all to the fire service and whether i could ask them but as they did not come back with any adverse comments and they were shown these as draft documents

00:24:08 shown these as draft documents these were the basis based documents for all the fras that were given to the lfb

00:24:15 lfb to check and make comment on there was no adverse comments and the tmo made no adverse comments that they could not undertake the risk the evacuations

00:24:27 undertake the risk the evacuations so i was under the impression everything was okay were you under the impression that there were arrangements in place under which tmo staff would affect uh whole or partial evacuations of any of these buildings

00:24:39 of these buildings yes because common sense would say that if it was a non-fire a non-emergency situation you could evacuate the building

00:24:46 building so you you still maintain your qualification only in the event of a non-emergency even though that qualification doesn't appear in any of your fras but because it it would be superseded if

00:24:57 but because it it would be superseded if it was an emergency the fire service would take over the same as the police would take over if it was an incident where they would take jurisdiction and control now um looking at what's on the screen

00:25:08 now um looking at what's on the screen in front of you uh this fra for trellic was the 21st of april 2017 and as you note in the last paragraph in that box two

00:25:19 in the last paragraph in that box two days

00:25:19 days previously there had been a fire uh in flat 195 as you can see uh did you use that as an opportunity to

00:25:31 did you use that as an opportunity to check whether at the time of that fire uh the evacuation strategy that you had set out in your fra above it was still appropriate or had been implemented

00:25:42 implemented yes it was stay put and the flat was evacuated

00:25:46 evacuated the rest of the building as far as i'm aware was not i actually visited the flat and looked round it

00:25:55 so you did yes so can we can we take it then that the fire you took that far as an opportunity to check

00:26:03 check how the state put policy was operating at trellic yes you did there was other fires in other buildings as well that i went to over the intervening time and no one

00:26:14 over the intervening time and no one fire service who went to those fires or anything else raised any comments at all after any of the fires i would always ask for

00:26:21 ask for fire reports from the fire service via janice ray who she would always get them and pay for them from the fire service no adverse comments were ever made about any problems with

00:26:33 any problems with evacuation policies procedures from the lfb

00:26:36 lfb or the tmo after 2010 did you ever have a discussion with janice ray about whether the assumption that you were working from

00:26:48 were working from as reflected in all of these paragraphs across all of these fras was a tenable one we would have had because it would have been checked after a fire in a building

00:26:59 been checked after a fire in a building did it work was it okay was there any problems we used to have a part of the meeting if we did hope when we had meetings was any

00:27:10 when we had meetings was any notices issued by the by service any visits by the fire service any comments she would have i'm going to say monthly meetings they could be two monthly meetings with the fire

00:27:22 two monthly meetings with the fire service that was an agenda item so there was always a um a route coming back that way and if there had been any comments it would have been fed back to me well i'd like to think it had been

00:27:34 to me well i'd like to think it had been backed me through those meetings and if anyone had any comments when i was walking around a building they could have always have asked me did janice ray ever ask you the question

00:27:45 did janice ray ever ask you the question is it okay if we don't have any alternative evacuation arrangements in any of our high-rise residential blocks i would never thought that would have been a question because it's got to be a given

00:27:55 given you've got to have an evacuation procedure and policy yes and what was it for any of these buildings stay put uh no sorry i've misunderstood or rather

00:28:07 uh no sorry i've misunderstood or rather you've misunderstood uh did she ever ask you the question is it acceptable that we don't have any alternative evacuation arrangements in

00:28:18 alternative evacuation arrangements in other words an arrangement to evacuate a building in case stay put is no longer terrible i wouldn't have doesn't spring to mind no no

00:28:32 did she ever ask you why did she ever ask you whether you had checked each building to see whether in the case of a fire in such a building

00:28:44 in the case of a fire in such a building an alternative arrangement for full or partial evacuation of the building was necessary that does not ring a bell now am i right in thinking

00:28:55 ring a bell now am i right in thinking from the discussion that we've been having over the last 10 minutes or so that the idea of a full or partial evacuation

00:29:06 of a full or partial evacuation of a high-rise residential block by way of plan b

00:29:10 of plan b was something that you never thought about and never provided for in any of your fras if it was a fire the fire service would have taken over and everyone works together it's a big

00:29:21 and everyone works together it's a big jigsaw

00:29:22 jigsaw and you have to rely on other people to undertake

00:29:27 undertake arrangements or procedures as per their um policies which i've got no privy to or information to and if there is a fire all i'm looking

00:29:38 and if there is a fire all i'm looking at is

00:29:39 at is in the evacuation of this building is a stay put policy please on this document there is the criteria that i undertake the document

00:29:50 criteria that i undertake the document to

00:29:51 to which is the building regulations and double nine nine one criteria that the fire will not be within a common part it will be within one flat only

00:30:03 it will be within one flat only and that is the criteria you work to for the evacuation policy if it's a full building evacuation policy that's outside the remit of the fire safety of my risk assessment

00:30:14 fire safety of my risk assessment because i'm only looking at a building that's got a fire in one flat there is the criteria please on the document for which one this fra applies to

00:30:26 this fra applies to was it your understanding and i asked this question in an attempt to understand your evidence mr stakes but was it your understanding that the the responsible person under

00:30:38 that the the responsible person under the rro

00:30:39 the rro was not required to make any plans for a full

00:30:43 full or partial evacuation of a high-rise residential block in cases where the stay put policy became no longer terrible it would be

00:30:54 became no longer terrible it would be the fire service responsibility and uh because it's the fire services act they have taken control in a fire situation so the is the answer to my question uh yes that your understanding was that the

00:31:06 yes that your understanding was that the responsible person under the rro was not required to make any such plans

00:31:13 if that's the way you're putting it yes well i'm really i don't want to put words in your mouth because this is not a straightforward topic let me ask it in a different way say that we're clear what was your

00:31:25 that we're clear what was your understanding at the time about the extent

00:31:29 extent of the responsible person's obligations to put in place plans for a full or partial evacuation of a high-rise residential block in circumstances where a stay-put

00:31:40 in circumstances where a stay-put strategy or policy became untenable the responsible person would revert back to the fire service because if there was a fire in the building they

00:31:51 if there was a fire in the building they would take control of the building but there would be a pretty a i would like to think there would be a procedure

00:32:00 procedure in place for a non-fire emergency where they could evacuate the building which would be done in slow time and under controlled way under fire situation it would be revert

00:32:11 under fire situation it would be revert to the fire service to undertake an evacuation

00:32:17 and what in relation to the non-emergency situations did you understand to be the tmos arrangements for full or partial evacuation of the building by their staff

00:32:28 building by their staff it would be done knocking on doors intercoms you could be a water a major water leak in a building that's flooding out

00:32:35 out flats or something like that that would be the sort of situation i would envisage that the tmo would have to evacuate with no help from an outside emergency body did you ever see any

00:32:47 emergency body did you ever see any policy or strategy or plans to that effect no

00:32:50 effect no did you ever ask for any is it not covered in the fire strategy document isn't there a section in there about evacuation well mr stokes you must answer the questions about that because you were there and involved at the time

00:33:02 you were there and involved at the time i'm going to say there's a section what is the answer there's a section in the uh strategy document was it that to which you were referring in your fire risk assessments your fire risk assessments uh when you

00:33:15 your fire risk assessments uh when you were referring to the tmo employees arranging for a general evacuation of the building at any time and back to the letter of when i first started which was all agreed this was the comments and

00:33:26 all agreed this was the comments and statements that i would put down um did you ever ask janice ray for details of the tmo's system of emergency planning

00:33:33 planning for grenfell tower or their wider estate portfolio

00:33:36 portfolio no why's that

00:33:44 don't know i can't answer the question but it's not is it part of the risk assessment right can we go to to

00:33:51 go to to cta 703

00:33:55 cta 703 page 71 please and what i'm going to show you is appendix f of pas 79 of 2012. left hand column

00:34:08 of 2012. left hand column second bullet point this is about the means of escape and it says in the first introductory set of words accordingly the fire risk assessor should be able

00:34:19 assessor should be able to and the second bullet plate under bullet point understand the principles of emergency planning and evacuation do you accept looking at that

00:34:28 that that it was your role to be able to understand the principles of emergency planning and evacuation in place or put in place by the tmo correct and as i explained the principles are i

00:34:40 as i explained the principles are i understand the principles emergency planning if it's a fire the fire service would take control so it is is it your evidence that so far as you are concerned the texts that we've been reading across the fras in the seven years from 2010 to

00:34:52 the fras in the seven years from 2010 to 2017

00:34:53 2017 encompassed that obligation yes i see were you aware that the tmo did not in fact have a written emergency plan specific to grenfell tower in place

00:35:04 specific to grenfell tower in place would that not every tml or rbkc well the tmo but i'll put it this way let me

00:35:11 let me let me try it more neutrally the responsible person i haven't i would not know that answer to that question it was a requirement wasn't it under article 11 of the fire safety order

00:35:25 article 11 of the fire safety order so you'd have to refresh my memory of article 11.

00:35:32 rather than getting into the detail are you able to answer the question whether you knew or didn't know that having an emergency plan in place was a legal requirement for the responsible person well the emergency

00:35:43 responsible person well the emergency plan is stay put in a written emergency plan a document a document

00:35:49 document well so the handbook sorry the handbook would be the policy it's written

00:35:56 written and they are stay put is the policy and procedure

00:36:04 did you ever see let me try it a different way did you ever see a written emergency plan specific to grenfell tower that satisfied the responsible person's legal obligations no did you ever ask for one

00:36:16 no did you ever ask for one a full document by the tmo for that building no

00:36:24 can you explain why you didn't ask for one

00:36:27 one because it's covered in my um statement there and i asked the question no one come back to me with any adverse comments that they didn't have one

00:36:38 comments that they didn't have one and the fire brigade in my my view here the understanding is the principles of emergency planning yes and the evacuation policy is stay put

00:36:51 now can we go please to the 2014 the 2014 fra cst 403157 i want to ask you some questions about

00:37:03 i want to ask you some questions about what the lfb thought about this uh can we go to page seven that's the first page there 17th of october 2014. page seven under the heading uh

00:37:15 page seven under the heading uh any other relevant information about this premises on this premises and then if we turn the page

00:37:27 please you see that it says

00:37:32 an audit under the rro was undertaken but in this building by fire safety inspecting officer matthew ramsey of london fire brigade with a notice a notification of fire

00:37:43 with a notice a notification of fire safety deficiencies being issued uh and you identify the deficiency notice of the 24th of march 2014 there and you set out the the contents of it and the three the three

00:37:54 of it and the three the three main requirements in the notice and then if you go to the second part of the page we scroll down please to the lower part of page eight it says the

00:38:05 lower part of page eight it says the fire officers did not commented either at the time of the audit or in any correspondence after the audit about the building's layout the means of escape routes compartmentation etc

00:38:15 etc nor were there any comments about the positioning or sighting of the fixed systems within the building only about the maintenance of the systems no adverse comments were received either about the management policies

00:38:26 policies procedures or and arrangements in place within this building at the time of the audit

00:38:30 audit therefore is has been assumed that the fire

00:38:34 fire authority were completely satisfied with these arrangements at the time of the audit and there have been no changes to the residential part of this premises or the tma's management policies or procedures since the above

00:38:46 procedures since the above fire safety audit was undertaken now this statement uh also appeared in the two subsequent fras for grenfell tower

00:38:56 tower didn't it in 2016 because an order been undertaken yes yes why did you include that statement in the two subsequent fras

00:39:07 in the two subsequent fras because an audit had been undertaken without seeing the fras the audit would probably give the same address oh sorry the fra would give the same data etc

00:39:19 fra would give the same data etc and if the fire service had made no adverse comments that is a positive comment therefore that they were um aware of the building its layouts and

00:39:31 aware of the building its layouts and the management's policies and procedures they made no comments adverse against them therefore they must have been correct did you explicitly agree or expressly agree with janice ray to operate on that assumption namely

00:39:44 to operate on that assumption namely that if the lfb didn't comment adversely then all was fine

00:39:50 but the notice would have if there'd have been any adverse comments if the answer to your question is yes i would have ques uh got the deficiency notice from janice ray and she would have seen this comment and

00:40:01 and she would have seen this comment and then made no adverse comments about it let's just see what ms ray says about it can we please go to her first statement this is tmo 50890

00:40:12 statement this is tmo 50890 page 32 paragraph 143

00:40:24 page 32 paragraph 143 now she says in the second line there there was an assumption made by carl and myself that arrangements at our premises which were not negatively commented on by the lfb

00:40:35 lfb following audit were deemed by them to be satisfactory now she speaks of an assumption made by you

00:40:43 you and her did that was that assumption something you agreed together

00:40:51 together it was a positive statement i mean i would have made that comment to her there is is there any adverse comments no so we put it in as a positive comment

00:41:01 did this assumption that she's referring to here

00:41:04 to here rest on any specific assurances that the tmo

00:41:08 tmo had or you had obtained or received from the lfb

00:41:12 the lfb there was no negative comments therefore they must be positive right were you ever told by janice ray or anybody else at the tma

00:41:23 janice ray or anybody else at the tma that the nfb were not content with that approach i was told no information at all no i see i want to turn next to ask you one or

00:41:34 i want to turn next to ask you one or two questions about risk ratings uh which you gave to grenfell tower specifically can we go back please to the 2014

00:41:41 the 2014 fra cst 403157 and let's go in it to page nine

00:41:55 i think you're gonna have to wait a moment just a minute i am i just realized

00:42:25 mr german i think we may need to take a break um

00:42:28 break um i'm told that i think our operator is perhaps temporarily indisposed we can uh um i've noticed he's been in and out of the room but not

00:42:40 and out of the room but not for any extended period would you rather we weren't sitting here as it were i think i would i mean i hope it's not going to be long in that case we'll we'll rise for a moment um mr texts i think we're going

00:42:52 moment um mr texts i think we're going to have to have a short break now say would you like to go with the usher and remember as i've said to you before please don't talk about your evidence to anyone so

00:42:58 anyone so thank you

00:43:06 all right you can ask the usher to come and get us with nobody yes mr chairman

01:15:14 um before i ask mr stokes to come back into the room can i just explain for those who are watching i'm sorry about the interruption to the proceedings i'm afraid that the document manager who

01:15:27 i'm afraid that the document manager who normally does such an excellent job in getting the material on the screen has been taken ill and that inevitably involves an interruption to the proceedings we've made

01:15:38 to the proceedings we've made arrangements for the documents to be put up on the screen by a remote process which we

01:15:45 which we hope and expect is going to be entirely efficient

01:15:48 efficient but um we'll just have to see how we go anyway

01:15:51 anyway we are now ready to continue so i shall ask mr states to come back if you would

01:16:04 please

01:16:11 welcome back mr stokes i'm sorry about the break-in proceedings but as you know we had a

01:16:16 we had a technological technology problem anyhow we think we've resolved it satisfactorily by an alternative means so we'll see how we get on so

01:16:25 get on so all right thank you yes mr miller mr chairman thank you mr stakes can i next turn to the topic of risk rating can we look please at the 2014 fra

01:16:35 fra at cst403157 page nine

01:16:54 now this i'm showing you is under the title risk fire risk assessment for the areas of grenfell tower and is it right that you used a risk estimator to calculate the category

01:17:07 risk estimator to calculate the category of risk

01:17:08 of risk to life from fire in the premises correct

01:17:11 correct if we go to page 10 please you can see that by way of conclusion

01:17:23 at the top of the page it says accordingly it is considered that the risk to life from fire at these premises is tolerable in a range from trivial at the bottom to

01:17:34 in a range from trivial at the bottom to intolerable at the top you see that correct

01:17:39 correct does that mean according to this table on page 10 lower down tolerable as you say that there are no major additional controls required

01:17:51 additional controls required however there might be a need for improvements that involve minor or limited cost is that is that how that's supposed to work yes

01:18:00 work yes and without going to each and every fire risk assessment that you did for grenfell tower would you agree that in each and every one uh this is uh what you said you you ticked the tolerable box for

01:18:11 you you ticked the tolerable box for grandfather yes yes um now i want to look that next at your significant findings schedules um they all followed the same structure and format for grenfell tower didn't

01:18:22 and format for grenfell tower didn't they

01:18:23 they yes yes and i think it's right that in fact you used a a template across the huddle of the tma stock for your significant finding schedules yes yes can we look please first pas 79

01:18:35 yes yes can we look please first pas 79 cta 703

01:18:40 cta 703 page 59

01:18:52 and if we go to section 19 on that page you can see it's entitled formulation of an

01:18:58 an action plan commentary on clause 19. and at little raymond 1 it says the outcome and indeed the principal raise on debt of the fire risk assessment is the action plan

01:19:10 assessment is the action plan the action plan comprises recommendations that are intended to ensure

01:19:14 ensure that the fire risk is reduced to or maintained at a tolerable level and then in little roman two you see it says this in formulating the action plan for premises

01:19:25 formulating the action plan for premises in which the fire risk has been assessed as unacceptably high the analytical approach to the fire risk assessment permits backtracking to determine whether in effect the problem arises from inadequate fire

01:19:36 the problem arises from inadequate fire prevention i.e inadequate means for control or elimination of fire hazards inadequate fire protection e.g unsatisfactory means of escape or fire warning systems

01:19:48 warning systems shortcomings in fire safety management or a combination of these were you aware of those principles at all times

01:19:56 all times when compiling fras for grenfell tower yes and did you apply those principles when drafting your significant findings schedules for grenfell tower in every case yes

01:20:07 case yes can we then start by looking at your action plan of december 2010 as part of the fra at that time cst four zeroes three one six five

01:20:22 page one

01:20:28 and if we could have that expanded please a bit you can see that the date of this on the right hand side is the 29th of december 2010 and then about a quarter of the way down the text priority time scales

01:20:41 the text priority time scales high two to three weeks medium one to two months low three to six months

01:20:49 months yes and as you can see below that you give each action a priority rating which indicates that you when you expect the remedial action to be taken is that right yes

01:21:00 right yes and that means does it that the action should be completed and closed off within your time scale yes on this document yes but you'll notice on

01:21:11 notice on subsequent ones time scales have altered and also there is a in brackets at the end to say to the start of any work you are right and we're going to come to

01:21:23 you are right and we're going to come to those on this document however am i right in thinking that the time scales that you've set out here uh mean that the action should be

01:21:35 uh mean that the action should be completed

01:21:36 completed and closed off within that time scale that would be the indication yes so that was the position at december 2010. yes when you inserted those time scales

01:21:46 scales into your record of significant findings and action plan in the december 2010 fra how did you determine the priority time scales for low medium and high

01:21:59 scales for low medium and high i think they would have come from the documentation that was available at the time this is pr pre for their purpose-built block of flats guidance came in where additional information

01:22:11 additional information then came in about this

01:22:14 when you say it came from documentation that was available at the time what and it would have been agreed with as a draft document with the draft one that went to the tmo and lfb

01:22:26 one that went to the tmo and lfb when you when you refer to documentation at the time what was the documentation at the time would have been the paths which have a relevant document the sleeping guide

01:22:38 sleeping guide i believe lakehouse was in but wouldn't be relevant to this building so documentation means guidance not right yes tmo documentation sorry correct thank you and now when we go to the 2012

01:22:50 and now when we go to the 2012 version of the action plan let's look at that next cst403083

01:22:58 we see now what you were referring to a moment ago in your answer this is 20th of november 2012 to go with

01:23:09 this is 20th of november 2012 to go with the fra for grenfell tower of that date now we see the priority time scales high two to three weeks medium two to three months low 6 to 12

01:23:20 medium two to three months low 6 to 12 months

01:23:21 months why did those priority time scales change from the scales we saw in the december 2010 significant findings and action plan i was i would say guidance provided by

01:23:35 hm government and other documentation in industry standard

01:23:42 what what can you be a bit more specific what specifically was the guidance or industry standard that had come out in the united states right

01:23:54 the united states right because of course we also had at this point

01:23:57 point november 2012 past 79 from august that year

01:24:01 year but those two guidances or guide sets of guidance were were new what was it in those sets of guidance that caused you to extend the priority time scales as we see here

01:24:13 the priority time scales as we see here i can't answer that question it was back then well i am asking you to answer that question as best you can i would have altered them because of relevant guidance that was available at that time and they were the

01:24:25 available at that time and they were the standards

01:24:26 standards that were been looked at or accepted as relevant for that time as across the board

01:24:33 board was there anything specific in the new guidance that you have identified which told you that you could or should extend

01:24:42 extend the time of for priorities without seeing the documents i can't answer that question

01:24:48 question or was this you reading the new guidance and using your judgment to identify priority time scales as best you saw them probably that if i haven't seen i can't say i can't remember the documents per

01:25:00 say i can't remember the documents per se but i would have only altered them if there was guidance available to be available to me to alter did somebody in the tmo ask you to change these priority time scales

01:25:11 change these priority time scales i'm going to say no because those priority time scales would have moved for all documentation or all significant findings for whether i was working for the tml or elsewhere

01:25:22 elsewhere right so do i take it from that answer that you

01:25:26 that you shifted your priority time scales across the whole of your professional work yes when did you start doing that when was the first time that you extended your priority time scales i can't give you a

01:25:37 can't give you a specific date without looking back at documentation can we then look at the next fra for grenfell tower 2014 cst403177

01:25:53 page one

01:26:06 this is the 17th of october 2014 record as you can see and now we have priority time scales

01:26:17 and now we have priority time scales high two to three weeks medium two to three months low six to 12 months with the words in brackets added at the end to start to start to action any works close brackets after the six to 12

01:26:29 close brackets after the six to 12 months

01:26:30 months why was that qualification added at that time for the best of my memory was for financial reasons because if companies were coming back and saying well we have to undertake capital work

01:26:41 capital work we need authorization so the to the start of any works is now been action so if it's high but we've got to spend a hundred thousand pound

01:26:52 got to spend a hundred thousand pound put in a new fire alarm system in a factory

01:26:54 factory they need capital money to undertake that work so therefore they're unstarted to undertake the work they now need the finance in place and also

01:27:05 also a in that particular example a company might not be able to start work for two weeks three weeks four weeks

01:27:14 just to be clear does the addition of this qualification mean that you no longer expected the works to be completed and closed off within the time scale that you had set for each action uh but

01:27:26 that you had set for each action uh but but just to start but if possible completed but otherwise it was financially and they couldn't do it to start the works at least it would show that work had been undertaken

01:27:37 had been undertaken and the priority scales is high two to three weeks if it was immediate danger to life it would have been a immediate um

01:27:49 a immediate um action not a priority time scale where they would be the benefit of allowing a time scale yeah and again to be clear just to be absolutely clear that this applied only to the low

01:28:01 that this applied only to the low priority time scales not to the high or medium it applied to all time scales because even if if a fire alarm system in a building not just this building but any building

01:28:12 just this building but any building needed to be replaced because it had failed

01:28:16 failed it couldn't just happen overnight so therefore it would have to be a caveat put in there to the start of any works the caveat was only put in there because of would have only been put in there

01:28:27 would have only been put in there because of reasons given or advice given in documentations or going to

01:28:33 going to exhibitions or listening to lectures yes i just want to be clear about what what's intended the intention is to start

01:28:40 start let me just ask the question the addition of the words to start any action

01:28:45 action to start to action any works but you see um you put in after the the low six to twelve months was that qualification in brackets intended to apply to each of the priority time scales yes so

01:28:58 of the priority time scales yes so even in relation to a high priority item your

01:29:05 item your advice or recommendation was that the work should be started within two to three weeks yes right did that mean that that even with a high priority item

01:29:19 even with a high priority item that the outstanding action once started could continue indefinitely we'd have to justify that but yes potentially did the tmo ask you to add this

01:29:30 did the tmo ask you to add this qualification no

01:29:35 how would somebody reading this action plan know when they should expect the action

01:29:40 action to have been completed

01:29:45 well when it's com when it actually is comp so i don't understand the question but when the when the action is completed to the satisfaction of the person undertaking the work

01:29:57 of the person undertaking the work so i don't understand the question well if somebody picked up this document and asked when is this red item this high priority item going to be completed so that the high

01:30:10 going to be completed so that the high risk is eliminated what would they what would they see a depending on what the identified risk is and the action to be taken i mean reading this one here the first one

01:30:22 reading this one here the first one would be

01:30:23 would be recommend that building control response to the proposed works being undertaken in the building is asked for well the tmo within two to three weeks can ask for that document if building

01:30:35 can ask for that document if building control doesn't respond back for four weeks it's outside of the control of the responsible person

01:30:44 mr stokes perhaps you can help me on this i noticed that the last column in the table is date to be completed by and is that something you would fill in that responsible person sir

01:30:57 that responsible person sir well you would complete the date would you no the responsible responsible person would so the document is given to the responsible person in this format and then by whom so if i was to give it

01:31:08 and then by whom so if i was to give it to

01:31:09 to janice ray yeah for argument's sake she would then say by whom repairs management date to be completed it's for her to put that date in but

01:31:21 her to put that date in but yeah i understand right so the action will be undertaken within two to three weeks by her as that person she is now waiting on other people it's a live documentary now i understand

01:31:33 it's a live documentary now i understand thank you very much yes well thank you mr chairman that takes that takes me to the next question uh beyond that which was that would it be right that it would be the tmo janice ray in this case

01:31:45 tmo janice ray in this case who would be the judge of the completion date

01:31:48 date correct uh and would she have any advice or did she ever get any advice or seek any advice from you as to the appropriateness of the completion date she intended to insert no

01:32:01 insert no so how would the tmo know whether uh a particular completion date was safe from a fire safety perspective

01:32:13 from a fire safety perspective i suppose the honest answer is as long as they've completed out the action

01:32:20 so is it right that by leaving it to the tmo

01:32:26 tmo to decide for themselves when the action should

01:32:29 should should be completed even in high-risk cases

01:32:34 cases um you were not able to uh assess the fire safety risk arising

01:32:44 arising from the time to be taken no is that i give the document in once i've given the document it's to the responsible person to undertake remaining actions of the

01:32:56 to undertake remaining actions of the article

01:32:57 article did you ever advise janice ray that she should come back to you if a high priority item was going to take

01:33:05 take longer than a week six weeks a month anything like that no you just left it to her did you as i would anyone else um if you were undertaking a risk assessment not for the tmo anyone you could be

01:33:18 not for the tmo anyone you could be asked to undertake a risk assessment you're going to hand the document over to your client you might never go back to that building again might never see that document again

01:33:30 might never see that document again this is only your opi this is your opinion your priority time scale is two to three weeks for high the responsibility has now been handed back to the responsible person

01:33:42 back to the responsible person it sounds as if what one can conclude from that would you agree is that by changing uh the uh swapping the finish line for

01:33:53 uh the uh swapping the finish line for the starting gun if i can put it in that way and then not having any control remaining

01:33:59 remaining advisory roll over how long the race should be

01:34:03 should be you were essentially handing back to the tmo a very significant element in fire safety risk assessment correct and the same with everyone else you you're handing the document back over

01:34:14 you're handing the document back over you have no onward control of that document did you ever

01:34:19 ever tell janice ray in terms

01:34:23 that she needed to be absolutely clear that in according a completion date to any

01:34:31 any risk item particularly high risk items she needed to consider specifically the fire safety implications of that of the period of time to completion

01:34:44 of the period of time to completion well that's what is in this document so i would never had that specific conversation because it's in the document she would have actioned the documents as and when she got them that is my assumption

01:34:56 assumption if uh the

01:34:59 if uh the finish line that the finished date for actioning the works uh had been swapped for the starting gun i apologize for the metaphor

01:35:10 what real difference was there between high medium and low

01:35:18 in the documentation a high would be i believe in the documents we talked about

01:35:26 about high would be where it would be a breach of

01:35:30 of a standard medium would be um benchmark or and low would be best practice

01:35:44 i'm sorry to interrupt again but i just like myself on this mr stix you told us a little earlier that the priority time scales had been changed in

01:35:55 priority time scales had been changed in the light of some guidance would have been yes sir we we can see that the

01:36:03 that the the words to start to action any works which have been brought into this um were not present originally they've come in do they reflect anything in guidance as far as you can remember

01:36:15 in guidance as far as you can remember no but they would have come from industry standard or courses i've been on or ex uh going to uh cpd days like so for instance the one on the law

01:36:27 like so for instance the one on the law you know it would have been a case of this would have come about because of that information provided that the time the fire safety order when it came in was new all this is

01:36:40 was new all this is um evolved over time as court cases have come out so therefore

01:36:48 therefore information has been added to risk assessments hence the passes being updated

01:36:53 updated well i i understand that but i just find it

01:36:57 it i speak for myself of course but i find it very surprising that the time scales should be related to the time of starting work rather than the time of completing work

01:37:09 the time of completing work because obviously if someone in your position is able to identify work that needs to be done the client

01:37:17 client perhaps should be told how urgent it is when does it need to be done not when does it need to be started but i would have the risk assessor would have no control over

01:37:28 have no control over how long the work would take to be under the length of work to be undertaken so two to three weeks to the start of the work

01:37:36 the work it could be go back to the fire alarm system

01:37:40 system most companies would say you needed three um

01:37:44 three um quotes to get a system uh looked at altered new system installed so therefore the two to three weeks could be taken up by you

01:37:55 weeks could be taken up by you getting three quotes you've got no idea how long the contract is going to actually take no i i sorry to interrupt you i quite understand you have no control over this but you are at least in a position

01:38:07 but you are at least in a position to express a view about the importance of completing it which could be reflected in the time by which you think it ought to be completed after that it's a matter of the client i

01:38:18 after that it's a matter of the client i see that

01:38:19 see that i understand that and this would been from guidance and again this document would been looked at by the enforcing authorities not just in london but elsewhere

01:38:28 elsewhere and no one has ever come back and challenged and said that it's too long and i've never had any comments to say that is incorrect or wrong right thank

01:38:39 that is incorrect or wrong right thank you very much yes just to be clear following up on that a little bit mr stakes just that i'm clear are you able to identify or to recall

01:38:50 identify or to recall any particular guidance which told a fire risk assessor that they no longer needed to identify the cure of high risk items

01:39:01 the cure of high risk items items that were a statutory breach by reference to an end date but only to a start date there wouldn't be a statutory breach as such because it's a risk assessment it's

01:39:12 such because it's a risk assessment it's a

01:39:13 a uh you're only looking at you're not answering the right part of my question i'm sorry sir uh i'll put it again

01:39:20 again are you able to identify or recall any particular guidance which told a fire risk assessor that they no longer needed to identify the cure of an item identified such as that we're

01:39:32 of an item identified such as that we're looking at here by reference to an end date but only to a start date pad 79 would be the document i would say to go to

01:39:39 to go to sir right you can't think of anything specific in past 79 that said right um

01:39:48 can you can you tell us what the different colors red orange and green mean in this document medium high and low yes

01:40:01 and red is statutory breach isn't it you're saying statutory breach it was a breach of a british standard or building regs yes yes

01:40:12 building regs yes yes now if we can go to barbara lane's dr lane's report please i just want to show you what she says here b l

01:40:19 here b l a r p 2

01:40:23 a r p 2 5 0 2 7

01:40:27 page 2 0 6.

01:40:31 that's blarp 2 5 0's two seven at page two zero six

01:40:46 and if you look at paragraph eight point nine point eight point fourteen towards the top of your screen she says although mr stakes is carrying out step nine of his 11 step methodology in formulating an action plan with the

01:40:58 in formulating an action plan with the aim being to reduce the fire risk from significant findings with both physical and procedural controls mr stokes does not explain the purpose of the actions nor how they were deemed by him to impact the risk classification

01:41:13 and then she goes on to compare your action plans to past 79 and if we look at the template in past 79 we can just do that

01:41:24 79 we can just do that next at cta 703 page 98.

01:41:42 if we go to the to the uh the bottom of the page or bottom of your screen under the words action plan it says it is considered that the the following recommendations

01:41:54 that the the following recommendations should be implemented in order to reduce fire risk too or maintain it at the following level trivial tolerable can you explain why

01:42:05 trivial tolerable can you explain why you didn't include that in your action plans because it's already tolerable

01:42:12 but in in terms of the template it's guidance

01:42:15 guidance only and there is already a tolerable you'd already classified the risk to grenfell tower as tolerable but that was the risk rating uh well was that the risk rating before

01:42:26 that the risk rating before or after the actions that you recommended should be implemented both well let me when you tick the tolerable box yes um was it tolerable if

01:42:38 yes um was it tolerable if and on the assumption that the items that you identify the action items are completed or is it tolerable

01:42:46 tolerable even though they're not completed in other words tolerable as the building stood

01:42:53 when the actions are completed they would be tolerable

01:42:58 this is why i asked the question past 79 suggests that the tolerable box is ticked

01:43:07 so as to maintain or reduce the level to to to what is ticked so is is the answer that it is only once as i think you say the actions are

01:43:19 as i think you say the actions are completed

01:43:21 completed that the risk is tolerable in the particular case here the before they were tolerable the actions will still make the building tolerable when it's completed as well well that so does that tell us that even

01:43:35 well that so does that tell us that even though there are a number of red items or red and amber items

01:43:45 it doesn't matter to the risk level or the risk to life level whether or not they are completed in this particular case the risk level is broad enough to ex include

01:43:56 risk level is broad enough to ex include tolerable within those how would the reader of the fra know that

01:44:01 that because on another one it would say moderate

01:44:04 moderate for instance if the risk wasn't does this mean that the risk rating in the fra should have been higher say moderate and then reduced to tolerable only once all

01:44:16 tolerable only once all the actions have been implemented in this case no why in that case no because the risk within the building was tolerable even though there was some deficiencies within the building where do we see that

01:44:27 within the building where do we see that in your fra or in the significant findings election plan on the document does this tell us that in each and every case you would have to make an assessment uh

01:44:40 you would have to make an assessment uh as to whether the tolerable box would be ticked

01:44:44 ticked or another box would be ticked as the building stood as opposed to after the actions have been completed

01:44:53 if i understand what you're saying yes the answer is yes right and did you do that in every single case for granville or other buildings or does take grenfell for to start with well in the case of grenfell yes you would

01:45:04 in the case of grenfell yes you would look at the is it tolerable now will it be tolerable when it's finished yes it's tolerable but these are the things that are wrong within the building at present

01:45:16 building at present we may come back to that in when we look at some of the later plans um but i think i'm right in saying correct me if i'm wrong about this that at least in the case of the grenfell tower

01:45:26 tower fras we never see you advising or assessing the risk on the basis that it is anything other than tolerable

01:45:36 and that cure of the outstanding action items

01:45:40 items would change at that risk level is that right

01:45:43 right correct so it was always tolerable regardless of whether the works were done uh to cure the outstanding risk items correct or when they were done

01:45:56 correct or when they were done yes did you actually address your mind to that question that i've just asked you each and every time you did a fire risk assessment for grenfell tower all buildings right

01:46:09 but how would you go about just help me what was your methodology for making the assessment of comparing the building as it stood and that risk level

01:46:18 level to the risk level that the building would have as and once each and every outstanding fra item had been completed what was your methodology for doing that [Music]

01:46:30 [Music] how does the deficiency impact on the building

01:46:36 and then if it's not undertaken what would the impact be if it is undertaken what would the impact be but the definition is broad enough to take

01:46:47 take into account of the tolerable assessment what's the difference between tolerable and moderate it's just moderate is um

01:46:59 it's just moderate is um if the outcome is moderate it means the boxes above have been ticked differently so therefore there's a higher risk level or harm level and moderate would be

01:47:13 or harm level and moderate would be i'm reading in front of me here uh efforts

01:47:16 efforts it's essential efforts are made to reduce the risk

01:47:20 right so do we take it that each and every even each and every red item

01:47:29 item which you've identified are not items which were essential to be undertaken to reduce the risk because the definition of tolerable in for my

01:47:39 for my looking at it my assessment of it is that it is still tolerable no i don't understand that answer great respect are you saying that you ticked tolerable as opposed to

01:47:50 that you ticked tolerable as opposed to moderate because at no stage did you identify

01:47:53 identify any efforts to be made to reduce the risk it ticked horrible because the two boxes above in the matrix indicated would be tolerable as the outcome

01:48:03 outcome as in slight harm and medium

01:48:18 as in slight harm and medium moderate would come about if you if you could go back up to the box yeah on the top yes i'm looking at it so i can only see moderator i could you'd have i was there so you're absolutely right i do

01:48:29 so you're absolutely right i do apologize could we scroll down thank you so

01:48:35 i need to go up again so moderate would be essential efforts made but the piece above that in the matrix would give me the

01:48:44 right so are we to take it that in each and every red case of your fra items none of those were efforts to be made to reduce the risk they were only items where you thought there was a need

01:48:56 items where you thought there was a need for reasonably practical improvements involving minor or limited cost yes right

01:49:05 yes right now uh let's uh look on uh to pass 79 at page 61 please same document page 61.

01:49:19 i want to ask you now about the process of review

01:49:22 of review of previous action plans or actions on a previous action plan and this is covered here

01:49:29 here clause 20 periodic review of fire risk assessments

01:49:34 it says under para ramen 5 on the right hand side when the fire risk assessment is reviewed consideration needs to be given to the extent to which the original plan has been implemented

01:49:45 been implemented work that has not been completed needs to be identified and if you go down to the foot of the page please roman 9

01:49:53 roman 9 it says the original fire risk assessment in conjunction with one or more documented reviews constitutes a form of audit trail that demonstrates ongoing control of fire safety

01:50:05 ongoing control of fire safety can we take it that you were aware of those principles from august 2012 when pass 79 in this edition was published yes if we turn the page please to page

01:50:16 yes if we turn the page please to page 62 we can see a recommendation at paragraph 20.2 in the right in the left hand column and it says when the fire uh risk

01:50:27 and it says when the fire uh risk assessment is reviewed it should be confirmed whether work recommended in the original action plan has been carried out and in the fire risk assessment template we can go to that please page 77 in this document

01:50:45 that's where the template starts just for everyone's benefit there is a lengthy template here as annex be informative which is a model pro forma for documentation of a fire risk assessment for premises in england and wales

01:50:57 for premises in england and wales uh if we go on in this to pa page 112 112

01:51:06 this recommends including a section if you look at the foot of your screen called action on previous action plan and it says have all previous recommendations been satisfactorily

01:51:17 recommendations been satisfactorily addressed

01:51:18 addressed tick yes tick no uh brief details of recommendations not yet implemented now again were you aware that that was part of the past 79 august

01:51:29 that that was part of the past 79 august 2012

01:51:30 2012 template yes thank you um if we get into your

01:51:33 your go now to your second witness statement please page 12 this is c s t 3 0 3 1 sorry 0 1 h 6 c s t 3 0 3 0 1 8 6

01:51:46 3 0 3 0 1 8 6 page 12 paragraph 47

01:51:56 you say this

01:52:04 at paragraph 47 on each occasion where i conducted

01:52:08 conducted an fra review at the tower i would have made notes on a copy of the previous fra

01:52:16 fra so is it right that when you came to conduct an fra review of grenfell tower did you look at whether the work recommended in the previous action plan had been carried out yes you did um now

01:52:29 yes you did um now in your far risk assessments for grenfell tower from 2012 onwards to 20th of november 2012 onwards we don't see a section like we did on page 112 of past 79 action on a

01:52:40 on page 112 of past 79 action on a previous action plan that's right isn't it correct yes why is that because i undertook a completely new document

01:52:51 is it right that also nowhere in the fras that we have seen that you record which actions were completed and which were outstanding the actions there is no definitive no

01:53:04 the actions there is no definitive no they're correct why did you not include a section in those later fras to record whether the previous recommendations had or had not been satisfactorily addressed as per the template in past 79.

01:53:18 as per the template in past 79. they were recorded on the new significant finding that's not being undertaken so are you saying they were just

01:53:24 just carried across carried across or

01:53:29 added to or taken away if parts had been included

01:53:33 included when you say they were recorded on the new significant findings as not being undertaken did you actually monitor the um recommendations that you previously made

01:53:44 recommendations that you previously made and check where they'd got to in terms of their cure and then record that on the new fra yes because i took the old document with me i would find out whether the work had been undertaken

01:53:56 out whether the work had been undertaken and as you showed me in the document yesterday

01:53:59 yesterday referenced the fire extinguishers it was then repeated onto the new one but i think you accept that you don't actually record which actions have been completed and which remained outstanding do you so you not as a not as a

01:54:11 do you so you not as a not as a completely separate document no no would that not have assisted you in determining ongoing control and management of fire safety as required by past 79. but i had both documents with me at the time but if it wasn't recorded how could you

01:54:22 but if it wasn't recorded how could you follow from one fra to the next whether the actions you'd previously recommended uh had or had not been implemented because i had both documents in my hand as i walked around the building

01:54:30 building well i had the old one in my hand and i was writing the new one yes but you didn't have the previous one the one previous to that did you you previous previous one the previous previous one no no

01:54:42 previous one no no now i want to turn to uh the grenfell tower fras specifically and within those i want to look at some specific topics so what we're going to do next is is to

01:54:53 so what we're going to do next is is to flow through all the fras chronologically topic by topic

01:54:59 topic now i'm going to start if i can with disabled

01:55:02 disabled people that's that's a title that we see in your template and within that topic can we start with occupancy profile please um can we turn please to pass 79

01:55:15 please um can we turn please to pass 79 which we've just been looking at cta 703 page 21.

01:55:36 and on that page you'll see under the heading recommendations paragraph 5.2 uh at which starts uh every documented

01:55:50 uh at which starts uh every documented fire risk assessment should explicitly set out the significant findings of the assessment including information on the following matters and then if you go down to e it says approximate number of occupants

01:56:03 it says approximate number of occupants f whether the premises will be occupied by members of the public or a significant number of persons unfamiliar with the design and layout and if so the approximate number of members of the public

01:56:14 number of members of the public if known and just pausing there would you agree that the occupancy profile is a relevant factor in the assessment of a fire risk yes and the fire risk assessment should

01:56:26 and the fire risk assessment should include those details yes if we go to page 79 and look at the template under appendix b

01:56:38 it's part of the template for fire risk assessment in past 79 you can see on that page under general information halfway down your screen that there are two sections under that heading two of the occupants and

01:56:50 that heading two of the occupants and three occupants especially at risk from fire

01:56:54 fire and two the occupants recommends that uh the following are included approximate maximum number uh number of employees at any one time maximum number of members of the public

01:57:05 maximum number of members of the public at any one time and associated times and hours of operation and then section three occupants especially at risk from fire and you could see the the breakdown

01:57:16 and you could see the the breakdown sleeping occupants and then under 3.2 disabled occupants you see that

01:57:20 that correct yes and also the 3.4 young persons

01:57:24 persons yes so children effectively yes

01:57:28 yes yes now before we turn to look at one of your fire risk assessments would you agree in general that you did not include these two sections about occupants in your fire risk assessments

01:57:40 your fire risk assessments for grenfell tower they are in the risk assessments for grandfather you say they are are they yes

01:57:49 well we'll look at those uh let's have a look

01:57:52 look but before we do uh did you request any information from janice ray or anybody else at the tmo about the

01:58:03 or anybody else at the tmo about the occupancy profile i would yes you did yes when did you do that first do you remember

01:58:12 remember it was part of the initial document i had before when i first took over to ask about disabled people and what their systems were for knowing if disabled people were in the building

01:58:25 may i point out on this past 79 this is 2012. yeah this is about this doesn't differentiate between um residential

01:58:38 differentiate between um residential buildings hotels this is one document for all um categories of buildings well let's just

01:58:48 just study that a little bit further um do you accept that by virtue of and you may not know the details but article 5 2 and 9 7 of the fso 2005

01:58:59 2 and 9 7 of the fso 2005 the responsible person whoever that is was required to record in the risk assessment information about any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk yes yes and that would include

01:59:11 at risk yes yes and that would include identifying residents in a building who are especially at risk yes and do you agree that your fire risk assessments were the way in which the tmo

01:59:19 tmo uh or maybe be neutral the responsible person

01:59:23 person would discharge that obligation yes yes now um can we look please at page 21 of this document going back to back to it this is clause 5.2

01:59:38 back to it this is clause 5.2 i

01:59:42 i didn't show you top of the page right hand column occupants especially at risk c 3.67 in the event of fire e.g

01:59:53 3.67 in the event of fire e.g sleeping occupants disabled occupants those working in remote areas and young persons we're about i've got um on my screen i've just got recommendations 5.1

02:00:04 recommendations 5.1 uh you should have uh recommendations and then a a right hand column with roman or no

02:00:13 arabic i at the top oh sorry i apologize for occupants yes especially at risk you see that yes yes i've read it yeah i won't read it again

02:00:21 again um i take it that you were aware that when you were doing your fras for grenfell tower that was uh something that you were at least recommended

02:00:32 least recommended explicitly to set out your findings in respect of yes yes and let's look at 3.67 please then that's

02:00:40 that's on page 14 of this document

02:00:49 if you look at the third paragraph down on the right hand side it should be towards the top of your screen mr stakes can you see it 3.67 occupants especially at risk

02:01:00 occupants especially at risk thank you building occupants who as a result of their physical or mental state age or location in the building are at greater risk from fire than an able-bodied fully alert adult afforded adequate means of escape and other fire precautions whether on a

02:01:11 other fire precautions whether on a short-term or long-term basis

02:01:15 again were you aware of that guidance or principle

02:01:19 principle yes and were you aware of that definition of occupants especially at risk

02:01:24 risk yes yes uh and sticking with this document for the time being if we can page 36 please

02:01:34 this is the commentary to clause 12.

02:01:41 roman 8 bottom of your screen i think we can scroll up please a little to see eight and nine particular account needs to be taken of

02:01:52 particular account needs to be taken of occupants who could be especially at risk in the event of a fire and then note one in red attention is drawn to the relevant fire legislation which requires that other than the case of certain very small businesses

02:02:04 of certain very small businesses virus fire risk assessments record any group of persons especially at risk so that's in red so particular attention just pausing there were you aware of that principle when doing your fras for

02:02:16 that principle when doing your fras for grenfell tower yes yes then roman 9 particular care needs to be taken to ensure that due account is taken of disabled occupants who are often especially at risk in the event of a fire

02:02:27 risk in the event of a fire in view of the possible need for assistance with evacuation or special warning of fire all forms of disability need to be considered including mobility impairment deafness blindness

02:02:38 mobility impairment deafness blindness learning difficulties and mental illness again

02:02:42 again can i take it that you were alive to or aware of that principle yes yes and then over the page to page 37 roman 14 left-hand column final

02:02:53 roman 14 left-hand column final paragraph if we go to the foot of the page please i think we'll need to scroll down a bit further

02:03:01 further on that page roman 14 left-hand column at the foot the most important purpose of considering and recording occupants especially at risk in the event of fire is to ensure that adequate provisions are in place to protect such occupants

02:03:13 are in place to protect such occupants from fire

02:03:14 from fire having recorded such occupants within the fire risk assessment it needs to be clear within the documented significant findings that there are

02:03:22 there are provisions to ensure the safety of these occupants

02:03:26 uh and i just draw your attention specifically to the words to ensure that adequate provisions are in place to protect such occupants from fire again i'm assuming you were aware of that principle yes

02:03:38 that principle yes and then uh on page 37 on the right-hand side please under recommendations uh you can see it there

02:03:45 there oh it's just disappeared no um can we scroll

02:03:54 page 37 right hand column i think we've gone back to page 21 unaccountably can we go to page 37 please under recommendations 12.2

02:04:05 please under recommendations 12.2 while it is not normally necessary to document the manner in which every factor to which 12.1 refers affects the fire risk assessment there should normally be explicit information within the assessment regarding appropriate measures to

02:04:16 regarding appropriate measures to protect occupants who are especially at risk in the event of fire

02:04:21 of fire now again i'm assuming that you are aware of that principle as well in the commentary and the recommendation in clause 12 of past 79. yes yes now in your fire risk

02:04:32 yes yes now in your fire risk assessments for grenfell tower you did include didn't you i think a specific section for disabled persons under what you've given or called section 13. yes yes

02:04:43 or called section 13. yes yes and one can put up an example of that just very quickly cst403157 page 21.

02:05:02 and there it is in the middle of your screen 13 disabled people it is considered that the building is provided with reasonable arrangements for means of escape for disabled people

02:05:14 for means of escape for disabled people and although it's expressed as a statement there's a question mark and answer ticked yes this is the 2014 fra now i'll just show that to you we'll come back to the text of this shortly

02:05:25 come back to the text of this shortly can we look at what you say in your second witness statement about this mr miller's i'm sorry to dropped you but we've been running for an hour and i just want to check that mr stokes doesn't feel the need for a break

02:05:37 stokes doesn't feel the need for a break at this

02:05:38 at this i'm okay thank you very much sir we shall run through to one o'clock if we don't have one that's just that you're aware thank you very much and i think it's also important that i ask the transcriber whether she's happy to keep going for an hour

02:05:50 to keep going for an hour all right thank you very much yes mr phillips right um cst 3030186

02:06:04 that's the first page of your statement i would like to go to page 38 please and paragraph 18143 page 38 143

02:06:15 page 38 143 and you say there and this is under the heading g disabled people and you say under paragraph 143 i was at all times reliant on the kctmo to provide me with information concerning any residents who may have

02:06:27 concerning any residents who may have sensory physical or any other impairment indeed i understood from ms ray that the kc tmo had

02:06:33 had a quote comprehensive program to gather information about tenants including disabilities and their physical ability and mobility to respond to any emergency situations

02:06:45 to respond to any emergency situations and you've had a footnote for in there which

02:06:48 which at the bottom of your screen says this reference is to be found at by for example

02:06:55 example page 23 of the june 2016 fra section 13. now um do you mean in your statement here that you are reliant on janice ray to give you this information yes

02:07:08 to give you this information yes and if you look down the page of paragraph 144 you say this i received no such information in relation to residents at the tower

02:07:16 the tower hence the comments made in my fras referred to in question 54 i did not proactively seek information about residents but would have drawn attention to such an issue as part of the fra if this was known about

02:07:27 about correct does that mean that before you carried out a fire risk assessment for grenfell tower you didn't ask janice ray for up-to-date information on the residence and occupancy profile especially at risk

02:07:38 especially at risk it was my understanding that i would be told

02:07:42 told from them from previous meetings because it was arranged that i think a lot when i first started we went through this in depth and provided um a set of peeps documents to the tmo

02:07:57 um a set of peeps documents to the tmo and i would be tol i was the emphasis was on the tmo to tell me as the risk assessor

02:08:04 assessor of anyone that needed special needs so just picking up on the last part of your answer there is the answer to my question

02:08:12 question if that before you carried out a fire risk assessment for grenfell tower you did not ask janice ray for up-to-date information on the residence and any occupants especially at risk

02:08:23 especially at risk correct why did you not proactively seek that information from janice ray given the importance ascribed to recording information about

02:08:34 recording information about occupants especially at risk in the fire safety order 2005 and particularly past 79 as we've seen because it was an ongoing situation with the tmo and janice that she would inform me no matter where they

02:08:47 she would inform me no matter where they were

02:08:48 were um within building any building at any time so i could be the fra might be undertaken

02:08:58 august 2014 but if they had a residence that was moving in two weeks after i'd undertaken the risk fra she would inform me that it would alter the fra for that

02:09:09 that it would alter the fra for that building

02:09:10 building well i can see why you say it would my question is why you didn't think to ask her every time you were about to do an fra for grenfell tower

02:09:19 tower janice can i please have your up-to-date occupancy profile so that i can check and see whether there are any occupants especially at risk it was the reverse she would tell me

02:09:30 it was the reverse she would tell me when she knew that there was anyone in there at risk why did you leave it to her to do that rather than you actively prodding her

02:09:41 actively prodding her um it was a given that that was the sort of information i would be given as they um knew of residents in the building to the best of your

02:09:52 building to the best of your understanding was that her understanding as well that the onus was on her to volunteer the information to you and not on you to seek it from her correct because that

02:10:04 to seek it from her correct because that has happened on numerous occasions in the past and i have undertook peeps for people within buildings on the subject of peeps let's go then so before we leave that you say in your

02:10:15 you say in your statement the one we've got on the screen that you receive no information about the residents in the tower is that right correct i mean

02:10:26 did it occur to you that there might be some children living in the tower agreed yes but the truth is you didn't think to ask her were they children in the tower and if so

02:10:37 children in the tower and if so in which flats but it was a given that there would be children in the tower the fire safety order is young people is a workplace so it is whether

02:10:50 is a workplace so it is whether um not

02:10:53 um not the fire safety order is about workplaces and work so the young children section is about undertaking young

02:11:04 section is about undertaking young children undertaking work employment and that is because of their immaturity inability is not to do whether they sleep there this is the same as a hotel

02:11:16 sleep there this is the same as a hotel in a hotel you would expect to find families staying in a hotel but you do not make a difference between a family staying in a room whether they've got one child

02:11:27 they've got one child four children so i think what you're saying is that you didn't need in your view you didn't need to make any uh all these to consider

02:11:39 uh all these to consider how children might be affected if there was a need to get out of the tire you would assume there would be a supervised by their parents or adults

02:11:50 supervised by their parents or adults you would know there'd be children in the building it's a sleeping building yeah all right thank you very much yes sorry

02:11:58 sorry can i just say yes i'm sorry please do yeah the the domestic dwelling is outside the control of the fra so you would know there would be people in the fire safety or so you would know

02:12:09 the fire safety or so you would know there'd be people in the flats

02:12:12 but it's the makeup of the people in the flats you would assume the only disabled part of it again you would you wouldn't know that unless you're told that

02:12:23 know that unless you're told that information well you wouldn't know it unless you told the information was it your assumption having received no information in relation to the residence in the tower that there was nobody

02:12:35 nobody in the tower of any relevance to section 13 of your fras at any time for the fras correct uh one point after the last fra was undertaken i was

02:12:46 after the last fra was undertaken i was asked to go to the tower and i'm trying to november 16 to undertake a visit as requested by the tmo

02:12:59 visit as requested by the tmo which was outside the remit of the fra and i saw a mobility scooter and i raised that as a question

02:13:09 yes i i you're right and we will come to that

02:13:12 that in due course um but a moment ago before the chairman's questions you told us that it was a given

02:13:19 given that it was the sort of information that you would be given as they knew as the tmo knew of the residents in the building you said it was a given did you and uh miss ray

02:13:30 miss ray ever actually agree that the onus would be on her to provide information about uh residents especially at risk from fire i think it would be yes do you say there

02:13:41 i think it would be yes do you say there was a specific agreement to you well if she was told yes when did you reach that agreement with miss ray i think it was right at the beginning wasn't it in the in the

02:13:52 wasn't it in the in the um the letter sorry i can't remember the actual date september

02:13:59 september 10 when we went through all the items about

02:14:02 about the criteria of um what i would put down we covered yesterday sir yes that's the letter of the 27th of september 2010 if we go to that it's at cst403061

02:14:17 if we go to that it's at cst403061 please

02:14:22 and in it if you go to page three

02:14:27 now

02:14:31 that's cst four zero three zero six one

02:14:44 uh what is on the screen mr chairman well you've probably got what i've got it's not uh it indicates a problem potentially yes [Music]

02:15:04 i would hope this isn't going to take too long to sort out but it's hard to tell

02:15:07 tell island yes

02:15:22 island yes well it sounds like it's going to take more than the minute or so that i had originally hoped so i think sorry we're going to have another short break uh mr stakes so um i'm going to ask you to go with the

02:15:33 i'm going to ask you to go with the usher and um same terms as before no talking to anyone about your evidence please and we'll get you back as soon as we can

02:15:46 alright mr minute we'll leave the room and yes i'm going to ask the usher to come and get yes mr german certainly thank you

02:36:17 could you ask mr

02:36:32 um welcome back everyone uh we've come back into the room to explain that unfortunately we're still having significant problems with document display

02:36:44 display i can't explain the particular technology technological problems we have

02:36:48 have but suffice it to say that at the moment we still

02:36:52 we still can't display any documents in the room so the best course in my view is that we call a halt at this point for lunch

02:37:03 lunch and we'll resume if we can at a little earlier than usual at quarter to two that will give an opportunity to look into the problem

02:37:14 an opportunity to look into the problem a little more carefully and we hope to solve it so that we don't have any further difficulties this afternoon

02:37:20 afternoon so we're going to rise now we'll resume of course two mr stokes i asked you to come in just to ensure that you were in the picture and understood what's going on i'm sorry

02:37:31 and understood what's going on i'm sorry we're

02:37:33 we're causing these sort of difficulties but um

02:37:37 um there it is we'll resume a course to two please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room over lunch so and we'll see you then thank you if you'd like to give the usher now

02:37:47 usher now that'll be great

02:37:56 well there it is i'm sorry i think that's the best thing we can do and it gives um it gives people a chance to sort out the problem very good mr chairman thank you so of course

02:38:18 you