Afternoon session examining Paul Evans (Celotex Product Manager) on RS5000 marketing strategy, NHBC issues, and responses to complaints about the product's suitability above 18m. Covers the Ardmore complaint and desktop study requirements.
00:00:11 would you ask mr evans to come back in please
00:00:14 please thank you
00:00:20 [Applause] [Music]
00:00:28 all right mr evans ready to carry on i am thank you thank you yes mr thank you mr chairman uh mr evans can i ask you to be shown cel403121 please
00:00:41 this is an email on the 16th of may 2014 from you to john roper subject above 18 meters now just putting it in its
00:00:54 18 meters now just putting it in its chronological context this is two days after
00:00:58 after the second day of the mag meeting all right
00:01:02 right and you start the email by saying another one for my four and a bit our journey home if i'm lucky absolutely agree with all these points i will give my view on some of this when we
00:01:12 we speak and just so you know what he was sending to you was a long detailed email about the marketing of rs 5000
00:01:21 5000 and then you say please add the meeting with jonathan cheeseman with sg legal to your list i think craig was looking at friday the 30th late afternoon once the bus event is over just pausing there what's the bus event
00:01:32 just pausing there what's the bus event is that the business event no the bus event is the three-month tour of the uk that celetex uh undertook in between march and may oh
00:01:45 uh undertook in between march and may oh bus means bus yes bus means bus right um can you please this afternoon speak with catherine to ask her to approach jonathan to arrange the meeting content wise
00:01:56 to arrange the meeting content wise your mag presentation can provide all the background we need to explain our approach and then please check with carol on pr availability to visit nhbc with you
00:02:07 availability to visit nhbc with you ideally we need all these items completed by a month end well done on this
00:02:11 this um the mag presentation that you're referring to there that's clearly a document isn't it yes what was the mag presentation was it the long 17-page one we know he
00:02:23 was it the long 17-page one we know he sent you
00:02:24 sent you during the meeting on the 14th of may or was it the shorter version
00:02:30 i i wouldn't recall which one of those two i meant right looking at the purpose of your reference to it there it was the was it the document that you were
00:02:41 the document that you were planning to send to jonathan cheeseman at sg legal i don't know whether we were sending the document to jonathan or that was just for the present uh
00:02:54 that was just for the present uh the meeting for jonathan on the 30th right can we take it though from this
00:03:00 from this that when you said content-wise your mag presentation can provide all the background we need to explain our approach uh we know you saw the 17-page version
00:03:11 uh we know you saw the 17-page version by this stage can we take it that you had looked at and satisfied yourself that the full content of the mag presentation was something which could form the
00:03:22 was something which could form the background to what you were going to explain to the legal department
00:03:28 i believe the mag presentation i don't know which one of those two would have provided
00:03:32 provided the detail that we wanted to to use for that meeting yes right you were sufficiently familiar with the contents of that presentation to be able to form the opinion that it was something which
00:03:43 opinion that it was something which could
00:03:43 could could be used to explain the background on the basis of the date of the email and that it was only just after that mag meeting then yes thank you now can i go to the the topic
00:03:55 thank you now can i go to the the topic of
00:03:55 of nhbc we've already discussed together the meeting that mr raper had with you in your office on the 19th of june about nhbc and their potential concerns
00:04:07 about nhbc and their potential concerns i want to look at the period post launch can we go to cel401020 please
00:04:19 this is an email from john roper to you on the 5th of september 2019 and it relates to ongoing problems with the nhbc accepting the test
00:04:30 the nhbc accepting the test that it's a long email but that's that's the topic of it do you remember reading this email at the time
00:04:38 i can't say now whether i recall reading it
00:04:43 it uh and it's addressed to all and he explained that that was because this was a draft email that he wanted to send to people do you remember that not not specifically no he was asking
00:04:54 not not specifically no he was asking you to sign it off okay now in the fourth paragraph there he refers to competition with kingspan and he says
00:05:05 competition with kingspan and he says you just blow it up thank you he it it says
00:05:08 says um i i've also been told of a number of occasions now that kingspan k15 has successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 2005 onto steel frame metsec this has apparently only happened
00:05:20 metsec this has apparently only happened recently and has not been included in their bba certificate to support any potential challenges we may face with the nhbc
00:05:27 the nhbc on the way we've tested ie thickness and choice of cladding panel sheathing board etc it's imperative we understand how k15 that seemingly is accepted by nhbc
00:05:37 nhbc is tested to 8414 part 2 2005. i'm told that the system used a cement particle board rather than a non-combustible sheathing board and a combustible cladding panel the
00:05:49 and a combustible cladding panel the details in particular around what type of panel was used for the exterior of this system are crucial and would hugely aid our argumentation were celetex adopting a strategy of seeking to put pressure on the nhbc into
00:06:02 seeking to put pressure on the nhbc into accepting
00:06:03 accepting your br 135 classification by pointing out to them that they'd accepted king spans
00:06:10 spans don't think we were putting pressure on the nhpc i think there would have been a question asked within the business which is why is king spank a15 able to be used on
00:06:20 on nhbc projects and celetex is isn't
00:06:29 putting the question in a slightly different way were you seeking to was the strategy to seek to um persuade nhbc that because they had previously accepted uh kingspan's nh um br135 and bsa414
00:06:44 uh kingspan's nh um br135 and bsa414 test then they should do the same with yours
00:06:47 yours i think we would want to understand if if we could and if not why we couldn't and in the penultimate paragraph uh you say having led the way in being transparent of the tested system that
00:06:58 transparent of the tested system that complied with br135 we hope that contractors will challenge our competitors to provide the same information to have a true understanding of what has been tested that's simply not true is it that celetex had been transparent about the
00:07:09 celetex had been transparent about the system which complied with the r135 is it based on the information that i now have
00:07:16 now have then it wasn't the the set that the system marketed wasn't the same as the the system tested celetex had not been transparent about the system tested had it no it hadn't and you knew that
00:07:33 again when i was launching the product that information that i had been made aware of wasn't in my thinking when we signed the sign the marketing and
00:07:44 the marketing and launch off
00:07:51 and we've been through that
00:07:57 now can we go to cel401022 please
00:08:04 this is an email at the bottom of page one and on to the top of page two if we can just look at that from nhbc john behan of the 22nd of september
00:08:17 nhbc john behan of the 22nd of september 2014
00:08:21 and if we we start at the bottom of page one
00:08:25 one we can see that message and we'll come to that in a minute but just to show you you saw this if we scroll up page one john roper receives that email
00:08:36 john roper receives that email from michael healy and then if we scroll up for page one a little bit more we get to john roper sending that to you fyi so you saw this email chain
00:08:49 to you fyi so you saw this email chain at least according to this email run and if we go to john behan's email at the bottom of page one and on to page two what he says there and let's look at the top of page two
00:09:01 top of page two notification recently achieved celetex technical department are fully aware of the issues raised and if you look a little bit lower down the same page page two um you can see um
00:09:14 um you can see um towards the bottom of page two an email from uh
00:09:17 from uh john behan to michael healey which says at present celetex holds no relevant testing certification for the insulation to be used above 18 meters this has been discussed between technical departments of both nhbc
00:09:29 technical departments of both nhbc and celetex when you saw this email run did you understand that john behan was saying that as far as nhbc was concerned
00:09:39 concerned it would not accept rs 5000 above 18 meters on any project
00:09:47 yes that's my understanding yeah can we go to ceo403445 please
00:09:56 this takes us to january 2015 and if we look
00:10:00 look at the email you get at the top of the page from
00:10:04 page from nigel waring it's copied to you it's sent to john roper a copy to you for your information and what you get is an email from nigel shields of durkheim to nigel waring of celetex
00:10:17 of durkheim to nigel waring of celetex also on the 7th of january
00:10:22 where nigel shields of durkheim says morning nigel this is a nigel to nigel email having discussed the use of insulation with the nhbc yesterday and what they're
00:10:33 with the nhbc yesterday and what they're looking for in terms of third-party assurance
00:10:36 assurance they're looking for bba accreditation they would not accept the fire test certification you have at present as in their words it does not represent a true test of the product in all of its applications
00:10:47 product in all of its applications they are claiming that it does burn as does kingspan k-15 product and are very nervous
00:10:53 nervous of it being used in high-rise buildings they are currently consulting with the fibregrade on the use of these materials did you ever hear anything further about this consultation with the fire brigade
00:11:06 not that i can remember no did the nhpc ever raise these concerns that they expressed in this email to nigel wearing ex with you
00:11:19 i don't believe so when you saw nigel shields his message to knight waring which i just read to you did that not come as a bit of a shock to you
00:11:34 i don't recall how i felt when i saw the email
00:11:38 email i think we knew after launch that there would be
00:11:42 would be then we might not be allowed on nhbc um projects and that we would carry on having a dialogue with the nhbc to to understand what we needed to do to
00:11:53 to understand what we needed to do to to be allowed did you regard yourself as on notice now that the nhbc regarded your
00:12:02 your bsa414 test uh as unrepresentative and rs 5000 as dangerous at least if you at least if used in applications other than that
00:12:13 applications other than that specifically tested i understood that nhbc wouldn't accept our product on on those projects then we wouldn't be
00:12:24 on those projects then we wouldn't be be accepted
00:12:28 and it's not just a question of acceptance as it is also the fact that they now regarded the use of your product
00:12:37 product on in cladding systems other than exactly that which had been tested under your bsa414 certificate test as dangerous
00:12:49 yes that's what they're saying yeah that must have come as something of a shock to you no
00:12:56 to you no or was it something you always knew
00:12:59 i wouldn't say it was something we we always knew i think we just knew that the nhpc at that point wanted more information from celetex on on the next stage maybe for the for the
00:13:11 on the next stage maybe for the for the product
00:13:12 product we don't see you going to your marketing department or asking either john roper who i think had left and gone into sales by this point um so debbie berger you don't you don't
00:13:24 um so debbie berger you don't you don't we don't see you saying to them you must tell all the sales people
00:13:29 people to reinforce the message the rs 5000 can only be used in a system which is exactly the same as that tested now leave aside the magnesium oxide we don't see you doing
00:13:41 magnesium oxide we don't see you doing that do we i think and i can't remember the dates but there's been projects and emails i've seen of projects where i've said
00:13:49 i've said that it has to be in line with the system as we as we tested so i don't think it changed my approach to what we were saying on projects
00:13:59 this is this is the nhbc coming to you and telling you that your certification is unacceptable because the product burns because it's and that it's not a representative of a
00:14:10 and that it's not a representative of a true test in the product of all of its applications my question really is why didn't that spur you to reinforce the message that was already in the marketing literature and get it out there into the market
00:14:21 and get it out there into the market that actually in reality rs 5000 shouldn't be used at all unless it was part of a system exactly as tested
00:14:34 i don't know why we didn't reinforce the message well can i suggest why it suited you commercially to keep selling rs 5000 for as long as you could that's the reason isn't it
00:14:46 reason isn't it i i don't believe that was the strategy i think the the strategy that we'd had from launch going
00:14:54 going going forward which was his the marketing material here's how we've tested the product and it was for others to decide whether they
00:15:04 they felt that the product could be used in in alternative systems well is that really a fair summary of the strategy mr evans from all the documents we've seen wouldn't a fairer summary of the
00:15:16 seen wouldn't a fairer summary of the strategy be here is the product here are some marketing materials which have a big banner telling you that it's usable above 18 meters and some small print with a qualification and hope that
00:15:29 qualification and hope that some people won't pick up the qualification and buy it for use in systems other than that exactly which tested
00:15:36 tested certainly for my side by making the system
00:15:39 system noticeable on the specification literature and other things we put in place on like the u-value calculator as a warning box before people selected the rs application i don't believe that was
00:15:50 rs application i don't believe that was what i was thinking we should be doing and worse than that even the most scrupulous of specialists in the market reading your marketing literature would never know
00:16:01 know that in fact even the system has tested as described wasn't in fact as tested no and that was also part of your marketing strategy
00:16:12 marketing strategy to get this product away into the market compete with kingspan and make as much money from it as possible in order to satisfy
00:16:20 satisfy sango sangoman's commercial ambitions for it
00:16:24 for it that wasn't part of the marketing strategy that i had discussed at the time we had done a system test and that the system was going to be marketed clearly about it being a system
00:16:37 marketed clearly about it being a system and marketed to to those guidelines
00:16:45 can we look at cel403660 please
00:16:52 and i'd like this is a very long email chain and i'd like to go to page seven please
00:16:59 which we will find is an email from mark wakeling at barclay group on the 5th of march 2015
00:17:10 the 5th of march 2015 at 9 53 to jonathan room copy to richard john
00:17:16 and if we look up the chain in this email chain we can we see you're copied in on it we need to scroll up i think to page six
00:17:27 uh a little bit go a little bit higher up than that if we go up two more we can find that you see there to the
00:17:38 we can find that you see there to the bottom of page five over to page six uh jonathan roon sends this to you on the first of may because it comes to your attention copy to richard john and the subject is reseller takes rs
00:17:50 and the subject is reseller takes rs 5000 and the nhbc hi paul we've been chased on a response regarding the rs claimed by the sfs manufacturer barclay barclay group saint edward can you let me have your unofficial response to the
00:18:01 me have your unofficial response to the claim
00:18:02 claim so that's how it comes to your attention with a request now if we look back please to mr wakeling's email at page seven
00:18:08 seven i want to ask you about that he he says this is wakeling of barclay group 5th of march
00:18:14 march jonathan i've had two recent meetings with two different nhbc special project surveyors
00:18:19 surveyors whilst nothing has been officially issued by nhbc both advised nhbc would no longer approve the use of pir or phenolic insulation in buildings taller than 18 meters as it stands they will only accept the
00:18:30 as it stands they will only accept the approach outlined by the bca as attached one material of limited combustibility e.g rockwool two evidence-based approval from bre or similar for the precise wall
00:18:43 from bre or similar for the precise wall construction three actual fair test data the above impacts on both our 190 strand and ph 8a stanmore projects i'm advised a major uk sfx company i
00:18:55 i'm advised a major uk sfx company i prefer not to state their name conducted a fire test with rs 5000 option three of bca guidance and they had to abandon the test as the insulation caught on fire
00:19:07 insulation caught on fire quotes very quickly on quotes
00:19:12 now when you receive this email chain did you read mr wakeling's email some way down the foot somewhere down the chain towards the foot
00:19:24 the chain towards the foot i i don't recall i think i understand the
00:19:27 the last paragraph of there because i recall where we took that conversation now whether that came from that email or a separate follow-up from this email which i didn't read i don't know right and the reality is that options
00:19:39 right and the reality is that options one two and three uh of those three options you had pursued two which was the bs 8414 test
00:19:50 which was the bs 8414 test hadn't you yes and three actual fire test data you didn't have if that's what is meant by desktop
00:20:01 by desktop uh what was your reaction to this email do you remember
00:20:09 i don't recall any reaction i had to as i said i can remember the work we then did with the major sfs company right which i think we did well which i think is related to that to that
00:20:21 which i think is related to that to that point but i don't know whether that came as i said from a different conversation or email that came to me now mr room had forwarded this email to you asking for an official response to the claim
00:20:31 the claim had he done that because although mr roper
00:20:34 roper and debbie berger were the project managers
00:20:38 managers for rs 5000 in reality you were the senior person overseeing it and always had been
00:20:44 had been i think jonathan would have sent it to me um
00:20:49 me um yes because because of the the role i had in the in the business um and probably knowing that there would need to
00:20:56 need to some words would need to be put together and if we scroll up in the email chain please to page four
00:21:04 we can see that
00:21:09 uh at the bottom of page four and over onto page five john richard john comes back to jonathan rubin to you
00:21:21 rubin to you and says both i feel that we need to respond to mark with a lot of thought as you both know this has been hanging around now for a few months and we have to make sure that our response eludes
00:21:32 response eludes i think i should say alludes to the fact that we have been very active over this time period
00:21:40 now that's right isn't it this has been hanging around for a few months in other words the concern that nhbc had had
00:21:50 had with cellotex is 8414 test and the and the question about whether it was properly representative of systems being commonly used in the market at the time was one which had been hanging around in
00:22:02 was one which had been hanging around in fact since the middle of june 2014.
00:22:07 yes certainly from those emails and after the launch we had a an email chain from the september and and really the time had now come for celetex
00:22:18 celetex to decide what its position was and formulate it properly is that right yes that would be right and we can see that your reaction to
00:22:29 and we can see that your reaction to this is to set up a call there's some talk about a call in uh richard john's email and in the middle of the page on page four you say are you both available now
00:22:41 four you say are you both available now i can send some conference call details and we can get 10 minutes on this now do you think 10 minutes was really going to cover it this is a complex subject on a delicate issue in relation to a major new project project
00:22:53 major new project project do you think it could be just covered in 10 minutes or did it require a lot of thought as richard john had suggested i i don't think i'm saying that it's only 10 minutes to finish it
00:23:04 that it's only 10 minutes to finish it to start it and finish it i think that's maybe just an introductory call to to kick things off i see and um if we look uh up the page onto page three
00:23:15 page three what the page is on to page three we can see there's some another standard discussion about arranging a call richard john says no can do a can do first thing tuesday morning on a cc
00:23:27 tuesday morning on a cc and you go back cool the range now jonathan will call later this afternoon to explain my views having gone through this again did you go through that again with jonathan room
00:23:40 i don't know or jonathan roper if it's a different jonathan i don't know did you have a discussion on the on that day with it's the first of may with either
00:23:53 with it's the first of may with either jonathan room or jonathan roper to explain your views
00:23:59 if i said there was going to be a call well i can't see why we wouldn't have had that call right do you remember what your views were that you explained if you did have that call i believe my
00:24:11 if you did have that call i believe my views would have been consistent with the
00:24:12 the what we were saying at that time which was around the system has been tested and until we have other testing or desktop studies or other
00:24:23 testing or desktop studies or other options then that's what we need to um carry on with if we look up the chain we i think might be able to time the call more precisely if we go to page two there's uh email string which one
00:24:35 there's uh email string which one normally sees when people are on the phone or setting up a meeting and the long the short of it is that a meeting on the fifth of may was arranged and people were dialing into it if you just scroll up page two and then into
00:24:47 just scroll up page two and then into page one
00:24:48 page one for example on page one of the foot you say uh you see that jonathan room says to you and richard john i'm on waiting and then so is richard john if we can
00:24:59 and then so is richard john if we can see
00:25:00 see the top email so it looks like there was a call to discuss this very topic on the on the
00:25:04 on the 5th of may if not earlier do you remember that i don't remember the call but it looks like there was a call being made do you remember what the upshot was i don't remember no so that's the fifth
00:25:16 i don't remember no so that's the fifth of may we can turn on to the sixth of may next day cel 30 i'm sorry ceo four zeros two zero three seven
00:25:26 seven this is an email from jonathan room forwarding you an email chain from squire and partners
00:25:38 as we can see from the bottom of page one now on the screen and uh that there's a there's a bit of a history to this uh from pages two and three and i'll
00:25:51 uh from pages two and three and i'll summarize it for you i think if we go to page two and over to page three we can see that square and partners who are architects
00:26:00 we go to the bottom of page two we can see that um nhbc we're communicating uh with uh matthew college who
00:26:13 uh matthew college who was at squire and partners at architect about the use of phenolic insulation in high-rise buildings and if you go to the top of page three
00:26:26 you can see what the issue is
00:26:29 and
00:26:33 it says in the second
00:26:37 line there the issue remains that if the site started before in december 2013 kingspan should have been consulted on buildings over 18 meters and they should have confirmed that the facade had been assessed by them and is fined for use
00:26:49 fined for use in that particular building this is as per the requirements of the bba certification etc the bba certificate has since been amended to include a wall type which has been tested terra cotta rain screen and if the
00:27:00 terra cotta rain screen and if the construction is exactly as this bba cert then that would be acceptable but this is the only test kingspan have had approved but are ongoing further tests on differing wall types at the moment and to try and
00:27:11 types at the moment and to try and demonstrate suitability so to answer your question unless the wall is made up exactly as described in the celex bba certificate which i understand used a larger turn it rain screen board
00:27:22 rain screen board you will have to demonstrate compliance using the guidance shown in a closed bca document
00:27:27 document if you decide to revert back to the kingspan product then confirmation should be sought from kingspan that k15 is acceptable for your buildup assuming you haven't already got this now you obviously weren't in on this email and
00:27:37 email and there isn't a vba certificate for rs 5000
00:27:41 5000 as we know so that i think must be a reference to something else but that's that's the background to it if we go up then
00:27:52 background to it if we go up then please to page two
00:27:58 we can see the way this comes about matthew college writes to jonathan roon and says jonathan please see below i will call to discuss and then jonathan room at the top of page two over to page one
00:28:11 page two over to page one bottom of page one sends this to you paul
00:28:15 paul interesting information from squire and partners architects regarding conversations with nhbc non-committal and claims that kingspan have a new bba encompassing the testing of terracotta buildup although i cannot find any bba newer
00:28:26 although i cannot find any bba newer than december 2013 and then you go back to him jonathan thanks for sending through clearly shows the change in ahbc approach from around february
00:28:34 february on this area we are aware of kingspan's testing on terracotta but as you say yet to see this transfer into a new bba however looking at the new the bba website just now the k-15 certificate is a more
00:28:45 just now the k-15 certificate is a more recent version than the one you attached this new su-2 is dated december 2013 but looking at the fire section still references part one of bs-8414 and no reference to
00:28:56 of bs-8414 and no reference to terracotta cloning as the panel now
00:29:02 on your in your reference there to shows the change in nhbc approach from around february on this area what did you mean by that looking at the full emails chain that we'd looked at what was the
00:29:14 chain that we'd looked at what was the change
00:29:16 change i think february was around the time where
00:29:20 where celetex were made aware of a project on uh i can't remember the exact name of the project where the contractor had complained to celetex about
00:29:31 about rs 5000 being used and when we investigated it and i don't know how long later it transpired that the nhbc had actually signed off the building um or okay for
00:29:45 the building um or okay for um the project to um carry on so i think my relate my comment there is that we were seeing that the nhbc had signed a
00:29:57 nhbc project off with celetex being used on it
00:30:03 is that the uh is that the um octavius street project ardmore ardmore that's right right we're going to come to some detailed questions on that shortly but you you think that in february
00:30:14 but you you think that in february nhbc's position changed did you and just tell us in a nutshell what the change you detected was that they had said that they had looked to approve or had said approved um celetex's
00:30:27 or had said approved um celetex's product
00:30:28 product on that particular product project uh well that's absolutely that's not a general change in approach that's maybe a change on a project it looks from this is if you're
00:30:39 from this is if you're saying that this particular exchange shows the change in nhbc approach from around february on this area it doesn't look like you mean on this particular project
00:30:50 mean on this particular project but on uh the applicability of bsa414 system tests to a wider set of applications than the test itself is that what you're referring to i think
00:31:01 is that what you're referring to i think the fact that it's dated february the the the evidence that i've seen that was um an example of where we saw something in the nhbc change in february in so far as allowing
00:31:13 change in february in so far as allowing a celetex product to be used on an hbc project
00:31:20 right so your your evidence is that before february 2015 you you thought that nhbc would allow your
00:31:31 that nhbc would allow your br 135 and and bs8414 test results to be used
00:31:37 used on a wider set of systems than that which was tested i think the intel the market intelligence we were getting from the launch was that the nhbc was saying you can't use celotex and then from this
00:31:49 you can't use celotex and then from this event in the february they had said that it could be used albeit on one particular project right um now given those concerns it's clear isn't it the the nhbc were not at least by this
00:32:01 the the nhbc were not at least by this time
00:32:02 time prepared to approve rs 5000 on the basis of only one test
00:32:08 that they were they were not they were not sorry can you say that again please sorry it's clear by this time wasn't it or isn't it that at this point or by this point the nhbc were not
00:32:19 or by this point the nhbc were not prepared
00:32:20 prepared to approve the use of rs 5000 based only on the single test that you had achieved no they weren't and mr roon in his witness statement says that he raised
00:32:31 witness statement says that he raised the need for further testing a number of times
00:32:34 times and continued to push celetex management to commit further investment in testing or
00:32:38 or in desktop studies can you tell us why no further bs8414 tests were carried out so as to be able to satisfy the nhbc i think there was always a plan to do
00:32:49 i think there was always a plan to do more testing i think that process took a longer amount of time than than jonathan room wanted it to but i know that there was then the evolution into desktop studies and
00:33:00 the evolution into desktop studies and the bca document which celetex or certainly i don't believe myself and the project team were aware of
00:33:06 aware of when we launched the product then came into the business i think around march april of that year and therefore there was a route to compliance through the bca
00:33:16 bca route when you say the bca route do you mean desktop studies i think desktop studies was one option on that document well the desktop studies was first mentioned in a bca document in issue north of its technical
00:33:28 document in issue north of its technical guidance mate 18 which had been issued in june 2014. did you know that as i said we didn't know that at june 2014 that document existed
00:33:39 2014 that document existed so when did you come to learn about the possibility of desktop studies i believe around desktop desktop studies in line with the bca document around can't remember exactly where march april
00:33:51 can't remember exactly where march april 2015 because that's when it was sent into the market the product marketing team and when did the first well did celetex actually ever get a desktop study
00:34:02 actually ever get a desktop study for rs 5000 that would safely show that it could be used on systems other than that
00:34:08 that which had been tested under the bsa414 test we certainly sent our test report to uh a third party and started commissioning desktop studies yes
00:34:17 yes did you ever get any i thought we did when they were i can't remember the exact date without seeing the evidence right does that does the uh
00:34:27 the uh gradual arrival of desktop studies explain why there was no further bsa414 test yes that would be a that would be the main reason and did the nhbc you did in general terms come to accept
00:34:39 terms come to accept celetex's desktop studies when uh giving approval for projects which were different
00:34:47 different from the project which had been the subject of the bsa414 test i don't know how many of those projects which we got desktop studies for were nhbc projects so i don't know
00:34:58 nhbc projects so i don't know let's look at paragraph 169 of your statement
00:35:02 statement uh you say there at page 49 that you believe you were not aware of bca
00:35:10 bca uh the bca guidance note which is technical guidance note 18 until around march
00:35:16 march 2015
00:35:19 2015 and you say a little bit lower down the paragraph four lines up from the bottom had i been aware of it sooner i believe that the contents of the guidance note would not only have been reflected in the marketing materials but
00:35:30 reflected in the marketing materials but would have focused attention much earlier
00:35:32 earlier on the possibility of desktop studies being a route to achieve a wider field of application
00:35:42 can we then go to cel 401075
00:35:50 this is an email from march 2015
00:35:54 between rma architects and celetex this particular email is an email from jonathan roon to you mr evans copied to debbie berger but the context of this
00:36:06 the context of this is a request for a desktop study and can we go to pages five and six where we see that
00:36:14 and we have to work up from the bottom i'm afraid of page six just to trace the context of this long email chain and at the bottom of page five top of page six we can see
00:36:25 page six we can see this is an email from james kirkman to jonathan room and james kirkman is uh an architect at rma architects this is 27th of february 2015. that's
00:36:37 this is 27th of february 2015. that's bottom of page five top of page six second paragraph i've attached our typical wall build up drawings
00:36:44 drawings can you could you confirm if we were to replace the current rigid insulation spec
00:36:48 spec with the celotex rs-5000 if the build up has been assessed according to the assessment criteria in br135 performance fire performance of external insulation for walls of multi-story buildings if so could you provide the
00:36:59 if so could you provide the certification to that effect if not then our celetex is able to have a desktop study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire stating
00:37:10 chilton fire or warrington fire stating whether in their opinion br 135 criteria would be met with the proposed system
00:37:17 that's the background and if we go up then to page five we can see that jonathan roon sends that to
00:37:27 to sends a response to james kirkman and says that celetex has been successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 and so can be considered for use in buildings above 18 meters so thoroughly misleading as we've just
00:37:40 so thoroughly misleading as we've just discussed before yes yes without the um additional information that should have been sent with it yeah please sign attached a copy of our rain screen cladding compliance guide which
00:37:51 screen cladding compliance guide which gives details of our fire test and some background to the building regulations requirements so he does provide the cladding compliance guide which does contain the caveat as we know
00:38:02 contain the caveat as we know so his misleading statement is has got to be qualified by the fact that he does send
00:38:07 send uh the compliance guide with it and also attaches a copy of our bre classification report and then at the end he says currently we're not able to provide a desktop study
00:38:19 study and then if you go to page four the architect we can see
00:38:25 comes back this is now sam hanscom of rma and says i think we're nearly there with nhbc and ardmore are very tempted to
00:38:36 nhbc and ardmore are very tempted to switch from kingsman to celetex are you able to have a desktop study done by bre warrington fire or chilton fire to confirm in their opinion bre br135 criteria would be met with our exact proposed systems so
00:38:48 with our exact proposed systems so that's his question and if we go to the top of page bottom of page three top of page four we can see jonathan roone's response to sam hanscom
00:38:57 hanscom which is basically no uh hi sam currently we're unable to have a desktop study completed at the moment although we are investigating for the future we are only able to provide you with the current test data current has already
00:39:08 current test data current has already supplied for now apologies for not being able to support you further at this time which is what he says at the top of page four we can just show that yes thank you
00:39:21 and then if we go to the bottom of page two
00:39:24 two and i'm sorry to take so long over this lengthy email stream but it's right that i should
00:39:29 i should put it out there and show it to you
00:39:32 [Music] jonathan room writes to you on the 16th of march and says sam thinks that the client may even pay for a desktop study to be completed and at the top of page two bottom of
00:39:43 and at the top of page two bottom of page one you say hi jonathan let's discuss we need to fully understand the process
00:39:48 process and requirements of the desktop study debbie is looking at this in more detail when we have further information we will let you know now why did you
00:40:00 now why did you what did you need to understand about the processes and requirements of a desktop study i don't know other than understanding who did them how they worked what the
00:40:11 who did them how they worked what the costs were just it's a new it's a new way for celetex products to be used in buildings
00:40:20 buildings above 80 meters and would have asked debbie to have done that to understand in a little bit more detail and uh you do go on to say that you uh
00:40:31 and uh you do go on to say that you uh debbie is looking at this in detail what was the upshot of that do you remember my understanding of that is that we then moved to some discussions with the nhbc
00:40:42 moved to some discussions with the nhbc around
00:40:44 around some build-ups that they suggested to debbie and we commissioned some desktop studies to be done
00:40:53 that may explain then the next string of emails
00:40:57 emails but it may not um you say you commissioned some desktop studies to be done did you commission them specifically for this product the limehouse basin product project
00:41:09 i don't believe so no right so what happened with the limehouse basin project did the client keep with k-15 or today i don't know go over to celetex
00:41:22 today i don't know go over to celetex you don't know i don't know at this stage did you wonder how any of these professionals were going to be able to do a desktop study if
00:41:34 be able to do a desktop study if you only gave them the bre test report and the classification report
00:41:41 no because i if we're talking about the likes of the bre and warrington and chilton to go with that we would have sent the full details of the test report when you say the full details of the test report would have included the fact
00:41:54 test report would have included the fact that in the test itself there was the presence of six millimeters of magnesium oxide
00:41:59 oxide at two places on the rig over topped with eight millimeters of malia turn it no we wouldn't have sent we would have sent the test report which we were given for the launch of the product so is this right that even if you were
00:42:10 right that even if you were commissioning a desktop study in response to the market's requirements for one your the instructions for the desktop study would have been as misleading as the test report on the classification
00:42:21 as the test report on the classification report
00:42:23 report based on what we've covered since the launch and the documents i've seen then then yes so the product a desktop study which came out of that
00:42:35 a desktop study which came out of that process would be similarly misleading wouldn't it if the information which it wasn't wasn't available to the person doing the desktop study then yes yeah was there ever any intention to come clean with the likes of bre
00:42:47 come clean with the likes of bre xover warrington whoever it was who would have done the desktop studies and and show them exactly what the test builder really was as opposed to the way it had been presented in your marketing literature and in the test and classification reports
00:43:01 from my side again that information wasn't wasn't in my in my mind when we launched the product therefore there wouldn't have been any reason to go back to that
00:43:11 to that because i didn't know what we had done um i didn't know what we were what would what we had done was just had
00:43:23 what would what we had done was just had moved on so i wouldn't have gone back to those pre-launch details because i wasn't aware of them and they weren't front of mind let's move on then with the same topic
00:43:34 let's move on then with the same topic see where that particular issue comes out
00:43:37 out ceo 4-0 is 3589 please this is a an email chain and i'm sorry mr evans that these
00:43:48 chain and i'm sorry mr evans that these chains are quite long but this one is from debbie burger to franz papp of x over copied to you on the 18th of march 2015 and she sends franz papp
00:44:01 and she sends franz papp a copy of the 32 page test report for bs 8414 part 2 and some examples of four buildups now is this what you went in your earlier email when you said that debbie
00:44:13 earlier email when you said that debbie berger was looking into a desktop study yes right okay and if we look at the this page
00:44:23 page and we can see you saw it she lists the four systems that she wanted configured now let's just look at them a little bit closely she says please find also some
00:44:34 closely she says please find also some examples of four build ups which we commonly see presented to us at design stage design one inside to out and they're all inside to out i should say
00:44:46 out i should say and you have two times twelve and a half millimeter plasterboard 100 millimeters sfs 100 millimeters calcium silicate board a1 100 millimeter celatex rs5000
00:44:57 100 millimeter celatex rs5000 unventilated cavity 103 millimeters brickwork facade stainless steel ties so that's design one uh and if you look down uh
00:45:09 uh and if you look down uh they are uh the the the next three designs design two three and four are all the same
00:45:21 are all the same in that they are ventilated cavities same as each other and different from one
00:45:26 one they are all for ventilated cavities as opposed to unventilated cavities they've all got brackets and rails and the only thing that's different between them is the cladding in design two you've got uh terracotta
00:45:39 in design two you've got uh terracotta cladding design three you've got cladding laminates and design four you've got aluminium class naught i think i'm right in saying that the rest of them are the same as between the three of them and all
00:45:52 as between the three of them and all together different well at least substantially different from design one is that have i summarized it accurately do you think yes and you get she goes on to say i think these best represent what's commonly specified
00:46:03 commonly specified and in particular what nhbc commonly see the analysis will hopefully help us to better understand the risky parts of cladding systems it will also provide us with some insights on rs 5000 fire behavior
00:46:14 fire behavior and contribution to this risk now first have you been involved with debbie berger about the discussions about what system celetex was going to seek a report for
00:46:29 celetex was going to seek a report for from memory debbie her degree had said she was going to speak to the nhbc to get some guidance on the different types of build-ups
00:46:43 the different types of build-ups so you think she got these from the nhbc do you not from not from in-house expertise
00:46:49 expertise i don't know but the fact that she said in particular what nhbc commonly see and i know that she did speak to someone at the nhbc i saw that in some previous evidence
00:47:03 what was the reason for seeking to obtain this report was it was it because there had been customer pressures such as we've seen before
00:47:12 before i think there was feedback there was feedback from the market about the product being used in different applications with different cladding systems sorry and therefore the bca guidance which
00:47:24 and therefore the bca guidance which we'd only just been made aware of gave a an option for us to to start this desktop study route now she says as i've shown you at the bottom of the page it will also provide us with some insights on rs 5000 fire
00:47:37 us with some insights on rs 5000 fire behaviour
00:47:37 behaviour and contribution to this risk do you agree that that was one of the purposes of seeking desktop study from mr papp x over
00:47:51 my understanding was that we were looking at different systems and how they could um and how they could be assessed as a desktop study now we saw i think yesterday that you
00:48:02 now we saw i think yesterday that you had known i think since june 2013 that rs 5000 was very unlikely to pass with a an aluminium cladding because we saw that from the notes of the satech meeting that mr roper had
00:48:14 the satech meeting that mr roper had attended in june 2013 and again in october 2013. we saw that yes so you already knew didn't you that the combination of
00:48:29 knew didn't you that the combination of rs 5000 and cladding aluminium class nord which was designed for was a risky combination [Applause] i don't know whether i knew about all of
00:48:40 i don't know whether i knew about all of the different types of aluminium cladding to have been able to say yes or no to that now we can see what it is that debbie berger sent to friends pap and it's a copy of the
00:48:53 to friends pap and it's a copy of the full test report the 32-page test report the bsa414 part 2. she says it's 32 pages
00:49:00 pages did you notice that it was uh not the full 35-page version no
00:49:08 did you notice that whatever it was she was sending she didn't indicate to franz papp what was not in the report namely that the test buildup the rig buildup has tested
00:49:22 test buildup the rig buildup has tested included six millimeters of magnesium oxide in two places on the rig and eight millimeters of malia turn it as cladding at those points no you didn't notice that
00:49:36 i don't think i would have looked at the test report that this is the test report we had in the business at that time and my understanding at the time was that that was the test report that needed to be used but
00:49:48 test report that needed to be used but you knew
00:49:48 you knew the time that the test report omitted those two critical elements of the test rig as described didn't you based on what i've seen since but not at the time that's not where my thinking
00:50:01 the time that's not where my thinking was
00:50:07 and as you accept i think any desktop study done by mr pat based on that test report
00:50:14 report would have been incomplete and misleading and wholly unreliable because mr park would not have been informed of the true test build up that's right isn't it based on what i've seen since yes
00:50:34 and i would suggest to you given what i put to you earlier that you did know that
00:50:39 that and that you deliberately and intentionally did not correct miss burger and ensure that mr papp got the full information no that's not that's not what where i was with my
00:50:50 was with my understanding and thinking of this of this launch
00:50:57 can we then turn to the octavius street project
00:51:00 project which you referred to just a moment ago in your evidence uh cel402193 this is a lengthy letter of complaint
00:51:12 this is a lengthy letter of complaint from ardmore construction limited to paul reed
00:51:17 paul reed and it says dear paul please be advised that your celetex rs 5000 insulation product has been deemed unacceptable for use by nhbc at our octavius street
00:51:29 use by nhbc at our octavius street project
00:51:30 project a mixed-use development of some 121 apartments in commercial space the nhbc have stated that your products are flammable and are therefore not to be incorporated into buildings over 18 meters in height
00:51:41 meters in height of which octavia street is one such we can close here their refusal notice for your comment we're well on with the build process see attached site picks and this refusal notice on the part of
00:51:52 and this refusal notice on the part of the nhbc has very serious implications in both cost and program to the project with of course further consequential costs for the delay incurred directly resultant from the non-compliance of your products
00:52:03 non-compliance of your products your available product literature and data sheets for this product does not state
00:52:06 state that it is not suitable for use as rain screen insulin in buildings over 18 meters
00:52:12 meters your company has been well aware of this project and full knowledge of the respective detailing we have been in contact via email and telephone with jeremy suttle celetex technical services officer clearly you're an international supplier
00:52:24 clearly you're an international supplier and manufacturer of some repute and we are amazed that you send products to market that are not suitable for their intended use you must have test data for these products but you appear to be reluctant to share with us
00:52:35 to share with us is there some technical reason for your reluctance currently we are faced with total removal of your product and substitution with a compliant material which is clearly a huge issue in both time and money to us this action is extreme to say the least
00:52:47 this action is extreme to say the least and we look to you to immediately provide unequivocal laboratory supported evidence that your products have been far tested to prove beyond doubt that they meet the requirements of surface spread of flame and general combustibility for buildings
00:52:58 and general combustibility for buildings above over 18 meters in height it would seem if we could turn the page unimaginable that a company with the market size of yours and technical expertise cannot provide such evidence we require receipt by saying of same by
00:53:11 we require receipt by saying of same by return
00:53:12 return in the unlikely event that you have no such evidence then we would suggest you notify all of the national building control warranty bodies together with the wider construction industry advising that your products are not for use over 18 meters
00:53:23 use over 18 meters furthermore please notify your insurers accordingly of your failure to provide products suitable for their intended use we will be seeking full recompense for all of our costs both direct and indirect incurred as an absolute consequence of your
00:53:34 as an absolute consequence of your failures
00:53:35 failures we trust you recognize this lamentable state of affairs we have here and treat this matter with the utmost attention it deserves from the most senior people in your business within the shortest possible time frame you always faithfully richard hunt
00:53:46 you always faithfully richard hunt technical director now there's not a lot in that letter which could be possibly misunderstood is there
00:53:52 there no uh now
00:53:56 no uh now it doesn't appear to have been copied to you on the 23rd of march 2015 but you became aware of the dispute a little bit later
00:54:05 this was a a clear allegation as i suggest must have realized when you saw this letter that the celetex product literature was to put it at its lowest insufficiently clear
00:54:19 you must have realized that was at least the point that we're making to put it at its lowest um yes that's what they were they were saying that it was not in line with the literature and they were calling you out on your refusal
00:54:32 were calling you out on your refusal to issue full test data
00:54:36 yes now if we look at so that's the letter
00:54:39 letter let's look at the correspondence around it if we go to cel402193 please
00:54:49 uh we can see that if we go to page four in that email run
00:54:58 run cell402193 2193 uh we need the bottom of page three top of page four
00:55:08 this is what starts it off here is dave white
00:55:13 white of nhbc writing to ben whittaker copied to various people but including richard hunt the signatory of the letter of the 23rd of march we've just seen
00:55:25 of march we've just seen and in fact if you go to the top of page 3
00:55:29 3 we can see
00:55:33 that there is the email of the 23rd of march
00:55:37 which sends this on but i want to focus with
00:55:41 with you on the email from dave white to ben whittaker into which mr hunt had been copied
00:55:46 copied of the 11th of march now dave white was the self-same dave white whom mr roper had met at hadley celestex's premises on the 19th of june
00:55:57 celestex's premises on the 19th of june 2014
00:55:58 2014 along with his colleague mr perry yes so he was known to celetex and he says hello ben
00:56:06 hello ben ree octavia street art more det for project development fire performance of phenolic insulation celitex rs 5000 and i don't want to read it all out to
00:56:17 and i don't want to read it all out to you but i can pick out the salient points
00:56:19 points under paragraph one he's dealing with the masonry outer leaf facade and under d there he says the 50 millimeter thick phenolic type rigid insulation board product celotex rs-5000
00:56:31 insulation board product celotex rs-5000 is not fully resistant to fire and will burn in fire and then under paragraph two he says under
00:56:38 under letter d the 80 and this is in relation to the terrorist balcony areas of the building
00:56:43 building under d the 80 millimeter thick phenolic rigid
00:56:46 rigid type rigid insulation board product celetex rs5000 is not fully resistant to fire and will burn in fire and then if we turn the page please
00:57:01 uh he says under paragraph four other insulated parts of the building envelope for example curtain walling panel types on lower level facade zones are not referred to in the bwc
00:57:13 are not referred to in the bwc report also in this report the continuous rain screen facades that extend the full height of the building are not fully assessed in terms of fire performance and level of safety stroke risk
00:57:23 risk for example relating to the mechanism of fire spread within the concealed cavity where combustible insulation is installed behind an aluminium rain screen facade to my knowledge this specific type of rain screen has never been tested by
00:57:34 rain screen has never been tested by celatex
00:57:35 celatex under the br-135 requirements and that's correct isn't it it hadn't no i hadn't para5 it is apparent from reading your report that access to the full final version of the bre fire test
00:57:46 full final version of the bre fire test report
00:57:47 report 295255 for celetex for rs 5000 was unfortunately not possible therefore i feel that some of the assumptions made in your report on likely fire performance of this facade in comparison
00:57:58 performance of this facade in comparison with what actually occurred during the testing
00:58:00 testing are not strictly accurate
00:58:07 uh now this seems to have been the basis on which richard hunt of admiral concluded that some of the assumptions that ardmore had made were not accurate was this
00:58:18 was this an indication that to you when you saw this
00:58:21 this that the refusal to issue the full test report was leading to difficulties i can recall from the letter that we see received from um hardmoor that that was something that
00:58:32 um hardmoor that that was something that i then
00:58:33 i then made sure that we had a discussion i remember craig chambers myself and i think rob and maybe paul reed having a discussion in the uh in the boardroom at hadley about this because it was the
00:58:44 hadley about this because it was the first time that we'd had our product being used and this level of correspondence coming from it you say this level of correspondence you mean this level of complaint
00:58:56 this level of complaint yes cel 4 0 is 1 0 8 0 please here's an email of the 24th of march 2015. so the day after
00:59:08 2015. so the day after it appears the day after richard hunt sent the oddball letter in to celetex and it comes to you copy to debbie burger and louise garlic timeline on inquiries from ardmore to
00:59:20 timeline on inquiries from ardmore to celetex paul please see attached a timeline of events as best we can piece them together there were a number of ctc people involved and not all interactions would have been recorded on salesforce
00:59:31 have been recorded on salesforce it includes telephone conversations we've had with art more it should help to form a response to the letter at the moment we have other hbc project inquiries in the technical inbox and we're holding off responding
00:59:42 we're holding off responding otherwise we are in danger of ending up in the same boat as the ardmore inquiry my view on nhbc project is that we turn them away and say we're not suitable up front
00:59:50 front until we have evidence to the contrary why had that not been the position anyway even before the ardmore complaint
00:59:58 letter
01:00:04 i i don't know
01:00:07 well because you were riding your luck there's one possible reason is that wrong i don't think certainly didn't
01:00:16 didn't my understanding that we weren't riding our luck is that we there was projects that came back to us from nhbc from from the launch and some of those projects we weren't or all of those projects we weren't able to
01:00:28 to supply our material for them we accepted that we couldn't supply our material for now mr warren attaches a timeline of events or at least a document which shows the
01:00:40 or at least a document which shows the timeline
01:00:41 timeline and it seems to be the document at cel401081 if we can just have that up please
01:00:50 uh and it runs over two pages
01:00:54 it's it looks uh to be a sort of chronological document and it's not that straightforward but it seems to start on the 6th of january
01:01:07 it seems to start on the 6th of january 2014
01:01:09 2014 which can't be right so that must be must be 2015 with it with information about you values
01:01:18 values and one can run down the page there are different dates different inquiries and different answers most of which come from either jeremy suttle uh
01:01:26 suttle uh well all of which come from jeremy suttle actually the technical officer and then if you look at the bottom of the page 11th of february 2015 damian mcmahon who's on ardmore
01:01:39 damian mcmahon who's on ardmore who's already made two requests for information in december 2014 and january 2015 as you can see above and in fact in twice in that month um
01:01:52 and in fact in twice in that month um says at the bottom of the page telephone conversation between debbie berger product manager and damian explaining that rs 5000 is compliant to a specific system as is
01:02:03 is compliant to a specific system as is made clear in our range green cladding guide
01:02:05 guide if the system proposes not in line with that guide then an alternative if we can turn the page products such as rockwool should be considered also explain that the full fair test is a proprietary document and we
01:02:16 a proprietary document and we would not be able to issue this document now this advice as encapsulated by that summary of that discussion doesn't
01:02:27 that summary of that discussion doesn't seem to tally with the advice that aardmoor felt that they had received as set out in mr hunt's letter of the 23rd of march
01:02:34 of march does it
01:02:40 no
01:02:44 can we look at ceo403637 please
01:02:56 this is an email from you to rob warren also on the octavia celetex non-compliance issues topic and in the second main paragraph you say my view is we make the email
01:03:07 you say my view is we make the email back to him cover the following points and then there's a long list of them and you can you can see what they are the first point is you say we successfully passed bsa414 part 2 last year
01:03:17 last year and launched rs 5000 in august 2014 through our literature and technical guidance we have made it clear of the components that make up the system and in the case of octavia street gave guidance to ardmore that if their wall
01:03:28 guidance to ardmore that if their wall system differed from our tested build up then our advice would be to gain approval
01:03:32 approval from the relevant bodies for this or use an alternative solution
01:03:39 now that's not accurate is it when you say there through literature and technical guidance we made it clear of the components that made up the system
01:03:50 made up the system that's just incorrect isn't it because we know that the literature and technical guidance made no reference to the true
01:03:57 the true components which were tested
01:04:03 yes but based on again i've said previously in that that's not in my i haven't con that's not even in my mind when i'm writing this because of my understanding
01:04:14 writing this because of my understanding of what we've done when we launch the product so you say yes i understand that
01:04:22 one way or the other the concern that ardmore had expressed didn't prompt you to
01:04:29 to suggest to your internal team that the product literature should be reviewed to see if it could be made clearer to see if the caveat in it could be made clearer
01:04:41 clearer we don't see any evidence of that is that right
01:04:45 so that really prompts the question why this was so complicated if ardmore had read and understood the caveat in your rs 5000 marketing literature then mr evans all you had to do was
01:04:56 then mr evans all you had to do was simply answer his complaint by saying well we don't know why you're making such a fuss read our marketing literature it says quite clearly in there that the bs 8414 test is only
01:05:08 bs 8414 test is only for exactly the same systems as the test why didn't you do that it would have been a very simple answer rather than all this hand wringing i don't know why we didn't do that well
01:05:20 i don't know why we didn't do that well you don't know let me again suggest a reason because at the time you knew very well
01:05:24 well the marketing literature was at its most generous
01:05:28 generous sailing close to the wind where a preference had been made to trump hit the availability of rs 5000 for use on all buildings over 18 meters and put the caveat in the small print no
01:05:40 and put the caveat in the small print no that wasn't that wasn't what i was intending to do with the launch of the product did it occur to you at the time that mr hunt's complaint was a triumph was a
01:05:52 complaint was a triumph was a try on it wasn't really a genuine complaint it was just a bit of commercial position i think it came when it came into us we say craig myself maybe paul met and i think our approach would have been well
01:06:03 think our approach would have been well he clearly hasn't they clearly haven't read the literature i think there was then this bwc um desktop study that we weren't aware of which are which i later saw in in in the evidence um and then it in
01:06:16 in the evidence um and then it in that ardmore case i think what what made it more confusing for us is that we then found out that the complaint almost had gone because the nhpc signed off on
01:06:27 had gone because the nhpc signed off on the use of the product but just looking at the complaint your reaction to it at the time wasn't well this is a trial they've read our marketing literature you took this complaint extremely seriously and you you treated it as
01:06:39 seriously and you you treated it as genuine
01:06:41 genuine yes you did yes and that's because i'm suggesting to you that it was genuine and the reason it was genuine is because ardmore
01:06:48 ardmore had failed to grasp the point that you had tucked away in the marketing literature that the qualification caveat that is to be found yeah they maybe they hadn't read the literature or
01:06:59 maybe they hadn't read the literature or hadn't read the details of the system and did that not concern you that your marketing literature was not sufficiently clear to big market players like ardmore
01:07:11 i don't believe so at the time i think they've obviously used the product thinking they can use it and then they were turning it back to the manufacturer on the basis that we hadn't made it clear whereas in our view we had made it clear
01:07:21 clear well why didn't you go back to them simply with a three line letter saying dear mr hunt i enclosed a copy of each of the pieces of our marketing literature you'll see the caveat on page three or whatever it would be in each of them i trust this answers your
01:07:33 i trust this answers your your query would it be very easy to do that why didn't you um the discussions that i think we had with with the other people from the business we wanted to investigate it and then go back with a with a full answer and the reason i
01:07:45 with a full answer and the reason i suggest that it needed all this internal investigation and further thought was precisely because you knew very well that the marketing literature regardless of whether it accurately identified the
01:07:56 whether it accurately identified the true buildup of the test was in and of itself misleading or at least apt to mislead and on this occasion had misled it wasn't there as i've said it wasn't
01:08:08 it wasn't there as i've said it wasn't my intention with the literature to to mislead we had a system that we tested and when we launched it that was my understanding of how we were going to launch the system i would suggest to you that the honest
01:08:19 i would suggest to you that the honest businessman's approach to a complaint like that
01:08:21 like that if you'd if you had taken the complaint genuinely which it seems that you did and i'm not suggesting that it wasn't it says to be clear the honest business approach to that
01:08:32 the honest business approach to that would be to have started an internal discussion about how to improve the literature so as to make it absolutely crystal clear to the likes of ardmore that
01:08:41 that rs 5000 should not be used above 18 meters in any system unless it was exactly the same as the system has tested
01:08:49 that would have been the honest thing to do wouldn't it which is my view on what we had done based on what i knew at the time of launching the product
01:08:57 product well that can't be right because at the time of launching the product you launched the product literature on which uh ardmore were relying hence their complaint so you can't go back to the original
01:09:08 back to the original launch i'll put the question one more time on the basis that admiral's complaint
01:09:13 complaint was a real and genuine complaint wouldn't the honest approach to have had an internal discussion about how to improve the marketing literature so that people like ardmore didn't make the same mistake again
01:09:24 the same mistake again that is something we we could have done yes and you didn't do it
01:09:29 we we did look to improve the literature in the future off the back of other work that we were doing but we did do it off the back of this no no and that's because you were quite content to keep peddling rs 5000 into an
01:09:40 keep peddling rs 5000 into an unsuspecting market and take the risk that some people might complain but others might not again that that wasn't how i saw the product being launched uh let's turn to the topic of further
01:09:52 uh let's turn to the topic of further nhbc contacts in 2015 mr chairman this might be an appropriate moment for a break yes i'm just wondering that if you're going to a new topic i am going to go to a new topic
01:10:04 a new topic right well i think we'll take a break at this stage um become a short break again now mr evans will
01:10:12 will we'll come back at uh 25 to 4. and uh see see if there's some more questions for you there well there will be
01:10:20 be okay thank you so please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you
01:10:34 right 25 to 4 please
01:32:46 yes would you ask mr evans to come back in please thank you
01:33:01 right mr evans ready to carry on i am yes thank you yes mr evans some more questions about nhbc can we go please to cel401088
01:33:13 this is an nhbc letter to rob warren of the 21st of april 2015. do you think you might have seen this at the time
01:33:25 the title of it is use of combustible materials within the external wall construction of buildings over 18 meters in height
01:33:31 in height if that helps your recollection well i know we went to meet with the nhbc in may of 2015 so this is possibly the letter that um instigated that so
01:33:43 um instigated that so i believe i would have seen it yes and it's an update to the writer's letter of the 21 of the 9th of february 2015 as you can see from the first line
01:33:54 see from the first line you see that yes and
01:33:59 it goes on to say in the background part we're aware that some builders are specifying combustible components within the external wall construction of buildings with a floor level 18 meters
01:34:10 buildings with a floor level 18 meters or more above ground level and it goes on to set out in both summary and detail terms the building regulations requirements and if we go to page two
01:34:22 he says what do the nhbc standards require nhbc standards require compliance with building regulations and also that materials provide satisfactory performance in addition paragraph 98c
01:34:35 in addition paragraph 98c of chapter 6.9 curtain walling and cladding
01:34:38 cladding of the nhpc standards advises that reference should be made to be r135 did that tell you anything you didn't already know assuming you saw this letter at the time
01:34:51 i wasn't as close to the actual nhbc standards as the technical team but i don't believe that's anything different than the business didn't know right and similarly under demonstrating
01:35:02 right and similarly under demonstrating compliance mr perry or who's the writer sets out guidance on three possible methods of demonstrating compliance limited combustibility br135 or desktop study again
01:35:13 study again did that by that stage tell you anything or tell the business anything that it didn't already know by that stage we knew about bca guidance from a month or so previous
01:35:23 can you explain why you say well how come
01:35:27 come it was only nine months or so after the technical guidance note which had been published by the bca in the june of 2014 that you came to know about it no i can't explain other than the
01:35:39 no i can't explain other than the business and the team at the time in launching the product there's other projects lots of things this wasn't the only thing we were
01:35:46 were trying to focus our our time on and it's we we didn't we didn't know about it when we were launching the product
01:35:57 when we were launching the product now can we go to cel401087 this is the email to you from rob warren which sent this letter to you which i
01:36:08 which sent this letter to you which i should have shown you before showing you the letter but it doesn't matter and he says in the second sentence very interesting is it now states that a desktop study is acceptable as a means of compliance
01:36:19 does that tell us that it wasn't until then
01:36:23 then that it was clear to the business that nhbc
01:36:27 nhbc were prepared to accept a desktop study that's my understanding yes i see your response to this email is it
01:36:36 cel403640 and he says useful you say use start again you say useful to get official confirmation from them
01:36:47 official confirmation from them though given the intel from ardmore today it makes it very difficult with the nhbc to be able to say a definitive yes or no
01:36:54 yes or no given that there could be specific detail changes in the design that we are not aware of what was that a reference to my understanding is that the ardmore
01:37:05 understanding is that the ardmore project
01:37:07 project was given the go-ahead because there was something technical around the balconies or terracing on the building
01:37:14 building and that's why the nhbc allowed it
01:37:19 and then you say in the third paragraph are you okay to suggest some dates to graham that's graham perry or the writer of the letter i'd rather have a face-to-face meeting
01:37:30 i'd rather have a face-to-face meeting on this than just responded a letter i think they need to be aware of the challenges we as a manufacturer now face on communicating where rs 5000 can and can't be used we need to start working
01:37:42 can't be used we need to start working closer with them and can update them on where we are with our overall message on rs as well as progress on desktop studies
01:37:51 why would you want to have a face-to-face meeting with them rather than setting out your simple position in a letter
01:37:59 i think it was just the style of how celetex operated there was always face-to-face meetings and that was generally the preferred way of working i see you and you say as i've shown you
01:38:10 i see you and you say as i've shown you that they need to be aware of the challenges that celetex as a manufacturer in our faces what challenges did you have in mind linked to paragraph one with the ardmore letter and then the acceptance of our product being allowed
01:38:22 acceptance of our product being allowed on that scheme can we go to ceo403342 please this is the 2015 budget uh and it seems to have been a
01:38:34 uh and it seems to have been a presentation for for les mirwah for 14th of october 2014. um just help me lei mirawa was that sango band's glass clad head office in
01:38:45 sango band's glass clad head office in paris
01:38:46 paris yes did you go to that meeting i believe sir and the date of the 14th of october 2014 did you go to that meeting on that date
01:38:57 date that's the date of the meeting to present the budget for the next year starting in january 2015. that was the
01:39:03 the general timeline that you had to present your budget who presented this slideshow at le meroir
01:39:12 meroir i can't remember everybody that would have gone to the budget but there was a number of people from the celetex mag team would have gone so it was a multiple people you went you went as you
01:39:23 multiple people you went you went as you told us did you do the presentation i would have done some of the marketing slides yes i see can we go to slide 21 please on page 21.
01:39:40 slide 21 please on page 21. this is a slide addressing 2015 actions new build housing and you can see under initiative third item down nhbc buy-in for above 18 meter applications timing
01:39:51 timing 2014 q1
01:39:54 2014 q1 that probably ought to be q1 2015 shouldn't it yes right budget 20 000 pounds
01:40:06 now what does nhpc buy-in mean or refer to i think that's
01:40:16 a set of words which basically means an hbc approval for above 18 meter applications and the budget of 20 000 pounds what would that be spent on
01:40:27 that be spent on based on where we were i think desktop studies
01:40:30 studies or additional testing that the nhbc might need us to do well wait a moment you just told us that it wasn't until march possibly april 2015 that you were
01:40:41 march possibly april 2015 that you were aware that the nhbc would accept desktop studies
01:40:44 studies and indeed i think you said earlier that it wasn't until march 2015 that you knew that the bca guidance which had been issued in the june of 2014 contained an option of desktop studies by way of compliance
01:40:56 of desktop studies by way of compliance how could the 20 000 pounds be allocated possibly to desktop com studies
01:41:02 studies as early as october 2014 mr evans how does that work um it may have been traditional testing i used desktop studies but it could have been for
01:41:10 been for additional testing that we might need right
01:41:14 i see so the 20 000 you say could have been
01:41:18 been for additional testing you don't sound terribly sure no i don't i don't recollect totally why that why that was in there might it be some allocable for
01:41:31 might it be some allocable for but for lobbying or making presentations to the nhbc to obtain
01:41:37 obtain what you call their buy-in no
01:41:45 what form would nhbc buy-in take as was contemplated at this time do you think
01:41:53 you think i think it was just rs 5000 being able to be used on some nhbc projects what had led you mid-october 2014 to
01:42:05 what had led you mid-october 2014 to think that nhbc buy-in was required and sufficiently difficult to warrant a budget of 20 000 pounds being allocated to it
01:42:16 pounds being allocated to it based on what i've seen today i can only look at the feedback that we were getting from the market on nhbc projects so this would be feedback between the
01:42:27 so this would be feedback between the beginning of august 2014 when and when rs 5000 was launched and the middle of october 2014. based on those timings yes
01:42:39 so did you anticipate at this point or by this point that even though you had your 8414 test the nhbc would not simply accept it and give you an endorsement for rs 5000
01:42:50 give you an endorsement for rs 5000 you had to go further and spend 20 000 pounds on getting their buy-in
01:42:58 i think we're accepting that we might need to do additional testing right so the 20 000 pounds is additional testings in order to get buy-in and you told us earlier there was no additional testing what happened so far
01:43:09 additional testing what happened so far as the nhbc bind was concerned between the middle of october 2014 when you were considering spending that money on further testing and march 2015 when you
01:43:20 further testing and march 2015 when you discovered the existence of the bca technical guidance mate 18 which referred to desktop studies
01:43:27 i don't believe anything in terms of additional testing no so what was it it was a limbo period you didn't know about desktop studies but you weren't doing
01:43:38 desktop studies but you weren't doing any testing no so what was happening how are you going about getting nhbc buying during that period
01:43:44 period um well we're not we're we're not being used on those projects so this is but this is about six months that goes by isn't it mid-october to mid-march maybe five and
01:43:57 mid-october to mid-march maybe five and a half months or something like that why did why were you prepared to allow so long to go by without nhbc buy-in in the absence of further tests or any desktop initiatives i don't know just
01:44:10 initiatives i don't know just timings of other activities possibly
01:44:15 things that are listed on that slide again were you preparing or proposing simply to ride your luck and until the nhbc came clear about what it was they wanted to do
01:44:26 to do i don't think we were riding our luck i think we there was lots of other things happening in the business not just rs 5000 and most of them are on that a lot of them are on that slide there which are big projects in in terms of
01:44:37 which are big projects in in terms of other
01:44:38 other development well going back to the ardmore
01:44:41 ardmore complaint the 23rd of march 2015 to give it its date can we look at cel40s and three five nine five please
01:44:53 and i'd like to go to page four
01:44:59 i'll come back to page one in due course but page four
01:45:04 is uh an email of the twenty of the 25th of march 2015
01:45:14 and it starts at the bottom of page three as is typical
01:45:23 uh and you can see that he is sending you and
01:45:27 you and rob warren and louise garlic some wording
01:45:31 wording being a draft position for the specification of rs 5000 and a set of words for both labc and nhbc projects please be aware we have nhbc project inquiries where customers are awaiting a response
01:45:43 customers are awaiting a response and then he sets out a set of drafts and if we go to page four we can see the nhbc section of this email a third of the way down the page where
01:45:55 a third of the way down the page where projects are subject to nhbc requirement we will identify the given construction and unless it exactly matches the specification given in our literature we will advise that the use of celotex is not supported
01:46:07 is not supported if customers ask for an official position then they can be sent a set of words below and that was what jamie hayes was proposing that's very different isn't it from the marketing literature which had been approved in august 2014
01:46:19 which had been approved in august 2014 and launched
01:46:22 yes they say it's different word this is basically now telling the market that they shouldn't be using rs 5000
01:46:28 rs 5000 unless it exactly matches the specification given in the literature
01:46:36 yes yeah
01:46:39 and then the set of words as you can see below thank you for your inquiry the second sentence still contains the weasel words and so can be considered for use in buildings above 18 meters
01:46:53 and then the last paragraph is where one gets the
01:46:57 gets the rather stiffer caveat we where the proposed design differs from the tested system as outlined in our compliance guide
01:47:03 guide we would not recommend the use of celotex rs 5000. now you saw that at the time if we go up the page then and look at the bottom of page one
01:47:16 and look at the bottom of page one and over to page two bottom of page one he uh says thanks rob i've identified some awkward questions that we could be asked that we
01:47:27 questions that we could be asked that we need some guidance on i meant to send these earlier how do we handle projects for nhbc where calculations have already been provided and then over to page two
01:47:39 where customers have had calculations for previous nhbc projects and now find our position has changed how do we answer them i'm just going to the first of those points
01:47:49 points the bottom of page one he describes that question as an awkward one how do we handle products for nhpc where calculations have already been provided
01:48:00 calculations have already been provided why were those awkward questions why was that an awkward question
01:48:05 i think from jamie's perspective being answering inquiries from clients customers the position and the wording has changed therefore
01:48:17 wording has changed therefore that's why he's seeing that as a potential
01:48:20 potential awkward question that could come from previously previous inquiries and it was awkward wasn't it it was obvious i would suggest because the pr the marketing literature on the basis of which rs 5000 had been
01:48:33 on the basis of which rs 5000 had been launched
01:48:34 launched had not set out the qualification or the caveat as i would call it in clear terms and had it done you wouldn't have had customers lining up to ask these awkward questions
01:48:50 i just think we've launched a product and the we we've learned as we've launched the product and have been given feedback from the market based on our launch and therefore we've
01:49:01 based on our launch and therefore we've needed to
01:49:01 needed to come up with additional statements such as this to um for the for the company can you turn the page again please to page two
01:49:15 where customers have had calculations for previous nhbc products and now find our position has changed how do we answer them is the change in position that he's referring
01:49:26 change in position that he's referring to there the change in position to make it
01:49:29 it clearer clearer
01:49:33 that rs 5000 should not be used above 18 meters unless the system in which it was to be used exactly conformed with the system as tested
01:49:47 yes i think it's just the fact that we were saying something was now saying something new that we hadn't said previously so market pressure and awkward questions from potential customers
01:49:59 from potential customers was now driving management into changing the way it presented rs 5000 is that a fair as we learned more from the market we had to change some of the responses to inquiries yes
01:50:11 some of the responses to inquiries yes yes
01:50:12 yes and really this was just the coming home to roost
01:50:15 to roost of uh something that you had already really predicted at the time of the launch
01:50:29 i just think we learned as after the product was launched there's more information coming into us that maybe we didn't know at other times it can't have come as a surprise to you could it that all these
01:50:40 surprise to you could it that all these players in the market were lining up with
01:50:42 with awkward questions such as those which mr hayes has set out
01:50:49 i think we always knew there would be questions that came from rs 5000 because of the the nature and how different it was as a product launch for us
01:51:01 and again i make the point why was any of this awkward why couldn't you just point each and every one of these customers to your marketing literature which had been generated in the summer of 2014 and say our marketing literature
01:51:13 of 2014 and say our marketing literature is perfectly clear our caveat is in there if you read it properly but that doesn't seem to have been
01:51:18 been a choice you ever made why is that
01:51:24 i think we we did say that i think it's just the fact that we've learned more there's more projects people are coming to us that we've needed to adjust what we're saying well i would suggest that it was really just
01:51:35 suggest that it was really just you knew very well that the marketing literature was misleading in the way in which
01:51:39 which we've established and wasn't crystal clear about the caveats and when people started complaining about it this was entirely a foreseeable result of that
01:51:55 that's that's not how i thought the market was going to to go but i could see why people would think that
01:52:09 can we go then uh cel403599 please
01:52:19 and at page three
01:52:25 we can see your response to mr hayes original email about the suggested wording for responses jamie i'm okay with these words to be used for projects currently in the salesforce pipeline where we need to get
01:52:36 salesforce pipeline where we need to get back to people quickly following this we should be looking to wrap communication around an hbc and rs 5000 into a consistent message that is then communicated into marketing
01:52:47 that is then communicated into marketing sales and technical as well as the wider market please let me know of any other market feedback you get on rs 5000 when you say rapid communication around nhbc and rs
01:52:58 nhbc and rs 5000 that is then communicated into marketing what does what did that mean i think summarize have a
01:53:05 have a one one communication
01:53:09 right now mr roper also responded the following day on the 26th of march cel uh same number page one please three five nine nine page one
01:53:21 five nine nine page one we just look up to that you can see his email there it's a long email i'm certainly not going to read it out to you
01:53:26 you at this hour but in the third paragraph he says
01:53:29 he says the note below also assumes that labc and private building inspectors equally do not have the same reservations over adb compliance as nhbc but the recent publication from the bca would indicate that it is only a matter
01:53:40 would indicate that it is only a matter of time before they are brought up to speed with the issues surrounding combustible insulation we could therefore be in a similar position with buildings that are warranted by somebody other than an hbc
01:53:51 warranted by somebody other than an hbc does this mean that in other words celetex knew that rs 5000 was being specified on some projects where nhbc was not involved but that might change for the worse once the bca was
01:54:02 the bca was to use mr raper's words brought up to speed
01:54:06 yes i think that's what john is saying so you were taking advantage for the time being of the bca not being up to speed and we're concerned that that advantage might come to an end
01:54:18 i don't recall thinking like that at the time i think but i can see why that's how that could be interpreted yeah well that's because that was what was happening i would suggest
01:54:31 was happening i would suggest no you were taking advantage of bca's lead and footedness for the time being i think we were only aware of the bca document at this time so
01:54:48 cel3 i'm ceo403600 please 3600 email from jamie hayes to the various teams tech
01:55:01 jamie hayes to the various teams tech department copied to louise garlic and you mr evans 27th march 2015 good morning with regards to rs 5000 inquiries for buildings above 18 meters it is
01:55:12 buildings above 18 meters it is important that any changes to our policy in dealing with these inquiries is rolled out in a consistent way to our customers
01:55:17 customers sales team and to the market in general to that end the advice we give to customers is to be reviewed by paul evans and the management team
01:55:27 if there was a need for consistency were you not concerned that previous messaging had been inconsistent
01:55:40 i'm not sure inconsistent i just think that we're just needing to find a different way to or different ways of communicating to to clients as as we've been in the market for longer well
01:55:52 market for longer well i'm not sure that's right is it i mean he mr hayes is saying to you that it's important that changes to your policy in dealing with inquiries that were coming in about rs 5000 were rolled out in a consistent way to our
01:56:04 rolled out in a consistent way to our customers sales team and the market in general and just to the reader that does raise the question whether or not previous messages were inconsistent
01:56:17 yes that could be implied i i would say that might be because jamie's team are on the phone or answering emails and maybe they don't have that consistent set of language
01:56:28 have that consistent set of language to all say the same thing but what could be inconsistent why wouldn't they all have the same language to say the same thing
01:56:36 thing i don't know that's what might it be that there was some
01:56:41 lack of consistency about whether or not they should be pushing
01:56:48 pushing the use of rs 5000 above 18 meters and not pointing up the qualification in order to get sales on the one hand for some people but other people
01:56:59 other people might be pushed pointing up the qualification on the other hand and foregoing sales might that be the inconsistency to which mr hayes is referring
01:57:10 mr hayes is referring maybe i don't know you don't know did you not inquire did you not investigate what message is the marketing team who are of course under your supervision we're giving customers uh
01:57:21 supervision we're giving customers uh the marketing team are under my supervision yes yes sorry i thought this was to do with the technical team's message well it's it's it's changes uh
01:57:32 well it's it's it's changes uh well it's the advice given to customers that that's the that's the the point that mr hayes is dealing with here yes and how advice given to customers whether it's by the technical team or by the sales team or by the marketing team it doesn't matter
01:57:44 marketing team it doesn't matter his concern was that there was an inconsistent was that there was a need for consistency in the messaging and my my question to you is did did his identification of a need for a consistent message not concern you
01:57:57 consistent message not concern you or not alert you to the fact that there were inconsistent messages at that point or up to that point not that not that i can remember and also that i'm working with jamie and rob to make us a set of words that can all be used
01:58:11 if we go to ceo403641 please
01:58:22 this is an email of 13th of march 2015 at 10 50.
01:58:26 at 10 50. if we go to page two i'm sorry page two and a few days on from what we've just seen jamie hayes sends an email which is a change to standard wording being added to emails where a
01:58:37 being added to emails where a calculation was requested for buildings is a long email and if we go to the bottom of page two and over to page three you can see it says um again there's
01:58:49 you can see it says um again there's that mantra at the bottom of page two that because of the test the celetex rs 5000 can be considered for use in buildings above 18 meters but again we've been around that
01:59:00 we've been around that hoop a number of times um if we go to the top of page three this is the wording as he's now suggesting please find attached a copy of our rain screen clouding compliance guide which gives details of our fire
01:59:11 guide which gives details of our fire test and some background to the building regulations and then it will be the responsibility of the building control body to judge compliance on a project by project basis we would recommend showing them the compliance guide and details of your proposed system and have a discussion
01:59:23 proposed system and have a discussion with them as early as in the design process as possible our tested system comprises an external rain screen facade etc etc and then in the last line it's critical that compliance is agreed before the
01:59:34 that compliance is agreed before the design is finalized or work commences on site
01:59:38 site now this is a very different message from the message conveyed in the original marketing literature isn't it yes and does that tell us that these changes were because of a concern
01:59:50 changes were because of a concern in management that that message the message that is now in that draft had not been uniformly conveyed until now
02:00:00 yes i think there was as as we've had more feedback from the market we've needed to have more different wording clearer wording and it's not really surprising is it that
02:00:11 it's not really surprising is it that you had all these awkward questions leading to this wholesale change in the wording of the literature given statements in the literature such as the pink banner on each of the three pages at the top of the data sheet
02:00:24 pages at the top of the data sheet suitable for use on buildings over 18 meters
02:00:28 meters it might have been because of those headline message that was never end that was never the intention no but did you did you not ask yourself why it was that all these customers were coming in and asking all these questions
02:00:43 not a time that i can recall now
02:00:58 ceo401279 finish this line off
02:01:03 is an email following the adoption of these wordings and after the ardmore situation appears to have been resolved and this is the 23rd of april 2015 email from you to rob warren and debbie
02:01:17 email from you to rob warren and debbie berger and craig chambers and in that email uh you go on to say at the bottom or three three paragraphs up from the bottom given nhbc have now written to us
02:01:28 bottom given nhbc have now written to us with their position on above 18 meters and also the fact that facade systems which we would assume are not compliant are now being accepted due to building design details that we would struggle to be made aware of we do need to respond to nhbc with our
02:01:40 we do need to respond to nhbc with our position on what we are telling the market
02:01:45 and then you say whilst informing that rs might not be suitable for use on certain projects i believe we need to revisit our wording here as it could be that specific design details are incorporated into projects that we were not aware of
02:01:56 not aware of and could be turning down projects by only having limited information now notwithstanding the difficulties i'll show you that but it's clear that notwithstanding the difficulties you'd encountered with the nhbc and ardmore would you say that you were
02:02:08 and ardmore would you say that you were still concerned with ensuring the maximization of sales of rs 5000.
02:02:22 there would obviously be a commercial um
02:02:27 consideration to be had in in what in what we're doing but my position from from the start on this is that we if there was projects which we can't be used for compliance reasons then they're
02:02:38 used for compliance reasons then they're projects that we that we wouldn't be used on it it was your position that celetex shouldn't be adopting a line so cautious that it might result in the loss of sales
02:02:50 i don't ever remember thinking about the sales impact on on what we were doing no
02:03:01 doing no i mean that's certainly the effect or the
02:03:04 the uh impression given by the second of the two paragraphs i've read to you from that email that you needed to revisit the wording because you might be uh turning down projects
02:03:15 you might be uh turning down projects because you've got limited information yeah i think that comes down again to this ardmore situation where we're not always got all of the information to know whether the project we can be used on the project or
02:03:26 project we can be used on the project or not
02:03:28 not but you would need information would you well you would it's not about you needing information at all you just need to get the message across that whatever the system is that they're going to use the rs5000 is it has to be the same as the
02:03:40 rs5000 is it has to be the same as the system tested why was that a problem that wasn't a problem
02:03:45 problem if well it was a problem if you were going to lose sales as a result of it and that was something that it quite clear from that paragraph you didn't want
02:03:53 just think it became we were getting more information again and there was confusion and on on certain projects now do you remember a meeting in may 2015 with the nhbc
02:04:05 2015 with the nhbc yes can we go to cel403682 please this is an agenda for that meeting on the 19th of may do you know who prepared this agenda
02:04:16 i don't recall now we could see who was there
02:04:19 there from the nhbc graeme perrier and dave white
02:04:23 white and from celetex debbie berger you and rob warren and you can see the agenda after the introductions review of celetex rs 5000 and then nhbc compliance requirements
02:04:34 now you say in your statement we don't need to
02:04:37 need to go to it it's a paragraph 180 that mr white was at one point quite rude to you at the meeting interrupting you while you were speaking and suggesting that some aspect of celetex's position on rs 5000 was stupid that's what you've
02:04:49 on rs 5000 was stupid that's what you've recorded in your statement but you don't remember what it was that he was talking about can you recall what celetex's position on rs-5000 actually was at that meeting
02:05:04 at that point it would have followed the the um position that we had in in the business around the new wording that jamie had put together and the compliance literature that we had right so when you say the wording jamie had put together that's in the
02:05:16 jamie had put together that's in the last email i showed you yes i think it would have evolved into that wording as well i see
02:05:27 then we can look at the may 15 update ceo403710
02:05:32 ceo403710 please
02:05:35 please uh and was this prepared by you or by mr warren i think you say it was mr warren who prepared that yes and was that prepared for the mag that was prepared for the mag yes and if we go to page eight please we can
02:05:46 and if we go to page eight please we can see a heading robust argumentations yes that would be a section robled of right
02:05:54 right populated fire celetex meeting with nhbc was quite heated every pun intended with dave white of nhbc being very vocal and in our view unprofessional in the manner which in which he dealt with the points discussed
02:06:07 is that a reference to the part of your evidence where he said that aspects of celetex's position on rs 5000 was stupid yes it is is it a reference to anything
02:06:19 yes it is is it a reference to anything else
02:06:21 the main part of dave white's behavior at that meeting was around that point i made in my statement i can't quite remember the rest of his demeanor for the remainder of the meeting
02:06:31 meeting uh and then four lines down the nhbc's issue is that in their view our fire test was not sufficiently representative of a typical rain screen system now just pausing there that had been the view expressed to you by dave white
02:06:43 view expressed to you by dave white or perhaps in slightly more polite terms and uh graham perry or at the 19th of june 2014 meeting almost a year before isn't it yes so nothing had changed had it then
02:06:55 yes so nothing had changed had it then in nhbc's attitude to your fire test generally i don't believe so no did he not concern you that the nhbc thought that your position was stupid
02:07:06 thought that your position was stupid i know it may be rude unprofessional but didn't it concern you i think it concerned us but i think there was a
02:07:18 focus for the business to work with the nhbc to
02:07:21 nhbc to to understand what we needed to do to um be used on in certain nhbc projects and then you go on at some point uh we will have to consider another test to
02:07:33 will have to consider another test to broaden the scope of rs5000 now it looks as if testing had now come back into the onto the radar what happened to desktop studies
02:07:47 i don't know i think testing and desktop studies were always two options well yes but we don't see any reference in there uh to doing a desktop study other than the reference in the
02:07:58 the reference in the third line that you would look at the desktops that the nhpc would look at the desktop study that they'd carried out with x over
02:08:06 that is there yes but it doesn't seem that the the uh contemplated strategy from there on in was to keep doing desktop studies to broaden the application it was
02:08:17 to broaden the application it was another test wasn't it that's what rob is suggesting there yes
02:08:21 there yes and then it says until that time that's the time of a new test we will continue to maximize the potential of rs 5000 in non-nhbc jobs and the occasional hbc job where the specific design of the
02:08:32 hbc job where the specific design of the building due to balconies acting as fire breaks for example allows rs 5000 to be included
02:08:38 included so again given that you are now looking at doing another test can you explain why
02:08:43 why one wasn't done [Applause] no i can't is it because you knew it would fail i don't believe that would have been a
02:08:54 i don't believe that would have been a reason why we're thinking we wouldn't test
02:08:56 test is it because you knew that without the six millimeters of magnesium oxide around the thermocouples in two places on the rig and the eight millimeters of mario turn it that had been present on the rig in the may 2014 test there was a very
02:09:09 in the may 2014 test there was a very real risk that it would fail no that wasn't you know in our thinking and with a failed test you'd be absolutely nowhere wouldn't you
02:09:17 yes we would be but that was part of the reason why we hadn't tested well what we what was the thinking and not doing another test
02:09:25 i said i don't know the specific reason other than other things happening in the department in the business that maybe just meant that that wasn't able to happen for whatever reason but in the meantime it seems that you were content content
02:09:37 it seems that you were content content to continue to sell rs 5000 into non-nhbc
02:09:40 non-nhbc jobs did that mean that even if the cladding system was different from the declaring system tested if the customer didn't pick it up you'd be happy to make a sale we would be expecting the client to be
02:09:53 we would be expecting the client to be aware of our guidance and also their understanding of that market yes so you're prepared to go on marketing with the new wording into rs 5000 knowing very well
02:10:06 into rs 5000 knowing very well not only the fact that the nhbc weren't prepared to endorse it but the reasons why
02:10:12 we would we would have carried on selling rs 5000 yes indeed
02:10:25 can we look and see and i just before i leave this document i'll just pick up with you the point i have i've mentioned in the second and third lines you can see it says on the positive side the nhbc will look at
02:10:36 the positive side the nhbc will look at the desktop study work that we've carried out with x over to see if they accept the findings so that to be fair to you was the the position in may 2015 we could see how that turned out cel 40
02:10:48 we could see how that turned out cel 40 is 2241 please and if we go to page two in that email run
02:10:54 run we can see that on the 8th of june 2015 graham perrier of nhbc writes to use to evans as well as dave white within nhbc and
02:11:07 within nhbc and he is uh
02:11:10 he is uh uh coming back with his uh initial views about the x over uh report the desktop and
02:11:21 the desktop and if you cast your eye down to the fifth paragraph down one can read the detail if you want to of the first three paragraphs i'm not going to read them aloud but there are certainly questions that
02:11:33 but there are certainly questions that are studied throughout those paragraphs he says therefore it appears that the basis for xavier's analysis does not reflect either a true model of a ventilated rain
02:11:44 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 say is it safe to say that when you saw that you realize that the nhbc were not
02:11:57 that you realize that the nhbc were not persuaded that the x over desktop study done that thus far could be relied on we took those comments from the nhpc and relayed them to
02:12:09 relayed them to xover for their for their um response and how did that end up i believe there was a responses between debbie and friends and he assessed those and
02:12:21 he assessed those and and came up with answers and did they did you go back to nhbc with those answers i thought we did from evidence what was the nhbc's
02:12:31 judgment on on that i can't recall did you ever get the nhbcs sign off on a desktop study
02:12:42 i can't say for sure but i don't think so no
02:12:50 and we can see that they were extremely skeptical about the desktop study for the reasons they've set out and that is even without knowing of the presence of the six millimeter magnesium
02:13:01 presence of the six millimeter magnesium oxide in two places on the rig and the and the eight millimeters mali rain screen at those points isn't it
02:13:10 yes
02:13:13 would it be fair to say that had the nhpc known about those aspects of the test they would have been even less impressed with xover's work
02:13:25 yes i think that's fair to say uh can i just ask you one or two questions about the nhbc 2016 guidance that cel
02:13:39 2016 guidance that cel 403783 is a note and it's dated the 18th of august 2015 and it's drafted by tom elwell of celetex yes which
02:13:50 tom elwell of celetex yes which department was here he worked in the celetex technical center right uh and it's entitled nhbc and rs 5000 three options and we could see them
02:14:01 three options and we could see them there
02:14:02 there and then an hbc continue to offer resistance to using rs 5000 in rain screen clouding applications why do they ensure fire damage would they be liable for deaths
02:14:13 they be liable for deaths part of the issue seems to be that they have allowed kingspan to quakes get away with it crates for a number of years and they feel
02:14:18 they feel and they now feel they have to tighten up was that your impression i think during this time it was difficult for our business to understand
02:14:29 understand why kingspan were being allowed to do what we were being told they were to do and
02:14:35 and other manufacturers right one now it's right isn't it that less than a year after this the nhbc published guidance entitled acceptability of common wall constructions did you know that i know that now uh
02:14:48 did you know that i know that now uh well let's see it was june 2016. let's look at it cel40 is 1169. i i think you'd left celetex by this time
02:14:58 time no i was still working still you were still there did you look at this document at the time it's dated actually july 2016 if one looks at the very bottom of the page
02:15:09 one looks at the very bottom of the page july 16. i can't 100 recall but it's something that if it's coming to the business then it would have
02:15:18 have been something that would have been circulated so yeah can you look at the bottom right hand corner common wall and facade types accepted by nhbc the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhpc
02:15:29 constructions are acceptable to nhpc without the need to provide an option three assessment providing that the design specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set out in the following appendices appendix 3 you can see aluminium
02:15:40 appendix 3 you can see aluminium composite panels yes now in your statement at paragraph 201 you say that the you regarded this guidance as a positive development for celetex
02:15:50 celetex albeit not that surprising given that rs 5000 was being used in the market and to celetex's knowledge being approved by desktop studies for use in a variety of buildups were you not surprised by this apparent
02:16:03 were you not surprised by this apparent vault fast this change of position about face from the nhbc
02:16:07 the nhbc within less than a year
02:16:11 it did seem surprising at the time yes was that change as a result of the lobbying of of the nhbc by players in the market i'm not necessarily including celetex in
02:16:22 i'm not necessarily including celetex in that but to achieve nhbc buy-in
02:16:28 i don't know what other organizations or companies were doing all i know is that we had met with the nhbc on a few occasions to talk about specific
02:16:37 specific um matters do you know how this changing position
02:16:41 position within a year of the position as seen before came to came to happen no
02:16:48 had this guidance when it came out taking you by surprise
02:16:54 i can't remember exactly how what i remember at the time but it does it did seem strange that we'd been from where we were to where we are now we've been
02:17:02 been instantly approved what was your reaction when you saw it do you remember i can't remember no
02:17:13 now just briefly do you remember that in 2017
02:17:17 2017 before the fire at grenfell tower celetex decided to test rs5 rs 5000 to bs 476. yes why was that we were being asked for
02:17:28 yes why was that we were being asked for copies of um the class o report for fr 5000 and rob and i made a decision that we felt it would be better to re-test the product
02:17:40 better to re-test the product as rs 5000 so that we could send a test report out that stated rs 5000 not fr 5000. can we go to cel50543 please
02:17:53 can we go to cel50543 please this is an email from dr dain sarah dane to you bottom of page one dear paul you see that please see the results below from the class naught testing set
02:18:05 below from the class naught testing set out sent out in april it shows a failure to achieve class naught on all of the products tested the fr results are from trial formulations i'll go through the results today to see if i can determine at what point in time the test
02:18:16 determine at what point in time the test failed
02:18:19 yes and that's august 2017 that that's after the fire yes at grenfell tower and then at the top of the page dr dain goes to joe mahoney and you and says
02:18:31 goes to joe mahoney and you and says dear paul joe please find attach the i values for the test everything failed in the first three minutes of testing the 100 and 160 products also failed during 4 to 10 minutes that must have come as
02:18:44 4 to 10 minutes that must have come as something of a shock it did yes do you know why they failed no i don't you i think you forwarded those results to dino sullivan didn't you
02:18:54 you yes this was a i remember this day because i was at a uh colleague's wedding as well as joe mahoney right do you remember what you discussed with mr o'sullivan about these results i called uh dean um
02:19:08 i called uh dean um once i'd sent those results to him and asked whether any i needed to do anything that morning and he said no and it was picked up as part of the picked up within the
02:19:19 as part of the picked up within the business
02:19:22 that day and going forward and uh is also right isn't it that in november 2017 further testing was carried out were you aware of that i know that there was some work done on
02:19:33 work done on there was work being done on class o investigations during that period between august and november i don't know too much of the detail right can we look at cel40s 9429 please
02:20:03 and we can see here that this is a letter from x over from a team wart to joe mahoney and in the fourth paragraph it says the
02:20:15 and in the fourth paragraph it says the tests were deemed invalid and specified in clause 92 of the standard due to deformation of the specimens blocking the burner ports of the gas burner of the test apparatus such that the required gas input could
02:20:26 such that the required gas input could not be maintained uh did you discover that the november tests had failed in that way did mr mahoney discuss these with you i can't remember
02:20:37 can't remember right were you aware that the subsequent tests in 2018 had passed you didn't know anything about that right and i think it's right that
02:20:48 right and i think it's right that shortly after these tests you were then subject to disciplinary procedures weren't you yes and they were in relation to your involvement in celetex's practice around calculating its declared lambda yes and then you resigned as a
02:21:00 lambda yes and then you resigned as a result i think in december 2017. i did
02:21:09 can i just ask you one question if you go to your second witness statement where you deal with your disciplinary procedures cell 3-0 is one
02:21:16 one two two three three at page seven paragraph thirty-one
02:21:24 you say in paragraph 31 on page seven
02:21:30 it is for others to assess whether the disciplinary processes were also orchestrated to remove senior members of the business out of celetex before the grenfell inquiry commenced what do you mean by that
02:21:41 what do you mean by that i mean that i feel there was a opportunity for celetex having
02:21:51 understood how lambda was being calculated in the business and had been as a
02:21:56 as a process something that was done for a long time
02:22:01 long time i think they and with a lot of people from the previous
02:22:06 ownership and as well as many members of the first sangaban mag moving on i think it only left two or three people that would have been aware of the lambda
02:22:18 would have been aware of the lambda regime purely because we had been in the business
02:22:21 business a long time and my view is that celetex used that as a as an opportunity to um
02:22:30 remove those people from them are you saying that the lambda fiasco was being used as an excuse to conduct a purge i think celetex
02:22:42 conduct a purge i think celetex in my opinion had a had a strategy yes well are you saying that celetex had decided to use the land the lambda affair as an opportunity to purge
02:22:53 opportunity to purge some of the older members of management yes
02:22:57 yes are you saying that that was unjustified i feel that it was based on that process for lambda which was a decision made many years before and by statutory
02:23:09 many years before and by statutory directors of the company and how that just became integrated as part of a ongoing process in our business i felt that was
02:23:22 process in our business i felt that was yes i felt that was unfair
02:23:28 mr evans i've no further questions for you thank you very much there may be some questions which come from somewhere else but mr chairman i make the time well we better deal with them now we had better deal with them now but we will
02:23:40 better deal with them now but we will ought to take the usual break just to yes make sure that i've got the questions as well mr evans although mr millett's finished the questions that he thinks he needs to ask we
02:23:50 ask we always have a short break at this point to give council time just to check that there's nothing he's overlooked okay and also to take into account questions that may have been uh submitted by people who are not in
02:24:02 uh submitted by people who are not in the room but following the proceedings quite closely so uh we'll take a break no ten minutes enough mr millet uh should be mr right well i'll say ten minutes okay which means
02:24:13 i'll say ten minutes okay which means we'll be back here at 20 to 5. sometimes it takes a little longer and if so i'm afraid we'll all be held up but um that's fine let's try and get back at 20 to 5. and as before please don't discuss your
02:24:25 as before please don't discuss your evidence
02:24:26 evidence or anything to do with it with anyone else while you're out of the room thank you all right thank you very much would you like to go to the usher then thank
02:24:41 all you mr miller we'll say 20 to five but of course as usual if i know the time is actually required then you can let us know that'll be helpful thank you mr chairman
02:35:16 thank you would you ask mr evans to come back please okay
02:35:28 all right mr evans well we'll see if mr millett's found some more questions for you
02:35:31 you okay have you found some more questions mr miller i have one or two mr chairman but really one or two and now um mr evans can i ask you please to go to cel401042
02:35:50 this is an email from jonathan room on the 28th of november 2014 second email down on the page to you and debbie berger subject
02:36:03 to you and debbie berger subject celetex rs 5000 bre testing 190 strand hi paul debbie i've spoken to total facade solutions about potentially giving us guidance as to how to move forward with rs 5000 testing
02:36:16 forward with rs 5000 testing we would need to employ them directly andy jones is one of the most knowledgeable people in the facade industry and advises the likes of the barclay group as to what products comply please let me know if you would be willing to employ them as a consultant
02:36:27 willing to employ them as a consultant even if it is only for one day and you went back to him on the 1st of december and said let's discuss as part of our plans for 2015 when we when we meet on the 19th
02:36:38 19th which i think would have been the 19th of december did you discuss mr room's proposal to engage andy jones when you met him
02:36:49 i don't believe so i don't think there was any follow-up on that point or we discussed it on that meeting no and indeed mr roon confirmed in his evidence that celetex never did engage uh total facade solutions and his
02:37:02 uh total facade solutions and his evidence was and this is day 69 page 149 at line five to page 150 at line five
02:37:09 line five he said that it must be that i was told no that option wasn't available or wasn't going to be considered do you remember telling mr roon that you weren't going to take his proposal forward
02:37:21 proposal forward i don't remember that no can you explain otherwise why that proposal was not taken forward
02:37:28 no i can't explain why we didn't take it forward either just are you you saying that he's wrong that you told him you didn't tell him no or i can't remember telling him no what was the reason why it was never
02:37:42 no what was the reason why it was never taken forward do you know [Music]
02:37:45 [Music] no i don't know
02:37:48 would have been sensible wouldn't it looking back on it on reflection yes that takes me to the last question mr evans we've been through a lot of
02:38:00 mr evans we've been through a lot of evidence over the last day and a half or so and given your your position within celetex at the time looking back on that evidence and looking back on the experiences up to and including the day of the fire is
02:38:12 and including the day of the fire is there anything that you looking back on it would have done differently i think everything i've seen and during this um during the evidence i've given and
02:38:25 um during the evidence i've given and and and preparing for it is that it was a totally different type of project for our business for the size of business and for the experience that the people in
02:38:38 for the experience that the people in the business had and it needed a lot more attention focus investment time not all of the other things that were
02:38:49 not all of the other things that were part of
02:38:50 part of working working for celetex and i believe it would have had some of those or all of that in place and the business had understood that more
02:39:01 different decisions would have been made and ultimately we wouldn't have launched the product
02:39:20 yes thank you very much mr evans and any remains for me to thank you very much for
02:39:24 for coming here and assisting us with your evidence we're extremely grateful thank you very much well mr evans i'd like to thank you on behalf of the panel for coming to give your evidence it's taken a lot of your time i understand that
02:39:35 that but uh your evidence has been very useful to us thank you and we're very grateful to you for coming to give it thank you very much and now you're free to go thank you so if you'd like to give the ashrae shield look after you thank you
02:39:59 thank you mr miller well that must be it for the day it is it for the day i'm glad to say mr general i'm grateful for your horror yes i'm grateful for your sitting late the entire panel sitting a little bit later than we would normally tomorrow we have mr jamie hayes who's
02:40:11 tomorrow we have mr jamie hayes who's going to come to give evidence he will last
02:40:14 last most if not all of the day that means unfortunately there has to be an amendment to the scheduled programme which is that debbie bergen i won't be coming to give evidence tomorrow
02:40:24 tomorrow but we are making arrangements with her to come during the course of next week late next week and we will be updating all
02:40:32 all core participants and members of the public accordingly as soon as we can thank you very much good well then we'll finish there for the day and resume tomorrow at 10 o'clock please
02:40:44 tomorrow at 10 o'clock please thank you
02:40:56 you