FRA Expert & Smoke Control BC Expert Evidence - Wednesday 28th July 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:33 [Applause] good morning everyone and welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear evidence from mr colin todd a continuation of the

00:00:44 mr colin todd a continuation of the evidence that we began yesterday so would you ask mr todd to come in please

00:00:56 good morning mr todd yes do sit down please thank you good morning sir mom sir now before i invite uh mr millet to continue putting questions to you can i

00:01:07 continue putting questions to you can i just say this reviewing yesterday's evidence which i think it's fair to say we all found very interesting and very useful

00:01:13 useful i was rather struck by the length of some of your answers yes sir i do understand that you have a lot of uh knowledge that you wish to impart to us yes as i say we did find it

00:01:24 impart to us yes as i say we did find it very interesting and useful but i think i must ask you to keep your answers a little shorter if you can otherwise we're going to overrun the time i'll be my very best sir thank you thank

00:01:35 i'll be my very best sir thank you thank you and i get a repeat also what i said to both of you yesterday please take care not to overspeak each other because if you do it makes life very difficult for the transcriber yes sir certainly

00:01:46 for the transcriber yes sir certainly well with that introduction when you're ready mr millet thank you mr chairman good morning members of the panel good morning mr todd good morning to you good morning sir can we then revisit uh where we were

00:01:57 can we then revisit uh where we were yesterday which is the topic of flat entrance doors and i want to ask you about inspections can we start please with the lga guide hom 3045964

00:02:10 hom 3045964 page 45

00:02:12 page 45 section 35

00:02:19 and this is part of the lga guide which sits in part d for which i think you did the initial drafting just a minute i'm sorry to interrupt you quite so early but uh my transcript isn't running

00:02:31 but uh my transcript isn't running can i just check you're right i think i think none of the three of us have a trend is yours running no it isn't i've just noticed i wonder

00:02:42 no it isn't i've just noticed i wonder whether we should i'll just refresh it to see if it runs now

00:02:50 uh lord

00:02:54 no i've still got a blank

00:03:00 [Music] well i think we ought to solve that before we yes embark on on serious questioning so um i think all i can suggest i'm sorry

00:03:11 i think all i can suggest i'm sorry about this mr todd um

00:03:14 um we don't have too many of these problems but when we do we really just have to sort them out before we get started yes sir so i'm going to ask you to go back to your retiring room if you wouldn't mind and we'll rise from it to

00:03:26 wouldn't mind and we'll rise from it to have this sorted out

00:03:32 you so much thank you very much

00:03:35 um really i think anything to do is to rise for a short time i'm afraid so yes i think that must be right i think you said perhaps you asked the archer to come and tell us when certainly yes

00:37:36 would you ask mr todd to come back in please

00:37:47 yes yes do sit down mr todd um welcome back everyone i'm sorry to say that the problem we have with the real-time transcript has not been

00:37:58 real-time transcript has not been resolved

00:37:59 resolved uh however council here in the hearing room does have access to a real-time transcript and the panel has decided that we can

00:38:10 and the panel has decided that we can manage without one i'm aware that those who are following the proceedings from remote locations who would normally have access to this transcript

00:38:21 transcript will not have it for the time being it may reappear in due course but we can't guarantee that we've decided therefore rather than waste any more time that we should

00:38:32 waste any more time that we should continue without the benefit of the real-time transcript but because we are well aware that those who wish to follow mr todd's evidence and maybe to

00:38:43 follow mr todd's evidence and maybe to suggest further questions for him

00:38:46 for him will wish to have seen the transcript before they finally decide whether they do wish any further questions to be put to him

00:38:54 to him we will make arrangements to ensure that they have a chance to view that transcript before they decide finally whether any further questions should be

00:39:05 any further questions should be suggested for mr todd when and how we do that we'll depend a little bit on how we get on for the rest of today

00:39:13 of today and the only point to remind people of perhaps is that you can

00:39:18 you can follow the proceedings on the live stream

00:39:21 stream and therefore understand mr todd's evidence as it is given so under those circumstances we're going to continue now with mr todd's evidence albeit in the absence of the

00:39:33 albeit in the absence of the uh live

00:39:35 uh live transcript yes mr m mr chairman thank you very much um mr todd can i take you then please to section five of the lga guy h o m triple zero four five nine six

00:39:47 h o m triple zero four five nine six four

00:39:48 four page forty five which is in part d uh and um

00:39:55 uh and um you can see uh under type 1 at the top of the page common parts only non-destructive yes virus fire risk assessment and if you look at the second paragraph there

00:40:06 there in the second sentence it says but as well as considering the arrangements for means of escape and so forth the fire risk assessment includes examination of at least a sample of flat entrance doors it also considers

00:40:19 of flat entrance doors it also considers so far as reasonably practicable the separating construction between the flats and the common parts without any opening up of construction however in this type of fire risk assessment entry to flats beyond the

00:40:30 assessment entry to flats beyond the area of the flat entrance door is not involved

00:40:33 involved now your reference or the reference there to ace at least a sample of flat entrance doors uh is what i want to examine with you and would you agree that such an inspection would require the assessor to

00:40:44 inspection would require the assessor to gain access to the flat in order to examine the presence and condition of the self-closing device and cold smoke seals were needed yes i and other things but yes yes so in

00:40:55 yes i and other things but yes yes so in practice what kind of percentage of flat entrance doors uh was considered suitable and sufficient within the trade right so

00:41:02 right so um that figure has evolved sir and it is now a a kind of under unwritten understanding

00:41:13 understanding uh that the figure would be about 10 with a minimum of two that that tends to be the

00:41:20 be the it wasn't necessarily then but that's that's what's evolved uh so give you some idea of custom and practice right taking to taking 2012 then as the benchmark point uh what was

00:41:32 then as the benchmark point uh what was the standard suitable and sufficient percentage at that time yes there wouldn't there wouldn't have been as i said sir it's it's evolved there wouldn't have been one an important

00:41:43 wouldn't have been one an important thing was

00:41:45 thing was trying to keep my answer short would be to look at different typologies of door that's important and particularly to look out for

00:41:57 and particularly to look out for situations in which leaseholders had changed their flat entrance doors it's a very common uh occurrence that when people buy their flat or buy the 99-year lease or

00:42:09 flat or buy the 99-year lease or whatever

00:42:10 whatever they change their flat entrance doors it's like a sort of badge and so you need to look out for that because

00:42:17 because often they don't put in a fire resistant right when you wrote or when uh

00:42:22 uh this guide was produced and the expression at least a sample of flat entrance doors was inserted there what did you have in mind would represent an acceptable sample

00:42:33 represent an acceptable sample at that point yeah we we wouldn't have had a specific figure in mind it would have been

00:42:39 have been a matter of reasonableness on the part of the fire risk assessor right

00:42:45 right um can we go to mr stokes's evidence please at day 136 page 95

00:42:53 and uh go to line 15 in that please

00:43:01 and you could see there the the question my having shown him what i'm sh i've just shown you in the lga guide what was your understanding of what was required when the guidance here speaks of

00:43:13 when the guidance here speaks of examining a sample of flat entrance doors by which i mean what kind of percentage proportion of doors would you expect to examine to satisfy yourself that you had checked a sample answer the short answer would be if

00:43:25 answer the short answer would be if there's different types one of each type if they were all the same and you knew they were all the same throughout the whole building as long as you could sample a few of those but if there was more than one type or style you could turn the page try and get as

00:43:36 you could turn the page try and get as many samples or look at every one of those as possible is the approach uh that mr

00:43:42 that mr stokes described there adequate that that would probably reflect custom and practice at at the time right yes right now except where an entrance door is identified as

00:43:54 where an entrance door is identified as deficient in some way uh mr stakes did not appear to record in his fras the specific doors that he checked nor the percentage of doors inspected

00:44:03 inspected uh he told the inquiry during his oral evidence that he only inspected a handful his words or five percent or so is five percent or was five percent

00:44:14 is five percent or was five percent during the period between 20 2012 and 2016 a sufficient or an insufficient sample properly

00:44:23 properly to perform his role if they were all the same uh

00:44:29 uh it's probably on the slim side but not not

00:44:34 not unduly the the only thing is i mean that would tell you about the fire resistance of the doors if they were all the same what it wouldn't tell you was the extent to which self-closures had been removed but

00:44:46 which self-closures had been removed but then

00:44:47 then unless you did 100 you would never know how many self-closers were removed was it good practice for a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to record which doors had been inspected as part

00:44:58 which doors had been inspected as part of the sample if not all of them when carrying out a fire risk assessment it would certainly i mean we would do that always

00:45:05 always but not everybody would again and where they wouldn't would that fall short of acceptable standards i've never i've never considered that it would fall short of acceptable i've always just

00:45:16 short of acceptable i've always just thought it was best practice to to have a record uh if only for your own liability

00:45:22 liability and would that good practice remain good practice even where no defects were identified with a particular door oh yes absolutely yes now can we go to your main report please page 80.

00:45:34 page 80. cta 60s 11 page 80 paragraph one paragraph 838 foot of the page you say with further regard to the doors that had not been replaced it is clear from the fra that

00:45:45 replaced it is clear from the fra that mr stokes did examine a sample of these doors to confirm that they were 44 millimeter thick as would be the case in a traditional fire resisting door that they fitted properly in their frames and that any gaps between the door and the

00:45:56 that any gaps between the door and the frame were acceptable in size he also noted that the letterbox was within the lower part of the door the significance of this is that it was it is less likely to be affected by fire than if it were

00:46:07 to be affected by fire than if it were in the top half of the door where positive pressure would tend to force hot gases through the letterbox yes sir now having reviewed all of mr stokes's fire risk assessments for grenfell tower

00:46:18 fire risk assessments for grenfell tower do you agree that the paragraph in the fras to which you're referring uh in this paragraph is subject to minor alterations repeated across all four um of mr

00:46:29 repeated across all four um of mr stokes's fras for grenfell tower between 2012 and 2016. as i recall that's the case and if you tell me that's the case then then i would accept that i i do recall a great similarities at the very

00:46:41 recall a great similarities at the very least yes yes well i don't think i need to take it through all the all the documents during your review of the fras and significant findings and action plans is it right that you found no

00:46:52 plans is it right that you found no documentation to show that mr stokes inspected individual doors which were not found to have any deficiencies which required them to be included in the significant findings and action plan

00:47:05 significant findings and action plan sorry could you repeat that question sir yes did

00:47:08 yes did during your review of mr stakes's fras yes is it right that you found no documents

00:47:14 documents uh to show that mr stokes inspected individual doors which

00:47:19 which weren't found to be deficient in any way no there was no record of i recall the only one i recall it might have been 112 i can't remember but it was one that it was being

00:47:30 but it was one that it was being replaced at the time in question and he saw that a leaseholder was replacing it and therefore he expressed concern as to whether the door was fire resisting or not

00:47:41 not you are right and we'll come to that in in a moment in fact let me show you three

00:47:45 three uh where mr stakes did identify doors as presenting a risk or hazard within his significant findings and action plans uh well i could i can cite them to you because you'll be familiar with them but

00:47:56 because you'll be familiar with them but if we need to look at them mr todd we can first the 2012 fra action plan and i'll just give the reference cst 403

00:48:07 reference cst 403 page 3 item 12b where he identified holes in flat entrance stores to flats 166 and 202 the june 2016 action plan

00:48:18 the june 2016 action plan item 12g

00:48:20 item 12g cst403069 page 4 where he identified that the flat entrance door to flat 24 was damaged and missing a letterbox and the same action plan same page page

00:48:31 and the same action plan same page page 4 item 12h where he identified the flat entrance door to flat 112 was being replaced and asked for confirmation that the door was a

00:48:42 confirmation that the door was a certified fd30 door and that a self-closing device should be fitted to the door now i've summarized for you there we can see them if you like the those three entries in the

00:48:53 like the those three entries in the light of that do you agree that mr stokes only in fact identified four flat entrance stores within grenfell tower that he'd actually inspected uh yes and and that we're we're deficient yes and

00:49:04 and that we're we're deficient yes and those were all as a result of the visual inspection from the outside of the flat not an inspection of the inner leaf of the door

00:49:13 is that what he actually said sir uh well it's it's um from your i'm really asking you from your experience of inspections um whether that is a conclusion that the inquiry should draw

00:49:26 you i need to see the wording and i don't want to take up your time unnecessarily but right but i i

00:49:33 i i i could i agree with the point you made earlier that in order to check a door properly you'd always need to have it opened that's that's definitely the case yeah

00:49:42 yeah maybe tried a different way would you agree that with the exception of the open door of flat 112 which you've identified you've never seen any any evidence yourself in the inquiries material where

00:49:54 yourself in the inquiries material where it shows that mr stokes ever identified any problems with flat entrance doors which would be apparent from any internal inspection no i don't think i saw any no

00:50:06 no i don't think i saw any no uh now would you accept that that

00:50:10 would you accept that there's no evidence which suggests that mr stokes examined a sample in the sense that you understand it of flat entrance doors both inside and out

00:50:21 out no i i may have made that assumption sir because

00:50:25 because you would have to open it whether i actually saw anything that said he had the doors open i can't remember that may have been an assumption on my part sir yes

00:50:36 assumption on my part sir yes and no evidence that he ever embarked on any kind of sampling exercise of any kind as opposed to reacting to what he could see

00:50:44 could see my impression was that he he checked a sample because he referred to that five percent didn't he

00:50:52 didn't he so my understanding but that could be wrong is that

00:50:59 is that he was sampling doors and and i assume by that that he had the doors opened right with slightly across purposes sorry what i'm really getting at is is evidence

00:51:09 evidence from within his fire risk assessments the record of his fire is assessments about his sampling no he doesn't go into any detail in that respect no no no so when you say in your report that

00:51:21 no so when you say in your report that there's evidence that the stakes examined a sample of flat entrance doors um what were you referring to um

00:51:30 that he made reference to the flat entrance doors he he talked about the door the leaseholder doors that had not been replaced

00:51:43 that had not been replaced and he gave a bit of a description about them as as you as you see there in 838 and so that's what i was talking about would it be normal practice for a fire risk assessor

00:51:56 normal practice for a fire risk assessor to carry out a sample as opposed to simply reacting to what he saw and then record the sampling exercise and its results in his fire risk assessment yes you normally put down i checked doors

00:52:08 you normally put down i checked doors xxx

00:52:10 xxx and found whatever xxx being soluble flat the flat numbers yes

00:52:17 yes and would not doing that fall short of acceptable standards not everybody would do it as i say we do um

00:52:25 i i think the important thing is that you check the sample uh the specific record would be more to protect your own liability as to what you've done yes but by not recording the

00:52:37 you've done yes but by not recording the sampling exercise that you had done in your fire risk assessment would would you as a fire risk assessor fall short of acceptable standards that's the question yes i understand the question i've never

00:52:49 i've never i can honestly say i've never regarded it as such where i've looked at fire risk assessments of others for various reasons i've never i'm not sure if i've ever certainly i've

00:53:00 i'm not sure if i've ever certainly i've never said this chap this risk assessment isn't suitable and sufficient because there's no records of the doors that were checked i probably comment i might have commented on it as good practice right can i then turn to the topic of

00:53:11 can i then turn to the topic of maintenance of flat entrance doors and self-closing devices specifically yes can we go to your main report please at page 72

00:53:22 paragraph 7.37 in the middle of the screen and you say as in the case of any fra the matters to be considered by a a fire risk assessor can be broadly grouped into three distinct categories

00:53:33 grouped into three distinct categories namely fire prevention measures to prevent the occurrence of fire within the common parts fire protection measures to maintain the safety of the common parts in the event of a fire within the common parts and within any

00:53:44 within the common parts and within any flat and management of fire safety and then if we look at the bottom of page 72 you can see paragraph 740 which goes

00:53:55 you can see paragraph 740 which goes over to page 73 and you say there with regard to fire protection matters sorry with regard to fire protection matters that should be considered include and then there's a bullet point list on page 73

00:54:08 bullet point list on page 73 starting with means of escape um

00:54:12 um and if you look down at the sixth bullet down you can see you've listed flat entrance doors yes sir there

00:54:20 there uh and your list of management of fire safety

00:54:24 safety uh a little bit lower down the same page fifth bullet point down refers to arrangements for testing and servicing of fire protection measures and equipment doesn't it that's correct yes well it's not on the screen but i'm

00:54:37 yes well it's not on the screen but i'm sure you're right well no you're right and that's my fault can we have that on the screen just so that everyone can see it

00:54:44 yes thank you yes it is now um looking at the inspection and maintenance of flat entrance doors and of self-closing devices in particular is the task of the fire risk assessor to

00:54:56 is the task of the fire risk assessor to monitor and assess first the physical state of repair of the doors and door sets and second the adequacy of the system of maintenance and inspection implemented

00:55:07 maintenance and inspection implemented by the responsible person yes to both sir yes to both and and then having done that is it right that the he should then use those findings to determine the level of risk

00:55:18 determine the level of risk uh yes sir yes would you agree that the process of conducting the fire risk assessment is not itself a component of the maintenance and inspection system

00:55:29 inspection system by which i mean you can't outsource the conduct of the ins of the inspection to the fire risk assessor himself yes yes you agree with me yes i agree thank you

00:55:38 you now the evidence of janice ray was that the tmo did not implement a six monthly system of inspection of flat entrance doors as recommended by the lga guide in your opinion mr todd was the failure to

00:55:50 your opinion mr todd was the failure to implement the recommended program of inspections of flat entrance doors a matter that you would expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to have identified during the course of his fire risk assessments yes the the

00:56:02 his fire risk assessments yes the the fire risk assessor should look at that system given that mr stakes did not identify that as a failure of the tma of any in any of his fire risk assessments do you consider that his emission fell below the standards expected of a

00:56:14 below the standards expected of a reasonably competent fire risk assessor yes i think he should have asked about the maintenance arrangements yes but you say yes at the start of the question are you accepting the proposition which is that that failure

00:56:26 proposition which is that that failure fell short of the standards expected of a reasonably competent fire risk assessor yes i think i probably would thank you

00:56:33 thank you now let's turn then to uh mr stokes's actual knowledge of conditions uh relating to flat entrance doors uh

00:56:42 uh we looked i think yesterday at clause 20 of past 79 uh uh and the question about where work recommended in the original plan that hasn't been completed needs to be identified i don't think i need to show

00:56:54 identified i don't think i need to show you past 79 again no that's not sure you're very familiar with it um can i just show you some examples uh we'll tell you about some examples we know that mr stokes from his evidence was aware of certain

00:57:06 from his evidence was aware of certain information pertaining to the missing self-closing devices

00:57:11 devices first in july 2015 flat 45

00:57:17 flat 45 and december 2015 the concern being raised that residents of grenfell tower had told him that one of the caretakers had disconnected a number of self-closing devices

00:57:30 number of self-closing devices now

00:57:31 now against that fact background

00:57:36 it's right i think that mr stokes did not include that information in the next fire risk assessment which was april 2016

00:57:43 2016 nor confirmed that the issues have been rectified in the interim now given all of that background my question is would you have expected mr stokes

00:57:55 mr stokes on the basis of what he then knew by april 2016 about self-closing devices to have performed checks concerning those doors previously

00:58:07 concerning those doors previously identified as deficient

00:58:11 not if he thought that they were acting on the findings of his fire risk assessment because these doors are just a sample and so

00:58:21 and so they're not it's not an end in itself to

00:58:25 to just to have identified those and then go back and check those in fact it might be more helpful to sample further doors yeah so that he has a better picture yes but would you would you expect

00:58:38 yes but would you would you expect the reasonably competent fire risk assessor uh having been told that there were defective doors to go and check whether those defects had been remedied in order to satisfy yourself that the

00:58:50 in order to satisfy yourself that the fire

00:58:51 fire safety management system was working

00:58:57 the the doors that he identified the previous time are the doors that had been brought to his attention those that had been brought in brought his attention by the tmo um that would be a reasonable thing to do it would be a

00:59:08 reasonable thing to do it would be a reasonable thing to do would it be an unreasonable thing not to do it or would it fall below the standards of them i think it would depend on whether he thought that they actually were active in

00:59:21 that they actually were active in resolving these problems

00:59:26 in which case he might well choose to do a different sample and given given the volume of uh fri fra actions which had not been

00:59:38 fri fra actions which had not been completed by the time of the next fra and given his knowledge about that would you have expected him to check by way of a check against these

00:59:49 by way of a check against these particular doors um that they had been remedied in order to verify or satisfy himself that the fire safety management system operated by the tma was working i think it could have been done by

01:00:00 have been done by discussion as have you what what steps have you taken since last time to make sure that doors that you were aware of have been resolved

01:00:12 have been resolved if you were content with that then you'd be better probably looking at a further sample of doors to keep um rotating as it were so depending what what he understood had

01:00:24 so depending what what he understood had been done i i follow um

01:00:28 um if he'd been told nothing and had asked nothing about the doors which he had been told had had demonstrated defects would

01:00:38 would a reasonably competent fire risk assessor proceed on the assumption that if he had told his client that a self-closer was defective it would be speedily fixed and he need

01:00:49 it would be speedily fixed and he need concern himself no more with it

01:00:53 that would often be a reasonable assumption if you're dealing with someone you trusted on the other hand it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a sample of the sample to satisfy yourself

01:01:05 to satisfy yourself yes i see

01:01:09 does that make sense yes it does and in your opinion given that given what mr stakes knew about the tmo not actioning fra actions or being slow to do so uh was it unreasonable of him to proceed

01:01:22 uh was it unreasonable of him to proceed on that assumption namely that if he told his client the tma that the that self-closers were defective he need concern himself no more with it because he could assume it would be speedily fixed i think i can't

01:01:33 would be speedily fixed i think i can't put myself in the the mindset of mr stokes and his his level of understanding or trust uh

01:01:40 uh but to be sure it probably would have been a good idea to double check now mr stakes also told us that he didn't include information about the condition of the flat entrance door to flat 45

01:01:51 flat 45 grenfell tower in the april 2016 fra because it was not part of the fra but just part of separate ad hoc advice to the tmo

01:02:00 the tmo that's day day one through eight page one two six at lines eighteen to twenty would i would i would you endorse that approach no i think i think

01:02:11 i think you can't unknow what you already know no and and you wouldn't endorse that approach could you just tell us why not well

01:02:19 well it doesn't matter how he came by the information if he was aware of it from whatever means that's one of the advantages of his

01:02:28 his his continuity in in helping the tmo with their their fire risk assessments and management would you have expected mr stokes to record in his april 2016 fra

01:02:40 record in his april 2016 fra his knowledge that self-closing devices had been removed or were missing in the period

01:02:45 period following his 2014 fra regardless of the status of those doors as of april 2016. yes if if he knew there was a problem with that then it it would have been

01:02:56 with that then it it would have been appropriate to highlight it yes yes and would you agree that by checking doors or if not possible then by including a reference to the problems identified in the period between the two fras mr stakes would have had an opportunity to

01:03:08 stakes would have had an opportunity to both to examine and assess the effectiveness of the tmos fire safety management system yes he did have that opportunity by virtue of the the interim yes and

01:03:19 yes and did it fall below the standards of the trade not to have taken that opportunity do you think

01:03:27 yes i think i think probably i i would i would agree with that that if he knew there was a particular problem uh for from whatever source and didn't

01:03:38 uh for from whatever source and didn't follow up on it if if it was likely to continue to be a problem then then yes probably yes now can i turn to a completely different topic which is the aov the automatic

01:03:49 topic which is the aov the automatic ventilation system would you agree that a fire risk assessor ought to consider the automatic ventilation system in a residential high-rise building and determine its

01:04:00 high-rise building and determine its contribution or otherwise to the safety of the occupants uh you'd want to know that there was a smoke control system and that it was being maintained certainly yeah so i

01:04:12 being maintained certainly yeah so i think is the answer to my question yet yes yes you couldn't ignore it no and is it right that a fire risk assessor should also ensure that there are adequate arrangements for ongoing control testing and maintenance of that

01:04:23 control testing and maintenance of that system definitely

01:04:26 and also that he should consider the potential for means of escape to be compromised by a ventilation system if it wasn't working uh

01:04:37 uh that would be inherent in in the absence of it working you you your protection of the staircase would be uh undermined yes and when a fire risk assessor assesses a building how should he go

01:04:49 assesses a building how should he go about assessing the functionality and adequacy of the aov by

01:04:55 by asking about its maintenance and testing so specifically what records ought he to examine

01:05:04 examine um he may do it by records or he may simply ask the question and

01:05:11 and he may accept the answer record keeping it's not an iso 9000 audit so record keeping may well be a sampling process and customer practice would be to ask

01:05:24 and customer practice would be to ask the duty holder what they were doing should the relevant records that he does examined be noted in his fire risk assessment not necessarily no i wouldn't necessarily keep a record of the records

01:05:36 necessarily keep a record of the records that were checked okay would you expect the um the the the virus assessor to make reasonable inquiries of the competent person or competent assistant in this case janice ray for up-to-date

01:05:47 in this case janice ray for up-to-date information about the operation and condition of the aav system yes sir and just to qualify the last answer um

01:05:57 um the

01:05:58 the uh

01:05:59 uh it's good practice even though it's not required by the fire safety order to confirm that there are records kept in relation to various testing and

01:06:10 in relation to various testing and maintenance and would it be bad practice not to do so

01:06:15 so yes as i say it's not there's no requirement strangely enough under the fire safety order to keep records but you wouldn't actually go to the bother of telling the client that you tell them it's good practice to

01:06:26 that you tell them it's good practice to keep records and i think you'll find in the template of past 79 there is a section that that asks for verification that records are kept yes

01:06:36 yes uh you ought the fire risk assessor himself or herself to inspect the aov system

01:06:45 the risk assessor would probably not be competent to to inspect it to be honest and uh

01:06:54 and uh should they ask for the functionality to be demonstrated no no now in carlstakes is three fras for grenfell tower between 2009 and 2012.

01:07:06 grenfell tower between 2009 and 2012. so september 2009 uh

01:07:11 uh december

01:07:12 december 2010 and november 2012 he consistently wrote in the action plan that it is not known he said it is not known if the system is serviced and maintained and he

01:07:23 system is serviced and maintained and he asked the tmo to confirm that the aov was serviced and maintained uh and on each occasion he marked that action both in red and uh well in red to indicate that it

01:07:35 and uh well in red to indicate that it was a high priority uh now given that mr stokes had consistently raised his perpetual ignorance

01:07:43 ignorance on this point over a three-year period with the tma would you ex have expected him to have raised the lack of records uh and the implication that there's a lack of maintenance more explicitly with janice ray

01:07:55 janice ray yes i think so it's not so much the lack of records if if he was unable to confirm by discussion with janice ray or however on three successive occasions if he is

01:08:08 on three successive occasions if he is unable to confirm that that was being done

01:08:11 done by that time it was time to make i can put it this way sir make a bit more of a fuss make a bit more of a fuss yes

01:08:21 fuss yes and

01:08:21 and in addition to that let me ask you would the fact that that mr stokes could not confirm that there were adequate arrangements in place for servicing and maintaining the aov

01:08:34 servicing and maintaining the aov um

01:08:34 um [Music]

01:08:36 [Music] have affected the risk rating of the tower over that three-year period

01:08:42 i think he wouldn't know what the effect was because he he couldn't confirm it so he wouldn't necessarily assume that it wasn't being done and therefore affected

01:08:53 wasn't being done and therefore affected the risk it'd be more that he he wasn't really in a clear position to advise on that without that information which is why he really would have been appropriate for him to

01:09:05 would have been appropriate for him to to make a bit more of a fuss and say he needed that information yes uh i mean having got uh on having got an ign as it were a nil return it is not known on three

01:09:17 return it is not known on three occasions uh would the reasonably competent fire risk assessor then uh

01:09:23 uh use that information or rather the absence of that information to assess the risk rating overall would it feed into the risk rating probably wouldn't look at it that way i

01:09:35 probably wouldn't look at it that way i would look at that in order to complete his risk assessment and make the assessment of risk he would need to pursue the matter further because someone must have known that

01:09:47 that that information can't have been that difficult to find out and

01:09:53 and if we go to past 79 please

01:09:58 at page 54.

01:10:08 thank you and we look at paragraph 16.3 k th this is under the rubric under 16 3 the top of your screen in the course of

01:10:19 the top of your screen in the course of the fire risk assessment the following matters should be considered any shortcomings in these matters should be identified in the documented fire risk assessment and should be addressed in the action plan and then if you cast your eye down the screen to the bottom

01:10:30 your eye down the screen to the bottom of the screen k

01:10:32 k testing and maintenance of fire protection systems and equipment by a competent person including systems and equipment installed for use by all the safety of firefighters yes now given

01:10:43 safety of firefighters yes now given that guidance there what

01:10:47 what was it not the case that the absence of any information over three years or three three periods three fras about the maintenance of the aov system at grenfell tower a clear shortcoming in

01:10:59 grenfell tower a clear shortcoming in the fire safety management of the building which he should have raised and in his fras yes i think you're probably right sir i mean he couldn't really complete it without the information so i can only tell you

01:11:11 the information so i can only tell you what we my own practice would do and and that would be even on the first occasion probably follow it up by telephone or email later on and say i can't i can't answer this question in my fire risk

01:11:23 answer this question in my fire risk assessment can somebody please confirm one way or the other is this being carried out or not yes uh and by failing to do so did his actions fall below uh the

01:11:34 did his actions fall below uh the standards acceptable in the trade at the time yes if he if if uh he didn't have the answer on three different occasions and he wasn't getting anywhere then then yes he should have been doing that he should have been

01:11:45 have been doing that he should have been following that up yes uh in his fire risk assessment of the 17th of october to uh we'll look at that let's go to that it's cst403157

01:11:59 at page 26. and in it you'll see at section 19 what he says about the aov uh he says

01:12:10 uh he says you've got the whole thing on your screen there it's about halfway down i see it sir there is an automatic opening smoke ventilation system do you see that yes yes i'll just read this part to you there's an automatic smoke opening smoke

01:12:21 there's an automatic smoke opening smoke ventilation system located on each flat stroke lift lobby area there are two sets of vents each of two vents on opposite walls on the flat lift lobby areas there is a smoke detector located on each flat lift lobby area upon which

01:12:34 on each flat lift lobby area upon which activation opens the vents on that floor level two vents are for inflow air and the other two are extraction the mechanical extraction units and the control panels for these vents are located in the roof level plant room on

01:12:46 located in the roof level plant room on the wall there's a manual override facility located in the ground floor lift lobby area for use by the fire service please see section 17 above means of giving a warning in case of fire for more information of the lift

01:12:57 fire for more information of the lift flat lobby area detectors as part of the building's refurbishment this smoke extraction system is being upgraded this currently installed system was serviced by rge services on the 11th of october 2013. the smoke extraction

01:13:09 of october 2013. the smoke extraction system incorporates the dampers within the ductwork now

01:13:16 there are a number of documents uh which uh mr stokes saw about the condition of the smoke vent system

01:13:27 smoke vent system let me just show you one of them can we go please to cst falls

01:13:39 this is an email if you go to page two this is an email uh from alex bosman on the 9th of october 2014 so about about a

01:13:50 the 9th of october 2014 so about about a week and a bit before his 17th of october

01:13:55 october fra 2014

01:13:57 fra 2014 uh and if you go halfway down the email uh you could see about two thirds of the way down the screen it says smoke extract i understand a visit was carried out on 6th october 2014 this system has

01:14:10 out on 6th october 2014 this system has been confirmed as beyond repair and is scheduled for replacement shortly no further action required do you

01:14:19 do you agree that that information should have been included in his uh october 2014 fire risk assessment yes sir yes and a failure to do so did that fall below the standards uh expected of a reasonably

01:14:31 standards uh expected of a reasonably competent fire risk assessor at the time yes i think at the very least the narrative should have been there yes so is that a yes yes yes uh

01:14:41 uh and do you do you agree that that information ought to have been factored into his risk rating for the tower overall

01:14:48 overall yes i think he should have actually and i'm not sure whether he did or he didn't but

01:14:53 but beyond repair i'm not entirely clear what that means does it mean it's not working and can't be fixed or does it mean that if it breaks down in the future you

01:15:05 if it breaks down in the future you can't get parts and therefore it's not possible to maintain it properly

01:15:12 properly i don't know if he knew that but that that would need investigation we need investigation and and by not investigating it how would you characterize mr stakes's uh approach yes

01:15:23 characterize mr stakes's uh approach yes he should he should have found out what that actually meant unless he already knew

01:15:27 knew and by not doing so did he fall below the acceptable stance yes i think i think that's probably fair comments yeah and not a non-functioning uh or irreparable afv would that heighten the

01:15:39 irreparable afv would that heighten the risks facing residents if a fire broke out

01:15:42 out uh yes it would because it would impact on the protection of the stairway uh if we go to the action plan for this

01:15:51 for this october 2014 fra it which is at cst403177

01:15:58 the page 8 we see item 19d

01:16:04 which is in the middle of your screen and he uh

01:16:10 says there with against a red high under the actions to be taken can it please be confirmed what compensatory measures if any are being put in place whilst the installed smoke extraction

01:16:21 whilst the installed smoke extraction systems are being upgraded once the new extraction system has been installed then a commissioning certificate for the system must be obtained stating that the smoke extraction system is fully functional

01:16:32 functional uh would you have expected a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to have advised on what mitigation measures were required rather than leaving it to the tmo to decide

01:16:49 i think he's working alongside the client so it's probably a reasonable question to ask problem is i'm not sure what mitigation measures you could really

01:16:57 really implement you'd want it fixed as soon as possible

01:17:00 possible but it

01:17:03 but it you wouldn't go to a waking watch i suggest

01:17:06 suggest so

01:17:08 so it's very difficult to

01:17:10 to come up with mitigation measures for a non-functioning or

01:17:16 or not adequately functioning smoke control system

01:17:20 system right

01:17:22 right on the assumption that uh some might be available would you have expected mr stokes to find out what compensatory measures were proposed before he submitted his fra yes i think

01:17:35 before he submitted his fra yes i think you'd look into that yes yes now um i want to look at the testing and maintenance assessment of the aov in this same fra if we go please uh to cst 403157

01:17:49 if we go please uh to cst 403157 at page 29

01:17:55 this is under the the part of the fra representing his tailor-made template part 23 testing and maintenance and if you see five items down you can

01:18:06 and if you see five items down you can see he says the question is is there a monthly testing and annual servicing and maintenance of any automatic opening vents along with any associated equipment stroke devices with records kept

01:18:16 kept you see that yes sir um and you can see that he's ticked no yes now um having tychno we've not seen any uh commentary in the box below it

01:18:27 box below it which records that as a problem or any

01:18:31 or any uh action about it raised in the action plan

01:18:37 do you agree that in not doing either of those things that

01:18:42 that fell below acceptable standards was this one of those where he said it couldn't be confirmed whether it was being maintained sir no i don't believe so uh you told me

01:18:54 no i don't believe so uh you told me about him being unable to confirm it on a number of occasions i wondered if that was one this is one of them

01:19:03 no i don't believe so that that that's that that's about uh that that's 2009 to 2012 right uh those are the years i've i put to you this is later

01:19:15 years i've i put to you this is later this is 2014. and there's no comment at all about that no no no and there's nothing in the action plan no well that that that can't be right to help the chairman

01:19:26 be right to help the chairman uh possibly sir

01:19:30 briefly yes absolutely um

01:19:34 um if i can explain the way this template was meant to work sir uh

01:19:38 uh um

01:19:40 um every time you come across a no the way

01:19:45 the way that we would train people to use it is that a no must then give rise to a comment and then

01:19:54 and then then something in the action plan and and sometimes there's double negatives even in the template to make sure that no is always the worst answer

01:20:05 the worst answer and and when you when you do a sort of peer review as we would do um we wouldn't worry too much about the essays we'd look at all the no's and ask ourselves does the null give rise to comment does the no give rise to an

01:20:17 comment does the no give rise to an action that's how it's that's how it's structured so if that if that helps right yes thank you it does thank you uh now in his april 2016 fra uh he didn't explain whether the newly

01:20:30 uh he didn't explain whether the newly installed aov which it had been by that time was operational or not uh we can look at it if you like but i don't think we need to go to it necessarily but would you agree that that omission is something that

01:20:42 that omission is something that uh well would you agree that he should have clearly spelt out in that fire risk assessment that it was operational should he have made a fire risk assessment of the new system in other words

01:20:54 words no i think if it if he was happy that new system had been installed and commissioned then

01:21:03 then his concentration would be more on is it now being maintained yes um the question perhaps gets a little bit ahead of itself mr stakes his evidence was that he believed that he didn't at that time

01:21:16 believed that he didn't at that time have information on the new system yet and that it hadn't been commissioned that's day 139 at page 45 line 17 to uh page 46 line one um in the light of

01:21:28 uh page 46 line one um in the light of that

01:21:29 that what would you have expected mr stokes to record

01:21:32 to record if he was acting competently a narrative of what you have just told me sir right and

01:21:39 and not doing so would that fall below the standards yes i think that smoke control's pretty important and uh having narrative about that would be would be expected

01:21:51 expected can i then turn to a different topic altogether which is cladding and i want to ask you about mr stakes's opinion on the clatting of grenfell tower yes and this touches on the topic

01:22:02 tower yes and this touches on the topic to some extent that we covered on the first day of your evidence can we go to your main report please at page 22.

01:22:14 and you can see paragraph 317 in the middle of your screen there and you say moreover in my experience the assessment of the fire performance of the external wall construction is quite specialized beyond the competence of typical fire

01:22:26 beyond the competence of typical fire risk assessors and fire and rescue service fire safety officers and often incapable of an informed opinion purely on the basis of a visual inspection intrusive inspection involving destructive exposure and sometimes

01:22:37 destructive exposure and sometimes testing of materials might be necessary again this opinion is widely held within the fire safety profession and is supported by the fia guidance to which i've referred in the previous paragraph and indeed in paragraph 3.16

01:22:50 paragraph and indeed in paragraph 3.16 you have referred to uh some guidance there or at least to the fia yes now um

01:22:59 uh and and i should also to be fair to you point out the fact that you the basis of the view you express in 3.17 is also to be found in 3.15

01:23:11 3.17 is also to be found in 3.15 um about the general opinion about the external wall buildup falling outside the scope of the fso

01:23:17 fso a point we've already covered we did so yeah to go back to um

01:23:22 um my question my first question is was the assessment of the cladding on grenfell tower

01:23:26 tower beyond mr stakes's competence yes sir it was

01:23:30 was does that mean that the nos 3 training that he received which included training on external fire spread and cladding systems

01:23:41 was insufficient to equip him to offer an opinion on the fire safety of the cladding system i wouldn't have expected it to go into that level of detail sir right

01:23:52 that level of detail sir right so that's an uh is that a no it wasn't sufficient i know sorry then it's right now um if

01:24:01 if uh

01:24:02 uh assessing the cladding was outside the scope of

01:24:06 scope of mr stokes's competence uh as a fire risk assessor can you help me what business mr stokes had in expressing a view about its fire safety

01:24:17 expressing a view about its fire safety or its performance oh yes this this is a very interesting question sir and then

01:24:23 and then a common

01:24:25 a common philosophical chestnut uh and i think i addressed this in the report itself um

01:24:34 um it's it's a very common conundrum that if

01:24:39 that if someone in the fire sector is tasked with doing one job and if i could simplify it servicing fire extinguishers and they spot

01:24:50 and they spot a problem on the means of escape should they blink of themselves and say i'm not competent to advise a means of escape

01:24:58 escape knowing

01:24:59 knowing that there is something wrong with the means of escape should they say i'm here to serve as the fire extinguishers means of escape's not my problem now the view of

01:25:10 of the sector uh and and this has come up in

01:25:14 in in even in prosecution cases the view of the sector is you need to be very careful from a liability point of view because if you start to talk about means of escape as a fire extinguisher

01:25:25 of escape as a fire extinguisher technician you've spotted one problem and if there's another problem you may end up with a civil liability because people will say you were advising as a means of escape look you pointed that

01:25:36 means of escape look you pointed that out why did you not point this other point out my view sir is the safety of the public should take precedence over people's concerns over their own liability

01:25:47 liability and even if they are not competent in an area and not being paid to comment on an aspect of fire safety if they think there is a concern

01:25:59 if they think there is a concern for the safety of the public they ought to draw it to someone's attention and if they want to protect their liability they can do that with a caveat that i haven't looked at all of these things

01:26:10 haven't looked at all of these things i'm not competent in this area but by the way i think you should look at that uh

01:26:16 uh right and would the competent fire risk assessor express any opinion on a matter outside their expertise and experience yes they would but they probably caveat it

01:26:24 it i see

01:26:26 i see it happens it happens a lot sir yes there may be some assistance on this in past 79 so help me with that can we go to pass 79 please at page 24.

01:26:38 can you give us a reference to the transcript please uh yes it's uh cst 703

01:26:45 cst 703 cta 703

01:26:48 and it's um you can see the top of the page that um clause is competence of the of fire risk assessors and if we can look at uh

01:27:00 and if we can look at uh clause

01:27:01 clause seven paragraph 2

01:27:04 2 b

01:27:05 b yes

01:27:06 yes there's a bit of a run-up in the text competence does not necessarily depend on the possession of specific qualifications etcetera

01:27:14 etcetera but if you look about three-quarters of the way down that block of text before the letters it says

01:27:21 it says the following attributes of the fire risk assessor might be sufficient in conjunction with the study of suitable guidance documents and then b says an awareness of the limitations of the fire risk assessor's own experience

01:27:33 risk assessor's own experience and knowledge and then see a willingness and ability to supplement existing experience and knowledge where necessary by obtaining external help and advice now in the light of that

01:27:47 now in the light of that would you expect mr stokes to have um told well sorry let me ask you more slightly differently what would you have expected mr stokes to say about the cladding okay

01:27:59 cladding okay just on on on b and c again it might help the inquiry to know that this is extracted directly from the the acop under the management of health and safety at work regulations

01:28:11 and safety at work regulations um just just as background to those so your question sir was what would i have expected mr stokes to mr stokes attention to the cladding i think was

01:28:23 attention to the cladding i think was drawn by a sample that he saw was it not sir

01:28:28 he saw a sample that was there for the residents he saw that it was fixed on timber

01:28:35 timber timber batons timber batons yes yes uh and that was only a temporary arrangement but it caused him some concern

01:28:44 concern and i think his recommendation was make sure

01:28:48 sure that

01:28:50 that the

01:28:51 the cladding and i think he went on to say the method of fixing is satisfactory to building control that's my best recollection sir and in that he was

01:29:04 and in that he was straight down the middle following b and c

01:29:10 uh well let's look at the text of what he did can we look at his april and june 2016 fras we'll look at the 20 april 2016 one

01:29:19 2016 one because

01:29:20 because that's probably the best place to go cst4031c

01:29:24 cst4031c please page four

01:29:32 and he says at the very top of the page new external cladding has been fitted to this building as part of the project of the refurbishment and construction work being undertaken on and within this

01:29:43 being undertaken on and within this building

01:29:44 building the original external face of this building has been overclad the new fire rated cladding is fixed to the out face of the building by metal fixings and the whole process has been overseen by the rbkc building control department and

01:29:56 rbkc building control department and officers they have approved and accepted the fixing system and cladding used now

01:30:04 let me just give you a little bit of background about his evidence that he gave the inquiry he told the inquiry that at the time he wrote that statement in this fra and indeed again

01:30:15 statement in this fra and indeed again in the june 2016 fra a few months later he had not seen any building control documentation uh any or any independent information

01:30:26 any or any independent information and then it was based on an informal conversation with a representative from ryden mr david hughes and the conversation that he's had with the tmo

01:30:36 the tmo now

01:30:36 now against that background would you expect a competent fire risk assessor to make these uh statements in his fra about cladding without having seen any underlying

01:30:48 without having seen any underlying objective material to support them i think you can't take that paragraph out of the context of what i was referring to sir and that was a recommendation in an action plan of a previous fire risk

01:31:01 an action plan of a previous fire risk assessment in which he expressed concern and recommended that there be consultation with building control i don't know if you can find that at all uh yes we can that would be

01:31:13 that at all uh yes we can that would be the uh october 2014 uh fra

01:31:19 uh fra uh which we can certainly show you if you want to see it i think it might be helpful in terms of contextualizing for the chairman that paragraph

01:31:30 yes you'll have to bear with me while we find the reference mr todd i apologize for not at all it's important that you you give your evidence fully

01:31:43 yes can we go please to uh cst403157 [Music]

01:31:53 which is the october 2014 fra and

01:31:58 and if i will then find you the passage

01:32:24 it would be in the action plan sir i think if it helps oh yes well thank you uh

01:32:31 uh uh cst4 three cst four zeros three one seven seven just look at that

01:32:41 yes here we go um

01:32:46 and if we go

01:32:50 to uh i will find it for you yes that's not that's not the one no it's the last page of that if we go to page 10

01:33:03 i think is that what you were after yes here we go yes actions to be taken let me just show you uh he says i would recommend that the contractor provides one the scope of works covering how this cladding how will the cladding be fixed to the

01:33:15 how will the cladding be fixed to the building what fixings will be used the fire rating of the cladding and the fixings the building control officer's acceptance of this fixing system and the cladding used yes

01:33:25 yes and that was what i meant sir when i said that

01:33:29 said that i regarded that as compliance with the b and c that you took me to because mr stokes by his own admission

01:33:40 admission is not terribly knowledgeable about cladding no surprise there wouldn't expect him to be so he has recognized the limitation of his own knowledge uh b

01:33:51 the limitation of his own knowledge uh b and then on c he's expressed the willingness to supplement his own knowledge uh by reference to others so he basically um refers people to building control

01:34:03 refers people to building control because they would have or should have the expertise to deal with that yes um can we then come back please to the text i mean we could have both on at the same time perhaps that's a good idea uh that would be a good idea so that you

01:34:15 uh that would be a good idea so that you can see both the context from 2014 and the april 2016 fra can we go back please to

01:34:22 please to cst403161 page four keeping

01:34:26 keeping this on the screen

01:34:32 so have both up at once

01:34:39 now you've got i think everything you need there um going back to the text on the right hand side uh in the second sentence where it says

01:34:50 uh in the second sentence where it says the original external face of this building has been over clad the new fire rated cladding is fixed to the out face of the building metal fixings and the whole process has been overseen by the rbkc building control department and

01:35:01 rbkc building control department and officers they've approved and accepted the fixing system and cladding used that there's no qualification or equivocation in that that statement is

01:35:12 equivocation in that that statement is there no that's correct sir would you expect a competent fire risk assessor to make that statement unqualified and unequivocal in his fra about cladding without having

01:35:23 in his fra about cladding without having seen any underlying uh documentary material to support them

01:35:33 i they had a completion did they have the completion certificate by then sir sorry times next question with a question no no no no by neither time but by the time of neither the april nor the 2016 fras did mr stokes c right so he's

01:35:46 2016 fras did mr stokes c right so he's made the recommendation that uh i mean building control shouldn't have needed that recommendation they should have been doing that anyway but mr stokes uh tries to

01:35:57 mr stokes uh tries to flag up

01:35:58 flag up that this in particular needs to be considered by building control now i don't know what assurances he had in that respect i believe ryden's told him

01:36:09 that respect i believe ryden's told him that it all had all been approved there's a handwritten note of a meeting in which he says bc

01:36:17 bc and it's something like b c approval obviously meaning building control so people have told him that building control have agreed this um

01:36:27 um i i don't think it's incumbent on him to say

01:36:30 say well show me a bit of paper that says that

01:36:33 that well let me explore this a bit more um can we go to your main report at page 78 yes

01:36:39 yes because there we see that you say at paragraph 825

01:36:46 uh

01:36:50 in the second sentence i'll read the whole thing to you because it gives you the full context but say furthermore the building control department issued a completion certificate such a certificate constitutes evidence they're not conclusive evidence of compliance with

01:37:02 conclusive evidence of compliance with the building regulations in view of the circumstances outlined above including mr stakes's expression of concern that the cladding be subject to approval by the building control department

01:37:13 department it was in my opinion reasonable for mr stakes to assume that the cladding and its method of fixing complied with requirement b4 of part b of schedule 1 to the building regulations 2010 in relation to external

01:37:25 regulations 2010 in relation to external wall construction yes now you

01:37:28 you you that's what you you say my question is wouldn't the competent fire risk assessor

01:37:34 assessor record exactly that namely that what he says is his assumption only which he had not verified and was not qualified to verify

01:37:51 he could have said it was an i i i assume that it has but it was a reasonable assumption for him to make such as to virtually treat it as an assertion because

01:38:03 because why would it not the the whole project had been subject to building regulations approval and if i could give some support to that view sir um

01:38:14 um we've talked about the sleeping accommodation guide sir uh you will recall uh albeit that um

01:38:22 um [Music]

01:38:23 [Music] it didn't help you with high-rise blocks of flats but in all of the clg guides on the fire safety order the same wording appears

01:38:32 appears and i i'm sure you have access to it but in each of the clg guides the

01:38:39 the risk assessor is advised the rp and the risk assessor is advised that if work has been cut if a building has been constructed or altered and here we have

01:38:50 constructed or altered and here we have an alteration uh under building regulations in other words

01:38:55 words uh

01:38:56 uh in in a circumstances that require approval under the building regulations you will probably have nothing else to do

01:39:03 do there there's an encouragement to accept that building control have done their job properly

01:39:11 my query with you uh is about the text of the statement yes uh we we clearly see that he didn't spell out that this was simply an assumption on his part no he didn't no and uh my question is might

01:39:24 he didn't no and uh my question is might the text let's get back to it so we've got it on the screen um

01:39:28 um cst403161 page four top of the page might not that statement lead the reader to think that mr stokes himself had independently assessed the cladding for its fire safety and was making a

01:39:39 its fire safety and was making a statement about his adequacy i personally wouldn't but i can see that a lay person might i mean even if mr stakes had said no more than that building control had approved and accepted the cladding

01:39:51 approved and accepted the cladding system would that constitute a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment for the cladding

01:39:59 i i think i think the fact that the project was carried out under building regulations uh building control were responsible for ensuring compliance with regulation b4 i think it's an absolutely

01:40:12 regulation b4 i think it's an absolutely reasonable assumption when you come to do the fire risk assessment that the what is there is compliant with the building regulations otherwise you're doing building regular building

01:40:23 doing building regular building control's job for them or acting as an independent auditor of building control so

01:40:28 so would it follow from that that mr stakes didn't actually conduct any fire risk assessment on the cladding well i wouldn't have expected him to so why is it in his fra then

01:40:40 so why is it in his fra then it's in his fra i imagine because it's relevant that there has been this alteration and it's relevant that the alteration

01:40:51 and it's relevant that the alteration was carried out um under

01:40:55 um under uh building regulations and required approval by building control i'm not sure i'm i'm following this okay the purpose of a fire risk assessment is as a document is a statement of

01:41:07 is as a document is a statement of findings by the fire risk assessor pursuant to his task acting as such if you wouldn't have expected mr stokes to carry out a fire risk assessment of of the cladding why is he making statements about the

01:41:18 why is he making statements about the cladding in his fire risk assessment because if he hadn't sir i'd be sitting here and you'd be asking why mr stokes did not refer to the fact that cladding had been added to the building and that

01:41:29 had been added to the building and that was a material alteration is was building control's opinion

01:41:34 opinion uh

01:41:35 uh a a far risk assessment for the purposes of article nine of the fsa uh

01:41:41 uh no

01:41:43 no it's their their role is is uh compliance with the building regulations and if they've done their job properly sir as mr stokes assumed then there wouldn't have been a problem

01:41:55 have been a problem so nobody did nobody conducted a fire risk assessment of the clatting then you don't you don't carry out a fire risk assessment of each little individual component of a structure sir the fire risk assessment

01:42:07 structure sir the fire risk assessment is holistic in relation to the building and and there are components that you have to consider mr stokes quite correctly considered the cladding because it was a change to the building

01:42:18 because it was a change to the building it would have been incompetent of him not to refer to the fact there had been this change and it was relevant for him to record that the the the process

01:42:31 that the the the process of the refurbishment had been carried out under the watchful eye supposedly of building control i'm i'm very sorry i'm not sure i'm following i'm sorry then i didn't make

01:42:43 following i'm sorry then i didn't make it i'm not sure i'm following because um you say

01:42:47 you say in your answer that um he correctly considered the cladding because it was a change to the building yeah he is a risk assessor what is the point of him

01:42:59 what is the point of him uh considering cladding as a change to the building within the scope of his risk assessment unless it is unless it forms part of the fire risk assessment itself

01:43:10 fire risk assessment itself well can i help you with an analogy in that case sir there were new flats constructed

01:43:19 it was reasonable for him to assume that the structural elements would have adequate fire resistance he didn't he wouldn't have had to carry out a fire risk assessment of the the structural elements uh he would have assumed that i

01:43:33 elements uh he would have assumed that i reasonably assumed that that was all sorted out under building regulations i mean let me just put a a paradigm to you and was it not part of the reasonably competent fire risk

01:43:44 reasonably competent fire risk assessor's task to say three things to the client one building control have not carried out a fire risk assessment for the purposes of the fsa

01:43:56 the fsa i am not competent to do so in respect of the cladding and i have not done so and therefore thirdly there's a material gap in the fire risk assessment for the refurbished building no i'm sorry i

01:44:07 refurbished building no i'm sorry i can't go along with that at all sir so what

01:44:10 what what should mr stokes have done what more or less what he did he he correctly in narrative pointed out because because any review of a fire risk assessment i know this is a new

01:44:22 risk assessment i know this is a new fire risk assessment but any review is required to uh refer to any alterations since the the last fire risk assessment so he he knows cladding is is an issue

01:44:35 knows cladding is is an issue he refers to the fact that there is cladding he has correctly previously flagged up that someone needs to make sure with building control that it's

01:44:46 sure with building control that it's okay because it's outside his competence he's been told that this was checked with building control and therefore it was a reasonable assumption to

01:44:57 assumption to for him to record that building control had approved it uh i understand that but my point is really perhaps a narrower one wasn't it incumbent on mr stokes

01:45:09 wasn't it incumbent on mr stokes simply to say that it's been passed by building control and he is assuming that that is all properly done but makes no opinion of his own he's not expressing an opinion of his

01:45:21 he's not expressing an opinion of his own

01:45:22 own about the about the fire safety of the cladding

01:45:26 cladding largely because he's not competent experienced or expert enough to do so well

01:45:32 well there would be new emergency lighting provided

01:45:35 provided uh in some areas of the building he wasn't competent to to

01:45:40 to examine that you could say that for uh many many components of fire safety that he has recorded is there and reasonably makes the assumption that

01:45:52 and reasonably makes the assumption that has been installed properly because someone else has looked at it and and the whole the whole report could be caveated with i assume that this person did their job properly i assume

01:46:03 person did their job properly i assume that that person did their job properly it's a reasonable assumption and doesn't need to be stated as such in my opinion sir given the risks of rapid vertical

01:46:14 sir given the risks of rapid vertical fire spread presented by a cladding system and given the limitations on mr stakes his ability to assess the cladding system itself yes in terms of its own

01:46:26 system itself yes in terms of its own fire risk

01:46:28 fire risk was it not was it not nonetheless incumbent on mr stokes as a reasonably competent fire risk assessor if that is what he was to have noted in his fire risk assessment

01:46:39 assessment that

01:46:40 that the presence of cladding on this building was something which might affect the risk rating of the building overall

01:46:48 overall he but which he was not competent to advise on

01:46:51 advise on and its fire rating should be the subject of specialist advice

01:46:56 no i don't agree with that sir why don't you agree with that i don't agree with it because you're looking at one aspect of the building and the fire precautions that far

01:47:09 and the fire precautions that far strategy for the building with the lens of hindsight there would be a multiplicity of other things that you could say the same about it just so happens that dreadfully this was

01:47:21 just so happens that dreadfully this was one that was not dealt with properly by others

01:47:24 others but

01:47:26 but you could say this about almost any aspect of a refurbished building

01:47:32 building that was approved under building regulations where the structural elements

01:47:36 elements uh adequate i'm sorry i was going to ask you just to deal with a slightly different aspect of this

01:47:46 at the time in question so we're talking about 2000 i said yes was the danger that could be created by over cladding

01:47:59 created by over cladding one that ought to have been apparent to a reasonably competent fire risk assessor yes sir because we gave a warning about it in the lga guide that's what i thought so the the

01:48:11 what i thought so the the presence of a potential danger yes in the cladding yes was something which at that time the competent fire risk assessor should have been aware of he was aware of it as a

01:48:22 been aware of he was aware of it as a hazard without being able to assess it assess the the cladding yes that's right sir in that case i'm not sure i quite understand why someone carrying out a fire risk

01:48:34 why someone carrying out a fire risk assessment should not be expected to draw the client's attention to the presence of that hazard and advise the client to take expert

01:48:45 and advise the client to take expert advice to determine whether existed or not

01:48:48 not because all you'd be doing is repeating what building control should already have done he he tried to head off the problem at

01:49:00 he he tried to head off the problem at the pass rather than waiting until it was installed once it's installed it's a bit late

01:49:05 bit late because how would you assess it unless you cut a sample out which would be somewhat absurd so he tried to head off problems at the pass on this point by

01:49:16 problems at the pass on this point by recognizing that it was a hazard and saying check with building control that they're happy then

01:49:24 then on a second occasion he asked ryden have you done that and ride and say yes and and he he makes a little note of that handwritten so twice so first of all

01:49:35 handwritten so twice so first of all he's he's told people to ask building control but building control shouldn't have needed told sir that's what they do for a living but just in case he actually flags it up and says draw

01:49:46 he actually flags it up and says draw their attention to this then he asks has their attention been drawn

01:49:52 drawn how has that uh have they are they satisfied at that stage he's gone absolutely far enough sir in my opinion and when he comes along and sees it installed

01:50:01 installed what

01:50:02 what how would he carry out a risk assessment to actually find out whether buildings have acm

01:50:08 have acm post grenfell people had to get a contractor along cut a bit out and send it to bre

01:50:13 it to bre you wouldn't in a a nicely completed building say by the way just in case building control haven't done their job you get the points i understand the point yes thank you thank you thank you very much mr told that that is

01:50:24 thank you very much mr told that that is helpful mr millet i we've been running for an hour and a quarter and i think we ought to have a break i think it's a good idea yes um we're going to have a break uh at this point mr todd we'll come back at um

01:50:36 this point mr todd we'll come back at um five past

01:50:37 five past 12.

01:50:38 12. and uh as usual please don't talk to anyone about your evidence hopefully i'm meeting your objective of shorter answers sir you are thank you thank you sir

01:50:53 thank you very much

02:05:40 would you ask mr todd to come back in please

02:05:51 yes please stop sit down

02:05:56 all right we carry on yes sir yes yes thank you mr chairman uh mr todd just to finish off on this uh line of questions about the

02:06:05 the external cladding system at grenfell tower and mr stokes can i ask you please to go to the lga guide at h o m triple zero four five nine six four page one one one

02:06:22 are you going to take me to the word assessment possibly sir well i'm going to show you the whole thing i think 72 external fast bread we've seen it before yes so we'll come back to it again the external facades of blocks of flats should not provide potential for

02:06:34 should not provide potential for extensive fire spread when assessing existing blocks of flats particular attention should be given to any rain screen or other external cladding system that has been applied to and facades

02:06:45 that has been applied to and facades that have been replaced just just looking at that what should mr stokes have done when visiting grenfell tower in april 2016 and seeing the cladding

02:06:57 more or less what he did sir um i i thought you might be interested in the use of the word assessing there well i i was a roundabout way of me expressing that interest yes i thought

02:07:08 expressing that interest yes i thought you that way and what would you tell me so the

02:07:13 so the this is not in the section on fire risk assessment and you'll probably notice sir in the section and fire risk assessment we don't suggest that there be an assessment of external wall

02:07:26 be an assessment of external wall construction because um there are very few people in the country actually competent to assess external walls um

02:07:34 um the the new legislation that will require that has effectively created a new profession of external wall assessors so you may ask and it would be

02:07:45 assessors so you may ask and it would be a very reasonable question to ask why are we saying assessing here and it's probably it's probably not the best word if i'm absolutely honest but bear in mind this is a general indication to everybody not not just

02:07:58 indication to everybody not not just fire risk assessors that be careful about uh about

02:08:04 about external cladding systems well um as i read it and you're you're the expert of course and having had input into its drafting you you will know better but

02:08:15 you will know better but as i read it this is a warning to everybody but particularly uh responsible persons yes and their fire risk assess is retained for the purpose yes so what is

02:08:28 yes so what is what what should what is involved or what was intended to be involved in an assessment of an existing block of flats

02:08:36 flats where there was a rain screen or other external cladding system present yeah i think it was it was really just a general blanket warning to everybody

02:08:47 warning to everybody that

02:08:48 that rain screen cladding is a problem potentially uh and i don't think you've ever taken me to it but um

02:08:56 um you will find an even uh

02:09:01 uh an even closer warning if you like a more

02:09:05 a more specific warning in the bit on unauthorized alterations or alterations where we specifically say that one potential

02:09:17 potential uh effective alterations would be a landlord fitting a rain screen cladding uh retrospectively to a building so this this is bare mind this this this as i've

02:09:28 this is bare mind this this this as i've explained before sir this this is a general guide to fire safety in blocks of flats not to fire risk assessments specifically and that is why you don't see this in section d

02:09:40 see this in section d but you do see it as as a as a just a general warning to everybody about cladding systems and and particularly at the design stage

02:09:51 and and particularly at the design stage before you actually do it

02:09:57 well it doesn't say that no it says has been applied i know yes i realized that so yeah so it's not it's not it it well just answering the question on the text what is it that the responsible person

02:10:09 what is it that the responsible person uh or a fire risk assessor retained for the purpose should do when uh assessing an existing block of flats and giving particular attention to the rain screen

02:10:20 particular attention to the rain screen they turn up what do they do there's not a lot they can do sir so what's the point of paragraph 72.1 here just a general as i said a general warning if you remember we we

02:10:31 warning if you remember we we we

02:10:32 we inserted this because of concern over the whole subject of rain screen cladding uh the wording might not be perfect it was a it was a i think it was a fairly late change um it's not

02:10:45 a fairly late change um it's not if i can tell you what it isn't it's not an instruction to the fire risk assessor or a suggestion that the fire risk assessor should carry out some particular assessment of cladding that's in place they may take note of it if

02:10:57 in place they may take note of it if there was something that worried them they could raise it but if there was nothing to to flag up that there would be an issue we wouldn't expect with the greatest

02:11:08 we wouldn't expect with the greatest respect the risk assessor to do anything and if it was recently installed

02:11:13 installed supposedly under the watchful eye of building regulations we certainly wouldn't expect them to to question that right

02:11:22 right would mr stokes or should mr stokes in the light of section 72 of the lga guide in particular have

02:11:33 have advised

02:11:34 advised the tmo

02:11:36 the tmo that notwithstanding the fact that the rain screen system at grenfell had been passed by building control nonetheless

02:11:47 nonetheless a fire risk assessment of the building needs to be carried out in the light of uh that

02:11:54 uh that uh alteration uh but that he wasn't competent to do it because he was not competent to assess the fire safety of the cladding and a specialist was needed no i wouldn't go

02:12:05 specialist was needed no i wouldn't go along with that at all sir why is that because that's just not what was done well it wasn't but my question really is should it not have been done why why would so i'm not i shouldn't answer a question

02:12:16 so i'm not i shouldn't answer a question with a question it wouldn't have been appropriate to

02:12:22 to take a project that has just been completed completed under building regulations and pay

02:12:30 and pay a rarefied specialist and it would be a rarefied specialist it would be one of quite a small number of people in the country to come along and drill holes in it and stick a boroscope to see if the

02:12:42 it and stick a boroscope to see if the cavity barriers were in place for example or to cut a piece out as i said before the break sir and send it off for analysis uh

02:12:53 uh this this was a recently completed project supposedly under building regulations uh there would be nothing uh that i would consider boots up a red flag to a fire risk

02:13:05 boots up a red flag to a fire risk assessor that would cause him to say now get some specialist to come and look at it

02:13:11 it uh now can we then move on to another document

02:13:16 document you'll recall that we saw the sixth of april 2017 letter from assistant commissioner daley yes laura johnson yes the tall buildings external facades letter yeah

02:13:28 letter yeah we can see from the documentary trail that on the 19th of april 2017 mr stokes was sent that letter yes and asked by janice ray a few days later to confirm

02:13:39 janice ray a few days later to confirm that the tmo did not have any external cladding

02:13:42 cladding blocks of the nature described in the letter

02:13:45 letter and let's look at his response to that this is cst403112

02:13:56 if we go to the foot of the page we can see janice ray's uh email to carl stokes on the 24th of april 2017. carl my understanding is that we do not

02:14:07 carl my understanding is that we do not have any blocks with external cladding of this nature are you able to confirm please

02:14:12 please and then mr stokes's response uh the same day a few hours later was grenfell was clad but the cladding complied with the

02:14:23 but the cladding complied with the requirements of the building regulations lots of questions asked of ryden's and answers received back from them yes i think that was the point i made before the break sir

02:14:34 before the break sir uh

02:14:35 uh well my question it well just explain to me the point the

02:14:41 the break that is important mr stokes having uh just to go through the steps again building control shouldn't have needed to be told mr stokes drew particular attention to

02:14:53 mr stokes drew particular attention to the matter because he was aware of it and i believe that he was aware of it because of the lga guide i i can tell you why i think that if it's relevant um and

02:15:05 and he's not satisfied with that but he's asked questions of the contractor and he's got answers back and that's what i said before the the break and that that really

02:15:16 and that that really reinforces what i said before the break that he had asked the questions and got answers yes he'd ask the questions he'd got answers but hadn't himself carried out

02:15:29 answers but hadn't himself carried out a fire risk assessment using his expertise and experience in relation to the cladding had he he didn't have any expertise that would allow him to carry out a specific assessment in

02:15:40 carry out a specific assessment in relation to the cladding uh and as i tried to explain sir there weren't that many people in the country who in the fire sector who would have that expertise

02:15:50 expertise mr stakes

02:15:52 mr stakes tell me do you agree that mr stakes did not himself know whether the cladding complied with the requirements of the building regulations all he knew is that he'd been told by um

02:16:02 um by somebody that building regulations had passed it that's correct sir and therefore when he says bill cladding complied with the building regulator with the requirements of the building regulations that was an unverified

02:16:13 regulations that was an unverified statement by him wasn't it well it was verified by ryden's to him yes but he'd not done any he could he hadn't done and i don't think was qualified to do any compliance check himself

02:16:25 compliance check himself it's just secondhand hearsay isn't it well third hand he's saying i think that that downgrades it somewhat below its its proper status um he hadn't checked

02:16:36 its proper status um he hadn't checked that the elements of of structure were that held the building up or any new parts of the building were fire resisting

02:16:44 resisting and

02:16:45 and he would reasonably assume that that had been dealt with under building regulations there's lots of things that he would have reasonably assumed were dealt with by building regulations which goes back to something i explained to

02:16:57 goes back to something i explained to the chairman i think on day one the the uh the two branches of fire safety if you like building regulations and ongoing legislation

02:17:08 and ongoing legislation and there has always been an assumption an assumption promoted by government itself as i explained before the break that

02:17:16 that building regulations would have been adequately applied by a building control body and otherwise what's the point of them doing their work if someone else has to come

02:17:27 their work if someone else has to come along and independently verify it well my question's a much narrower one than that it's almost textual he says here

02:17:36 here unqualified the cladding complied with the requirements of the building regulations my question is would a reasonably competent fire risk assessor make that statement uh without having verified himself

02:17:48 uh without having verified himself whether they require or complied or not or would the reasonably competent fire risk assessor say i am told by building regulations by building control or ryden

02:17:59 by building control or ryden that the cladding has complied i think that's a very pedantic point i think that statement is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and i think a competent risk assessor would quite commonly express it in those terms sir

02:18:11 commonly express it in those terms sir it'll be for the chairman to decide of course whether that's wrong but all i can tell you is i i see nothing wrong with that sentence you don't not in the circumstances even

02:18:22 you don't not in the circumstances even though mr stokes hadn't uh himself carried out any compliance check how sir i think we've

02:18:33 compliance check how sir i think we've got the point mr miller yeah fire risk management next topic can we go to sal

02:18:39 go to sal five six zero one three please

02:18:48 now this is salva's fire safety management report undertaken for the tmo date of the 22nd of september 2019 2009 sent to carl stokes on the 28th of september 2010 just after he'd won the

02:19:00 september 2010 just after he'd won the tender for the medium risk program for the tmo and if we look at this report in total

02:19:06 in total well first of all i'm assuming you've read this before i do

02:19:11 i do i do believe i have i don't remember much about this particular document sir um if we um if we look at it we can see that it

02:19:18 that it identifies some 19 breaches of statute what are called statutory breaches in relation to tma's fire safety management so it claims sir

02:19:29 fire safety management so it claims sir i believe that yes on its face um now would you have expected mr stakes to have satisfied himself when he came into the job a year later

02:19:40 the job a year later uh

02:19:41 uh that those deficiencies had been remedied

02:19:45 remedied could you remind me what the remedy what the breaches were sir yes absolutely um if we go uh to uh the um

02:19:56 uh the um uh middle of this document page five this is where the list starts and the first one under 1.1 on that page is lack of a tmo fire safety policy

02:20:07 is lack of a tmo fire safety policy statement

02:20:10 uh yes i'm

02:20:13 yes i'm sorry

02:20:17 that's good practice i'm not sure why that's a statute what that's the statute breach of exactly well i i'm just showing you that by way

02:20:28 well i i'm just showing you that by way of reminding you what the yes reaches were that's the first one there are 19 or so yes scroll down let's just scroll into a little a little bit further 1.2 lac or inadequate tma

02:20:39 bit further 1.2 lac or inadequate tma policy and arrangements 1.3 lack of inadequate recording systems for example logbook and or fire safety manual pausing there sir it's it's a positive um

02:20:51 um clear and positive there is a clear and positive lack of any statutory requirement to keep records of testing and maintenance that that's very well established and

02:21:02 that that's very well established and then over the top on to page six 1.4 lack of ineffective managerial audit of fire safety

02:21:10 safety arrangements and it continues in that vein under different topics you can see a topic two fire safety organization roles and responsibilities uh three training and competence

02:21:22 competence over the page onto page seven active monitoring fire safety inspections of premises and facilities etc and it runs to 19 in total my question is

02:21:33 total my question is would you have expected mr stakes to have satisfied himself that those deficiencies had been remedied at least when he became formally appointed to to to the tmo to carry out fras on

02:21:45 to to to the tmo to carry out fras on medium risk properties in october 2010. i wouldn't have expected him to use that as a checklist because a lot of it is very vague a lot of it is not actually a statutory breach it's

02:21:56 not actually a statutory breach it's good practice and i would have expected mr stokes to as it were start with a clean sheet of paper and determine for himself whether the management standards were adequate i

02:22:08 the management standards were adequate i would expect them to do that i'm not sure that this document was terribly helpful in the first place why not

02:22:16 why not because

02:22:17 because um

02:22:19 um uh

02:22:21 uh there's a bit some of this is about health and safety the health and safety advisor appears to have sufficient competence to undertake the role in relation to health and safety which includes elements of fire safety management uh

02:22:32 uh it was not possible at the time of the assessment to establish if all relevant staff have the necessary competence to implement their respective roles a lot of it is so vague sir

02:22:43 a lot of it is so vague sir and and some of it as i said is not a statutory breach anyway and that i would expect mr stokes to use his own knowledge and skill to make up his own mind with a clean sheet of paper rather

02:22:54 mind with a clean sheet of paper rather than than using this particular document if we go to page 13 in this document

02:23:05 yes uh this is the action plan yes uh and 1.1 i've shown you 1.1 before and we have the action plan um

02:23:13 um in relation to it the the deficiency was the absence of a tmo fire safety policy statement as we've seen and here we see salva's recommendation a strong recommendation that one be

02:23:24 strong recommendation that one be developed

02:23:25 developed which set out the organization's strategic fire safety objectives including compliance with the fire safety order you see that yes and in the second row um it struck its

02:23:38 row um it struck its strong advice it is strongly advised that adequate policy and supporting arrangements are introduced to explain how the tma will meet the objectives set out in the strategic policy statement so as to ensure suitable and sufficient

02:23:49 as to ensure suitable and sufficient fire safety is maintained at all times throughout the managed estate property portfolio

02:23:55 portfolio i've shown you both of those would you have expected mr stokes to have sought and reviewed a copy of the tmo fire safety policy to the extent that there was one before carrying out any fire risk assessments

02:24:07 carrying out any fire risk assessments for the tmo

02:24:15 if he wanted to have a full understanding of fire safety management i think that would be helpful uh

02:24:22 uh it probably wasn't terribly helpful in carrying out a hands-on practical fire risk assessment for a building

02:24:35 do you mean by that answer that on a building-by-building basis it was no help it would be of minor help sir

02:24:44 sir well but

02:24:46 well but probably not not hugely if you were to take it building by building

02:24:51 building can we go to your main report yes page 73 paragraph 7.41 yes

02:25:01 yes and you say there we've seen this before with regard to management of fire safety matters to be considered include and the first item on your list of matters to be considered in respect of

02:25:13 matters to be considered in respect of management of fire safety yes is the fastest the fire safety policy of the organization yes do you agree that mr stokes should have considered it yes in terms of the practical aspects that

02:25:25 in terms of the practical aspects that affected the individual buildings so for example to again to talk turkey if i can use that term they need to know you need to know what the policies were on testing maintenance monitoring and and

02:25:38 testing maintenance monitoring and and so on

02:25:40 so on but very often a policy starts with uh the

02:25:45 the in this case the tmo are committed to the principles of fire safety and ensuring that everyone who enters their buildings are safe from fire wonderful high level statement it's not going to help them with these fire risk

02:25:56 going to help them with these fire risk assessments so there there are definite elements of a policy that he would need to understand before he could do the fire risk assessment yes yes thank you i mean

02:26:07 assessment yes yes thank you i mean leave aside the self-serving stuff at the start yes if everyone puts in there they do you would expect to see in a properly crafted fire safety policy some nuts and bolts wouldn't you you would yes and those nuts and bolts would be important for mr stakes to know before

02:26:19 important for mr stakes to know before he carried out his first virus yes because he need to know what they were doing in terms of testing and maintenance yes thank you now um can we go please to cst401822

02:26:29 which is a letter mr stokes wrote to janice ray on the 23rd of june 2010

02:26:36 and the subject is employee fire training personal emergency evacuation plans peeps and the lift maintenance servicing and testing policy in tma-controlled buildings now this followed a meeting i should just tell

02:26:48 followed a meeting i should just tell you that they've had the previous day uh as you can see from the first line yes in relation to employee fire safety training peeps and lift maintenance policies in tmo buildings and if you

02:26:59 policies in tmo buildings and if you look at the second paragraph mr stokes says this

02:27:02 says this when completing any fire risk assessments for buildings under the control of the tenants management organization tma for the royal borough of kensington and chelsea in future and where tma employees are present in the buildings the information in this letter

02:27:13 buildings the information in this letter will be used as the basis as a basis for the fire training and fire wardens section of the documents so it's clear that this information would be used in future

02:27:24 this information would be used in future fire risk assessments chasing the history a little bit further forward i'll just show you show you a little bit of evidence um cst403061

02:27:34 we come to a letter dated the 27th of september 2010 which followed a meeting which mr stokes had had with misrae on the 24th of september 2010 the day after he'd been awarded the medium risk program and you can see here

02:27:47 medium risk program and you can see here in the letter uh in the um first paragraph he says after meeting on friday the 24th of september 2010 etc i would like to put in writing the

02:27:58 would like to put in writing the management procedures topics and issues etc we discussed so that when completing any fire risk assessments for residential buildings under the control of the of the tmo uh in future these standards and

02:28:09 uh in future these standards and observations will apply and then the letter goes on to cover a number of matters and you can see them listed there below yes above the heading employee fire training towards the bottom of your screen

02:28:21 bottom of your screen and

02:28:23 and there are a number of them one of them includes peeps as you'll see and we'll come back to that perhaps later but my first question arising from these two letters i've just shown you is would you have expected mr stokes to carry out an

02:28:35 have expected mr stokes to carry out an assessment of the tmo's overall fire risk management system at the outset of his contract i think this is what he's trying to do

02:28:45 by look by taking components of their

02:28:50 their management system and he's obviously been asking questions about it sir yes and do you having asked that or answered that question the next question is do you consider that what mr stokes set out in

02:29:03 consider that what mr stokes set out in these two letters was an adequate assessment or adequate questions designed to form part of an assessment of the tmo's overall fire safety management arrangements that's the topic sir

02:29:14 arrangements that's the topic sir do you mean well as a as an assessment um

02:29:21 um he's covered training he's covered a very important thing which is information to residents in-house inspections evacuation strategy he mentions peeps

02:29:32 he mentions peeps lift

02:29:34 lift fixed installations signage contractors

02:29:40 i sat and thought about it i might be able to add to it but it's certainly a good starter for 10. well would not a better start of a 10 have been to have picked up the salvus report

02:29:51 report from the previous year and

02:29:55 and used that as the as a basis not the only basis necessarily but a basis

02:30:02 a basis for understanding his clients fire safety management systems yes my view of the salvus report which i think i've implied was it was all very high level

02:30:14 was all very high level grandiose stuff this stuff is hands-on things that are a translation of of policy that mr stokes as a

02:30:25 that mr stokes as a a man on the ground as it were needed to know

02:30:29 know well you say it's high-level grandiose stuff i wonder if that's really fair mr todd can we go back to sal certainly 60 is 13 page five

02:30:45 uh the absence of a tmo fire safety policy statement yes we talked about that yes now i mean you're not in a position to say whether that's factually correct or not no no but on the basis that it's

02:30:58 not no no but on the basis that it's factually correct that there wasn't one why is that a a high level and grandiose problem it's it it's a it's maybe a high level problem because it's a serious problem fundamental problem

02:31:09 fundamental problem isn't it

02:31:10 isn't it it's not grandiose is it the the fire policy doesn't always help you in carrying out a practical fire risk assessment for the reasons i i discussed

02:31:22 reasons i i discussed uh he's taken bits out of what would be a fire policy and translated them into something practical that he needs to know

02:31:32 and take another one 1.4 at the top of page six

02:31:36 page six lack of effective managerial order to fire safety arrangements

02:31:43 and then it says the health and safety advisor appointed by tma appears to have sufficient competence which includes elements of safety not possible at the time of the assessment to establish if all relevant staff have

02:31:54 to establish if all relevant staff have the necessary competence to implement their respective roles in regard to fire safety why is that grandiose and high level well it's quite granular i don't think it is granular sir i'm not sure

02:32:05 sure what they're actually looking for in terms of something practical that mr stokes could have looked at well let me give you a better example then 4.1 on page seven

02:32:16 on page seven lack of an adequate general inspection and monitoring of premises and facilities and in the italics the complaint is that there's no current uh formal checks on fire doors or fire exits storage security matters guidance

02:32:29 exits storage security matters guidance provider doesn't appear to indicate fully the procedure to follow in the event of finding deficiencies to whom completed reports should be sent for audit purposes a site plan and fire safety drawing is not currently available showing relevant fire safety

02:32:41 available showing relevant fire safety arrangements for any tmo managed properties to assist local wardens etc with fire safety checks not possible at the time of the management assessment to confirm how defects to safety critical issues are managed and if all repairs

02:32:52 issues are managed and if all repairs are up to date why was that not a very helpful set of initial signposts to mr stokes uh when embarking on an an understanding of his client's fire

02:33:03 an an understanding of his client's fire safety management system well he has picked out some of these because he's picked out uh inspections and so on but when you do a fire risk assessment sir

02:33:14 when you do a fire risk assessment sir one of the things that you don't include is how repairs are managed that that that's it's almost a different exercise this is almost related

02:33:25 exercise this is almost related you remember sir you took me to pass seven didn't you yeah yes i did i i which is now a bs that and that's a different standard from the standard for fire risk

02:33:36 from the standard for fire risk assessment that's the standard for how fire safety is managed in an organization particularly at high level that's that's a different exercise

02:33:47 that's that's a different exercise really a fire risk assessor does not sit down and say um how are you managing uh repairs within the organization what's your structure for managing repairs that

02:33:58 your structure for managing repairs that that's not part of a fire risk assessment nor would you find that sort of

02:34:03 of uh matter covered in past 79 sir well you say that can we go to annex e cta 703 page 106.

02:34:20 uh this is a model pro forma sorry i haven't got anything yet on screen sir no i'm going to tell you what you're right there it is it's informative yes we know that but this is a model pro

02:34:31 we know that but this is a model pro forma for documentation of a review of an existing fire risk assessment for premises in england and wales if you go to page page 111

02:34:42 there's a section on management of fire safety isn't there there is and the first of which is 13.1 there's a box to record significant changes in management of fire safety since the time of the risk assessment

02:34:53 risk assessment now do you do you accept that that would appear to suggest that up-to-date information on fire safety management matters should be obtained when carrying out any fire risk assessment review yes

02:35:04 out any fire risk assessment review yes you'd look for any changes this is looking for changes it's looking for changes but in relation to fire safety management yes yes and if we look at 14.1

02:35:14 14.1 yes there's a more general question are arrangements for management of fire safety adequate tick box yes or no yes and then a text box underneath it to note any comments and deficiencies

02:35:25 note any comments and deficiencies observed what assessment is envisaged will be carried out by the fire risk assessor in response to that question now to help you with that sir could you possibly go to the section of pas 79

02:35:38 possibly go to the section of pas 79 on fire safety management and and i can help you walk through that to answer your question yeah yeah yes uh if i can find it just off

02:35:49 yeah yes uh if i can find it just off the top of my head and help me with this i think it may be page 50.

02:35:56 there we go well done thank you

02:35:59 thank you uh

02:36:00 uh and so there we've we find uh who's responsible for fire safety in the premises now within the template for the fire risk assessment it's

02:36:12 for the fire risk assessment it's actually pointed out that that is not this this designation of responsibility isn't part of the fire safety order but it's it's a good idea and we make that clear

02:36:24 and we make that clear access to suitable advice on the requirements of fire safety legislation that is what i call the competent assistant so this is looking at article 18

02:36:34 18 procedures to follow that's looking at article 15 nomination of people to respond to fire and where appropriate to assist with evacuation article 15

02:36:45 evacuation article 15 arrangements for liaison with the fire and rescue service and good practice uh not not defined within the fire safety order but part of fire safety management yeah can we stop and can we just look at

02:36:57 yeah can we stop and can we just look at it together sorry i i should have let you drive it well it's all right it'd be nice it was a joint joint venture um so the general here in the in the fire risk assessment fire safety management needs to be

02:37:09 fire safety management needs to be regarded as of equal importance to fire protection measures pausing there do you agree or disagree 100 yes in its broadest sense fire safety management includes certain policies and procedures designed to prevent the occurrence of

02:37:20 designed to prevent the occurrence of fire by eliminating or controlling fire hazards yes yes yes however most of these fire aspects of fire safety management have already been considered in clause 13 which we can go to if you like but i i i would be nice if we

02:37:32 like but i i i would be nice if we didn't have to i don't it says fire safety management also includes the following and then there's this long list you see yes i do designated responsibility for fire safety in the premises

02:37:42 premises uh et cetera et cetera and that includes um procedures for people to follow in the event of fire including people with special responsibilities nomination of people to respond to fire etc etc

02:37:55 people to respond to fire etc etc documentation implementation of the action plan it goes on at length and

02:38:00 and my um

02:38:03 my um [Music]

02:38:05 [Music] if you look at some paragraph three if you look at some paragraph three it says points a to k are discussed in the sections of the commentary that follow point l is discussed in clause 19 yes

02:38:16 point l is discussed in clause 19 yes and m in 20. it's important that matters in the paragraphs that follow are properly considered in the fire risk assessment and that fire safety management is taken into account in the subjective judgment of overall fire risk

02:38:28 subjective judgment of overall fire risk is it not correct therefore that a reasonably competent fire risk assessor would be expected to consider all the fire safety management factors covered in clauses 13 16 19 and 20 of past 79

02:38:41 in clauses 13 16 19 and 20 of past 79 correct crexor which was my point that a number of the things that you were taking me to in the salvus management of fire safety review is not the ma are

02:38:53 of fire safety review is not the ma are not the management issues considered in a fire risk assessment is a different exercise

02:38:58 exercise so you took me to the review document about management of fire safety that's looking for any changes in anything and what you described sir as a big long list but

02:39:10 described sir as a big long list but have you actually done an exercise of comparing the contents of clause 13 16 19 and 20 of past 79 on the one hand with the contents of these and recommendations and the salvos report on

02:39:21 recommendations and the salvos report on the other no i i read the solvus report sir and i i took it that that was almost uh a different exercise that they were carrying out rather than something directly associated with the fire risk

02:39:34 directly associated with the fire risk assessment well if you look at some of the factors listed in well before i ask that question just on the following up on your last question you say it was a different exercise yes um

02:39:45 different exercise yes um assuming that it was an exercise which was different um would it not nonetheless be an important

02:39:54 important uh result of the exercise for a fire risk assessor to know before embarking on his task which does include the matters that i'm showing you on the screen well it was more a past seven fire a past seven assessment it

02:40:07 seven fire a past seven assessment it was more akin as i saw it sir to a past seven assessment uh and some of that would be outside the scope of

02:40:18 of that would be outside the scope of uh the fire risk assessors work some of it would be inside the scope that which is inside the scope we would find in this clause here

02:40:29 find in this clause here uh

02:40:30 uh which

02:40:31 which which lists the sort of practical hands-on things that the fire risk assessor would need to concern them with because they emanate from the fire safety order and this comes back to a

02:40:43 safety order and this comes back to a broader question which i wanted to come back to which i'd asked you having shown you box 13 and 14 in annex e does not the presence of the questions in that box and the material at clause 16 on page 50 that we've seen

02:40:56 at clause 16 on page 50 that we've seen suggest that the fire risk assessor does have to concern himself with management of fire safety or at least many aspects absolutely sir and it's very often far

02:41:07 absolutely sir and it's very often far more important than if i can express it this way whether there's three hinges on a fire door or two hinges management to fire safety is actually one of the most important things to look

02:41:19 one of the most important things to look at yes yes and mr stakes didn't include these sections in other words sections 13 and 14 in annex e

02:41:29 annex e we can go back to those in any of his fire risk assessments for grenfell tower after his uh first one he did for salvas in 2009 as a matter of record would you have expected him to

02:41:40 record would you have expected him to have included them sorry could you show me what he hadn't included again please sir

02:41:46 yes nxe page 106 of this document yes that that an exit

02:41:53 an exit yes that that's uh that's a review if you're not going to carry out a complete new fire risk assessment this is a sort of short form abbreviated

02:42:04 abbreviated assessment if you are not going through the whole thing again but mr stokes wasn't actually carrying out that short form review he was carrying out a new fire

02:42:16 review he was carrying out a new fire risk assessment that's very different from the review um if

02:42:21 if there was no review or if there was no properly documented review let alone a review done under the informative annex e

02:42:30 e so that there was no document which would tell mr stokes when he came to do his fras in the years he did what

02:42:37 what fire safety management that what there was or what changes there had been um

02:42:43 um [Music]

02:42:44 [Music] would you expect mr stokes at least to ask the question when he came to do his fr i would expect him yeah i'd expect him to ask this was say this was the situation

02:42:55 this was say this was the situation before uh i take it that's still the same have you got any changes yes and would you expect him to include in his risk assessments or fire risk assessments at least something about the

02:43:07 assessments at least something about the status or situation of fire safety management uh at the tmo uh even if only by way of changes that he'd been told about uh i think he he was picking through all

02:43:20 uh i think he he was picking through all the

02:43:21 the that what you called the big list i think he was more or less picking through that in the in the risk assessment and if in fact as a fact if mr stakes did not assess significant changes in

02:43:32 did not assess significant changes in fire safety management in his subsequent fire risk assessments of grenfell tower would you consider that that fell below acceptable standards if there were changes in the matters to which we've just looked at in

02:43:44 just looked at in uh

02:43:45 uh cl clause 16 of past 79 yes now let's go back to page 50 of uh this document past 79 please and let's look

02:43:56 document past 79 please and let's look at

02:43:57 at uh clause 16 again yes and if we look at roman 2 we can see the list and in the list we can see f arrangements for routine inspections of

02:44:08 arrangements for routine inspections of the premises and its fire precautions or for more formal fire audits yes now let me just give you some evidence

02:44:19 let me just give you some evidence mr stokes repeatedly raised questions in all of his fire risk assessment action plans

02:44:25 plans for grenfell tower at least and indeed other buildings about whether the caretakers or estate service assistants esas were carrying out their routine inspections and and whether there were records kept yes that's right uh yes uh

02:44:37 records kept yes that's right uh yes uh but he stated in in the body of all of his fire risk assessments at least for grenfell tower from 2010 that they were being carried out with records kept do you remember that i do yes i don't need

02:44:48 you remember that i do yes i don't need to show you some examples would you have expected mr stakes to have obtained where possible records showing that routine inspections of premise of the premises were being carried out before his right his fire risk assessment

02:45:00 his right his fire risk assessment rather than raising it as an action

02:45:04 do you mean in advance of his fire risk assessment well it's part of the exercise of conducting his report and submitting it to his client

02:45:11 client he would

02:45:12 he would you tend you tend to sample records i i think as i explained before it's not an iso 9000 audit where if there's no record of something to all intents and purposes it hasn't been done

02:45:24 purposes it hasn't been done so the level to which a fire risk assessor would examine documentation such as records would depend on a number of things

02:45:34 of things their

02:45:35 their pre-knowledge of the

02:45:39 the practices that were carried out the trust they had in the client uh

02:45:44 uh what they were being told on this particular occasion and so it's more an art than a science to determine what records you'd wish to look at

02:45:54 look at yes

02:45:56 yes in practicing the art would you expect mr stokes to have asked to see records um

02:46:03 um and discovered whether or not there were any records of something sir certainly a sample sample records of things but but it would be the art comes in which records they want to see right to put it

02:46:16 records they want to see right to put it this way sir in simple terms and this will be a nutshell if you think the client's a complete rogue

02:46:22 rogue and he's telling you he tests the emergency lighting it but you think i don't believe that for one minute then you would say show me in fact you not only say show me the records but you

02:46:33 not only say show me the records but you say show me how you do it because if they don't do it they won't know would

02:46:39 well just at the other extreme if if it's

02:46:42 it's a a client that is of high integrity that you've worked with for five years and you know for example that the emergency lighting is always tested

02:46:53 the emergency lighting is always tested every month and you've seen evidence of that before and you're you'll be content to accept their word that we still test the emergency lighting every month

02:47:04 emergency lighting every month yes um where would it follow from what you just told us that where a fire risk assessor hasn't managed to obtain records of routine inspections and what and it wasn't known to him whether routine inspections were in fact

02:47:16 whether routine inspections were in fact being carried out would you expect the fire risk assessor to have made comment in their fire risk assessments yes it's a good practice point it's not

02:47:30 yes it's a good practice point it's not you you'd be difficult it'll be difficult to point to an article the fire safety order but yes the the you would expect him to be satisfied in his mind however he became satisfied by

02:47:41 mind however he became satisfied by whether variable information records or whatever that someone was carrying out routine inspections yes sir that's right yes and would you expect a reasonably competent virus assessor to factor the absence of records into his assessment

02:47:53 absence of records into his assessment of risk

02:47:55 of risk not the absence of records the absence of records doesn't establish that things aren't being done uh the record keeping is really protect protects people's liability

02:48:07 protect protects people's liability rather than then uh

02:48:09 then uh reduces risk to anybody doing doing the inspections impacts on risk failing to write down that you've done it doesn't make a wider difference no you're right um let me put the question

02:48:20 you're right um let me put the question slightly differently if in fact mr stokes had no means of knowledge about whether or not inspections were being carried out routinely or not he had no way of knowing and the records didn't tell him

02:48:31 knowing and the records didn't tell him such as there were then would he not factor that into his risk assessment he would he would probably make a recommendation in that case that there should be routine inspections if nobody could even

02:48:43 inspections if nobody could even tell him that it was being done yes

02:48:47 yes now can we go to clause l subclause l in this document which you can see just above the foot of the screen implementation of the action plan's recommendations

02:48:59 plan's recommendations um if mr stokes was aware in relation to grenfell tower that the tmo had problems completing his action plan recommendations on time and there was a persistent problem with

02:49:11 and there was a persistent problem with tackling backlogs of actions would you have expected him to

02:49:16 to refer to that problem in his risk assessments yes we we kind of discussed this before didn't we that the symptom of what you've described would be

02:49:26 would be he would keep finding the same thing time and time again and therefore he'd want to i think i called it earlier make a fuss about it so yeah exactly and would he have factored that time and time again uh re-emergence of the same

02:49:37 time again uh re-emergence of the same problem into his assessment of the risk of the building i think we discussed that before as well the risk would be what the risk was the risk would have continued it wouldn't have increased but its continued presence

02:49:50 increased but its continued presence would be a reflection of management that he would want to draw to attention yeah that's really my next question that that repeated problem was a fire safety management problem yes it is and

02:50:01 management problem yes it is and as such would that not factor into his risk assessment not necessarily just for grenfell tower but for other buildings in the tma stock um

02:50:12 um he would assess the risk as he found it the the the lack of management might be the

02:50:20 be the foundation for what he finds does that answer your questions yeah well it leads to another one in view of the backlog question or issue problem would you have expected mr mr stakes to have offered general

02:50:33 mr mr stakes to have offered general advice to the tmo on the fire risk consequences of not completing actions timorously in a systemic way i think that might be what i colloquially described as making a fuss right very

02:50:45 described as making a fuss right very very good then i understand

02:51:00 now i want to ask you a few questions about the risk rating matrix oh yes um for each of his fras for grenfell tower carl stakes undertook

02:51:11 carl stakes undertook uh

02:51:12 uh uh an assessment of the likelihood of the fire

02:51:15 the fire uh or on fire and assessed it at medium and the consequence of fires presenting a risk of slight harm and the overall risk is tolerable yes you did is it your

02:51:26 risk is tolerable yes you did is it your opinion that the the risk level of tolerable for each and every fra of granville tower was a reasonable conclusion for mr stokes to draw i think

02:51:35 i think from all the things that you have put in front of me thus far

02:51:41 thus far sir one thing there's probably only one thing that i would suggest increased the risk to moderate and that would be if he were aware that

02:51:54 and that would be if he were aware that the smoke control system was not working then the protection of the staircase would be undermined and and that would i would personally then increase the the

02:52:06 i would personally then increase the the the consequences accordingly and then the risk would increase accordingly um

02:52:13 um thank you now can we go to your main report at page 99 yes sir a paragraph 9.14

02:52:25 you say there step four in the past 79 steps sorry past 79 nine steps yes involves determining the

02:52:37 nine steps yes involves determining the physical fire protection measures measures that contribute to safety in the event of fire relevant to the protection of people in the event of fire in my opinion mr stakes gave due consideration to all relevant fire

02:52:48 consideration to all relevant fire protection measures to the extent appropriate in a suitable and sufficient fra

02:52:53 fra yeah in the light of the answer you've just just helpfully given us um about the

02:52:59 the risk level does that still remain your opinion yes i think the the only the only thing that uh

02:53:05 uh would change my opinion was the information you gave me sir that the smoke control system was inoperative for a period of time he his scope was fine because he covered

02:53:18 he his scope was fine because he covered all the the issues but if it is in fact the case that he knew the smoke control system was not operative and didn't as we talked about provide a narrative

02:53:29 as we talked about provide a narrative on that then that was on a mission

02:53:34 is is your answer still the same when we consider

02:53:37 consider two two other things first of all uh his incorrect statement that the lifts were firefighting stroke evacuation lifts and can be used by disabled persons in the event of

02:53:48 disabled persons in the event of emergency yeah that was a definite mistake yes and we talked about that and we talked about the the implications uh i don't consider that it

02:53:59 consider that it would have affected the risk rating

02:54:03 and what about the absence of any evidence that mr stokes systematically assessed the internal features of the flat entrance doors at grenfell tower and thus did not evaluate the hazard posed by

02:54:16 evaluate the hazard posed by non-functioning or non-existent self-closing devices if if it is correct sir that he didn't inspect the flat entrance doors correctly then it's not so much that it impacted

02:54:28 then it's not so much that it impacted on the risk it's more that he wasn't in a position to advise

02:54:34 to advise properly on what the risk is if if that is the the case and that's a matter of fact that he didn't examine the doors properly then that it's not so much that that enhances

02:54:46 that it's not so much that that enhances the risk it means that his judgment of of the risk is invalid can i put it that way yes i understand is it your view that it was reasonable for mr stakes to assess the risk at

02:54:57 for mr stakes to assess the risk at grenfell tower as tolerable even given the number of high priority red fra actions recorded on each occasion yes tolerable doesn't mean that you can just walk away and accept it uh

02:55:10 you can just walk away and accept it uh it's it's all down to the definition of of tolerable risk which is that there's no big show stoppers that will need major capital expenditure

02:55:21 expenditure but you may have to do lots of little things that will and there were lots of little things i see and would that still be the case despite the absence of any record within

02:55:33 despite the absence of any record within each of the fire risk assessments of what steps have been taken since the last fire risk assessment to cure the actions outstanding in days we come back to the fact that the risk was what the risk was

02:55:47 now can we go to past 79 at clause 19.2 pages

02:55:54 we've looked at this i think yesterday i just want to cover it off if i can it says there under recommendations 19.2 the action plan should be such as to

02:56:06 the action plan should be such as to ensure that if implemented it will reduce fire risk too or maintain fire risk at a tolerable level that's correct and i think that principle's reflected isn't it in the template it is sir for our purposes page 98 of this

02:56:18 for our purposes page 98 of this document yes where it says under the heading action plan and and it says what it says so is the the is it that the fire risk assessor must make an assessment of whether the actions once implemented will reduce or

02:56:31 actions once implemented will reduce or maintain the risk level to trivial or tolerable yes you've got it you test it in your mind right you imagine now that's been done what's my view now so

02:56:42 so when you're writing tolerable do you assume the cure that your ident of the items you're identifying or do you assess it as it is it is

02:56:52 it is right so it's tolerable without the cure the cures

02:56:57 the cures yes and and then if if if say it were at moderate then you would test in your mind to ensure the adequacy of your action plan

02:57:08 plan you hypothesize that they've carried out all the measures you've recommended and you then hypothetically reassess the risk i understand now in the night of that

02:57:19 i understand now in the night of that let's examine what mr stokes said about this because we know he didn't include this section in his fire risk assessments if we go to the transcript please the day 137

02:57:29 day 137 page 49.

02:57:36 mr chairman i'm just looking at the clock yeah this comes up if i can cover this

02:57:41 this uh before

02:57:42 uh before uh the short adjournment that i can so yes very well if that's acceptable to you we we that would be good um at page what page 49

02:57:54 page 49 uh if you look at line uh 24 i've shown him the template at past 79

02:58:00 past 79 which i've just referred to you at page 98

02:58:03 98 and at line 24 i asked him this can you explain why you didn't include that in your action plans and over the page of page 50 answer because it's already at tolerable but in terms of the template

02:58:15 tolerable but in terms of the template its guidance only and was already at tolerable

02:58:18 tolerable you had already classified the risk to grenfell tower as tolerable but was that the risk rating before or after the actions you recommended should be implemented answer both

02:58:29 implemented answer both when you took the tolerable box yes was it tolerable if and on the assumption that the items you identified the action items are completed or is it tolerable even though they're not completed in

02:58:40 even though they're not completed in other words tolerable as the building stood

02:58:43 stood answer at line 15 when the actions are completed they would be tolerable question this is why i asked the question pass 79 suggests that the tolerable box is ticked so as to maintain or reduce the level to what is

02:58:55 maintain or reduce the level to what is ticked so is the answer that it is only once as i think you say the actions are completed that the risk is tolerable answer in the particular case here before they were tolerable the actions would still make the building tolerable

02:59:06 would still make the building tolerable when it's completed as well is the

02:59:09 is the approach described by mr stokes in that exchange i've just read to you correct well he's kind of contradicted himself and then gone back to his first position so at line seven he says it was

02:59:21 so at line seven he says it was tolerable before and it was tolerable after

02:59:24 after and then

02:59:26 and then at line 15 he says when the actions were completed they would be tolerable uh that was in response to your question as to

02:59:35 as to uh

02:59:37 uh which it was but then he goes back to in line 21 to it was tolerable before and it'd be tolerable after um

02:59:48 um so i'm i'm not quite sure what your question is sir well my question is it perhaps perhaps it was simple but perhaps simplistic but my question was is the approach that he's describing there correct

03:00:00 there correct if he thought it was tolerable before and it was tolerable after then then

03:00:07 it would be he would he would in the risk assessment record that it's tolerable now uh and in the action plan he would record if he follows past 79 that it would be tolerable after the work was

03:00:19 would be tolerable after the work was completed so that would be his both but then in the middle of that exchange sir

03:00:25 sir he seemed to veer from that so i'm not quite sure what his approach was it seemed to me that begged a rather different question which is if it's tolerable before any suggestions are

03:00:37 tolerable before any suggestions are carried out why do you need to make any suggestions why why but you can always improve things in some respects yeah yes

03:00:44 yes it's a formality included within past 79 it achieves nothing to say tolerable before tolerable after i think that's your point so if it's tolerable for and you make it better it's bound to be

03:00:55 you make it better it's bound to be tolerable because it's never going to be trivial

03:00:58 trivial yeah

03:00:59 yeah it was a formality within the the template i mean would you expect a competent fire risk assessor to calculate the risk of premises at the same level both at the time that the uh fra is

03:01:10 both at the time that the uh fra is carried out and

03:01:12 and again in the mind once the necessary action has been taken to address the risk posed by the hazards identified if both are correct yes right so is it quite common to say tolerable and would remain tolerable yes even though they're

03:01:24 remain tolerable yes even though they're a myriad of red items uh yes

03:01:27 uh yes you you can sometimes have 30 items in an action plan but none of them are show stoppers that are going to cause people to die

03:01:36 to die the the tolerable i'm not sure if this has come out sir from from our exchange to help the chairman the the tolerable

03:01:45 tolerable isn't

03:01:46 isn't you know the risk assessor doesn't suddenly decide it's tolerable or moderate he goes through the two components of risk the probability of of fire and the consequences of fire and then the matrix

03:01:58 consequences of fire and then the matrix drives

03:01:59 drives him afterwards to determine the matrix decides for him what the level of risk is

03:02:05 is so the probability is always going to be medium in practice because there's always things that can start a fire so the key thing to for you to look at sir is the consequences of fire

03:02:17 is the consequences of fire and that's perhaps more relevant what he considered the consequences of fire to be because it's from that he determined whether it's tolerable or at risk or not yes now in the light of the evidence you've given

03:02:29 the light of the evidence you've given uh and we've explored together and and in particular your opinion you've expressed about the aov which which ought to have raised the risk rating too moderate

03:02:40 risk rating too moderate if the panel were to conclude uh on the basis of the evidence including your opinion that mr stokes ought to have assessed the risk of grenfell tower at moderate and not tolerable

03:02:50 tolerable would his failure to identify the risk as moderate have fallen below acceptable standards on on the basis of the smoke control uh system alone yes

03:03:01 the smoke control uh system alone yes sir yes if if he knew that it wasn't working

03:03:05 working yeah thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well it's time we stop for some lunch mr todd thank you sir so we're going to do that now we'll come back at five past

03:03:16 that now we'll come back at five past two please thank you sir the usual request please don't speak to anyone about your evidence for the break of course sir thank you all right thank you very much i'd like to give the usher please yes of course

03:03:35 i'm tempted to ask you mr whether you'd regard progress as moderate or tolerable it depends which is better but but but um

03:03:45 um moderate

03:03:47 moderate well you just have to keep going yes all right five positive please

03:04:00 you