Debbie Berger continues evidence about Celotex RS5000 marketing. Reveals internal email about 'design tweaks' to delay fire, admits not knowing who at Celotex knew about the 6mm magnesium oxide concealment, describes traffic light marketing system targeting those with 'least expertise', and admits desktop studies relied on 'misleading BRE test'.
00:00:13 thank you would you ask this burger to come back in please thank you
00:00:25 all right ms berg are you ready to carry on thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman uh miss burger you referred this morning during the course of your evidence about communications within celetex about naf
00:00:37 communications within celetex about naf canalf um can i take you to ceo three zeros one
00:00:41 zeros one zero two four please one zero two four one please ceo three zero is one zero four two
00:00:56 four one and i'd like to go please to page two in that which is an email of the twenty uh fourth of october 2014 from you to paul evans about nav
00:01:09 from you to paul evans about nav foot of the page page one we can just go to the foot of page one
00:01:17 well let's start at page two actually let's start at page two uh sorry yes um paul evans writes to you on that day 24th of october
00:01:28 24th of october and bear in mind that you haven't seen at this stage the bre test because you only get that from john roper on the 27th of october
00:01:39 from john roper on the 27th of october and he paul evans says to you debbie thanks for coming back quickly on this my understanding is that naf will perform their own bsa414 test to include rs5000 but it was useful to get sight of
00:01:50 rs5000 but it was useful to get sight of their planned system so we can provide guidance on how this compares to how we tested having a weekend and you go back to him at the bottom of page one over to the top of page two on the twenty uh fifth of october
00:02:03 uh fifth of october i understand paul's question now do you see bottom of page one there are other details into which i've not fed back to paul regarding our pass for rs 5000. i wasn't
00:02:14 regarding our pass for rs 5000. i wasn't sure how much detail to go into but design considerations included orientation of the board the baseboard below the cladding that separates the fire chamber from the structure and also the thickness of the ato cladding we used a 12 millimeter board and then
00:02:27 we used a 12 millimeter board and then at the top of page two the idea behind these little design tweaks was to delay the fire entering the cavity and contacting rs 5000 for as long as possible it's thought the design contributed to the flames taking 20 minutes of the 30
00:02:39 flames taking 20 minutes of the 30 minute test to enter the cavity and contact celetex thus minimizing fire propagation again your guidance would be much appreciated now that date did you know did you think
00:02:52 now that date did you know did you think that looking back on the meeting that you'd had
00:02:55 you'd had we think that day with jamie hayes about the six millimeters of magnesium oxide oh yes i think i did know that you think you did know by then even though you
00:03:06 you did know by then even though you hadn't yet seen the bre test i think jamie had i think jamie and i had had an informal chat
00:03:11 chat based on the canal drawing and jamie had outlined some concerns i see now when you refer to the little design tweaks you didn't expressly pick up the six millimeters magnesium is there any
00:03:23 six millimeters magnesium is there any reason for that um i think i wrote this email with the things that i remembered from our conversation right but the six millimeters magnesium oxide
00:03:34 oxide didn't ring a bell with you at that stage when you were communicating this back to bill paul right okay but you did meant you did recognize at that stage but didn't you that rs 5000 would
00:03:47 didn't you that rs 5000 would increase the propagation of flame that's what you effectively say when where do i say that well it's designed contributed to the to the flames taking 20 minutes of the
00:03:58 to the flames taking 20 minutes of the 30 minute test to enter the cavity i'm not sure i'd have understood it like that but i understood that the the tweaks that had been implemented
00:04:10 the the tweaks that had been implemented meant that the system was more robust right once you saw the test report and wrote wtf on it
00:04:21 test report and wrote wtf on it at that point you were already in communication weren't you with paul evans
00:04:25 evans about the design tweaks yes was there any reason why you couldn't have gone back to him at that stage once you knew the full picture had been told in clear terms by reference to the the um photographs in the test report and go
00:04:37 um photographs in the test report and go back to paul evans and say wtf ask him that question no i didn't feel
00:04:42 feel i could do that i did we approached it with i think there was an email i sent to paul um and only paul evans because obviously i had no idea i thought i thought this was
00:04:53 had no idea i thought i thought this was news and um i um i think jamie assisted me in writing it right because there's no way i could have i i could have
00:05:05 have i i could have written that did sango ban who were now the owners of celetex have a whistleblower policy
00:05:13 they may have done yeah i i back then i wasn't aware of it did you not think to find out whether there was one
00:05:21 one by going to personnel and asking them no i didn't why is that
00:05:26 i don't know why did you prefer to continue to perpetrate this secret along with others at zelitex and then blowing the whistle on and going to top management
00:05:37 i was a little bit
00:05:43 i don't know i don't know why i didn't it was um
00:05:47 it was um i could put it down so i sit here now i could put it down to a couple of things um i honestly thought you know telling paul
00:05:58 you know telling paul would be enough now can we go to an email in february 2015. one five ceo3010151 please
00:06:11 and this is an email from you the bottom of the page to craig chambers it seems
00:06:23 to craig chambers it seems and you say i have some thoughts on the subject i can't help but feel concerned with now replicating the system we tested to 8414 and and you see that and
00:06:37 and and you see that and you you should you you don't say there openly that there was six millimeters of magnesium oxide
00:06:44 oxide and eight millimeters of um mali that had been concealed from the test report you don't actually identify those is that
00:06:51 is that is there a reason for that or was there a reason for that
00:06:59 no there isn't a reason other than what i've already explained it was your suspicion at the time that if ma nauf had replicated the system as described as having been tested to bs8414 part two
00:07:11 bs8414 part two they would have failed or might well have failed because of the presence in the test but not in the replication of the six millimeters of magnesium oxide
00:07:23 millimeters of magnesium oxide at the thermocouples
00:07:27 i was i wasn't very confident about the test full stop i think there were a number of a number of design
00:07:34 design design tweaks that could have contributed to you know making the system more robust yeah
00:07:41 yeah indeed but you don't list the absence or or rather the presence of six millimeters of magnesium oxide in the bullet points underneath that as one of the basic bases of your
00:07:53 as one of the basic bases of your concern if replica if now replicated the test why was that i can't explain why it's not in there right and then craig chambers comes back to you at the top and says paul debbie firstly we need just need to be very careful how many
00:08:04 just need to be very careful how many people circulated on emails on this topic
00:08:07 topic otherwise the danger that things get miscommunicated misconstrued as i've said before i'm not comfortable progressing this with naf i really feel that we need to learn more ourselves before working with any others and carrying out the bench exercise with
00:08:19 carrying out the bench exercise with warrington etc first we have to bear in mind that naf have an insulation business etc and just in relation to the first paragraph there he says he's not uh comfortable um need to be careful about
00:08:32 comfortable um need to be careful about how many people are circulated on the um on the circulation uh
00:08:42 did was it your impression that mr chambers knew about the presence of the six millimeters magnesium oxide even though you hadn't referred to it no i didn't i didn't know who knew i i
00:08:53 no i didn't i didn't know who knew i i wouldn't i didn't know right but you can't explain why you didn't refer to it and you've got no confidence that he knew about it only from what only from what i've said previously
00:09:04 previously that when being explained the different details
00:09:08 details it didn't stick with me sitting here now do you recall how many people within the cellotex business knew about the presence of the six millimeters magnesium oxide sitting here today
00:09:19 today knowing what i know now then i would say yes
00:09:22 yes i do know but at that time no i didn't no i understand that who is it what today has i know now i would say um i would say paul evans um jamie hayes um john roper and craig
00:09:36 um jamie hayes um john roper and craig chambers
00:09:37 chambers and paul reed right what is the basis on which you can sit here and say that craig chambers knew based on evidence that i've heard through um through this inquiry actually
00:09:48 through um through this inquiry actually but
00:09:49 but not not on the basis of your recollection of anything at the time and same question in relation to paul reed
00:09:56 yes yeah i did not know well i think what we'd actually like to know is thinking back to the time at which you were there did you see or hear anything to suggest that these people
00:10:07 that these people knew no i thinking back to then i i don't remember i'm not even sure i had a conversation with john roper about it openly
00:10:16 openly i think the only person i had an open conversation with about it was mr hayes right thank you i see yes thank you very much just to be clear i wasn't asking you if your comment on what you've seen of the
00:10:27 your comment on what you've seen of the evidence
00:10:27 evidence what i was after was your present recollection today of of back then back then yeah and what you i think you've clarified that thank you very much can i then get back to the to the
00:10:38 to the to the um 2016 labc certificate and just pick up a small point with you there
00:10:44 there and this is cel402062 this is the 2016 certificate uh and it's the point about the bba if we go to page five
00:10:55 we go to page five please in that we can see that in the supporting documentation
00:11:02 there are two references to a bba documents
00:11:07 documents uh bba letter fr5000 cg 5021 lambda classification bba spreadsheet for lambda data to your knowledge
00:11:16 knowledge was there any other bba um certificate or communication relating to rs 5000
00:11:32 other than the the br135 report
00:11:39 if i understand what you're asking me is that was there any other formal certification for rs 5000 in the market no it's my fault i'll put the question again i muddled it up um you could see that there are two bba
00:11:50 um you could see that there are two bba certificates or documents there bba letter and a bba spreadsheet was there any bba certification for either fr 5000 or s5
00:12:02 for either fr 5000 or s5 or rs 5000 in relation to fire bba certification relation to fire not to my knowledge no is there any bba
00:12:13 not to my knowledge no is there any bba letter spreadsheet certification in relation to rs 5000
00:12:20 that you knew about at the time no i don't think so thank you now can we then move
00:12:27 then move to february 2015. um cel40 is 3544 please
00:12:41 and this is a slideshow called rs 5000 market analysis that i think in your witness statement you say you asked jonathan roon to prepare
00:12:50 prepare for your mid-february spin meeting yes that's right and he sent those to you on the 11th of february 2015. and we can just pick that up at cel403543
00:13:02 up at cel403543 just have that
00:13:05 here's the email from him to you on that day hi debs paul please find slides that you can consider for use in the spin meeting on friday i've tried to keep it as simplified as possible did you present this slideshow
00:13:16 possible did you present this slideshow at the spin meeting to the best of my recollection yes right do you remember who was there no no i couldn't who would who would who would customarily be at spin meetings of that
00:13:26 that um the managing director the sales director the marketing director uh the head of marketing at the time right that's paul evans yeah um the managing director was craig
00:13:37 yeah um the managing director was craig chambers craig chambers um paul reed sales director paul reed and head of development would have been uh mr joe mahoney right can we go back to the slideshow four zero three five four four please
00:13:49 zero three five four four please ceo four zero three five four four page two
00:13:53 two i see the market for rs 5000 being split into three defined potential customer tiers and then slide three is the first of those tiers tier one no use red
00:14:03 use red are you familiar with the text of the that just yeah yes you can see the view the reason and the influence sir yeah and you can see that on the right hand side the influence so would be client
00:14:14 side the influence so would be client insurer building control and specialist consultant and the next page page four is the amber tier two limited use and the influence is there no insurer anymore but still with a specialist
00:14:25 anymore but still with a specialist consultant and then page five or slide five green the influencer main contractor subcontractor building control but no specialist consultant or insurer at all did you get the
00:14:36 or insurer at all did you get the impression from this that this traffic light system of analyzing the market meant that green use would be directed at those with the least expertise
00:14:47 at those with the least expertise i did understand that you did and do you think and i know it's hard to peer into people's minds but was it your impression of those at the meeting the spin meeting to which you presented this slideshow understood the same i can't be
00:14:58 slideshow understood the same i can't be sure they did right i'm not yeah i can't be sure i mean
00:15:03 mean this slide shows the tears are colour-coded there's text in them did you
00:15:10 you have a concern at the time that at that point february 2015 rs 5000 had for some months
00:15:16 months been sold uh into a a market for which it was not only unsuitable but actually
00:15:25 actually downright unsafe i knew i knew that the market
00:15:30 market i knew that the product was being sold i knew there was it was struggling with how
00:15:37 how to understand how the product can work with other cladding materials that's that's how i understood it right now by this time just taking it generally
00:15:47 generally did you understand that the field of application was not going to happen and you needed a desktop study i see those as the same things i see all
00:15:58 i see those as the same things i see all right
00:15:59 right um today i see those as the same things do you remember that in february 2015 you started talking to x over about them doing you a desktop study yes yes and i think i can shorten this a
00:16:10 yes and i think i can shorten this a little bit was that before the spin meeting
00:16:12 meeting or after the spin meeting without looking at the dates i don't know well we i think can look at the spin meeting note ceo40355
00:16:25 and you can see here that this is uh the note of the spin meeting at which you presented mr room's slides it's very short but if we go to page two we can see that uh on page two you were
00:16:39 you can see rs 5000 the first item there employer consultant for a desktop study and that was an action list with your name underneath it yes so can we take it looking at that that
00:16:50 can we take it looking at that that although perhaps xover weren't identified at that stage there was there was discussion with you about you employing a desktop absolutely it was it was seen as a way of understanding how the product could
00:17:01 of understanding how the product could be used with other cladding materials and it says underneath that arrange meetings with a preference for warrington that's over isn't it yes were you already in contact with them or was it just a just a name that had
00:17:12 or was it just a just a name that had been discussed at the meeting
00:17:15 i i don't know i can't be sure uh i think in fact you may well have been
00:17:22 been in contact with them already because i think you've made contact with them on the 11th of february remember that no you don't um now you cutting a long story short you
00:17:34 now you cutting a long story short you then had a meeting with franz papp and andrew evans of uh x over on the 20th of february yes uh and uh i don't think you took any notes but you you say in your statement that you think rob warren might have
00:17:45 that you think rob warren might have done so yes it's a paragraph to 213 at page 57 of your statement yes let's just look at those ceo402691 please
00:17:54 please we can see there let me just wait for those to come up
00:18:05 um we understand that these notes were made by
00:18:08 made by rob warren um do you think that's right yeah
00:18:12 yeah uh uh and um if you look at the middle entry
00:18:16 entry you can see they relate to warrington certification you see that on the 20th of february 2015.
00:18:23 2015. do you think those are the the notes of the meeting i know they're not your notes
00:18:27 notes maybe you can't help us but are they the notes of that meeting um if i can just take a minute to read yes it says friends pap yep certification engineer andrew evans key accounts manager find out about insulation performs fire
00:18:39 find out about insulation performs fire resistance test fire propagation test class north fire data
00:18:46 and it goes down to just below halfway down the page and then it talks about a housing meeting which i don't think has got anything to do with what we want to look at
00:18:58 yes that could be it could be doesn't and it says on the left hand side just about halfway down need other test data
00:19:06 data sbi that's i think do you know what that stands for um euro class test i think yeah single burning item euros
00:19:17 burning item euros test case-by-case basis assessment so did you understand that x-over saying at this stage that a report would be project specific no i did not understand that you didn't
00:19:28 no i did not understand that you didn't right did you discuss any particular cladding systems at this meeting
00:19:36 i don't know i can't remember if i'm honest all right let me move on into march 2015 ceo403589 and uh this is an email run of that day
00:19:49 and uh this is an email run of that day and if we look at the email at the top of the chain page one this is an email from you to friends pap on the 18th of march
00:19:55 march hi friends it says there but please sign attached a copy of our 32 page test report for bs8414 part 2 using celetex rs 5000. please find also
00:20:06 using celetex rs 5000. please find also some examples of four buildups we commonly see presented to us at design stage and this email is copied to paul evans and craig chambers isn't it yes and um the
00:20:19 and um the four of them uh are
00:20:23 slightly different but only very slightly design one is an unventilated cavity whereas two
00:20:30 two three and four all ventilated that's that's one difference isn't it yeah and then uh the other differences are principally the the um the cladding material so design one is
00:20:44 the cladding material so design one is is uh brickwork design two which is the ventilated cavity system is terracotta design three is cladding laminates a1 and design four is cladding aluminium
00:20:55 and design four is cladding aluminium class
00:20:56 class naught and you say at the bottom i think these best represent what's commonly specified and in particular what an hbc commonly see the analysis will hopefully help us to better understand the risky parts of cl
00:21:08 better understand the risky parts of cl of cladding systems it will also have provide us with some insights on rs 5005 behavior and contribution to this risk was that the real reason for the report
00:21:19 was that the real reason for the report yes
00:21:20 yes it wasn't the real reason um the the build-up had been tested that had been tested didn't actually represent what was commonly specified and that and that problem limited sales
00:21:31 and that and that problem limited sales opportunities at the time where when this was all going when when i engaged with it was we were trying to understand how can the
00:21:42 were trying to understand how can the product be used outside of its tested system
00:21:44 system and i understand these cladding types are
00:21:48 are after a discussion with the nhbc and i learned a lot from talking to dave white about the different cladding types to answer your question as i as i see it you know
00:22:00 as i as i see it you know today if you can just remind me of your question please yes well let's just see if i can get it another way see if you go to ceo40s1273 this is back to an email we looked at
00:22:12 this is back to an email we looked at before the lunch break of the 20th of january 2015. yeah you see and i took you through this and you remember i showed you the the paragraph in the middle of that page
00:22:23 paragraph in the middle of that page it's actually the foot of the screen which says one of the challenges rs 5000 has is its field of application
00:22:31 and then in the last sentence you remember i showed you it said this the build up tested or its current field of application doesn't represent what is commonly specified in the field and limits specification and sales opportunities yeah
00:22:42 opportunities yeah so that being the background wasn't the real reason that you wanted uh this desktop study from x over based on these four different designs that the problem was that the build-up
00:22:55 that the problem was that the build-up that you'd had tested wasn't representative of what was being commonly used in the market and that was limiting sales opportunities the this this is this
00:23:06 the this this is this short term summary if you like is exactly what was what what was the challenge to the product it was yes it it wasn't being addressed as a system it was being addressed as a
00:23:17 as a system it was being addressed as a product
00:23:19 product and what we needed to understand was you know how can we use the product outside of the tested system so it was initially an idea to try and gauge how
00:23:32 initially an idea to try and gauge how does
00:23:32 does the product work outside of its tested system
00:23:36 system but the real reason for wanting to know sorry i'm suggesting to you that the real reason the real driver for this exercise which was going to cost celetex money was to increase sales not just for the scientific curiosity of finding out uh
00:23:47 scientific curiosity of finding out uh yeah
00:23:48 yeah i think i think that's i think that's i think that's fair we were trying to understand how can the product be used outside of its tested system and i think it's once it was the eye the idea was it
00:24:01 it's once it was the eye the idea was it was just to try and understand the product a bit better and how it can be used outside of its tested system
00:24:07 system can we then look at the draft desktop assessment that comes as a result of the instructions that you gave xavier this is cel402040 please
00:24:21 this is a draft and you can see from the screen
00:24:24 screen ms burger that it's dated the 7th of may 2015
00:24:27 2015 when it comes to celetex did you see this at the time do you think yes and if we go to page five we can see the test evidence that x over set out yep that they took from the bre test
00:24:39 yep that they took from the bre test report
00:24:39 report 295 369 which is the first of august 2014 full 33 page test yes and they set out the test rig test specimen was constructed as follows and
00:24:50 specimen was constructed as follows and there is the now familiar list of uh ingredients or components in the test specimen
00:24:56 specimen no reference there at all to the six millimeters of magnesium oxide or the eight millimeter panels at the level two thermal couples or at the top of the rig is there no so do we take it that you didn't tell
00:25:07 no so do we take it that you didn't tell x over no i didn't about that uh no i did not you didn't why is that um it's you know it i can't explain
00:25:19 you know it i can't explain why i didn't other than it just was out of mind and that's not a great thing to say i appreciate that but it genuinely it was it was out of mind
00:25:31 was it was out of mind i think sorry sorry no that's fine i think now looking back knowing yeah it's i think i do recognize that when i was reviewing these documents
00:25:40 documents it became very very clear that this this was not fair this was not right did you not think at the time that if x over were preceded we were instructed to proceed on the
00:25:52 we were instructed to proceed on the basis that the components of the bre test were as described in this list that any resulting desktop study that they produced would be similarly incomplete flawed and therefore
00:26:03 incomplete flawed and therefore unreliable at the time as i said it just it really wasn't in my mind and it i i didn't put that together obviously now i do yeah right so you didn't occur to
00:26:15 i do yeah right so you didn't occur to you at the time garbage in garbage out no no i'm sorry i know it doesn't it really didn't
00:26:30 the idea here of course was to get a report that would broaden the scope of application and make sure that rs-5000 went on to more buildings than simply using the test report would
00:26:41 than simply using the test report would allow
00:26:42 allow i think a lot of the feedback i was we were getting leading up to this report was based on um
00:26:49 um further testing so the bre had said to us
00:26:53 us you know we need more test data and it was understood that more test data and in
00:26:58 in we were as i said if i had been involved with this product before launch we should have got more test data for it we should have which did all this work should have done in
00:27:09 should have done in in my head we got this to understand roughly how how how can the product be used outside of its tested system what cladding materials roughly going
00:27:20 what cladding materials roughly going from worse very very safe which is brick which is highly cementitious and very thick down to the three millimeter aluminium which has
00:27:28 which has the the non-fire rated filling so they were
00:27:31 were they were specifically chosen to gauge which cladding materials were safe depending on their sort of build up so as we go through it one of them i think is i think it's
00:27:43 one of them i think is i think it's terracotta i can't quite remember but it's less cementitious it's still cementitious but thinner and then the luca bond i think is the fire rated is the fire rated cladding
00:27:56 fire rated is the fire rated cladding so it was it was to try in my mind it was to try and understand how would celestex fare against brickwork how would celetex fare against the very worst which is acm three millimeters without
00:28:07 which is acm three millimeters without the fire rated but miss burger this doesn't make any sense with great respect
00:28:11 respect if you're telling the if you're telling x over to proceed on the basis of the bre test
00:28:17 bre test no yes and and that test report had a material omission then any desktop study which would broaden the application would be misleading and fundamentally
00:28:29 would be misleading and fundamentally flawed
00:28:29 flawed yeah i accept that but you must have known that at the time though it didn't it didn't i did not put it together
00:28:38 together how can that be no i'm sorry i know and if we go down to paragraph sorry page nine we can see
00:28:51 paragraph sorry page nine we can see what
00:28:53 what the bre sorry the x over thought of the uh
00:28:57 uh of the alternative designs
00:29:01 uh and they all passed other than aluminium and i'm summarizing is that that's right isn't it yes and if we look at these the uh conclusions in relation to aluminium in on page nine just above
00:29:13 aluminium in on page nine just above general conclusions based on the considerations outlined above when alternative design four with an external aluminium sheet cladded cladding over a ventilated cavity is tested in accordance with bsa414 part two
00:29:26 accordance with bsa414 part two it can't be judged with certainty to meet the performance requirements as outlined
00:29:29 outlined in br135 so at least you knew from that point
00:29:33 point the rs 5000 should not be used with aluminium yes even on the basis of the floor yes test now i i i take it but but all the all
00:29:44 now i i i take it but but all the all the others of course as we can see uh from the conclusions were passed weren't they designs one two and three
00:29:51 and three yes yes now do i take it i think we can take it that you never went back to x over and corrected the misapprehension that they they had about the list of
00:30:02 they they had about the list of components no i didn't the test and the report was formally issued on the 26th of may 2015 wasn't it i can show you that it's at ceo401116
00:30:13 at ceo401116 okay
00:30:16 i put the question to you before showing you the document but but you can see the document
00:30:21 document 26th of may 2015. that's is that the final version of this document i think it's the version we've seen yeah without yeah i mean i would imagine so yes it's a finer
00:30:33 i would imagine so yes it's a finer version and we have we can see no changes from the draft version do we take it that you never went back to x over
00:30:39 over and asked them to make any changes i would have i definitely discussed this report with um jamie right what's the upshot possibly rob warren right
00:30:50 rob warren right um what was the upshot of those discussions it wasn't to change the wasn't to change the not that i can record to change the sixth in there
00:31:02 sixth in there and say this drop final report was as flawed
00:31:05 flawed absolutely as the draft do you know what to what use this report was then put in the business um well we we thought it would give us an understanding
00:31:16 an understanding of how rs 5000 could be used outside of its um um tested system however when we went to see the nhpc
00:31:27 see the nhpc that we
00:31:30 that we made you know we were made aware of how little we knew and really it really was not it was not it's not something that they could take seriously
00:31:42 could take seriously indeed and we'll come to that in just a second before i do do you know to your knowledge
00:31:46 knowledge whether whether the x over report was ever used by celetex to promote the use of rs 5000 in any of the
00:31:54 the rain screen buildups design one two or three
00:31:58 three that passed in this test yes i think the um
00:32:01 um i think there was some discussion that the brick
00:32:04 the brick outer leaf i think i was asked um i was asked to later on i think i was asked to isolate the brick outer leaf um right yeah but you didn't
00:32:17 right yeah but you didn't i mean was this did to your knowledge was this desktop study actually ever used
00:32:21 used this did this in real life to sell rsv with all the four with all the four cladding i don't think it was no right you mentioned the nhbc meeting in your statement to page 61 paragraph 230
00:32:34 statement to page 61 paragraph 230 and you dated not as the 19th of may page 61 paragraph 230. if you just look at that you say i was invited to the meeting
00:32:46 invited to the meeting uh i've been working on the x-over desktop study and say my role was to be to talk
00:32:51 to talk about the draft x over report and at that stage it was a draft as i became more experienced working with desktop studies i learnt the level of detail required for a desktop study
00:33:02 for a desktop study i was not an expert in the details to be able to explain them i was just aware what was required and you go on to say you didn't think it was really a desktop study looking back on it
00:33:13 study looking back on it um when you say uh that it wasn't really a desktop study do you mean that that's because it it
00:33:25 do you mean that that's because it it it's not for a specific project yes i see but just just outline designs as we've seen in the yes yes
00:33:35 and if you go over the page please to paragraph 231
00:33:40 you say that at the meeting which it didn't go it was outlined in the agenda
00:33:48 and
00:33:51 you say there in the second line we presented the draft report from x over looking at the four different cladding types and a b nhbc expressed their concerns strongly about our lack of understanding about desktop studies
00:34:04 understanding about desktop studies and firstly they said any assessments should take into account the whole of the project is that the point you're making that these were not project specific they were too generic to be of any use yes right and and then
00:34:17 right and and then if we go to cel401122
00:34:27 we can see that paul evans
00:34:31 sends rob warren an email copied to you on the 8th of june
00:34:39 june response back from nhbc i haven't studied the detail yet but probably need us to respond once we have answers to the questions including feedback from xova
00:34:47 xova trying to find some time to discuss and below that you can see that there's an email if you just get lower down the page on the screen from graeme perry or of the 8th of june 2015
00:34:57 2015 to paul evans copy to dave white and john lewis hi paul this remains work in progress
00:35:04 progress but i can provide with you of you with a few observations we've previously commented in careful detail on bre far test report 295369 which appears to be the only fire test report released
00:35:15 be the only fire test report released query please advise if there are others furthermore we've previously explained that this bre test was not fully representative of a typical rain screen facade
00:35:23 facade however we are still seeking to review exactly what has been recently assessed by xavier in their desk study and then over the page there's more we're looking for provider critical breakdown etc
00:35:34 breakdown etc and then in the penultimate paragraph therefore it appears
00:35:40 that the basis for xavier's analysis does not reflect either a true model of a ventilated rain screen facade or take fully into account the fact that a large part of the mali rain screen caught fire
00:35:52 now did was there a discussion celetex with paul evans as indicated in paul evans's email that comes to you
00:36:03 paul evans's email that comes to you about this response from the nhbc do you remember i expect there was yeah how did this end with the nhbc um well they were looking for more um
00:36:15 well we we contacted friends pap at x over
00:36:19 over and we we we gave him the details about the lack of ventilation the lack of gaps between the cladding facades um we you said to him that you know could you
00:36:32 you said to him that you know could you review our review your analysis based on there being reduced amount of ventilation going into the cavity what did he say he said yes you'd do that did they do that yes and what did they produce a revised
00:36:44 and what did they produce a revised report no they produced an email right um and he listed his reasons right and did you take that back to nhbc i think
00:36:53 i think yes i think both rob did or paul did one of the two what was their reaction uh
00:37:01 i can't honestly i don't i honestly don't i can't recall right and can i just show you one more document
00:37:09 document cel40 is 2378.
00:37:15 and this is a document published by the nhbc in july 2016 entitled acceptability of common wall con constructions containing combustible
00:37:28 con constructions containing combustible materials and high-rise buildings
00:37:32 when this was published were you familiar with it not overly no not over i knew i knew i knew bits of it and i relied on on you know other people to really help me with it and if you look at the
00:37:43 help me with it and if you look at the bottom right hand corner it refers to common wall and facade types accepted by nhbc is a title and then says the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhbc without the need to provide an
00:37:55 to nhbc without the need to provide an option three assessment that's desktop study uh providing that the design specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set out in the following appendices and appendix there is aluminium composite panels
00:38:07 there is aluminium composite panels yes at the time were you surprised by this change in approach yes do you know what caused it no was your surprise shared with by others within celetex
00:38:21 the best to the best of yours yes knowledge yeah i yes we were you know at the end of the day it was like all the sales queries i mean from handover from john roper the emphasis
00:38:32 handover from john roper the emphasis was on nhbc um on h on nhbc you know projects it was a big goal for the company and in my time working with rs 5000 it was
00:38:44 in my time working with rs 5000 it was all that was you know nhbc their product wasn't allowed couldn't be used on these these projects because of how the nhpc viewed
00:38:53 viewed the cellutex test so when this came through
00:38:56 through it was yeah i didn't really it was a surprise do you know from your own knowledge at the time of any efforts made by celetex by way of
00:39:07 of any efforts made by celetex by way of lobbying or discussions of the nhbc that led them
00:39:10 led them to publish this guidance no miss burger thank you very much i've come to the end of my questions mr chairman
00:39:18 chairman i've come to the end of my questions i have um
00:39:21 have um not been true to my word i'm afraid never mind uh but there it is um so might just be a moment
00:39:28 moment for the yes greg and well ms berg as you heard council thinks he's come to the end of the questions but we always have a break at this point to give him time to just review everything and also to give those who are not here but may have
00:39:40 those who are not here but may have questions to suggest to put them to council so we'll break off now for 10 minutes or thereabouts um well i'll say we'll come back at 10 to 3 see if there's any more questions for you then
00:39:51 questions for you then thank you right thank you very much please give the usher thank you very much
00:40:04 all right mr turn to three then please
00:50:44 yes would you ask us burger to come back
00:50:52 please all right miss burger we'll see if mr militz found any more questions for you yes mr miller mr chairman thank you just one and between may of 2015 and the july of 2016 when we
00:51:06 may of 2015 and the july of 2016 when we can see that the nhbc published their guidance between those two months to points in time 14 month period or so did celetex continue to sell rs 5000
00:51:20 did celetex continue to sell rs 5000 yes what was the basis on which it was selling rs 5000 did it continue to sell said it on the basis of the marketing literature and the bre test and classification
00:51:32 and the bre test and classification reports
00:51:33 reports uh desktop studies we were becoming more we're working with projects real life projects now understanding how the reality of using
00:51:44 understanding how the reality of using rs in the different elevations of a project
00:51:47 project of a project not just in one sort of application isolated from its from from the project um and i suppose there was a growing comp a growing confidence that there
00:51:59 comp a growing confidence that there seemed to be a process i mean this is how i understand it there seems to be a growing confidence that there was a process to understand how the test
00:52:10 to understand how the test could be used outside could be used with other cladding materials how this is how rs could be used with other cladding materials now you were the project manager throughout that period roughly are you able to tell us into how many projects above 18 meters
00:52:24 into how many projects above 18 meters rs 5000 or so i couldn't tell you we didn't know right and is it the case that the desktop studies were done for above 18 meter buildings i think so yes
00:52:37 buildings i think so yes and is it also the case i think it would follow from our discussions earlier that in each of those cases did they rely on the bre-13 bre test that had been done in 2014.
00:52:49 test that had been done in 2014. so what can you each of those desktop studies yes they relied on the yes they did
00:52:53 did so does it follow from that that in each the case of each of those projects where there was a desktop those desktops were flawed because they relied on an incomplete yep like this leading bre test i accept
00:53:04 yep like this leading bre test i accept that today yeah right and to to your knowledge did you as the product manage project uh sorry product manager have a write to any of the architects designers contractors building editors
00:53:16 designers contractors building editors on those projects and and tell them that the desktop study they had used was based on a misleadingly incomplete bre
00:53:25 bre test test report notification i did not write to them myself because um
00:53:35 because i didn't i when by when we were by the time we got down to working more fluently and understanding the process of
00:53:46 the process of using the product with with these different projects the the nhb concerns of the ventilated facade and and um you know the orientation of the board
00:53:58 board in my mind franz papp had addressed that and um the idea of the the other areas which were reinforced had
00:54:08 had wasn't in my mind you didn't think it appropriate to write to those who relied on desktop studies and say your desktop study is fatally flawed there are there are a number of in hindsight there
00:54:21 there are a number of in hindsight there are a number of things i wish i wish i had done a lot differently but maybe if i had spoken more about this with jamie jamie and i could have together confronted the management as
00:54:34 together confronted the management as such and said look we know this is what's going on i don't know why we didn't support each other but we just didn't and we just didn't really talk about it much after so i think the answer to my question is
00:54:47 so i think the answer to my question is you didn't think it necessary or appropriate to write to those who'd relied on desktop studies and warned them that the desktop study they were using was fatally flawed you didn't
00:55:02 i didn't thank you well ms burger thank you very much for your evidence i'm extremely grateful to you for coming here today and helping the inquiry with these investigations so thank you very much
00:55:15 investigations so thank you very much and on behalf of the panel mayor also thank you for coming here i'm sorry we've
00:55:19 we've kept you longer than we indicated that we might need to but that's just the way of it sometimes and uh it's been very helpful to hear your evidence so thank you thank you very much
00:55:27 much indeed so i'd like to go to the usher now you're free to go thank you
00:55:39 and at this point i think we have to break for a short time for some housekeeping i'm sorry yes we do yes that's right that's understood and the next witness will be taken by miss grange yes thank you very much right well we'll
00:55:50 yes thank you very much right well we'll uh someone can come and tell us when we're ready to continue yes very good
01:06:44 on this grange it's nearly ten past three yes and it seems to us that subject to the views of others in the room it would be preferable not to have another break this afternoon
01:06:55 another break this afternoon yes we've had otherwise we'll be going out again in about half an hour or 40 minutes and that will disrupt things more than i think is sensible so yes i've checked with people in the room and everyone's content with that right so
01:07:06 everyone's content with that right so thank you
01:07:07 thank you is our short handwriter content good and i think thank you very much indeed and i'll take it that those who support us from the room next door are also content so um yes
01:07:18 are also content so um yes that comes next yes so our next kingspan witness is mr philip heath please thank you
01:07:40 please
01:07:44 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr heath we're going to sit down and make yourself comfortable please
01:08:06 yes it's strange when you're ready yes thank you yes could you give the inquiry your full name please uh philip john heath yes and can i start by thanking you for attending this public inquiry to
01:08:17 for attending this public inquiry to give your evidence it is very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding anything i'm asking you please ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way if you feel you need a break at any time
01:08:29 if you feel you need a break at any time please do tell us and the other thing i would ask you to do is try and keep your voice up because the lady sitting to your right there is taking a verbatim note of everything we say and so if you can try and keep your
01:08:40 and so if you can try and keep your voice up to the microphones that would be great
01:08:43 be great will do can i just interrupt sims tease i should have said this when you came in but
01:08:47 but i suspect you've been waiting quite a long time here to come and give your evidence haven't you if you well if you have i'm sorry that we've been waiting but i'm afraid these things happen no that's fine yes i'm sorry screech
01:08:58 fine yes i'm sorry screech no that's okay now you've provided a witness statement to the inquiry it's in a folder on the desk in front of you and it will also appear on the screen
01:09:05 screen if we can go to kin3020709 there we have it there and if we go over into page 82 onto the last page we can
01:09:17 into page 82 onto the last page we can see there it's dated the 15th of october 2019 and is that your signature it is thank you and have you read your statement recently i have and are the contents to true yeah
01:09:30 i have and are the contents to true yeah and have you discussed your statement or the evidence you're going to give with anybody before coming here today i haven't thank you now just to start with some questions about your background you tell us in your witness statement
01:09:42 you tell us in your witness statement you've worked for kingspan insulation since 1992 is that right that's correct continuous employment yes yes and that you're currently the divisional business development director for
01:09:53 business development director for kingspan is that right yeah and before joining kingspan you tell us that you worked for coolag an insulation manufacturer which was later acquired by the kingspan group is
01:10:05 later acquired by the kingspan group is that right that's correct coolag pearl board limited coolag pearl board limited thank you
01:10:13 and if we look at paragraph 2.2 of your witness statement on page two going over to page three
01:10:23 you tell us that before you worked or i think it was actually during the time you worked at cool ag you did a btec uh qualification in building studies i
01:10:34 qualification in building studies i think it goes over into the next page as part of your employment with coolag is that right that's correct yes thank you
01:10:43 you now we understand from paragraph 2.4 of your witness statement which is also on that page that your first role for kingspan was as a technical advisor is that correct yes
01:10:55 technical advisor is that correct yes and you were promoted to technical services manager in 1993. is that right yes and at that point you reported directly to peter wilson who was the managing director
01:11:06 was the managing director of kingspan and not not at that time no ah okay was that when you were promoted you then
01:11:12 you then reported uh not from 1992 um i reported to the marketing director at the time a gentleman called frank fitzmaurice i see okay thank you
01:11:24 see okay thank you and then at paragraph 2.8 of your witness statement on page four if we just bring that up you explain that in 2001 you were promoted to technical manager
01:11:37 technical manager and at the same time andrew pack took over your role as technical services manager is that correct yes that's correct and what you've helpfully done here below that paragraph is give us an organogram
01:11:49 that paragraph is give us an organogram showing the structure of the technical department between 2001 and 2009 that's what we see here isn't it it is yes and you're in the middle there um and you sit above andrew pack
01:12:01 um and you sit above andrew pack technical services manager and also either meredith project manager do you see that on the left yes and then above you
01:12:09 above you is malcolm rochford the technical director is that correct that's correct yes
01:12:18 and paragraph 2.14 of your witness statement on page six you tell us that you would send a composite monthly report to malcolm rochefort outlining key
01:12:30 to malcolm rochefort outlining key activities that's right yes yes now other than that report how regularly would you report to mr rochford
01:12:38 rochford um we would have regular um i think we're called technical lamination meetings where i'd meet him at those once a month and have various
01:12:49 at those once a month and have various numerous contact with him throughout the month yeah either through telephone or meeting him in the office yeah so you were regularly updating him and reporting to him
01:13:02 yes now on page five of your witness statement at paragraph 2.11 you explain that you set up the technical projects team and you promoted ivor meredith to be the
01:13:13 and you promoted ivor meredith to be the leader of that team is that right
01:13:17 that's correct yes yeah
01:13:20 and you you say you were involved in setting up the technical projects team in the first line and you promoted either meredith to be the project manager then in 2005.
01:13:31 manager then in 2005. when was that team actually set up can you help us on that was it set up before mr meredith was appointed project manager for that team or uh
01:13:42 or uh no i mean ivor had been managing some projects prior to that and then we established that as an official
01:13:50 official position within the organization so it would be around 2005 that he was officially given that title i would imagine yes but prior to that he was undertaking
01:14:01 yes but prior to that he was undertaking some project work for us yes thank you and you go on and you explain that the technical projects team became responsible for fire testing and certification of products both before and after they were placed on the
01:14:13 before and after they were placed on the market
01:14:14 market is that correct
01:14:18 yes that's correct yeah
01:14:22 and then still looking in that paragraph about eight lines down just on the right hand side can you see a sentence beginning together with other managers do you see that there
01:14:34 managers do you see that there yes so you say that together with other managers i would often initiate relevant projects
01:14:39 projects and often be present for any initial meetings but thereafter iva and the relevant senior technical advisor technical projects leader would largely be responsible for them on a day-to-day basis
01:14:51 a day-to-day basis ivan meredith produced monthly reports on the work of the technical projects team
01:14:55 team so i was kept up to speed with the main ongoing project do you see that there yes and those other managers that you refer to at the beginning you say together with other managers you'd often
01:15:06 other managers you'd often initiate projects and who were those other managers that you're referring to there
01:15:12 there um that would be business development managers
01:15:15 managers yeah um malcolm rochefort so yeah sales managers business development managers and and malcolm yeah so you see he was seen as a business resource i see
01:15:28 he was seen as a business resource i see yeah
01:15:29 yeah and you tell us at paragraph 2.13 on page six
01:15:33 page six of your statement that you had a you describe it as a general supervisory role
01:15:42 you say that in the end of there but and then before that you say although either meredith and andrew pack were given a large degree of autonomy they would naturally approach me with any issues or queries and i maintained a general supervisory role do you see that
01:15:54 general supervisory role do you see that there
01:15:54 there i do yes and when you say that they were given a large degree of autonomy can you help us a little bit more with what exactly you mean by that well i i certainly didn't micromanage them i think that's what i meant to say
01:16:06 them i think that's what i meant to say um they were managing a project they would report back to me on a at least a monthly basis on how those projects were proceeding um so
01:16:17 how those projects were proceeding um so from that point of view you know the maintaining a supervisory role was really offering advice and mentoring them when they came back with some questions in relation to the
01:16:28 some questions in relation to the project if they had any yeah i see yeah and then if we go over to page seven of your statement paragraph 2.23 what you tell us there is that the
01:16:39 what you tell us there is that the evidence you've provided in your statement
01:16:42 statement is focused on the period before early 2010
01:16:45 2010 because at that time you moved to australia and didn't become you weren't closely involved certainly with the k15 product after that time i wasn't no no no so that's the the
01:16:56 i wasn't no no no so that's the the period of time that you can assist us on the k15 product
01:17:00 product yes december circa december 2009 i officially left that position yeah i see and leading up to that i was probably
01:17:10 probably involved a lot in the australian acquisition and the business prior to that so there was a lead into my departure so to speak yeah
01:17:22 lead into my departure so to speak yeah and your current position within kingspan is that a uk based position uh no it's a global-based position um i've really have very little to do with the uk market
01:17:32 uk market now it's mainly concentrated in the us identifying business opportunities key account potentials and and also
01:17:45 key account potentials and and also um looking at vertical integration of businesses into kingspan and highlighting potential opportunities in that respect okay yeah thank you
01:17:58 okay yeah thank you now i want to ask you some questions now about your knowledge and understanding of the relevant regulatory framework at the time that you were involved with the k15 product
01:18:10 the k15 product um you explained to us in your witness statement for the transcript this is on page 33 at paragraph 5.2 that you understood about functional
01:18:21 that you understood about functional requirement b4 of the the building regulations we can look at that if you'd like so go to page 33 paragraph 5.2
01:18:38 so you say in preparation of this witness statement i've revisited the building regulations as they were during the period when i was technical manager in this period i understood that section b4 of schedule 1
01:18:49 understood that section b4 of schedule 1 required the external cladding systems to comply with the functional requirement on external fire spread and then you set out that functional requirement there do you see that underneath that she'll adequately resist
01:19:01 underneath that she'll adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another do you see that
01:19:04 that yes i do and i think you're telling us that
01:19:08 that in the time you were involved with k15 you did understand there to be that functional requirement is that right yes
01:19:18 and approved document b on fire safety what was your understanding at the time about what the purpose of approved document be was through document b was related to
01:19:29 was through document b was related to to fire and obviously health and safety surrounding the fire and the requirements of building components and assemblies to
01:19:40 building components and assemblies to meet the guidance note of of adb yeah during the period 2001 to 2009 did you ever attend any training
01:19:50 training or receive any training it formal or informal
01:19:53 informal on the building regulations and the approved document b not that i recall but i may have attended
01:20:01 attended something at the bre the occasionally run courses on building regs but i i have no recollection of attending no yeah during that period do you recall
01:20:12 no yeah during that period do you recall actually reading yourself the guidance set out in approved document b on fire safety i would have done at the time yeah
01:20:20 time yeah and would that have included section b4 on external fast spread i would imagine so yes yeah were you aware throughout your time as as technical manager that there was particular guidance for buildings
01:20:32 was particular guidance for buildings over 18 meters it would have been more it would have become more increasingly evident so as we traveled through the decade yes yes yes
01:20:42 yes yes and did you attempt to keep up to date with any relevant changes to the regulatory regime including that guidance
01:20:48 guidance during that period of time yes yeah
01:20:54 and were you also aware of the publication br135 at that time i would have been aware of that then yeah we'll come back to that if we could look at the 2007 version of
01:21:06 if we could look at the 2007 version of approved document b that's at clg one six zero seven and i want to look on page 95
01:21:22 and if we look in the bottom right hand part of that page we can see at 12.5 we get there in the first part of 12.5 a
01:21:34 we get there in the first part of 12.5 a warning
01:21:35 warning the external envelope of the building should not provide a medium for fire spread
01:21:38 spread etcetera the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings and then we see there it says external
01:21:49 and then we see there it says external walls should either meet the guidance given in
01:21:51 given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the br 3
01:21:57 the br 3 report br 135 do you see that there yes i do and that would have been referring to the br 135 second edition which came out in
01:22:08 135 second edition which came out in 2003.
01:22:10 2003. and then if we go over sorry and that paragraph is that a paragraph that you would have read and that you remember being familiar with uh i would have done at the time
01:22:20 the time okay and then if we go over to page 96 and we look at paragraph 12.7 their insulation materials product is the heading
01:22:32 the heading it makes clear they're in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material etcetera used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility
01:22:43 limited combustibility do you see that there yes i do do you remember reading that at the time at the time i would have done yes yeah and just to be clear you understood didn't you that k15 was a combustible insulation material
01:22:55 combustible insulation material at the time yes i did and it's not and has never been a material of limited combustibility has it no it hasn't did you understand at the time that that phrase limited combustibility had a
01:23:07 phrase limited combustibility had a special meaning and a special definition as defined in the later parts of an approved document b uh yes i did and that you had to satisfy certain test requirements
01:23:18 certain test requirements in order to be a material of limited combustibility yes i did
01:23:27 if we can go now um within your statement to page 31 and paragraph 4.50
01:23:39 you tell us that um in the period after the 2005 8414 test that we will will come on to talk about that you say this that in that the period after that we found ourselves explaining
01:23:51 after that we found ourselves explaining to customers the alternative route to compliance set out in paragraph 12.5 of adb which provided that the suitability of combustible materials for use over 18
01:24:03 of combustible materials for use over 18 meters
01:24:04 meters could be demonstrated by way of bs 8414 testing where the br135 criteria had been met
01:24:11 been met do you see that there yes i do so you're telling us that you often had to explain that alternative route to your customers is that right yes and you use the word
01:24:23 yes and you use the word alternative if we look back at the bottom of the previous page
01:24:29 in the second line you're using the word alternative there as as it being an alternative route to compliance did you understand that in order to be used in a building with a story over 18 meters
01:24:41 story over 18 meters either all insulation materials should be of limited combustibility or the entire external wall system had to meet the criteria in br135 when tested
01:24:52 tested to bs 8414 yes we did yeah and those are separate routes aren't they
01:24:59 they separate routes to compliance yes they are
01:25:07 prior to kingspan's first test to bs 8414 part one in may 2005. do you remember actually ever reading through the test standard itself
01:25:18 through the test standard itself uh i would have done but i can't remember specifically sitting down and reading it and you said you were familiar with br135 second edition would you have read that document
01:25:30 that document i would have done at the time yeah if we can bring that up bre four zeros five five five four
01:25:42 i think we go to the next page there we go that's the second edition it came out in 2003
01:25:49 in 2003 this edition the third edition came out later
01:25:52 later in 2013 just to give you that context um and if i just want to take you to a couple of passages within this if we go to page 20
01:26:03 to page 20 of this which is annex a the performance criteria for bs 8414 part one do you see that there yes and then halfway down that page there's
01:26:15 and then halfway down that page there's a heading principle of test bs8414 do you see that there yes and then under that heading [Music]
01:26:26 [Music] it says immediately there the test facility has been designed to allow the external fire performance of both applied and supported
01:26:34 supported non-load-bearing external cladding systems to be determined do you see that there yes and you see that it's referring to systems there yeah and it goes on
01:26:45 yeah and it goes on the test facility allows external cladding systems to be installed as close to typical end-use conditions as possible do you see that there
01:26:57 in the next line down from that yes i do yes
01:27:01 yes so it says the test facility allows external cladding systems to be installed as close to typical end-use conditions as possible do you see that
01:27:09 see that yes so did you understand that to mean that the
01:27:12 that the the test facility in the 8414 test is allowing the system to be installed as close as possible to how it's going to be used in real life on a building
01:27:23 on a building do you see that there yes yeah and you understood that at the time yes and if we can go to page 22
01:27:33 here we have the performance criteria and classification method at the top of the page
01:27:39 the page do you see that there yeah and if we just read that first paragraph it says the performance criterion and classification method set out here are based on the eight four one four part one test method
01:27:51 eight four one four part one test method the primary concern when setting the performance criteria for these systems is that the spread of fire away from the initial fire source and the rate of fire spread
01:28:02 and the rate of fire spread and then it says if fire spread away from the initial fire source occurs the rate of progress of fire spread or tendency for collapse should not in duly hinder intervention by the emergency services do you see that there yes i do and then
01:28:15 do you see that there yes i do and then it says this the performance of the system
01:28:18 system under investigation so i just want to focus on the word system under investigation again if did you understand when you were reading this that what this was testing was a particular system that was being
01:28:29 particular system that was being investigated in this test yes i did yeah and it's evaluated against three criteria external fire spread internal fire spread
01:28:39 spread and mechanical performance and did you understand at the time that the first two predominantly relate to temperature readings but that third element mechanical performance required a risk
01:28:52 mechanical performance required a risk assessment of the mechanical performance of the system do you see that there yes and did you understand that at the time i would have done at the time yes
01:29:04 and i think if we go over to the next page in the guidance there under mechanical performance we can see we've got those three criteria there
01:29:17 we've got those three criteria there and it says this no failure criteria have been set for mechanical performance however details of any system collapse spalling delamination or flaming debris should be included in the test report
01:29:28 should be included in the test report the nature of the mechanical failure should be considered as part of the overall risk assessment when specifying the system do you see that there yes so again were you clear when you read
01:29:40 so again were you clear when you read this that it was a particular system and that what needed to happen as part of this assessment was an overall risk assessment including how it had behaved mechanically
01:29:53 behaved mechanically at the time yes i would yeah
01:29:57 now if we go back to your witness statement on page 34 paragraph 5.5 you say this you say i do not recall
01:30:09 you say this you say i do not recall what my understanding of br135 was historically although i certainly would have had at the very least a general understanding of the requirements at the time i was dealing with k-15 do you see that
01:30:20 dealing with k-15 do you see that there yes and you go on to say that you've now reminded yourself you say this in the next paragraph you've now reminded yourself now of the requirements and you've set out your understanding below
01:30:32 understanding below and then you set out particularly at paragraph
01:30:35 paragraph 5.9 below that
01:30:41 your understanding of the system and how it can be classified as having met the br135 criteria do you see that there
01:30:52 criteria do you see that there so it's got to have been tested to the full test duration without early termination of the test you're talking about the thermocouple temperatures at b and then the farmers not penetrate
01:31:05 and then the farmers not penetrate and then you've also got at 5.10 below that you say separately continued burning of the tested system following extinguishment of the fire source will be referenced both in the test
01:31:15 test and classification reports as well as details of system collapse detachment delamination flames dripping etc and you say mechanical integrity is considered an integral part of the
01:31:26 considered an integral part of the general risk assessment so we've got that in your statement as well yes you see that there yes now you say that that you refreshed your your understanding of that when you were preparing your witness statement
01:31:42 would you have had that understanding at the time
01:31:45 the time you were the technical manager and carrying out these 18414 tests i would have had
01:31:52 have had knowledge of that yes yeah
01:31:55 and did you understand that 8414 and the br135 classification criteria
01:32:03 criteria are not intended to guarantee the fire performance of any individual component or product used within that tested system did you understand that that it was a holistic assessment of the entire system
01:32:17 holistic assessment of the entire system i would have understood that yeah and did you also understand that you can't
01:32:23 can't take a successful tested system and pull out of that one component or one product and then in a different system say well it's okay to use this
01:32:34 it's okay to use this product because you can now call it a product of limited combustibility that would have been correct though within that bl 135 i think there were some wordings
01:32:46 bl 135 i think there were some wordings to say as close as possible
01:32:52 when you say as close as possible sorry what do what i think within the br135 i think they're from memory and from preparing the statement i think there is
01:33:02 there is some wording said the construction should be as close as possible yes but i'm i'm just on a slightly different point which is do you agree that what you can't do is
01:33:14 do you agree that what you can't do is test a system successfully to 8414 and br 135 and then pick a product one product out of that successful test
01:33:25 of that successful test and put it in another system or another building and say well because that was on a successfully tested system we're now going to treat that as a product of limited combustibility
01:33:37 combustibility and so it can go without question onto another building did you understand that yes i did yeah thank you
01:33:49 yeah thank you now given you say you understood at the time that you were technical manager that the whole system had to meet the performance criteria in br135
01:33:59 br135 can you just help us about how you refer to this in your witness statement in a number of places if we look at paragraph 3-1-1 of your statement on page 11.
01:34:18 of your statement on page 11. and if we pick it up in the fourth line there's a sentence beginning i understood can you see that there
01:34:28 yes and if we can just read that together you say i understood that the 2005 bs 8414 test demonstrated that k15 was suitable in principle
01:34:39 principle to use over 18 meters provided it was used in combination with a non-combustible cladding and non-combustible backing sheathing board do you see that there yes i do
01:34:51 there yes i do and it was really the use of the word in principle can you just help us as to if you understood the concept i was just discussing with you how you can say there that the bs 8414
01:35:04 how you can say there that the bs 8414 test
01:35:04 test demonstrated that k15 was suitable in principle to use over 18 meters provided it was used in combination with a non-combustible cladding and a
01:35:15 a non-combustible cladding and a non-combustible backing board you see that there yes i think i think at the time when we're trying to commission this we're one of the um
01:35:26 the um i think if not the first one of the earliest manufacturers who were testing to
01:35:31 to that british standard yep um and i think there's a lot of interest from the certification bodies on that test and from memory i think it
01:35:42 on that test and from memory i think it was the bre who who actually suggested we test using that construction or system um as the pilot test
01:35:55 i see so yes i was going to come to this so um
01:35:59 so um are you saying that it was suggested to you by the bre that if you tested that kind of simplified system let's call it that that then you would be able to
01:36:10 that then you would be able to extrapolate from that and use it in other applications at the time that was that was the inference from the bre yes and when you say at the time what time
01:36:21 and when you say at the time what time period are you referring to are you referring to before the 2005 test was done in may 05
01:36:29 yes it would have been yeah did there come a time when you became aware that that wasn't the case
01:36:37 the case that in fact either because the bre told you it or because you'd worked it out elsewhere
01:36:43 elsewhere you couldn't test k15 in a representative configuration and then extrapolate onto other applications uh well
01:36:54 onto other applications uh well obviously
01:36:55 obviously we we took the advice or the suggestion from the bre to go down that route of that particular assembly
01:37:03 assembly um i think that was also probably to give them
01:37:07 give them or to give them some technical data as well in relation to how that particular test performed um
01:37:16 with regards to when we realized i think after
01:37:20 after after the test was completed i'm not sure of the period of time but the bre i believe retracted their original suggestion yes
01:37:31 their original suggestion yes mr meredith described it as moved the goal posts is that a fair characterization of what happened
01:37:38 happened um well that that's certainly analogy that
01:37:41 that they just changed the mind yeah we'll come back to that but that's very helpful thank you um just briefly on on class nor national
01:37:52 um just briefly on on class nor national classical sorry before we move on can i just
01:37:55 just ask for a little bit more help on this expression suitable in principle to use over 18 meters i mean what exactly
01:38:03 exactly do you mean by that
01:38:08 sorry this is line 5 of paragraph 311
01:38:15 yeah five up from the bottom i think right sorry yes i've got that yes all right
01:38:25 i think what i was trying to say there in is
01:38:29 in is perhaps suitable in principle might be slightly the wrong word but i think it was um it was probably representative martin in principle it was representative of a
01:38:41 in principle it was representative of a system to use over 18 meters i mean the position reality was that it would be suitable for use over 18 meters if incorporated into a
01:38:52 over 18 meters if incorporated into a system
01:38:53 system of the exactly as tested is that right that's correct i mean the 8414 is obviously it is a system test so i think by by default that it's a system test that would that would be the inference
01:39:05 that would that would be the inference yes yes right thank you yeah but when you use in principle there were you trying to express what your understanding had been before the 2005 test
01:39:18 it's pretty i'm probably trying to put in words what the the the suggestion that the bre was giving to us yeah it was you know that would be a representative system
01:39:31 of a non-combustible cladded rain screen but you later understood that that wasn't right didn't you uh well they certainly retracted that comment yes yeah
01:39:43 retracted that comment yes yeah but also if you if you've read eight for one for and you've read br135 it it doesn't say that anywhere does it it doesn't no
01:39:56 now national class naught i just want to ask you a little bit about class naught um you cover this at paragraph 511 of your witness statement on page 35.
01:40:12 there you tell us there are two routes by which a class naught rating may be achieved the first route applies to materials of limiting combustibility which are automatically class naught and then you say later in
01:40:24 class naught and then you say later in that paragraph in the final sentence the second route is via testing to bs 8 476 part 6 and 7. do you see that there and again was was that something you
01:40:35 and again was was that something you understood at the time that you were technical manager that there were i would i would have done yes yeah and you understood what national class naught
01:40:45 naught meant yes yeah was it your understanding that at all times between 2001 and when you departed in late 2009
01:40:58 and when you departed in late 2009 test data existed on the basis of which k-15 could be said to have a class naught classification
01:41:08 sorry can you sorry yes sorry it's a wrong question was it your understanding that at all times between 2001 and say 2010 test data existed
01:41:19 and say 2010 test data existed on the basis of which k-15 could be said to have a class naught classification so did you understand during that time and and throughout that time that there was test evidence supporting
01:41:31 that there was test evidence supporting k15 having a class naught classification yes oh you did and can you help us as to what relevant class
01:41:41 class national class naught had to using a thermal installation material in buildings over 18 meters
01:41:54 [Music]
01:41:57 yeah i can't recall specifically because what i'd like some help with is why we see class naught national class naught very prominently stated in k-15's
01:42:08 naught very prominently stated in k-15's marketing
01:42:09 marketing literature throughout that time right right which i'll take you to later um why that was so relevant and then why it would be relevant for buildings over 18 meters
01:42:22 relevant for buildings over 18 meters um from memory i'm not sure how relevant it was for over 18 meters but it was one of those and probably still remains though it's it's obsolete now but it certainly at that time
01:42:34 that time you know it used to be say in the 80s architects and specifiers it was like a peace of mind accreditation or test so originally going back to the eighties it was
01:42:45 going back to the eighties it was a class one um and then it moved to this class o which was obviously part six and seven
01:42:53 seven um and it was just really a general classification that architects and specified buyers ask for they might not have realized why but it was just one of those
01:43:04 but it was just one of those tests that they said what's the surface spread of flame rating whether it's required or not yeah we often got that question yeah so i think
01:43:13 i think it was to satisfy some of the routine questions we may have got that we put that in the literature
01:43:22 [Applause] just moving on now i want to ask you some questions about the development and the launch of cool therm k-15 which you've you've covered in your
01:43:33 which you've you've covered in your witness statement if we can look at page 17 paragraph 3.29
01:43:45 you say this you say i believe that k-15 was marketed as an option for use in external cladding systems on buildings with a floor over 18 meters in england wales and scotland following
01:43:57 in england wales and scotland following and on the basis of the 2005 8414 test do you see that there yes i do and are you basing that belief on the fact that the test carried out in may 2005 was the first
01:44:09 2005 was the first large-scale test to 8414 carried out by kingspan on a system which incorporated the k-15 product that would have been the case yes yeah
01:44:20 that would have been the case yes yeah is it your belief that prior to that test in 2005 k15 would not have been a product which would be suitable to enter into the over 18 meter market
01:44:32 18 meter market yes that would have been my understanding
01:44:37 now i want to take you now to an activity report produced by iva meredith and dated january 2004 it's at
01:44:47 five kin405054
01:44:55 we can see at the top it's activity report number one by iva meredith january 26 2004 do you see that there yes i do and is this the kind of written report you would
01:45:06 report you would frequently receive from mr meredith i would have received something similar from uh
01:45:11 from uh from various members of the technical team at the time yes yeah and then if we look at the third bullet point down that's at the bottom of that page
01:45:20 page under the heading phenolic development k15
01:45:23 k15 we can see it says this it says looking at the potential for a class b phenolic product that will achieve acceptability for above 18 meters in facade construction by building
01:45:35 in facade construction by building regulations the product has been made pentane blown with a heavier grade foil facing 25 micron i will be testing within the sbi on the 29th of january 04
01:45:47 within the sbi on the 29th of january 04 and if successful results are obtained we will be moving towards a large scale testing scenario bs 8414 performed in conjunction with steel frame system market leaders metsec do you see that there
01:45:59 do you see that there i do yes
01:46:05 now as far as you were aware was k-15 being marketed or suggested for use over 18 meters at any stage prior to the development of
01:46:16 at any stage prior to the development of that pentane blown heavier grade foil phaser version of k15
01:46:24 i can't recall specifically you can't help
01:46:27 help and you can you help us as to whether mr meredith was talking about a pentane blown foam with a heavier grade foil facer for general production at that time
01:46:42 sorry can you just repeat the question yeah reading the paragraph is whether mr meredith was talking about a pentane blown foam with a heavier grade foil which is what he's referring to there
01:46:51 to there yes but you can help us as to whether the intention was for that to be in general production by king sperm i i would have thought so yes yeah yes and i'm i i'm assuming that
01:47:02 yeah yes and i'm i i'm assuming that class b
01:47:03 class b relates to where the euro class that was i don't think it was enforced then but i presume that's what he's talking about yes and i think that's reinforced by the fact that
01:47:14 think that's reinforced by the fact that the reference to sbi later in that paragraph is single burning item which is one of the test methods under that european classification system do you see that there i do yes yes
01:47:29 now i want to ask you now some questions about some of the details of the 2005 test
01:47:33 test to bs 8414 it was carried out at the bre on the 31st of may 2005 to bs 84 part 1 yes which is on a masonry structure is
01:47:46 yes which is on a masonry structure is that correct
01:47:49 yes it is yes yeah
01:47:54 and if we go to your witness statement again
01:47:57 again at uh page 22 paragraph 411 you tell us in the end of that first line that you also supervised the
01:48:09 line that you also supervised the commissioning of the 2005 test which was project managed by mr meredith as technical project manager do you see that there so you say you supervise the commissioning of it sorry which
01:48:20 commissioning of it sorry which paragraph
01:48:21 paragraph yeah yeah sorry 4.11 at the very top of that page
01:48:29 you tell us you supervised the commissioning of the 2005. yes
01:48:36 can you just help us by what exactly you meant by that supervised the commissioning of it um what was your involvement i'm assuming the commissioning of it meant signing it off um
01:48:49 meant signing it off um as a project and uh ensuring the funds were available from uh the technical budget and approval from uh
01:48:58 uh the the directors of the business because it was quite an investment at the time probably one of the biggest fire tests we've done so i think yes
01:49:05 think yes commissioning it relates to you know ensuring the funding was available from the budget yeah can you remember who
01:49:13 who initiated the project to test 84141 um i believe that was probably initiated initiated from the business development team at the time
01:49:26 and can you help us to why they were initiating that project uh they obviously saw opportunities um in that particular sector above 18 meters yep
01:49:40 and you go on in fact in in that um sorry it's a different paragraph on your witness day if we go on page 11 and look at paragraph three one one
01:49:53 you tell us in the first lines of that paragraph as the demand for products suitable for use over 18 meters increase we
01:49:59 we we commissioned a test of a system incorporating k15 to the test method bs 8414 part 1 which was conducted in may 2005.
01:50:10 may 2005. do you see that there so you're you're saying there it's as the demand for products suitable for use over 18 meters increased so that's consistent with what you've just told us
01:50:22 just told us now what did kingspan hope to get out of that test what were they hoping to achieve
01:50:28 achieve from it an opportunity to explore the opportunities for the market above 18 meters yeah now mr meredith has told us in his
01:50:40 yeah now mr meredith has told us in his evidence to this inquiry that this test in may 2005 was part of a planned
01:50:45 planned series of tests to explore the performance of k-15 in large-scale systems do you agree with that
01:50:53 that that that was what was going on here
01:50:59 it was certainly
01:51:03 yeah can you sorry can you repeat the question yeah mr meredith told us that this test in may 2005 was part of a planned series of tests to explore the performance of k-15
01:51:14 explore the performance of k-15 in large-scale systems yes we weren't seeing this as the first tests we were going to do you know it was we were looking at at other opportunities
01:51:25 other opportunities with other component suppliers as well who were who were in that marketplace yes thank you and it's right isn't it that you'd started in fact with a what sometimes called the naked test
01:51:38 what sometimes called the naked test a test where all that was on the rig was just
01:51:41 just k15 with no exterior that was in december 2004 do you remember that i do remember that yes yeah and mr meredith's evidence was that this next step with outer building boards
01:51:55 next step with outer building boards was never intended to be representative of a real-life external cladding system do you agree with that
01:52:02 with that it was it was a rep well under the advice of the bre it was a representative of a non-combustible cladding system yes
01:52:13 you're clear that was the advice of the bre are you that it was representative of a real live cladding system from a non-combustible cladding panel
01:52:27 let's just look at what mr meredith says for a moment if we go day 75 page 59 i want to pick it up around 9 15.
01:52:46 and um so if we look at line 15 there in the middle of that page i asked him the question you have said in your witness statement just for the transcript and then i give the reference the decision to carry out
01:52:59 the reference the decision to carry out this test was a collective decision with all senior members of the technical team to test the particular system that was tested in 2005. that's right isn't it and then he says this he says i collated
01:53:11 and then he says this he says i collated the materials together and would have presented them to my line manager this was the the one in 2005 was our first step of potentially many tests so it was agreed that this was a good
01:53:22 so it was agreed that this was a good starting point do you see that there yes i do do you agree with that that what he said there in that answer it was certainly a collective decision um to test to the to that standard
01:53:35 um to test to the to that standard and uh a collective decision and discussions with the bre to test that particular assembly yes do you also agree with him that it was
01:53:46 also agree with him that it was your first step of potentially many tests
01:53:49 tests so it was agreed it was a good starting point do you agree with that i do agree with that yes yeah and if we can look at what he says at day 75 page 71
01:54:07 and i want to look at lines three to eight
01:54:11 eight i asked him the question who in kingsman had been involved in those discussions about what outer layer to choose do you see that there and then he answers at line five it would have been myself and philip heath
01:54:23 would have been myself and philip heath we were solely perhaps naively looking for a non-combustible board just to go on the outside this was our first real step into this testing do you see that there yes i do and do
01:54:34 do you see that there yes i do and do you agree with that um i believe there was more people involved with regards to the collective decision to test that at that non-combustible board yeah so i think i think the uh it was
01:54:48 yeah so i think i think the uh it was the collective was greater than myself and either i believe but would you agree that even if there were more people involved in it you were what he says there about you were solely perhaps naively looking for
01:55:00 were solely perhaps naively looking for a non-combustible board just to go on the outside uh i wouldn't use the word naively because we were we were
01:55:08 were it was in discussions with the bba bre so i wouldn't say naively we uh we were looking for a non-combustible board i see yeah and i just want to show you one more passage from his evidence on
01:55:20 one more passage from his evidence on this point if we go to day 76 page 64.
01:55:28 and i want to pick it up at lines two to six
01:55:33 six perhaps we ought to pick up the question actually just before this if we go to the
01:55:37 the page before
01:55:40 and i'm asking about the sp expanding the scope of the may 2005 test at line 21 and then at 25 at the bottom of that page i say even though you knew that wasn't a truly
01:55:51 you knew that wasn't a truly representative test and you knew the k-15 had been and then he says this yeah i knew it wasn't a truly representative test but it was to be taken looked at you
01:56:02 but it was to be taken looked at you know it wasn't supposed to be a representative test it was supposed to be evidence of performance of an insulation behind a combustible a non-combustible layer do you see that
01:56:14 a non-combustible layer do you see that there
01:56:16 there yes i do now do you agree with what he says there that it wasn't a truly representative test
01:56:24 do you agree with that
01:56:31 we felt it was representative of a non-combustible
01:56:37 cladding panel on the outside i think maybe what mr meredith was saying was that the system as tested wasn't
01:56:48 the system as tested wasn't uh truly representative of a system that would actually be installed commercially because
01:56:54 because the form of the outside board there's not one that would be used in that situation would you agree with that um i would agree with that yes
01:57:05 agree with that yes um our feeling at the time and from the bre that
01:57:09 bre that the board would use was representative of non-combustible cladding boards panels within the marketplace so i agreed that the panel we used
01:57:22 agreed that the panel we used was not typical of what was used in that end use application but was representative of non-combustible panels it could be thank you i see well i think we'll
01:57:33 thank you i see well i think we'll we make we'll come back to the the cladding board in a moment
01:57:40 so just moving on with that 2005 test
01:57:47 if we then look at mr meredith's witness statement now it's kin three zeros two two three one two at page five
01:58:06 two at page five so if we can go to page five and under a if we could blow that first top of the page up i just want to read you what mr meredith put in his witness
01:58:17 you what mr meredith put in his witness statement
01:58:18 statement and ask you whether you agree with what he's put here so he says uh this at a kings fan tried on numerous occasions to obtain a bigger scope of application for k-15
01:58:30 scope of application for k-15 to bs 8414 parts one and two after performing indicative testing of k15 to 8414 part one exposed to the full fire load without
01:58:41 exposed to the full fire load without cladding
01:58:41 cladding we arranged to test behind a non-combustible building board do you see that there yes i do do you agree with that that you've gone from the
01:58:50 the the test without cladding the naked test to the test behind a non-combustible building board yes that was the second that was a second test yeah the one in mayo five yes yeah
01:59:02 yes yeah and he says this we did this as the bre advised that if we tested behind a non-combustible building board they would give us scope to say that the system tested
01:59:13 system tested tested two could meet the br135 requirements when used behind all non-combustible cladding types do you see that there yes i do now pausing there is that
01:59:24 yes i do now pausing there is that consistent with your recollection that the bre did advise that that if you tested in that configuration they would give you some form of documentation which said that the system
01:59:36 documentation which said that the system tested
01:59:37 tested could meet br135 when used behind all non-combustible cladding types that was my understanding of the discussions that were had yes yeah
01:59:48 discussions that were had yes yeah and can you help us who was it at the bre you remember saying that at the time i don't i'm afraid because those meetings would have been with iva
01:59:59 those meetings would have been with iva and his and his uh contacts at the bre i don't i don't believe i was present at those initial meetings okay yeah and then he goes on unfortunately
02:00:11 yeah and then he goes on unfortunately after testing successfully i am meeting the br 135 requirements the bre moved the goal posts and retracted this statement leaving as a little in the lurch do you see that there yes i've already
02:00:23 do you see that there yes i've already asked you about that but you can see how either put it mr meredith puts it in this yes statement would you agree with that uh the narrative i'd use will be different but yes i i agree with that
02:00:35 different but yes i i agree with that yeah and then he says this in the next paragraph shortly after this myself philip heath technical manager and the director of kingspan offsite went to the bre sarah colwell and tony
02:00:47 went to the bre sarah colwell and tony baker and the director of the bre were in attendance i believe to attempt to obtain this when kingspan launched the off-site division that included about five different build-ups do you see that there yes i do do you
02:00:59 do you see that there yes i do do you recall that meeting you went um together with iva meredith and the director of kingspan off-site to to the bre uh to obtain
02:01:11 to the bre uh to obtain attempt to obtain that wider scope of application do you remember that i don't remember that meeting particularly um i think i met sarah colwell once but
02:01:22 um i think i met sarah colwell once but i can't recall that particular meeting okay and and mr meredith says this the meeting became very heated as the bre could not commit to a route
02:01:34 as the bre could not commit to a route to getting a full and comprehensive certification for the systems to bs 8414 parts one and two do you see that there yes i do does that help with your recollection he says it became very
02:01:46 recollection he says it became very heated
02:01:47 heated as the bre were not committing to that route of
02:01:51 route of full comprehensive certification do you remember that i don't recall that what do we know what date this meeting was
02:02:02 do we know what date this meeting was we'll check what mr meredith said i don't think we have an exact date it was some time after the the test in in may 2005
02:02:16 right possibly july 2005 but um we wondered if you could help no like i say i remember meeting sarah colwell once with iva i don't
02:02:27 sarah colwell once with iva i don't recall
02:02:29 recall um three people from kingspan attending no i have no recollection of that at all i'm afraid do you remember a meeting with sarah colwell where it became heated
02:02:40 colwell where it became heated no i don't it sounds like a memorable meeting
02:02:44 meeting reading that it does but i i i have no recollection of of such a meeting
02:02:51 but do you have any reason to to believe that
02:02:54 that that that wasn't the case mr meredith appears to have a clear recollection of it he seems to have a clear recollection whether whether i was actually in attendance i i really cannot recall
02:03:05 attendance i i really cannot recall and if and then if we go to the next paragraph
02:03:09 paragraph below that he says the meeting finished with the bre stating that even after 15 tests at 8 000 test costs alone they could not commit to being able to
02:03:20 they could not commit to being able to give kingspan scope of application as they simply did not have the knowledge of these systems do you see that there yes i do again does that provoke any form of recollection that they were saying
02:03:32 recollection that they were saying even if you did lots of tests spending a lot of money we can't commit to giving kingspan scope of application as we just don't you wouldn't even then have enough knowledge of the systems can
02:03:44 have enough knowledge of the systems can you remember that conversation i can't recall that conversation i just recall
02:03:49 recall um as i mentioned earlier that the bre retracted on their initial comments to us yeah so you do recall being aware of the substance of this even though you can't recall the
02:04:00 this even though you can't recall the conversation is that what you're saying i remember the two points i said that the bre
02:04:05 the bre suggested the assembly and i recall the bre
02:04:09 bre retracting that suggestion recommendation or idea yeah
02:04:16 idea yeah and he goes on picking it up in the third line there he said this was very apparent as at a lot of tests we conducted numerous bre personnel would wish to witness the testing all they could commit to was after we
02:04:27 all they could commit to was after we conducted 250 000 pounds worth of test work
02:04:31 work they would hopefully be able to identify some extended application rules that would allow them to write something more comprehensive about the performance of the systems do you see that there yes i do yeah now
02:04:43 do you see that there yes i do yeah now i've been reminded that according to mr meredith he thinks this meeting was sometime
02:04:47 sometime after um 2006 and before kingspan off-site performed their own
02:04:55 their own 8414 testing so it'll be in around 2006 that this is likely to have happened we believe right okay does that help at all not particularly
02:05:07 does that help at all not particularly no
02:05:10 can you help us you've said that you do recall the bre retracting that statement about extended applications why is that not
02:05:21 extended applications why is that not mentioned anywhere in your witness statement
02:05:27 i don't know didn't come to mind during the during the time it's only through reading further documents that that comes to mind and it reminded me of the situation isn't that quite an important
02:05:39 quite an important point that ought to have come to mind when you're discussing and your statement is very long it's 87 pages and you go into a lot of detail about these tests and what was going on at the time within kingspan
02:05:51 at the time within kingspan wasn't it quite important to tell us that the bre had retracted a statement to that effect it was but you have to remember it was 14 15 years ago you know it was
02:06:02 14 15 years ago you know it was yeah i just couldn't recall at the time when i gave my statement it's the reason you don't mention it in your statement because actually that shows
02:06:11 shows that you at the time knew that you couldn't use that 8414 test and extrapolate out to other systems you were fully aware that that was the bre's position
02:06:23 aware that that was the bre's position no not at all
02:06:26 so no that's not the reason why you didn't include in your statement that's correct [Music]
02:06:32 [Music] and your evidence is that you you just simply it didn't come to mind is that right when you were preparing your statement during the course of giving my statement yes i hadn't recollected that
02:06:45 recollected that do you accept that even if at some earlier stage you believe that the may 2005 8414 test data could be used in a representative way
02:06:56 way once you were aware that the bre weren't supporting that position you knew that that couldn't happen it couldn't be used in a representative way
02:07:09 sorry sorry could you repeat that yes so even if you believed at some earlier stage
02:07:17 stage that the test data could be used in a representative way to support the application of k15 and other
02:07:24 other systems that were different from the one tested once you're aware that the bre were not prepared to do that you knew didn't you that that representative
02:07:36 representative position wasn't tenable that's what i want to put to you at that particular time yes yes
02:07:45 and i want to put to you that the bre tony baker and sarah colwell made that clear to you personally in a meeting i don't recall
02:07:56 in a meeting i don't recall that particular meeting i don't know i've no record of my attendance at that meeting
02:08:02 meeting i don't know if the vre have but i cannot recollect that meeting with other people from kingsman but do you accept that if you'd simply read the criteria in br135
02:08:15 read the criteria in br135 you would have understood that the test could not be used in a representative way
02:08:20 way it was system specific
02:08:24 i agree at that time yes but we were working under obviously the uh the recommend recommendations of the bre like say this was
02:08:34 was you know we were the first or the second on that particular rig at the time and i think
02:08:38 think you know there's a huge learning curve for the both ourselves and the bre and yeah i think you know in many ways they were they're probably holding our hand a little bit as well
02:08:50 as well yes i i appreciate that mr heath and i appreciate that that that's your evidence as to what you were told by the bre but once you knew they'd retracted that statement what i'm putting to you is then you knew
02:09:02 what i'm putting to you is then you knew it couldn't be used in a representative way
02:09:05 way once we knew that if they'd retracted it that's correct yes yeah now if we go on um to look at your witness statement at page 74
02:09:17 page 74 paragraph 11.20
02:09:24 you say this you say i know that an email from iva to the bre on the 30th of may 2005 records me as being in attendance at the 2005 8414 test and this is also recorded in
02:09:36 8414 test and this is also recorded in my outlook calendar but due to the time that has passed i do not now have any recollection of attending this test and i'm unable to comment on how many bre employees attended the test
02:09:48 bre employees attended the test and then you say to the best of my recollection i did not attend any other bs 8414 testing during my time as technical manager do you see that there i do see that yes
02:10:01 i do see that yes now thinking about it now um can you help us can you recall whether or not you did attend that test or does that remain your evidence that you simply can't remember it was it was certainly my outlook
02:10:12 it was it was certainly my outlook calendar when i was providing my my evidence um i think it was either on a monday or tuesday i can't recall but um i've no recollection of attending
02:10:23 um i've no recollection of attending that particular test at the bre i have i believe i have seen as an 8414 test um year before this
02:10:35 um year before this or a similar test i think it was at the bre cardington uh where they were testing an external wall insulation system but i have no recollection of attending
02:10:46 but i have no recollection of attending this particular test on the 30th of may
02:10:50 if you attended it it would have been a memorable event wouldn't it you'd have had to
02:10:54 had to travel to the bre facility in watford absolutely absolutely yes it's yeah it would have been a significant journey so
02:11:05 journey so does it follow from that that um it's likely that you didn't attend the test do you think i don't believe i was in attendance no i see
02:11:15 see now in terms of the particular materials used in the test and just starting with the k15 insulation if we go back to paragraph 3-1-1 on page 11 of your statement
02:11:31 you say there just over halfway down about five lines up from the bottom you say this
02:11:39 say this it begins for the purpose of you say for the purpose of preparing this witness statement
02:11:44 statement i have been unable to confirm what k-15 product was used in the 2005-8414 test however given the date of the test and the chronology of the project product development described in paragraphs 317
02:11:57 development described in paragraphs 317 to 318 below i understand that it cannot have been the pembridge produced new technology k-15 do you see that there
02:12:05 there yes i do so you helpfully tell us that it can't have been the new technology k-15 that was not developed
02:12:12 developed until september 2006 is what you tell us elsewhere
02:12:17 elsewhere [Applause] but going back to that previous sentence where you say you've been unable to confirm what k-15 product was used in this test
02:12:29 this test can you just tell us what you mean by that
02:12:32 that did you know at the time what k-15 product was being tested
02:12:43 at the time i would have known which particular k-15 or technology was being adopted on that particular test yes and you talked there about you said you
02:12:54 and you talked there about you said you would have known which particular k-15 how many versions of k-15 was there in 2005. there was only one
02:13:07 so there's one and that was the version being sold i assume is that right that would have been the version that was being sold for anything less than 18 meters at that time yes
02:13:19 meters at that time yes and are you able to confirm that the k-15 product used in the test was the same one actually being sold to market at the time was that your understanding that would have been my understanding yes
02:13:32 now we've already touched on the outermost layer of the the system tested in 2005. um and i want to show you
02:13:43 um and i want to show you just a couple more passages in in mr meredith's evidence if we go to day 75 page 67
02:14:00 um picking it up there at line 15 just over halfway down i asked him as far as you were aware were those cement particle boards non-combustible do you see that there
02:14:11 non-combustible do you see that there and this is where i've taken him to the test report and i'm that's where i've got the cement particle boards from and he answers this way he says it was a non-combustible cement particle board
02:14:23 non-combustible cement particle board manufactured by uac berhard they were a middle eastern manufacturer but yes it was non-combustible as far as i was aware do you see that there yes i do and was that consistent with
02:14:36 yes i do and was that consistent with your understanding at the time as to what those boards were i was aware it was a non-combustible board
02:14:44 board yes yeah but but did you leave it to either to source the particular type of board that was used in the test we did leave it to either to procure all the uh
02:14:55 the uh all the components or to work with other component
02:14:58 component suppliers to provide free material free of cost
02:15:02 of cost free of cost materials for the test yeah and then at the very end of his evidence day 76 if we look day 76 page 207
02:15:20 he's being asked a final question about is anything more you want to say and then he says at line 18
02:15:28 18 he says firstly the non-combustible ball was a uac berhard board which was known as i think it was marketed as super superlux in the uk and it was a cellulose fibre cement board
02:15:40 board so as opposed to although it had particles in it it had a cellulose fibers in it as well so yes not traditionally suitable for the outside of a cladding but it was a non-combustible board do you see that there
02:15:53 you see that there yes i do and
02:15:57 do you agree with what he says there that it was
02:16:03 not traditionally suitable for the outside of a cladding but it was a non-combustible board
02:16:11 yes i do
02:16:15 and given that either ordered the materials and built the rig himself there's no reason to doubt what he says on that is there
02:16:27 no he procured the products and if he requested a non-combustible building board
02:16:33 board i can only assume that was what was supplied
02:16:36 supplied i don't believe he built the rig himself by the way no he had help from euro fox right right well sorry that was his evidence to us right okay but no he wouldn't i was just saying he wouldn't have been
02:16:47 saying he wouldn't have been capable of building the rig himself it's right
02:16:50 right it's more than a one-man job yeah if we go to your witness statement um and we look um on page 79 of your statement
02:17:00 statement there's a footnote right at the bottom footnote um 48. i just want to read to that read that to you
02:17:09 you you say as part of my preparing this witness statement it has been brought to my attention that the 2005 bs 8414 test report records the cladding panel used to have been a cement particle board i
02:17:21 to have been a cement particle board i now understand from colleagues that the material used was likely in fact a non-combustible fibre cement board i'm not able to shed any light on this issue and it's not something i was aware of until very
02:17:32 until very recently do you see that there yes i do now when did you become aware of this that it was a non-combustible fibre cement board as opposed to a cement particle board
02:17:45 obviously when i was preparing my uh my witness statement and you say you became aware of it you say from other colleagues you say i now understand from colleagues which other colleagues
02:18:09 i think it was um
02:18:14 adrian brazier i might have highlighted that because i i think they were doing some um audit as to what have been provided for that particular test because i don't
02:18:25 that particular test because i don't think iva's records either were available or up to date or i don't think we could sort it from the bre and they they adrian brazier just told
02:18:36 and they they adrian brazier just told you this out of the blue or how did that come to happen that you were told that i think we it was all
02:18:42 was all we were discussing the the various tests that had been undertaken at the time and i was trying to refresh my memory looking through the uh the test report and [Music]
02:18:54 [Music] it was mentioned then that it was actually a different it was a non-combustible board that had been used not neces what not necessarily what i think have been written in the report it
02:19:05 think have been written in the report it has been brought to my attention right yeah i see are you aware that the 2005 test report has now been withdrawn by kingspan i was made aware
02:19:19 by kingspan i was made aware when were you made aware of that um
02:19:25 earlier this month two weeks ago maybe right
02:19:29 right yeah can we just go to a letter from kingspan to the bre dated the 23rd of october 2020 this is it
02:19:36 it kin 3024104
02:19:46 we can see there it's dated the 23rd of october 2020 it's debbie smith and it's from adrian pargeter we can see that at the end of the letter if we look down at the end of it
02:19:59 there adrian partiter for kingspan do you see that there yes i do have you seen this letter before
02:20:06 before uh can i just see the top of it again oh yes sorry yeah let me just show you the top page it's on kingspan letter paper
02:20:18 you've seen that before coming here today
02:20:25 i don't believe i have no if we look in the second paragraph down on that in that letter um he says as you may be aware kingspan is currently involved as a core
02:20:36 is currently involved as a core participant in the grenfell tower public inquiry
02:20:39 inquiry as part of our cooperation with requests for information from the inquiry of undertaken a comprehensive review of all past and current test data which relates to k-15 including bs 8414
02:20:50 which relates to k-15 including bs 8414 tests
02:20:51 tests do you see that there and then it says underneath that through our review we have now concluded that tests carried out in 2005 and 2014 featured a product that was not
02:21:02 featured a product that was not sufficiently representative of the product currently sold into the marketplace we have listed these reports in a small summary of their construction buildups below do you see that there and then
02:21:15 do you see that there and then what we can see is the first construction buildup listed in that table
02:21:19 table which is test 220876 is the one carried out in may 2005 and you can see on the tested instruction tested construction it says
02:21:31 instruction tested construction it says masonry substrate 60 millimeter k15 mechanically fixed and then uac cement particle boards cavity barriers etc do you see that
02:21:42 cavity barriers etc do you see that there yes i do
02:21:46 did that come as a surprise to you when you
02:21:49 you were made aware of this letter that that test report was being withdrawn because the featured product the k-15 that was tested was not sufficiently representative of the product sold into the marketplace uh
02:22:05 i didn't realize we were still using that report in
02:22:13 so you didn't realize you no i was still i didn't realize that was still that report was still being referenced because we've obviously done a number of tests
02:22:22 tests since then and i think we've even replicated that test um so i didn't really i didn't realize it was still being used but the question i asked you was did it come as a surprise to you
02:22:34 did it come as a surprise to you when you were made aware of this letter that the k-15 tested was not representative of what then been sold to market i was surprised it was still being used bearing in mind
02:22:47 it was still being used bearing in mind they had replicated it with what we call new technology product so now that's not an answer to my question did it come as a surprise to you that it was being withdrawn because the
02:22:59 that it was being withdrawn because the k-15 tested was not what had been sold to market
02:23:09 it wasn't a surprise because i didn't realize they were still using that test report in the marketplace why did you think they
02:23:19 they weren't still using that test report in the marketplace
02:23:24 i think and well from from memory i think test reports there is reference to five five years um i don't know if those can be extended
02:23:35 um i don't know if those can be extended but
02:23:37 but i think there is some reference in in fire test reports about the longevity um whether it's reviewed in five years or
02:23:45 or lapses in five years i can't recall so yeah and have and not being involved in the uk market
02:23:54 yeah to say a surprise i yeah i can't i can't offer an opinion one way or another where they were surprised or not really is the reason that you were not surprised because you knew
02:24:05 surprised because you knew from 2006 onwards that kingspan had started selling k15 which was fundamentally different to that which was used in the 2005 test
02:24:18 uh i don't believe the product was fundamentally different i presume you're you're referencing what we call old technology versus new technology yes and when i mean fundamentally different
02:24:29 and when i mean fundamentally different i mean on fire performance i should have clarified
02:24:32 clarified is the reason you're not surprised because you knew from 2006 that kingspan was selling k-15 which performed very differently in fire
02:24:45 which performed very differently in fire no i don't i don't believe that's the case no okay and you don't believe you were aware of that in 2007 and 2008
02:24:56 and 2008 in in relation to what that you were selling a k-15 product that performed very differently in fire
02:25:05 in fire to the old technology k-15 are you saying you didn't know that um i know that there was subsequent tests we did where the the product and it was the product
02:25:16 the product and it was the product tested in the 8414 if those were you referring to in in 2008 seven it was a completely different assembly
02:25:24 assembly so that we tested in 2005. are you saying you didn't know at that time that the k15 itself not the assembly the k15 itself
02:25:35 itself not the assembly the k15 itself was performing very differently in fire in those tests the new technology k-15 as compared to the old technology k-15 in the in those particular tests it
02:25:47 in the in those particular tests it performed differently than the large-scale test in 2005. now the question is it was a completely different assemblies that were tested in 2007 and eight which may have had an
02:26:01 in 2007 and eight which may have had an impact on the performance of of the board okay well we'll come back to this point because i'm going to take you to some documents that you saw in 2007
02:26:09 2007 and i'll ask you about this again if we could go to kin
02:26:18 405075
02:26:22 this is an email from mr meredith to various technical services uh generic addresses within kingspan copying in malcolm rochford do you see
02:26:33 copying in malcolm rochford do you see that there it's dated the 26th of may 2005. so it's just a few days before the test was carried out this is the with the non-combustible cladding oh it
02:26:44 cladding oh it is this one yes yes sorry this is the may 2005 test i'm coming back to that now
02:26:48 now right okay sorry um so this is the 26th of may 2005. and mr meredith is saying in the first line please finding close pictures of the 8414 part
02:27:00 finding close pictures of the 8414 part 1 test rig i i have been constructing at the bre watford this and last week do you see that there yes and is it likely that you would have been the recipient of this email because
02:27:11 been the recipient of this email because you would have been on one of those generic technical emails i would have been i would have received this i was on one of those one of those email addresses i believe yes yeah
02:27:21 yes yeah and in this email um he says in the next paragraph the construction utilizes an aluminium bracket system 60 millimeter cool therm k15 etcetera with ventilated cavity barriers at floor
02:27:33 with ventilated cavity barriers at floor level and then in the second sentence he says the outer phase is clad with a sacrificial cement board which will be destroyed by the three megawatt fire that will be breaking out of the aperture at the bottom of the
02:27:44 of the aperture at the bottom of the facade do you see that there yes i do
02:27:50 and would you agree that the use of sacrificial there is consistent with mr meredith saying this wasn't supposed to be a truly representative test of a real live cladding system
02:28:02 cladding system there was it was supposed to be a a simplified test if we can put it like that with just a building board or a non-combustible particle board i'm not sure if it was a
02:28:14 particle board i'm not sure if it was a simplified test because it was still a large scale test so it wasn't simplified from the requirements of the 8414 the sacrificial cement board you know that was a
02:28:27 cement board you know that was a representative cement board and i think you're finding from what i've seen of this test that most of the of the cladding is is is destroyed at certain parts of
02:28:38 is destroyed at certain parts of the test so do i say i say simplified because isn't it right and
02:28:45 and and wouldn't you have understood this at the time that you would never put those boards whether they're fiber cement boards or cement particle boards on a tall building would you you would
02:28:56 on a tall building would you you would never clad it in that would you no you'd use similar products to that which have a finish on them when the performance might be the same but that particular product
02:29:08 but that particular product uh no it was it was representative of a finished non-combustible panel well you're right it didn't have a finish on it so
02:29:20 finish on it so a panel in the real world would either have a finish or would be made of a different substance perhaps a metal panel something like that but isn't that entirely the point these systems are very complicated
02:29:32 systems are very complicated and they're very complex to test in in large-scale fire systems aren't they you know that now uh i knew it then it was it's a very complicated and and and technical tests you know i think
02:29:45 and and technical tests you know i think that the interest from the bre bes testimony to that and you know that to use his phrase sacrament sacrificial cement board was as said following the recommendations
02:29:57 as said following the recommendations that we received from the bre at the time
02:29:59 time yes but this was one stepping stone wasn't it and what you'd plan to do isn't this right was try and pass this test and then introduce
02:30:07 introduce in partnership with someone like metsec or sotek
02:30:11 or sotek an actual real live cladding panel that's right isn't it that's correct it was it was as i said previously it was you know this it was a stepping stone to
02:30:22 you know this it was a stepping stone to to other assemblies as well yeah whether we met sex so tech kingspan offsides a number of of other component suppliers yes and
02:30:34 of other component suppliers yes and would you agree with me that the reason you wouldn't put that building board on the outside of a building is that it wouldn't act as any kind of rain screen it would soak up the water the moisture
02:30:44 moisture it would become soggy do you agree with that uh
02:30:47 that uh i don't know about the physical properties of those cement particle boards and and how they're affected by moisture and so i can't comment on that particular product in your time as technical
02:30:59 product in your time as technical manager at kingspan did you ever come across
02:31:01 across a proposal by anybody and we'll see you advised on lots of buildings did you ever come across a proposal to put those kind of boards on the outside of a building uh not in
02:31:12 on the outside of a building uh not in not in the uk but certainly similar boards
02:31:15 boards from a cladding point of view that said finished
02:31:19 finished finnish boards of a similar composite but not that particular board no no when you say not in the uk what where are you talking about uh we see that type of board in
02:31:31 uh we see that type of board in in in the us in in in range screen solutions
02:31:36 solutions and when have you become aware of that um
02:31:39 um [Music]
02:31:40 [Music] probably in the last five years or so i believe
02:31:43 believe so you weren't aware of that at the time no no no
02:31:47 no no no now at the end of that email i want to ask you now about the cavity barriers that were used uh in that test um can you see what he does is he says in the very last
02:31:58 he does is he says in the very last sentence a sample of the intumescent ventilated fire break is situated on my desk should you wish to have a closer look do you see that there
02:32:08 there yes i do now is it right did you share an office with mr meredith at this time he said in his evidence that there was a period of time although he couldn't give us precise dates when you shared an office is that right
02:32:20 office is that right uh there was a particular time where ivan and i uh shared an office but it was um sometime before may 2005. i see when he says he's is
02:32:31 may 2005. i see when he says he's is put a sample of that intumescent fire break on his desk did you go and see it did you go and have a look at it i can't recall i'd seen um images of it
02:32:42 i'd seen um images of it previously but i can't recall going into his office to uh to have a closer look at it
02:32:49 at it were you aware at the time that it was a very unusual product that cavity barrier uh i wasn't aware of it i was aware that it was used for
02:32:59 for rain screen applications um i wasn't aware of that it was unusual from that respect no i knew it was designed for rain screen applications
02:33:10 applications what i want to put to you is that this was not a commonly used product and it had a very high graphite content which is one of the reasons why it wasn't commonly used
02:33:21 it wasn't commonly used would you agree with that i wouldn't i i wouldn't know have no expertise in in in cavity barriers so i can't really comment on that
02:33:33 comment on that but when you say popular what i don't believe rain screen was a popular solution
02:33:37 solution in 2005 particularly if we just look at a photograph here of this it's kin-405079
02:33:51 these are some photographs which meredith took as he was putting the rig together that was sent
02:33:59 was sent back to kingspan do you remember seeing these kind of photographs at the time i would have seen them yeah and it's right isn't it that that's the building board that we see below the the fibre cement board or cement
02:34:12 the the fibre cement board or cement particle board do you see that screw yes i do and then above that we can see the silver foil is the k15
02:34:20 the k15 yes yes and then above that the black line with holes in it
02:34:28 it did you understand that to be the cavity barrier yes yeah
02:34:35 can you remember forming a view at the time as to whether that was a representative cavity barrier in a system like this i can't remember i'm afraid
02:34:46 now the br 135 classification report for this test to 8414 part one was in fact not issued until long after you'd
02:34:57 you'd stop being involved with k-15 it was issued on the 28th of september 2015 so over 10 years later so i'm not going to be asking you about that because it's after you've finished
02:35:08 that because it's after you've finished your involvement but what i want to ask you is about br 135 classification in the period after that 2005 test when you were involved yes
02:35:19 you were involved yes yes now
02:35:22 yes now at the time that the 2005 test was carried out did you understand there to be a requirement for a second report a classification report to br 135
02:35:33 to br 135 i wasn't aware at that time that it was a requirement now if we look at paragraph 6.6 on page 38 of your witness statement
02:35:52 you you asked the question were you aware between 2005 and 2014 no br 135 classification report existed for a system incorporating k-15 and
02:36:03 for a system incorporating k-15 and you answer you say i would have been aware that we did not obtain a br135 classification report for the 2005 8414 test i think we probably assumed
02:36:14 8414 test i think we probably assumed that although it was an option to commission a classification report it was not necessary as the 2005 8414 test report contained sufficient information in itself to demonstrate that the tested
02:36:26 in itself to demonstrate that the tested system had satisfied the requirements of br135
02:36:30 br135 do you see that there yes i do so just to be absolutely clear on your evidence i think before we looked at this you told us that you weren't aware at the time of the 2005 test that there was a
02:36:42 time of the 2005 test that there was a requirement for a second report a classification report yes that's correct yes but here you're saying
02:36:51 saying in your witness statement i would have been aware that we did not obtain that report i think we probably assumed that although it was an option to commission it was not necessary
02:37:03 commission it was not necessary yes so can you help us as to what is your evidence on this were you aware that there was a requirement for that report or were you aware but at the time
02:37:14 or were you aware but at the time you assumed that or there was an option it wasn't necessary i was aware there was a classification report
02:37:21 report and i was aware we didn't obtain one and i was under the impression that
02:37:27 the the report on the bs 8414 test was sufficient to determine the results under the br-135
02:37:39 br-135 it was quite it's quite unusual and at this time because it i think i stand to be corrected but it would be unusual to undertake a test to a british standard
02:37:50 a british standard um and then have to have a classification report on top of a test report so it would be very unusual at the time so although we
02:38:01 very unusual at the time so although we were probably aware of the pr135 i think it was felt and probably i'd either advise that looking at the test report that would receive for that
02:38:12 receive for that particular tests the bre extrapolated the data
02:38:17 the data and i think iva was in a capable of extrapolating the data to determine that we had passed the requirements of that br135 and therefore didn't require to uh
02:38:31 and therefore didn't require to uh to have a published copy i see you say it was quite unusual at this time to have that british standard and then have to get a separate report but we did look earlier at approved document b yes which makes very clear doesn't it in
02:38:43 yes which makes very clear doesn't it in 12.5 that
02:38:45 12.5 that it has to be classified to br 135 yes no i didn't i didn't i wasn't bespoke to that 841 i mean british standard tests in general i don't know of another british standard test
02:38:57 british standard test that you would undertake get a test report
02:39:00 report that you could determine you pass from and then get a subsequent report analyzing the results of the test you've already had done so i think now you're telling us that
02:39:11 so i think now you're telling us that you was aware that there was something called a classification report yes i was aware of the br 135 clash of classification report yeah but i was also under the impression
02:39:23 yeah but i was also under the impression rightly or wrongly that you could extrapolate the results from the test report which is a i believe
02:39:32 believe what either did and what the bre did as well advising either that we had been successful when you analyze it if you'd analyzed it to br 135
02:39:44 if you'd analyzed it to br 135 but we didn't formally request that classification report for whatever reason yeah when you said you didn't think it was necessary to get one were you aware in
02:39:55 necessary to get one were you aware in 2005 that
02:39:56 2005 that um 8414 part one itself doesn't contain any pass fail criteria you have to go to br135
02:40:06 br135 to get the pass fail criteria and work out whether it's passed i believe that's correct but i also
02:40:12 also believe you can from the test report you can extrapolate the data you require for br135
02:40:22 for br135 so although the test report doesn't say pass a fail you can extrapolate the data from that test report to determine if it is indeed met the requirements of that classification
02:40:33 requirements of that classification report
02:40:34 report but as we looked at earlier it's not simply an extrapolation of test data is it it's not simply reading the temperatures and looking at whether you've passed there's the mechanical performance risk
02:40:45 there's the mechanical performance risk assessment that has to be carried out that holistic risk assessment on how the systems performed you agreed with that earlier i don't think you understood that yes absolutely i do agree with that yes so if that's right and it's more than
02:40:58 so if that's right and it's more than just reading off temperatures and ticking yes no whether we've hit the 600 degrees or not if you knew that how could you think that you could
02:41:09 that you could say that br 135 was satisfied without that
02:41:12 that specialist classification report well i believe that the data that's in the test report for a person who's who's got the
02:41:23 for a person who's who's got the experience of reading those reports can determine whether it's meets those requirements and i think iva was informed by the bre either after the test or a few days
02:41:35 either after the test or a few days after the test that it had it would have met those requirements and when you're referring there to um for a person who's got the experience of reading those reports who are you referring to they're a fire
02:41:47 who are you referring to they're a fire engineer yes uh well people at the bre um i believe iva at the time would have had it sufficiently although he wasn't a fire engineer he
02:41:58 fire engineer he had enough experience to determine that it also
02:42:03 it also met those requirements why do you say that he wasn't a qualified fire engineer he wasn't i think just you know his experience of working closely with the bre i think he picked up a reasonable degree of
02:42:15 picked up a reasonable degree of knowledge to uh to analyze that the uh the test that the data that's in the test report okay it's german i'm halfway through this topic but i think well i think if i
02:42:26 topic but i think well i think if i finish it this evening i'm afraid aren't we no we're not i think we should stop there
02:42:29 there so do i thank you very much yes well there it is uh miss heath we've probably got as far as we can get today okay and that means i'm afraid i have to ask you to come back again
02:42:40 ask you to come back again on monday of next week to continue your evidence but i think you were expecting that anyway weren't you i was yes good well i'm glad you've made appropriate arrangements so we'll we'll break there we'll resume at 10 o'clock on monday morning
02:42:52 at 10 o'clock on monday morning okay and i have to ask you please not to discuss your evidence or anything that relates to it while you're away from the hearing room right all right okay thank you very much would you like to go now the usher will look after you okay thank you thank you
02:43:03 look after you okay thank you thank you very much
02:43:08 very much i'll take this with me uh no i should leave that there that would be fine thank you
02:43:24 good ten o'clock on monday thank you thank you very much
02:43:39 you