FRA Expert Evidence - Tuesday 27th July 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:22 would you ask mr todd to come back in please thank you

00:00:32 all right mr dodd thank you you're sorry do you sit down yes

00:00:40 right ready to go on yes mr chairman thank you mr todd um can we now turn please to cta 11 page 90 your main report at page 90

00:00:51 11 page 90 your main report at page 90 uh and look at paragraph 8.89 there

00:00:56 now um one of the positive findings that you list there yes uh under 889 it is over on page 91 is a long list of them and on page 91

00:01:08 is a long list of them and on page 91 um you will find uh

00:01:15 go to page 91

00:01:24 thank you yes um in the fourth bullet point down there you see

00:01:29 you see one of your positives is that uh there is consideration of disabled people yes sir yes what was carl stakes's consideration that you said was a positive well you had a section i think

00:01:41 positive well you had a section i think you pointed out yesterday sir he had upgraded as it were a question in the standard pass 79 template to give disabled people their own section which

00:01:52 disabled people their own section which would imply that he was being driven by his own template to consider uh disabled people i see so the positive was that he put us a tick box section into his fra template that

00:02:03 box section into his fra template that would force them to look at it yes right um but not actually addressing the substance of the tmos arrangements under article

00:02:10 article 797b

00:02:12 797b in respect of vulnerable persons um it's difficult to see what he did but well quite from his evidence um

00:02:20 um his evidence doesn't really support it terribly well i didn't think no well thank you for that that probably covers a number of further questions like not but let's see if we can um fill

00:02:31 like not but let's see if we can um fill in that outline can we look at his june 2016 fra at cst403145

00:02:45 now as a general point and correct me if i'm wrong from your observations mr todd but we found in no fras for grenfell tower or any other building that

00:02:56 or any other building that mr stokes

00:02:57 mr stokes carried out any breakdown of occupants especially at risk as required by past 79 on its face so sleeping occupants disabled occupants young persons

00:03:09 young persons can i just ask sir when when you say breakdowns you mean genetically or by individual like uh mrs smith on the fifth floor uh any any identification either by number

00:03:22 any any identification either by number or group uh or or location or an individual uh have you seen any no you haven't i wouldn't normally see that in a fire risk assessment right so you you don't agree then that the fra

00:03:35 so you you don't agree then that the fra for june 2016 was deficient in not uh providing any sort of identification of occupants especially at risk would you help me by letting me see the second

00:03:46 you help me by letting me see the second question uh yes let's do that of course page 23 section 13.

00:03:52 thank you and you can see that on that page the question is it is considered that the building is provided with reasonable arrangements for means of escape for disabled people and he's ticked yes

00:04:04 and he's ticked yes yes that's right yes uh and then if we go on underneath that under comments or observations he says this at the time of the risk assessment there was no evidence of any resident within the premises who suffers from sensory

00:04:15 premises who suffers from sensory impairment that would prevent them from hearing a shouted warning of fire tmo have introduced a comprehensive program to gathering information about tenants including any disabilities and their

00:04:26 including any disabilities and their physical ability and mobility to respond to any emergency situations this information will be inputted on a tp tracker system and held centrally the additional information and

00:04:39 centrally the additional information and it goes on the additional information will be used to assess if residents may require additional devices to provide them with early warning of smoke stroke fire in their home and or development of a personal emergency evacuation plan

00:04:51 a personal emergency evacuation plan peeps

00:04:53 peeps and it goes on about lift so we'll come back to that later yes sir sorry sorry i was going to answer your question but did you have a supplementary well i mean you you uh you have what ask your question of me

00:05:06 uh you have what ask your question of me and i'll say no i was going to answer your question sir right i'm not sure i've asked a question yet uh your question was did i think that what was written in his risk assessment was adequate and it's

00:05:17 assessment was adequate and it's consideration of disabled people i thought that was your question it was but i think we've gone beyond it but please please please answer that question all right thank you um i mean if if if what is written there

00:05:28 i mean if if if what is written there were an accurate reflection of the facts then i would i would say he had he had done his job as a fire risk assessor um i think though to be entirely

00:05:39 um i think though to be entirely objective and give you the whole picture uh having watched his evidence i don't think his evidence actually supports what's written there right um

00:05:50 right um so

00:05:50 so help me then why you thought that him considering disabled people was a positive if in fact he didn't go on and do what yeah well because he it appeared

00:06:01 do what yeah well because he it appeared that he had investigated this with the tmo and

00:06:05 tmo and if i can give you one of my nutshell answers they had it under control right

00:06:10 right now where a responsible person has committed

00:06:14 committed on its face at least looking at this as here to preparing an emergency evacuation plan for vulnerable residents would you expect the fire risk assessor to assess

00:06:24 to assess the arrangements for disabled persons in the light of that commitment individually

00:06:31 well on the page we've seen what's said yes and would you would you expect the fire risk assessor to pick up that page and then

00:06:42 to pick up that page and then analyze and answer further questions uh

00:06:46 uh in order to assess the arrangements no certainly

00:06:49 certainly of assessing the risk generally if it were correct that the tmo had gathered information and they were using it to assess if residents might require additional help

00:07:02 residents might require additional help because of firing their home which uh is probably as i said the most important thing or the development of a peep

00:07:10 peep then i would say he had done his job as a fire risk assessor by confirming that the tmo had this in in hand i see well you can see that mr stakes has noted

00:07:21 you can see that mr stakes has noted that the tma were using a system to identify residents with disabilities yes and and you can see that he notes that at the time of the fire risk assessment there was as he puts it no evidence of

00:07:34 there was as he puts it no evidence of any resident within the premises who suffers from a sensory impairment that would prevent them from hearing a shouted warning of fire yes now given the information recorded by carl stakes would you have expected him to ask the

00:07:47 would you have expected him to ask the tmo whether there were any residents vulnerable residents recorded on the tp tracker the system he's identified at the time that he carried out the fire risk assessment who who

00:07:59 who who needed additional warning because of healing problems well just for more general questions are there given that you have a system otmo on your tpt system can you please

00:08:10 otmo on your tpt system can you please tell me whether there are vulnerable residents on that system so that i can assess the risk would you have expected him to do that no sir why is that because

00:08:21 no sir why is that because uh

00:08:21 uh on the face of what's written there the the the tmo were dealing with this uh themselves and uh should have been competent i mean if they were actually

00:08:32 they were actually uh collecting the information uh carrying out additional assessments themselves which would smack almost of the pcfras i talked about

00:08:44 the pcfras i talked about and whether they needed anything to help them with a fire in their own home then

00:08:51 then on face value that that's all good stuff uh and uh i wouldn't expect him to then drill down any further into it well you see he

00:09:02 down any further into it well you see he starts off this passage as i read to you by saying that there was no evidence of any resident within the premises who and he goes on to say suffers from sensory impairment which is only one yes

00:09:13 impairment which is only one yes subcategory of vulnerability of course but he says there's no evidence and then identifies a potential pot of evidence would you have expected the reasonable reasonably competent fire risk assessor to ask the client whether

00:09:25 risk assessor to ask the client whether in that pot of evidence or pot of pot of information there was any evidence of any resident with some kind of vulnerability now the way the way i read that cern i may have read it wrongly is that

00:09:37 it wrongly is that within that pot of evidence there was no there were no uh persons with with a hearing problem so i took that to be all one oh i see

00:09:51 so i took that to be all one oh i see did you see what i mean i see you understood that he had interrogated the tps system and well not not the system been told that they've been told exactly now in all of his fire risk assessments

00:10:02 now in all of his fire risk assessments for grenfell tower between 2010 and 2016.

00:10:05 2016. um it is the case take it from me that mr stokes did not identify any residents especially at risk within grenfell tower he told us that at day one three seven yes age 96 now he also explained that he didn't ask

00:10:18 now he also explained that he didn't ask for any information about residents who were disabled at grenfell tower because his understanding was that it was for the responsible person to tell the fire risk assessor that information as he put

00:10:29 risk assessor that information as he put it now was mr stakes his position as he's explained it one which most fire risk assessors would have taken at the time i.e to wait to be told by the responsible person that there were vulnerable residents rather than

00:10:42 vulnerable residents rather than demanding accurate and up-to-date information on such persons no it wouldn't um

00:10:50 where where i would stop short and agreeing with you is i don't think he needed information on each and every vulnerable resident but on the face of it there that would say to me that he had sat down

00:11:02 to me that he had sat down uh with a representative of the responsible person and be told we are collecting information on vulnerable people we're going to put it on a central system

00:11:13 central system there are no residents who cannot hear a warning of fire

00:11:18 fire and we are actively verifying whether they need additional devices in their home and or the development of a peep that that is what the english

00:11:30 a peep that that is what the english word say to me sir i see so you take from his description uh

00:11:37 uh in the box that we've read uh uh a description of a situation whereby he had actually asked for this information and been given it correct i see uh now and i think you're saying that

00:11:48 uh now and i think you're saying that actually no most fire risk assessors would not simply have proceeded on the assumption that there was no evidence but would actually have asked about it yes yes you yes i mean why would why would they are sorry it's a rhetorical

00:11:59 would they are sorry it's a rhetorical question sir but i'm just making a point why why would the risk assessor assume that the rp knew to tell him this information unilaterally without being asked yes

00:12:11 unilaterally without being asked yes well mr stakes evidence was that uh interrogating that was beyond what he would expect a fire risk assessor to do and i'm referring there to day 137 page 84 line 23 to 85 line 20. interrogating

00:12:25 84 line 23 to 85 line 20. interrogating the software i would agree with yes but certainly asking the question but you still need to ask the question right and and i don't really understand and i didn't understand from his evidence

00:12:37 didn't understand from his evidence how he could make that statement unless he had actually asked the question as you put it sir yes i see now he accepted uh day 137 page 123 lines 5-11 that in the

00:12:50 day 137 page 123 lines 5-11 that in the five fire risk assessments that he conducted for grenfell tower between 2010 and 2016. he never identified and considered disabled residents or occupants especially at risk was that persistent failure over those

00:13:02 was that persistent failure over those years consistent with your expectations of what a a reasonably competent fire risk assessor should have done or would have done

00:13:08 have done no i think i think probably by then it was reasonable for a risk assessor let's let's let's put it into practical terms that the risk assessor would not have asked for

00:13:19 risk assessor would not have asked for details of every individual resident but would they have said have you any arrangements in hand for

00:13:27 for giving assistance to disabled people whether whether required by the fire safety order whether just as good practice

00:13:35 practice and

00:13:37 i would expect them to have some high level generic information but but no no greater detail than that right

00:13:46 right having been told in september 2010 at the very outset of his instructions uh to act as a fire risk assessor for the tmo in relation to its stock

00:13:58 the tmo in relation to its stock that they had a tp tracker system uh on which they were tracking vulnerable persons would you have expected him uh every time he did a fire risk assessor to have asked uh at least

00:14:09 assessor to have asked uh at least generically what is on that what does your pool of information on the tracker tell me i think what i probably would have uh

00:14:17 have uh if he was doing a review if i were doing the review i would have intended to say are you still collecting information about disabled people and is that still the same that you've you've got this in hand as it

00:14:28 you've you've got this in hand as it were right

00:14:35 now i want to look at the assessment of the emergency plan for grenfell tower bearing in mind what we discussed earlier which was that i think your evidence was that in a high-rise residential block

00:14:46 residential block uh

00:14:47 uh an emergency plan need go or would go no further than a stay put policy with the qualifications in it yes um could we go to the template fire risk assessment in past 79 please at page 90. now i'd like

00:15:00 past 79 please at page 90. now i'd like to look at section 25 on that page subsection 4.

00:15:17 so cta 703 page 90.

00:15:23 yes and at 25 4 this is within the template yes appropriate fire procedures in place more specifically and then you can say you can see are there procedures etc these are the

00:15:35 there procedures etc these are the questions

00:15:36 questions and the um last question uh is are there adequate procedures for evacuation of any disabled people who are likely to be present yes

00:15:47 present yes now

00:15:48 now first

00:15:49 first first more generically you can see the section is would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to assess the arrangements for an emergency plan by reference to this list in general terms yes in general terms

00:16:01 in general terms yes in general terms yes and to ensure that there was a documented emergency plan recording these arrangements there would need to be a documented emergency plan yes sir and in your view would that include each of the matters listed under paragraph

00:16:12 of the matters listed under paragraph 25.4 there uh yes it would um

00:16:17 um yes

00:16:19 yes that would include suitable arrangements for ensuring uh that there were adequate procedures for evacuation of any disabled people who are likely to be present yes yes but

00:16:30 are likely to be present yes yes but that that may it could be recorded it could have been recorded by risk assessors

00:16:37 assessors and i'm just reflecting custom and practicer that uh it's a stay put strategy and

00:16:44 and if uh necessary if disabled people need to be rescued they'll be rescued by the fire and rescue service sorry not gone please the state but strategy is a procedure for not

00:16:57 strategy is a procedure for not evacuating yes that's true so

00:17:00 so does this list at least not tell us that the approach of pass at least by the informative uh template was that there did need to be procedures in place adequate

00:17:11 be procedures in place adequate procedures in place for the evacuation of disabled people likely to be present okay so here's the problem sir um we come back to the fact that generally this is referring to blocks of

00:17:23 generally this is referring to blocks of flats however imperfect that may be i can't tell you any other than as it is we this was really primarily focused on commercial premises and we need to distinguish sir between evacuation and

00:17:36 distinguish sir between evacuation and rescue because they're completely different concepts would it take up too much time to elaborate on that if you can elaborate shortly it won't

00:17:47 if you can elaborate shortly it won't can i ever sir um do your best i certainly will chairman um so evacuation by definition is something of a routine procedure followed in buildings with a

00:17:59 followed in buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy so and and a fire alarm system so the fire alarm operates people get out the building i describe it as a routine procedure because the staff in a

00:18:12 procedure because the staff in a commercial building will routinely follow it during false alarms there will be fire drills during which they routinely follow this evacuation procedure

00:18:22 procedure in a block of flats with a state boot strategy

00:18:26 strategy evacuation doesn't really arise because there is no fire alarm system there is no routine procedure for everybody being turfed out of the building if i can put

00:18:37 turfed out of the building if i can put it that way so if it is necessary for people to leave their flats something's gone wrong something's gone quite badly wrong

00:18:48 quite badly wrong uh these are abnormal circumstances these are not routine circumstances and if people cannot evacuate their flats then it becomes a rescue because it's an abnormal

00:19:00 rescue because it's an abnormal situation not an evacuation and that was my point sir and it wasn't just a matter of semantics in the report you took me to which i think was my first report and i said the

00:19:11 think was my first report and i said the fire service are not a fire and evacuation service so in commercial premises their intervention should not be necessary but they are a fire and rescue service and in a block of flats

00:19:24 rescue service and in a block of flats if people are having to leave the building let's not call it evacuate because of um failure of the structure it's a rescue not

00:19:34 not evacuation so in short is your answer that that last uh procedure there doesn't or doesn't really apply to a residential high rise i think that's that is the point i could have put in that nutshell

00:19:46 that nutshell but what about an individual in a flat who is disabled who manages to get themselves across their threshold into the lift lobby and is therefore on the premises

00:19:57 is therefore on the premises why does that last bullet point there adequate procedures for their evacuation not apply from a fire in their own flat for example exactly yes okay so the

00:20:09 for example exactly yes okay so the under the circumstances that you've described they have just evacuated they've evacuated their flat they're now in what is effectively a refuge with a lift

00:20:21 refuge with a lift and you're probably going to go on to lift so i won't at the moment now i'm going to ask you the next question which follows from your acceptance of the premise which is that once uh the individual is on the premises in the lift lobby yes standing

00:20:34 premises in the lift lobby yes standing outside there do you accept that the um the responsible person would have to have an adequate procedure for evacuating them from there to out of the building

00:20:46 well it's difficult to envisage what that procedure would would be sir with in a building with no staff that's the problem

00:20:54 problem so

00:20:56 so is that another way of saying that in practical terms the response person responsible for a high-rise block of residential residential block

00:21:07 residential block uh did not in practice be required to have adequate procedures for evacuation of disabled people likely to be present in the communal areas never mind in their flats right well

00:21:19 their flats right well it becomes it becomes something that's quite impracticable but they can use the lift of course

00:21:25 of course well

00:21:26 well um

00:21:28 um never mind how they got to their front door

00:21:30 door how do you know they can use the lift if they're disabled supposing they were um not able to reach absolutely unsighted

00:21:40 well i suppose it begs the question how they use the building under under normal use

00:21:46 use partially and sighted and blind people can often pick their way around buildings that they're familiar with really quite well a partially or excited person might be

00:21:57 a partially or excited person might be able to pick their way around their own flat and may have worked may have established a system within their own flat to be able to get out of it but at the point they enter the premises are you saying that the responsible

00:22:09 are you saying that the responsible person had no obligation at all to put in place adequate procedures for their evacuation from there well it becomes a matter of practicability sir so why would it be impracticable for the

00:22:21 so why would it be impracticable for the tmo

00:22:22 tmo being a responsible person to put in place adequate procedures for the evacuation of one disabled person standing up unsighted person standing outside their flat

00:22:33 outside their flat in the event of a fire in their flat i don't mean to answer a question with a question but what would that be that's a problem

00:22:39 problem well

00:22:41 well i think the fact that you've asked the question of me uh tells me that you don't know the answer well i don't think there is an answer or at the time certainly and even today uh people haven't really got an

00:22:52 today uh people haven't really got an answer to that question given that that question is one that arises squarely on the face of the rro and squarely on the face of your own guidance can you explain why it was

00:23:03 explain why it was that the fire risk assessment trade was never made aware of what you're telling us now namely that these procedures do not or do not in practice or cannot in practice be applied to a residential block of flats

00:23:15 applied to a residential block of flats i think that was well understood i've been understood prior to 2006 when blocks of flats didn't even come within fire safety legislation and so the custom and

00:23:26 legislation and so the custom and practice

00:23:28 practice deficient though it might be probably continued uh in in truth uh and that is where individual uh person-centered fire risk assessments

00:23:40 uh person-centered fire risk assessments tailor-made for the person comes in and that's that that's what community fire safety very often did mr

00:23:49 mr forgive me for taking too simplistic and approach to this but are you able to identify any regulation or any guidance to a fire risk assessor that tells the

00:24:00 to a fire risk assessor that tells the fire risk assessor that when it comes to disabled people or vulnerable people in high-rise residential blocks there are large parts of the guidance

00:24:11 there are large parts of the guidance which don't apply to them there's not a large part of the guidance on anybody or any part

00:24:17 any part which don't apply to them can i point to that

00:24:21 that well there was a consensus of opinion in past 79 part two but that's been temporarily withdrawn or suspended i should say if if i was a fire risk assessor who and it was my first job or if i was a

00:24:33 and it was my first job or if i was a vulnerable person sorry a responsible person yes embarking on my own fire assess risk assessment uh what would i look at to tell me that i didn't need to trouble myself about putting in place adequate procedures for

00:24:45 putting in place adequate procedures for the evacuation of any disabled people who happen to be in my lyft lobby it's it's a very hypothetical situation so if you if you are a freeholder of a block of flats there's

00:24:56 block of flats there's you don't you don't just buy the freehold and and learn it on the job

00:25:05 given what you told us yesterday which is that the intention behind the behind the the regulations regulatory environment was that building owners responsible

00:25:16 was that building owners responsible people yes would be undertaking their own fire risk assessments if possible and it was their first time uh i don't see why it's hypothetical the question is what would they look at

00:25:28 the question is what would they look at what would they look up to understand that they did not need to put in place adequate procedures for the evacuation of any disabled people present in their lift lobbies on their

00:25:39 present in their lift lobbies on their stairs in their main hall they would find difficulty in finding anything that explained that you mentioned means of escape for disabled people as one of the the clg guides

00:25:51 people as one of the the clg guides the problem is that didn't address blocks of flats so guidance produced by government on means of escape for disabled people for the purpose of compliance with the fire safety order was silent on blocks

00:26:03 fire safety order was silent on blocks of flats i mean sitting there today don't you find that all this rather a surprising debate given that for example the equality act was passed in 2010

00:26:15 2010 the

00:26:17 the not not terribly surprising sir because blocks of flats have been built in in the built environment since well

00:26:27 well if you go back to the flats for artisans so-called

00:26:31 so-called go back to victorian times and

00:26:35 and stay put had always been accepted as a strategy

00:26:39 strategy and if you build a block of flats correctly sir then stay put is extremely favorable to disabled people because you mentioned the equality answer the moment you say i've built

00:26:52 answer the moment you say i've built this block of flats but the build quality is so poor or the design is so poor that stay put may not work or is is unlikely to work

00:27:03 may not work or is is unlikely to work the minute you say that you can do all you can to help disabled people but you can never make them as safe as an able-bodied person so you've lost equality

00:27:14 equality almost before you start if you build the building correctly then stay put is safe for everyone and you actually have equality

00:27:25 actually have equality now let's um let's go to the lga guide i want to ask you one or two questions about

00:27:31 about complex buildings can we look please at the lga guide that's hom triple zero four five nine six four page one one eight

00:27:44 uh and give me a paragraph 79.1

00:27:53 yes sir uh

00:27:57 uh it says

00:27:59 it says it is a requirement of the fso that there that there should be a suitable emergency plan for the premises yes rarely in purpose-built blocks of flats will it be necessary to have a more elaborate emergency plan than a simple

00:28:11 elaborate emergency plan than a simple fire action notice see appendix 5 for example nor will it be universally necessary to display such notices indeed it is more common not to display notices but to convey this information to tenants in other ways

00:28:22 tenants in other ways for example through residence handbooks and so forth that's correct and then if we go to page 120 paragraph 79.12 you say this next to the

00:28:34 next to the the photograph in large more complex blocks of flats it can be a great assistance to the fire and rescue service to keep plans on the premises detailing information on the layout of the building and its services this could

00:28:45 the building and its services this could be helpful at the time of an incident in dealing with the emergency again use of a premises information box at the main entrance is one way to achieve this yes would you agree first that grenfell tower was a complex block of flats for

00:28:57 tower was a complex block of flats for the purposes of that paragraph there isn't a definition of a complex block of flats but

00:29:03 flats but i wouldn't have regarded it as complex and and here's the reason why um

00:29:09 um the lit from the fire brigade attendance point of view and this is what it's talking about here that could the fire brigade easily get disorientated uh with

00:29:20 uh with multiple staircases uh corridors off corridors and so on and so plans would help them the the floor plan on every floor of the uppermost floors

00:29:32 on every floor of the uppermost floors of grenfell tower simply repeated and it was a very simple layout and there was a single staircase and a single lift there was a smoke control

00:29:43 single lift there was a smoke control system

00:29:44 system uh which you you get in blocks of flats but i wouldn't have called a complex building so no you wouldn't not for the purpose of this paragraph no uh well keep let's keep keeping in mind

00:29:55 uh well keep let's keep keeping in mind the criteria for assessment of the emergency procedures in past 79 that we looked at earlier yes um do you agree let's see how we go do you agree that a building like grenfell tower would

00:30:06 a building like grenfell tower would need a plan first of all to ensure that procedures in the event of a fire are appropriately documented yes yes uh and for grenfell that would require

00:30:17 and for grenfell that would require procedures in relation to the residential prep premises as well as the non-residential that's correct yes

00:30:23 yes i mean for example the non-residential premises wouldn't have a stay put would they yeah no that's correct yeah um and it would also need would you agree suitable arrangements for summoning the fire and rescue service

00:30:35 fire and rescue service uh yes that's the the the public emergency call system exactly and that would need to be documented about how the how they would be notified in the event of a fire yes and residents should be

00:30:46 of a fire yes and residents should be told that you shouldn't assume that every resident perhaps from overseas knows to dial treble 9. so we need to tell them that the the emergency number is treble 9 or 112. yes

00:30:58 emergency number is treble 9 or 112. yes and and do you also agree that there would be or need to be arrangements to meet the fire and rescue service on arrival and provide them with relevant information including those which are hazardous or those elements which are hazardous to firefighters well in a

00:31:10 hazardous to firefighters well in a block of flats unless it's in the non-residential the the

00:31:16 the public are unlikely to be able to help the fire service with information about uh matters that would be hazardous to firefighters unless perhaps you have a resident who's on oxygen

00:31:27 a resident who's on oxygen uh and you'd warn the fire service about an oxygen cylinder because and that can can go flying in the event of fire um but and yes you tell the resident if they have a

00:31:39 yes you tell the resident if they have a fire on their flat dell 999 leave the building meet the fire service on arrival

00:31:43 arrival do you agree that for grenfell tower relevant information would include information about the smoke control and ventilation system yes yes definitely where it was and how to work it yes definitely yeah and the lifts and how to

00:31:55 definitely yeah and the lifts and how to work them

00:31:57 work them there was nothing there's nothing unusual about the lifts that would need you need to tell the fire service how to work them right location of keys keys for anywhere plant room roof

00:32:09 keys for anywhere plant room roof roof uh lift motor room uh

00:32:15 uh if if

00:32:16 if if there probably wasn't a location for keys the fire service will get into a room if they need to yeah location and access for dry rot two dry risers uh they would normally have this uh on the

00:32:28 they would normally have this uh on the uh on the information that they they carry themselves from their seven two ds on the mobile data terminal the mdt's yeah yes but uh that would be information that would have to be provided wouldn't it by the by the

00:32:39 provided wouldn't it by the by the responsible person to the um the firearm well the fire and rescue service carry out sorry does the inquiry know what seven two d is yeah oh yes yeah so so the fire

00:32:50 two d is yeah oh yes yeah so so the fire and rescue service would carry out their seven two ds they would liaise with someone at the time they would collect the information on where the dry risers are and so on and so they should have

00:33:01 are and so on and so they should have that information would you agree also that there would need to be information about the suitable arrangements for ensuring that the premises have been evacuated if that were necessary that's not possible in a block of flat

00:33:13 that's not possible in a block of flat sir but for the grenfell tower there would need to be information about that for the non-residential oh yes yes yes yes so your top fire wardens and non-residential uh and at least to that extent a suitable fire

00:33:25 at least to that extent a suitable fire assembly point uh for the non-residential yes but not for the resident indeed but um uh grenfell tower being a mixed-use building yes would have to have information at least to that extent wouldn't it yes there would be that

00:33:37 wouldn't it yes there would be that information and also procedures for evacuation of everybody in the in the non-residential part yes that's all part of the emergency plan you're quite critical absolutely and the devil need to be uh part of um

00:33:48 to be uh part of um [Music]

00:33:50 [Music] would

00:33:51 would according to the advice at 79.12 be best in the premises information if you're going to collect that and and if you wanted it to be uh made available to the fire service beyond that which they

00:34:03 fire service beyond that which they would get from the mdt um then a pivot would be a an appropriate place for it yes and and uh as the tmo had committed to prepare peeps if there was a disabled person um

00:34:14 peeps if there was a disabled person um and a peep had been prepared for that person would you agree that that would also need to be recorded and

00:34:21 and placed in in the premises information that would be a good pla that would be a good place for it yes uh

00:34:28 uh exactly and none of that information none of that uh list of things we've gone through would be recorded in a fire action notice would it no no no not at all so

00:34:36 all so do you accept that for a building like grenfell tower uh which was mixed use and for at least some of which all of that data would need to be provided to the fire and rescue service a fire action notice would not be adequate to satisfy the

00:34:48 would not be adequate to satisfy the guidance in paragraph 25.4 of past 79 that we've just been looking at oh no no that's that's absolutely right yes thank you so do you agree that grenfell tower needed a more elaborate emergency

00:35:00 tower needed a more elaborate emergency plan than the simple fire action notice oh yeah many many buildings would sir yes i see but would it be normal and accepted practice for the fire risk assessor to assess the arrangements for an emergency plan by

00:35:11 arrangements for an emergency plan by reference to the list in 25 4 of past 79 that we looked at i think you agreed earlier that yeah i mean that's that's that's all relevant information sir

00:35:22 that's all relevant information sir and to check that there was a doc a documented emergency plan recording those arrangements you would you would have it documented for a building of that size sir yes and also to check that there are adequate procedures for the evacuation of disabled people likely to

00:35:33 evacuation of disabled people likely to be present at least in in the non-residential in the non-residential but that would be the responsibility of the rp for the non-residential who would not be

00:35:44 for the non-residential who would not be the the tmo leaving aside the debate we've had about about disabled persons likely to be present which i don't want to go over again but would you agree that not doing any of those things and not keeping an

00:35:55 any of those things and not keeping an emergency plan with that detail in it for grenfell tower would fall below the reasonable standards of reasonable standards of competence for a fire risk assessor

00:36:06 competence for a fire risk assessor um

00:36:07 um sorry i thought i i thought at the start of the sentence you're going to say a reasonable thing for the rp so just tell me tell me well would you keeping would failure to

00:36:18 would you keeping would failure to would failure by the fire risk assessor to ensure that the responsible person had in place an emergency plan yes you'd have to confirm there's an emergency plan in fact sir that would be

00:36:29 plan in fact sir that would be a part of and i don't think you've referred to this but but that would be part of your article 11 compliance actually

00:36:40 so i think you agree that if a fire risk assessor did not uh

00:36:46 uh pick up the absence of these features in a in the absence of an emergency plan containing those features do you agree that that would fall below the standards of reasonable competence of a fire risk

00:36:58 of reasonable competence of a fire risk assessment yes it would affect the the validity of the fire risk assessment yes

00:37:05 yes now um

00:37:09 past seven we haven't discussed that yet am i right in thinking that you were involved in the development of past seven

00:37:17 seven involved would be too strong a term sir um

00:37:21 um again to save the inquiry's time do they know how passes are produced well let's see if we can save it even even further bsi 6071 please

00:37:32 6071 please and i'll i'll just show you the basis of the question okay um so it may speed things up page 13 that that's page one of past seven and the the title for this yes don't recall it from the evidence it's fire risk

00:37:43 it from the evidence it's fire risk management system yes yes i know the the document and if we get it sorry i'm gonna have to interrupt you you both have it each of you has the tendency to speak before the others finished i'm sorry that's my fault it's

00:37:54 finished i'm sorry that's my fault it's not entirely your fault it's partly my fault

00:37:57 fault i detect that it's partly my fault i think possibly if you could slow the pace down a bit and leave a bit more air between question and yeah answer in the next question we'd all get on better okay sir but with a further apology

00:38:09 okay sir but with a further apology today

00:38:10 today that's right but it's a difficult job doing a shorthand transcript and we need to make it as easy for the transcribers we can yes yeah only gamers yes past 79 page

00:38:22 yes yeah only gamers yes past 79 page five if we go to that please you said past 79 sir did you send past seven you're quite right i was too busy licking my wounds uh if we go to page five you'll see that

00:38:36 uh if we go to page five you'll see that there is a forward yes yes and the second paragraph contains some bullet points and it says uh acknowledgement is given to the following organizations

00:38:48 given to the following organizations involved in the development of this specification as members of the steering group and then the third bullet point down identifies cs todd and associates limited as one of those organizations

00:38:59 limited as one of those organizations yes that's correct sir yes yes so um we can take it can we from that that to some extent it may not matter very much uh your organization was involved in the

00:39:10 uh your organization was involved in the development of past seven am i right in thinking that one of the key pieces of legislation with which pass seven was concerned was the fso

00:39:21 seven was concerned was the fso yes that's correct sir and if we go to page 39 of this document you'll find annex g a model pro forma emergency planning

00:39:35 document it's a template it appears and nxg is said to be informative yes and that am i right sets out the suggested information required for an

00:39:46 suggested information required for an emergency plan for a building yes that's right yes and

00:39:54 and it says in the first main box under contents reason for amendment this procedure forms the basis of the organization's policy and strategy for carrying out the duty of emergency planning

00:40:08 do you agree that this format for the emergency plan for grenfell tower could have been appropriate um i need to i've looked at this for some years sir would you mind if i took

00:40:19 some years sir would you mind if i took a moment to look at it of course i mean by all means to look at if we scroll down slowly we can look at this page 39 and onto page 40.

00:40:33 yes if we could scroll further scroll down to page 30 put it to 40 and then on i think there's nothing beyond page 40 ah

00:40:40 ah because we go to annex yes it's fairly broad and and applicable too yes and

00:40:47 and if you look at some of the headings item three is responsibility we need to get

00:40:54 get up page 39

00:40:59 uh item seven fire attack plan that's the very bottom of your screen and then over the page item eight liaison in communication with the fire

00:41:10 liaison in communication with the fire and rescue service and then lower down 11 contingency plan 12 emergency planning audits 13 management review now my question was do you agree

00:41:22 now my question was do you agree that that this format for an emergency plan could have been used for grenfell tower yes i think you'd want more information actually than that but um

00:41:34 actually than that but um the headings are broad enough i suppose you could key most information into it but it's probably not quite enough right that answers my next question thank you uh and what else would you expect to see

00:41:46 uh and what else would you expect to see or want to see it in an emergency plan based on this template well you very helpfully went through a list of things sir which wouldn't all just fit very neatly

00:41:57 which wouldn't all just fit very neatly into those headings so uh you you'd want to um

00:42:03 um you really need you see to to meet article 11 sir you you are supposed to have uh a record of the fire safety arrangements

00:42:14 arrangements unfortunately article 11 is written as gobbledygook so people tend not to understand it but if i could translate my interpretation of it mindful that final interpretation of legislation is the role of the chairman

00:42:26 legislation is the role of the chairman or a court indeed the the simple version is there should be a building fire manual that describes all the fire precautions that little

00:42:37 all the fire precautions that little thumbnail sketch of the fire precautions so the things you told me about sir or you put to me the smoke control the dry rising main and so on uh

00:42:48 rising main and so on uh and they don't really all fit into that really yes thank you um can we then turn to a new topic which is carl stakes's assessment of the

00:42:59 is carl stakes's assessment of the emergency plan for grenfell tower if we go please first to cst403145

00:43:09 this is mr stakes's fra from june 2016 and i'd like to go in that please to page five

00:43:16 page five at the bottom uh

00:43:19 uh where you can see there is a heading evacuation strategy for this building and he says this for the residents of this building there is a stay put evacuation strategy this

00:43:30 a stay put evacuation strategy this means the residents can remain within their own dwelling during a fire incident in this building unless the fire is in their dwelling or that their dwelling is otherwise affected by the fire in which case they should immediately evacuate their dwelling and call the fire and rescue service the

00:43:42 call the fire and rescue service the fire service or tmo employees will call will arrange for a general evacuation of the whole building at any time if this is appropriate to do so alternatively the resident can leave their dwelling at any time

00:43:54 their dwelling at any time if they wish to do so tmo has provided information to all residents in tenants handbooks via letters and briefing sheets i'm sorry you do so don't drop so you've you've run ahead of what's on the screen i i i know i'm just hoping that

00:44:07 screen i i i know i'm just hoping that we might turn the page we have now we look at the first paragraph tmo has provided information to all residents in tenants handbooks via letters and briefing sheets of what to do in the event of an emergency and articles on

00:44:19 event of an emergency and articles on fire safety advice and emergency procedures are included in the residence magazine called link you see that yes sir and it goes on uh articles are provided reminding tenants

00:44:30 articles are provided reminding tenants that they mustn't store items etc and then there's it goes on about languages

00:44:36 languages and cooking and burnt toast things like that lower down and then underneath that for other areas of this building the contractors will have an evacuation policy and procedure for a fire incident

00:44:48 policy and procedure for a fire incident within the areas under their control the actions that they will take have been provided to the tmo the nursery and boxing club will provide their own fire risk assessments frs and copy of these will be copies of these

00:44:59 copy of these will be copies of these will be asked for by the tmo the evacuation procedures for these areas will be as per the occupiers fras please see the significant finding sheets for more information on this issue now we don't need to go to mr stokes's

00:45:11 now we don't need to go to mr stokes's transcript but he told us that this section of his fra would contain the specific evacuation strategy for grenfell tower in two parts one for residential and one for

00:45:22 one for residential and one for commercial or retail areas would you accept that carl stokes doesn't

00:45:29 doesn't for either part of the building refer to a building specific documented emergency plan anywhere here no he restricts himself to the evacuation uh procedures well he doesn't

00:45:41 evacuation uh procedures well he doesn't he doesn't he he talks about storing items and so on um but uh generally it looks as though he's wrapped up a few little things in

00:45:53 he's wrapped up a few little things in in into one section but generally he's talking about evacuation isn't he yes and uh

00:45:58 and uh do you accept that he doesn't say how the fire and rescue service will access information about fire protection systems at grenfell tower in the event of an emergency

00:46:09 of an emergency uh

00:46:10 uh no he doesn't well he doesn't there anyway he doesn't i don't know if he does anywhere else and notes that the tmo staff would arrange for a general evacuation of grenfell tower if necessary yes yes

00:46:23 grenfell tower if necessary yes yes the things that he omitted would you agree that those are material omissions in his assessment of the emergency plan um

00:46:32 um the

00:46:32 the the could

00:46:34 the could and they should have been wrapped up possibly into one

00:46:41 one question or topic for consideration uh namely

00:46:45 namely israel israel building fire manual which are very rarely found i have to say but strictly my interpretation of article 11 is that they're required but

00:46:56 article 11 is that they're required but they're very they're very rare now

00:46:59 now can we go please to your main report again and go to page 98 yes

00:47:10 at the foot of the page you can see that you say under paragraph 9.8 in short in my opinion mr stakes's fras conformed to the very simplistic approach to fras set out in the clg

00:47:22 approach to fras set out in the clg guide

00:47:25 guide i'm sorry i'm reading the wrong paragraph 9.6 and

00:47:29 and you say there with regard to step four mr stokes fras recorded the significant findings of the fras and set out an action plan it was not the role of mr stokes as the fire risk assessor to prepare an emergency plan informally instruct

00:47:41 emergency plan informally instruct people cooperate and coordinate with others or to provide training however these matters were appropriately considered in his fras just looking at that last sentence there

00:47:52 just looking at that last sentence there do you still consider carl stakes's assessment of the emergency plan for granville tower to be suitable and sufficient given the at least two emissions that you've agreed

00:48:03 you've agreed um

00:48:04 um it wasn't his role to prepare an emergency plan so that that is correct um

00:48:10 um he does deal with informing and instructing people cooperating and coordinating um he doesn't he doesn't wrap that up you're right he doesn't wrap that up into

00:48:22 wrap that up into uh confirming that there is a building fire manual or emergency plan and he really

00:48:31 he really in the council of perfection he'd certainly do that well it is it not a bit more than a council of perfection do those emissions in your opinion make

00:48:39 make his assessment of the emergency plan for grenfell tower insufficient or unsuitable um

00:48:50 i'd quite like to see the risk assessment again if i may

00:48:55 if i may just

00:48:56 just before i help you with that that when you say risk assessment do you mean that part of the well could could we have just a quick walk through the risk assessment uh

00:49:06 uh because the information may be dispersed that's the point i see um when you say when you say the risk assessment you mean the fra as a whole yes

00:49:14 yes uh i see uh well let's go to it it's cst four zero three one four five i took you to page five yes with apologies again to to delete but

00:49:26 apologies again to to delete but no no i i took you to page five um is there any part of the fra you'd like me to take you to i'd i'd just like a quick walk through it okay well let's start at page one

00:49:41 um so that's scope that's fine page two

00:49:46 uh forget that and that

00:49:49 and that well let's just scroll through and i'll i'll wait for you to have a look see what else

00:49:54 what else thank you

00:49:55 thank you [Music]

00:49:58 [Music] okay thank you

00:50:07 yeah i mean he you see he has provided some of the relevant information himself uh so

00:50:16 uh so um no high voltage luminous tubes for example which uh firefighters need to know about the access arrangements um uh lfp visited the site that's

00:50:28 um uh lfp visited the site that's irrelevant probably can we just carry on sir yes of course

00:50:40 yes that's the strategy the evacuation strategy we looked at

00:50:51 yes thank you

00:50:56 thank you

00:51:07 okay thank you

00:51:19 thank you thank you

00:51:26 and where do we go then

00:51:30 yeah this is page 11.

00:51:33 yes can we just carry on

00:51:41 yes i don't need to see the fire prevention but right so we can move fairly quickly through the hazards and the sources of ignition can we move i think to page 22 or 23 which i think is the

00:51:54 22 or 23 which i think is the last page of the

00:51:59 perhaps it should go back i may have missed something

00:52:06 yeah yes

00:52:09 yes uh yes so we're going to fire protection measures can we just carry on through that

00:52:18 yes thank you

00:52:24 thank you

00:52:29 yeah

00:52:31 yes

00:52:35 can we carry on i just wanted to see if you had a question about uh when it comes to the management because the past 79 template would drive you to look at

00:52:47 to look at the records of fire safety arrangements yeah could we carry on

00:52:55 yes oh sorry can we just go back to that one that one page

00:53:02 thank you

00:53:09 yes okay thank you

00:53:17 thank you right

00:53:21 right already inappropriate procedures

00:53:34 yeah you see he's he's recording some of the information himself

00:53:39 himself in the risk assessment but you're right he doesn't seem to have

00:53:46 asked or recorded whether

00:53:50 whether their

00:53:51 their that information was assembled into a specific document can we just carry on

00:54:04 yes

00:54:07 yep

00:54:13 yes

00:54:17 okay thank you yeah i think we're into just definitions and so on aren't we sir i think so yeah i don't think we need trouble anyone with looking at the the rest of it yeah he hasn't he hasn't uh asked whether

00:54:29 he hasn't he hasn't uh asked whether or he hasn't certainly hasn't recorded whether

00:54:33 whether they do have a document that brings all the information together as i thought he has dispersed quite a lot of the information himself throughout his

00:54:44 the information himself throughout his risk assessment but he hasn't actually uh checked whether or not i should say recorded whether someone assembled that into a single document that is held by the tmo

00:54:56 single document that is held by the tmo yes

00:54:57 yes and if we then in the light of all of that and your review while sitting there of this risk assessment if we can get back then to your main report at page 98

00:55:08 back then to your main report at page 98 paragraph 9.6 which we were looking at before

00:55:12 before uh you

00:55:13 uh you where you say in the last sentence

00:55:17 these matters were appropriately considered in his fras these matters including the emergency plan do you still consider that carl stokes's assessment of the emergency plan such as there was for grenfell

00:55:28 plan such as there was for grenfell tower

00:55:30 tower was appropriately considered yes i think i

00:55:34 i when i said these matters were properly considered i i was really concentrating on inform instructing cooperate and coordinate training and so on right uh he hasn't there is no reference as such

00:55:45 he hasn't there is no reference as such to

00:55:46 to uh a holistic emergency plan you're quite right thank you uh

00:55:52 uh so just to be very clear you're not of the opinion that he appropriately considered an emergency the emergency plan he doesn't he doesn't appear to have verified that there is a documented uh record of of the emergency

00:56:04 documented uh record of of the emergency planner or a building fire manual or a record of the fire safety arrangements call it what you will thank you and with that emission mean that his fra was not suitable and sufficient i think it's a route point sir

00:56:16 route point sir is it's a moot point i think it is in what way mood um well

00:56:24 well does it does it actually it

00:56:27 it it may impact arguably on compliance with the fire safety order and that's the purpose of the the risk assessment so

00:56:35 so it's

00:56:36 it's it's probably a deficiency uh certainly i would certainly go that far now that we've we've analyzed it in the way you just have

00:56:47 way you just have does that make it not suitable and sufficient i just think it's it depends on your definition of suitable and sufficient the the problem with that answer mr todd

00:56:58 the the problem with that answer mr todd is that

00:56:59 is that it is a protein expression filled in by the judgment of the trade with the trade the fire risk assessment trade have regarded

00:57:08 regarded mr stokes's fire risk assessment for grenfell tower with the deficiency you've identified as uh not

00:57:17 as uh not falling short of suitable and sorry i think it's probably a matter for the the chairman or the chairman to decide based on the evidence he's heard before him but what i would say is we see lots

00:57:28 him but what i would say is we see lots of fire risk assessments that do not have

00:57:31 have any verification that there is a building

00:57:34 building fire plan and people tend uh

00:57:38 uh to abbreviate that into into the fire procedures uh and i don't think that's quite right if i'm honest

00:57:49 if i'm honest right

00:57:50 right um

00:57:51 um i'll have to consider whether that is quite enough for my purposes but let's let's continue can i ask some questions now about lifts uh now um can we start here with mr

00:58:02 uh now um can we start here with mr stakes's understanding of firefighting lifts

00:58:07 lifts can we start with um your main report please at page 16. i can give you a nutshell answer well i haven't asked the question now that you have but when i when i do i'd be grateful for that

00:58:19 be grateful for that let's look at paragraph 2.58 of your report at the very foot of the page and you say here um uh it's relevant to note that mr stokes's fras contain an error in

00:58:30 stokes's fras contain an error in relation to the lifts at grenfell tower and in all probability all other lifts and high-rise blocks within the tma-managed estate yes sir he advised that the lifts were firefighting stroke evacuation lifts which certainly in the case of the lifts at grenfell tower was

00:58:42 case of the lifts at grenfell tower was not correct yes now um

00:58:49 is that because uh i'm trying to give you a nutshell question is that because the absence of the escape hatch and dual supply meant that they could not have conformed to the standards of a firefighting lift in

00:59:00 the standards of a firefighting lift in accordance with bs-558 number five of 2004 and bsen 81 72. i regret to say sir it's worse than that

00:59:11 regret to say sir it's worse than that in what way well the natural answer is i don't think he understood what a firefighting lift was um

00:59:17 um that was my impression from the fire risk assessments it was

00:59:22 it was amplified by my reading of his witness statements and

00:59:28 and having listened to his evidence well the chairman told me not to be diplomatic or beat around the bush he still doesn't understand what a firefighting lift is to this day and and how would you characterize

00:59:41 and and how would you characterize uh that um deficiency i would characterize it as him being an extremely good company including probably quite a lot of fire risk assessors and an awful lot of people in

00:59:52 assessors and an awful lot of people in the fire and rescue service does that mean that quite a lot of the fire risk assessment trade fell short of the reasonable standards of competence in this respect they just didn't understand firefighting lifts well does

01:00:04 understand firefighting lifts well does that not tell us that they a large number of them fell short of standards of reasonable competence no sir if you want to take me again to the competence standard you'll not find anything about firefighting lifts in it

01:00:15 anything about firefighting lifts in it indeed that may be true um but so it's not a required competence would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor uh to have no understanding or a misunderstanding of

01:00:26 understanding or a misunderstanding of what a firefighter firefighting lift was unfortunately that would be true of of many people and and um

01:00:33 um it's because of the i think you've heard evidence about lyfts there is huge confusion about

01:00:41 about fireman's lifts sometimes also called fire lifts because people don't like to use politically incorrect language and they'd be better to do so because

01:00:52 they'd be better to do so because introducing a new term fire lifts instead of farmers lifts just

01:00:57 just adds to the confusion then there's fire fighting lifts then there's fire fighters lifts then there's evacuation lifts and if i can if it might help the chairman sir

01:01:08 might help the chairman sir such is the confusion on the part of particularly operational crews that i'm commissioned at the moment to write a new guide for fire and rescue service operational

01:01:19 for fire and rescue service operational crews that will contain telltale signs and there are telltale signs but they're subtle telltale signs so that a crew rolling up to a job can tell which type

01:01:30 rolling up to a job can tell which type of lift they've got but in order to explain that i have to actually explain what the different types of lift are because crews don't fully understand that

01:01:41 don't fully understand that and it's worse than that they don't understand the operation quite commonly misunderstand the operation and the facilities of a firefighting lift so they get stuck in the lift because of the peekaboo

01:01:52 the lift because of the peekaboo facility

01:01:56 um telltale sign yes you say in your report your main report at paragraph 8.66 i don't think there's a need to go to it that mr stokes had missed a telltale sign that the lifts at

01:02:08 missed a telltale sign that the lifts at grenfell tower were not firefighting lifts due to the absence of an escape hatch yes would you expect the reasonably competent fire risk assessor to know that the absence of an escape

01:02:19 to know that the absence of an escape hatch meant that the lifts could not be described as firefighting lifts in his fire risk assessment absolutely not i thought he did very well to actually spot that the hatch wasn't there unfortunately he misunderstood the

01:02:31 unfortunately he misunderstood the implications of it but i thought he did well to spot that it wasn't there because i would say the majority of fire risk assessors would not

01:02:40 would not take any heat of the fact that there was no escape hatch in a lift right so

01:02:47 so missing this telltale when you call it a tell-tale sign who was it telling the tale to anybody who could roll up well you say it's a tell-tale sign it sounds as if what you're saying is it

01:02:58 sounds as if what you're saying is it wouldn't be a tell-tale sign to the reasonably competent fire risk assessor or would it uh no a lot of fire risk assessors wouldn't recognize that the escape hatch

01:03:10 wouldn't recognize that the escape hatch would would mean that

01:03:12 that it wasn't

01:03:14 it wasn't it was probably to bs 2655 or an early version of five six five five sorry these standards compute as it were and i'm just trying to understand you see what you've heard about what what

01:03:26 see what you've heard about what what yeah we've had we've had some evidence thank you

01:03:36 let's see if we can do it by reference to your report thank you page 85 in your report please and let's look together at uh paragraph 8.62

01:03:49 yes uh and you start by saying that mr stokes did have some knowledge of the requirements of modern firefighting lift standards yes and then you go on to say

01:04:01 and then you go on to say uh he identified in his fra that the lift cars at grenfell tower were not provided with an escape hatch for use by firefighters trapped in the lift correct and then you go on to say that at the end of that paragraph

01:04:15 accordingly while in my opinion many fire risk assessors would have overlooked or at least considered it unnecessary to comment on the absence of the trap door this absence and mr stokes is awareness of its absence

01:04:26 is awareness of its absence presented mr stokes with something of a tell-tale sign that the lifts were not firefighting lifts though this emission was probably of no major concern to the lfb yes now i'm interested in what you mean by telltale

01:04:38 interested in what you mean by telltale signs right so my question is is that a telltale sign to the reasonably competent fire risk assessor say that the reasonably competent fire risk assessor would see

01:04:49 competent fire risk assessor would see the absence of a trapdoor and know that it wasn't a firefighting lift no no sir why is that because

01:04:58 because the

01:05:00 the the design of the lifts is outside the scope of the fire safety order so the fire safety order requires under article 38 that facilities provided for use by or

01:05:12 that facilities provided for use by or the safety of firefighters is maintained but the fire safety order doesn't require the lifts in the first place that's a matter for building regulations and all the order requires

01:05:24 regulations and all the order requires is that that which is there is properly tested and maintained so um

01:05:30 um there's no great criticism of fire risk assessors that they wouldn't necessarily know some of the telltale signs i see you then go on at paragraph 8.63

01:05:42 i see you then go on at paragraph 8.63 to say and i'm summarizing here that you didn't he didn't correct his description of the lifts as firefighting stroke evacuation lifts when he was subsequently provided with information which expressly told him that none of

01:05:53 which expressly told him that none of the tmos left in their stock were firefighting or evacuation lifts now do you accept i'm assuming you do but tell me do you accept that mr stokes was wrong to continue to refer to the lifts at grenfell tower as firefighting lifts

01:06:06 at grenfell tower as firefighting lifts following that information yes he was well provided he accepted what i'm not sure how you pronounce the gentleman's hold on thank you if provided he accepted what mr killarne said then then clearly he was

01:06:19 said then then clearly he was um he just didn't seem to it it just didn't seem to get it now is not seeming to get it consistent with what a reasonably competent fire risk assessor would do having been given the

01:06:30 assessor would do having been given the information um we come back to the fact that he was in total confusion about that it's not part of the competence standard

01:06:41 it's not part of the competence standard it was a bit dogged and stubborn to continue to refer to them as that having been told by a lift expert that they actually weren't uh and i think it was incumbent on him to to find out why

01:06:54 incumbent on him to to find out why and

01:06:55 and and

01:06:56 and when i tried to follow that the trail went cold as it were and it seemed to end with janice ray saying see if i can remember the words i'll ask him

01:07:07 remember the words i'll ask him and i don't know sir if the legal team managed to follow that trail any further but i was unable to let's look at past 79 can we please go to past 79 at page 48

01:07:18 go to past 79 at page 48 yes

01:07:20 yes and let's look at that page and on that page little roman 3.

01:07:39 uh and this is under the heading uh other fire protection systems and it says other fire protection facilities and systems that should be taken into account in the fire risk

01:07:51 taken into account in the fire risk assessment include a smoke control systems b other localized fire suppression systems c drive dry fire mains wet fire mains fire fighting lifts yes so you can see that

01:08:03 fighting lifts yes so you can see that fire fighting lifts is something that ought to be taken into account by the fire risk assessor yes because you'd have to check the testing and maintenance you see that's right

01:08:14 that's right and uh if you look uh

01:08:17 uh at

01:08:18 at uh

01:08:20 uh if you look at uh the

01:08:24 recommendations under 15.1 um you can you can see although there's no express reference to lifts there uh other relevant fire protection systems and equipment and that would include firefighting lifts i assume wouldn't it

01:08:35 firefighting lifts i assume wouldn't it if there were firefighting lifts present would it be possible to scroll the the document sir i think you're reading that i've not got if you look at g

01:08:46 if you look at g thank you i'm sorry sorry you're quite right it wasn't on your screen other relevant fire protection systems and equipment

01:08:52 equipment i think uh i think it's h that's more relevance or maintenance of facilities to assist firefighters very well very well that would include so so looking at that it look is this wrong

01:09:04 looking at that it look is this wrong but it looks as if past 79 is directing the fire risk assessor to looking at the lifts to determine whether they are firefighting lifts or lifts that are facilities to assist

01:09:15 lifts that are facilities to assist firefighters

01:09:17 there isn't any difference a fire fighting yes exactly a lift intended for use by the fire and rescue service if we can call it that is a facility to assist

01:09:28 call it that is a facility to assist firefighters it needs to be maintained indeed and therefore that simplifies the point and therefore do you do you accept that past 79 is telling the fire risk assessor to look at the lift and know whether it's a firefighting lift or not

01:09:41 whether it's a firefighting lift or not well is that what he's asking or is it asking the fire risk assessor to check that the lift whatever it is has been properly maintained spot on chairman thank you

01:09:53 thank you but you won't know whether it's been properly maintained or not would you unless you know what you're looking at you would know whether it was to take the chairman's point which was was as i said spot on and you would know that you

01:10:05 said spot on and you would know that you were looking at and i'm going to use a generic term that doesn't really exist a a lift

01:10:12 a a lift for use by the fire and rescue service you know it's one of those because you you the the facility to ground the lift the firefighter switch would kind of hit

01:10:23 the firefighter switch would kind of hit you in the face um as soon as you looked at

01:10:27 at the lifts at ground level or fire service entrance level um

01:10:33 does that make sense yes i'm just wondering why we're looking at maintenance because this sits in the section of pass 79 to do with assessment and this is about assessing the fire risk

01:10:44 risk and i'm just wondering whether looking at the express reference to firefighting lifts within roman i think it's l two

01:10:55 two looks like little roman three which is in fact 52 uh on the left-hand side which i think we need to scroll back up for please to see again yes no it's just about their just about there

01:11:06 just about there my question was really just whether or not it is really reasonable to to to forgive

01:11:12 forgive a risk fire risk assessor for not knowing whether what he's looking at is or is not a firefighting lift uh i would certainly forgive them sir yes even though in fact it's something referred to

01:11:24 referred to as something to be assessed within clause 15 of past 79. yes i think we we've we've called them fire fighting lifts and probably fallen into the trap of using a term that applies to lifts

01:11:38 of using a term that applies to lifts installed to uh bs uh

01:11:43 uh bs uh double five double eight part five and and we all tend to the problem is is the the confusion of terminology sir we anyone brought up

01:11:54 anyone brought up uh post

01:11:56 uh post 1986

01:11:58 1986 we'll call them firefighting lifts but in actual fact lifts intended for use by the fire service prior to 1986 where fireman's lifts

01:12:10 lifts sorry sorry please

01:12:12 please when you sat down to uh revise past 79 yes uh in 2012 or thereabouts were you aware of this potential confusion

01:12:23 confusion no i

01:12:24 no i i i don't actually think i was sir um

01:12:28 um i'm certainly aware of it now because we see

01:12:31 see so much confusion um if i take myself back to 2012 i mean i knew the difference but that's just because i'm old um

01:12:44 i'm not sure i was aware that there was that much confusion or that it was that much of an issue when did you first discover that

01:12:53 that a large number if not the majority of

01:12:57 of people practicing in the trade of fire risk assessments could not

01:13:03 could not identify

01:13:04 identify a firefighting lift and distinguish it from a fireman's lift or fire lift or any other kind of lift i don't know there was a particular day i found out that fire and rescue

01:13:16 i found out that fire and rescue services

01:13:17 services were

01:13:19 were not familiar with this i think the first time i became aware of that was

01:13:24 that was when a fire and rescue service contacted me and asked me if i knew how a firefighting lift worked because they they asked how how the the um the switches

01:13:37 how how the the um the switches in the lifts were meant to work and they described uh

01:13:42 uh what i would call a peekaboo facility and they said is that is that right when you take your finger off the button should the lift doors close if they're they're

01:13:52 they're reverse in other words uh and i was very surprised they didn't know and since then and by the way since grenfell tower we have had an incident in a high-rise

01:14:03 we have had an incident in a high-rise block of flats where firefighters perceived they were trapped in the lift and they weren't it was just they kept pressing the button and taking their finger off it and they complained that the lift was

01:14:14 and they complained that the lift was faulty and required our client to get a lift engineer out the same evening only to be told you just didn't understand how to use the lift um can we look at page 86 of your main

01:14:25 um can we look at page 86 of your main report

01:14:27 report yes and look at paragraph 8.68

01:14:33 you say i do acknowledge that because mr stakes believed that the lifts at grenfell tower were firefighting lifts he did incorrectly assume that they would satisfy the requirements for evacuation lifts which are lifts designed to be suitable for the

01:14:45 designed to be suitable for the evacuation of disabled people in the event of fire but are usually found in commercial buildings rather than blocks of flats where no evacuation lift operator is normally available that's correct sir yes but was

01:14:57 available that's correct sir yes but was that belief that you've identified there a significant error um

01:15:04 um much less than you might think sir

01:15:08 and the reason is that uh the tmo never had any intention of sending people to

01:15:18 people to uh evacuate residents via the lifts that's one reason the second excuse me the second reason is that

01:15:30 excuse me the second reason is that in practice you don't get evacuation lifts and blocks of flats anyway and

01:15:36 and the reason it's perhaps one of the most important reasons that it's not as significant as you might think at first sight

01:15:44 sight is that

01:15:46 is that if a resident leaves their flat because there is a fire in their flat they can actually use a standard passenger lift to leave the building

01:15:59 passenger lift to leave the building now that sounds wrong because we tell people don't use the lifts in the event of fire sir farcer but indeed it was the fire brigade union that pointed this out to us

01:16:10 that pointed this out to us when we were drafting the lga guide because

01:16:14 because um we

01:16:17 um we and it was a very good point and it was actually by a very very good fire engineer that was the the fire safety advisor to to the fbu uh and we had almost without thinking followed the

01:16:29 almost without thinking followed the mantra

01:16:31 mantra in writing the fire procedures bit of the lga guide tell residents not to use the lift in the event of fire and the fba use point which was very

01:16:43 and the fba use point which was very well thought out and articulated was this

01:16:47 this in a block of flats the lifts don't ground when there's a fire until the fire and rescue service get there so

01:16:55 so and the fire and rescue service have not got there the point that the resident leaves their flat they've only just left their flat because there's a fire and their point was other residents will be going up and

01:17:07 other residents will be going up and down the lift normally because it hasn't grounded nothing's happened to it there's nothing to make it happen when there's a fire in a residence flat so other residents are going up and down in the lift and you're telling this

01:17:18 in the lift and you're telling this resident who has a fire on their flat that they've got to go down 20 floors down the stairway why should they not use the lift alongside every other resident in the block it's a very subtle point and

01:17:31 block it's a very subtle point and taking it we took it a bit further thinking about it and why do you tell people not to use the lifts in the event of fire because the lift might affect the power supply of the lift

01:17:42 the power supply of the lift and the benefit of a firefighting lift is it has two power supplies uh independently rooted and so on when the fire is still within the residence flat it's contained within a one-hour fire

01:17:55 it's contained within a one-hour fire resisting box with a 30-minute door so there is no way that that fire can affect the power supply to a lift whatever type it be and the fbu said why

01:18:07 whatever type it be and the fbu said why can't you let residents use the lift if there's a fire in their flat and so we we deleted the the little bit that said uh to the resident if there's a fire in your flat do not use the lift

01:18:20 a fire in your flat do not use the lift uh mr segment uh mr todd i'm sorry i'm i'm

01:18:23 i'm i listen quite carefully to that but i'm i'm not sure i really i either got or understood and i'm sorry to my question i'm sure it's my fault but my question is

01:18:34 my fault but my question is really about the significance of mr stokes his incorrect belief that the lifts were fire fighting lifts uh and you've said well i asked you whether that belief was a significant error yes

01:18:46 that belief was a significant error yes i mean is it or isn't it a significant well sorry the short answer is no i was trying to explain why because it's counter-intuitive i i i think i understand that given the consequences namely that the

01:18:59 given the consequences namely that the fire and rescue service might have planned to use the lift for self for safe evacuation when in fact they couldn't do so my question is why mr stokes's belief was not a material error that rendered his

01:19:11 not a material error that rendered his fire risk assessment um unsuitable and insufficient well it would

01:19:17 it would my point was about the implications of the error and the implications of the error in relation to a resident escaping their flat i just went on

01:19:29 went on i just explained as far as the fire and rescue service are concerned um

01:19:34 um i i know that you have heard or are about to hear evidence that the fire and rescue service don't use fireman's lift lifts to transport their personnel that

01:19:45 lifts to transport their personnel that that's not correct sir with all due respect london is wash with buildings that have fireman's lifts and the crews on arrival as we've just discussed wouldn't really necessarily know what

01:19:57 wouldn't really necessarily know what type of lift they were unless they picked it up from a 72d but they would decide for themselves whether to use the lift under a dynamic risk assessment and i would say

01:20:09 risk assessment and i would say statistically probably a day does not go past without a fire and rescue service somewhere in the country using a fireman's lift mr chairman i've got really two wrap-up questions on this

01:20:20 really two wrap-up questions on this topic may i take those before craig mr todd if a fire risk assessor says in his fire risk assessment that the lifts are fire fighting lifts and can be

01:20:31 are fire fighting lifts and can be safely used as such when in fact they can't why is that not incompetent advice um

01:20:39 um it's

01:20:40 it's it's incorrect advice but

01:20:44 but he wasn't really required to advise on the lifts as part of the the fire safety order his requirement was to look at their testing and maintenance but

01:20:54 but he should have he certainly should have uh taken heed of what mr killarne had to say and for accuracy in his risk assessment he should have followed the point up why

01:21:06 he should have followed the point up why he didn't i suspect was he he didn't know what a fireman's lift was because he advised claire williams that it was a method of lifting people

01:21:17 it was a method of lifting people where do you draw the line between incorrect advice and incompetent advice um

01:21:24 we're into semantics again i i probably would accept that it's incompetent in relation to the issue of lifts

01:21:36 the issue of lifts but the issue of the type of lift was not

01:21:40 not that significant in terms of the fire risk assessment was my point yes mr mr thought thank you very much mr chairman good point mr miller it's a very good point right we'll have the afternoon

01:21:51 point right we'll have the afternoon break now mr todd we'll come back at 20 to four please thank you sir usual request please don't speak to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room of course sir all right thank you very much

01:22:14 good thank you very much 24 please

01:42:44 would you ask mr todd to come back in please

01:42:56 all right mr todd yes please sit down and um

01:43:00 ready to carry on of course sir thank you yes mr willitt yes um yes mr toad can i now ask you some questions about the testing of the firefighter switch yes and can we look at the template for the fra

01:43:12 at the template for the fra at past 79 at to page 94 yes and uh i want to ask you about item 27.7 is that routine testing sir uh

01:43:24 is that routine testing sir uh it's weekly and monthly testing six monthly inspection and annual testing from recollection uh and uh i think i'm right yes if you look at the box at the bottom weekly monthly

01:43:35 the box at the bottom weekly monthly testing six monthly inspection and annual testing of firefighter firefighting lifts um now um can we please look at mr stokes's april 2016 fra at the same time

01:43:46 stokes's april 2016 fra at the same time say that they're side by side with this document

01:43:49 document cst four zeros six

01:43:52 six at page 31.

01:44:00 now um yes thank you very much now yes uh if you um look at the

01:44:09 the corresponding check box that corresponds with item 27.7 on the left hand side of your screen yes you'll see

01:44:17 see uh that the corresponding check box uh in mr stokes's pro forma was the fourth check box wrote down monthly inspections of switches and annual testing of the firefighting

01:44:29 annual testing of the firefighting stroke evacuation lifts with records kept you see that yes sir i do now you've picked up this divergence in your main report at page 89. um and

01:44:40 um and i think i can just summarize that paragraph 8.80 but we can go to it if you like but let me see if i can summarize it accurately you say i think that the stokes template contains no

01:44:51 that the stokes template contains no weekly or even monthly testing of the lifts only annual and early monthly inspection of the switches now does mr stokes's pro forma assess

01:45:02 now does mr stokes's pro forma assess the relevant risk by reference to a less rigorous standard than that provided in the past 79 template yes sir that's correct it does and

01:45:14 and now let's then go to your main report at page 89. paragraph 881 take those documents off the page off the screen 881 you say this i'm unclear as to why

01:45:27 881 you say this i'm unclear as to why mr stokes omitted any reference to weekly testing it might be that he considered that this frequency of testing was somewhat impracticable and unnecessary in the case of a block of flats as opposed to a commercial

01:45:38 flats as opposed to a commercial building in which case i would agree with his view weekly testing is included in the past 79 template simply because it is recommended in other standards that last part i just want to

01:45:50 part i just want to examine with you by other standards do you mean or do you include the lga guide um

01:46:00 it would be correct to say uh that the lga guy calls up lift stands but that's not what i actually meant uh it i meant um

01:46:11 uh it i meant um the uh

01:46:13 the uh i mean the uh other standards that deal with maintenance and testing of lifts

01:46:22 so uh

01:46:24 uh standards yeah exactly i see

01:46:28 right but let's just look at the lga guide which was the premise of my question and see if see if i'm wrong wrong to ask you about it could we go to that hom 30s 45964 page 125.

01:46:43 paragraph 81.26

01:46:55 uh and and you can see under firefighting lifts it says lifts used for firefighting need to be subject to tests and maintenance on a regular basis uh this will involve weekly operation of

01:47:06 uh this will involve weekly operation of override switches and monthly inspections and annual testing and maintenance of the lifts yes and that i think that's consistent isn't it with past 79. that's correct yes uh so we can make that link at least

01:47:17 uh so we can make that link at least can't we that's right and they have a common source and the common source is the british standard right now um if weekly testing of the lift override switches

01:47:28 of the lift override switches or switch is recommended by uh other standards such as the lga guide and perhaps underlying bsi and by past 79 itself by inclusion into the in the template yes um

01:47:41 template yes um it was not the fact that mr stokes was assessing blocks of flats was

01:47:47 was no basis at all for excluding it or changing it

01:47:52 the the problem is that the british standard is uh

01:47:57 uh unduly onerous in asking for weekly testing in my opinion as an engineer sir the switch all you're doing is just putting more wear and tear on the switch

01:48:09 wear and tear on the switch the switch is unlikely to fail over a period of one month and therefore a much more pragmatic period for testing would be one month

01:48:20 period for testing would be one month now could i make some supplementary comments on that if i'm asa yes um if it's a principle in standards writing and

01:48:30 and a very good analogy is testing your smoke alarm at home sir um for a long time the guidance was test your smoke alarm every week i don't suppose you did test your smoke

01:48:42 i don't suppose you did test your smoke alarm every week sir and i want to ask you that but nobody did and instead of saying well the guidance is every week but i'm going to do every month it's a strange phenomenon but if

01:48:53 month it's a strange phenomenon but if you ask people to do something too often instead of doing it less frequently frequently they don't do it at all and in recognition of that the the guidance is now test your smoke alarm every month

01:49:04 is now test your smoke alarm every month because there's at least some hope that people would do that now

01:49:09 now my view in terms of monthly testing is this uh

01:49:15 this uh and bear in mind that when we write standards we're not writing them just for local authority in social housing and high-rise blocks we're asked we're writing them for for little blocks uh

01:49:26 writing them for for little blocks uh whatever whatever any and in this case it would be any block over 18 meters which is only six stories and so the question is uh is it

01:49:35 uh is it reasonable to send a managing agent from one side of london to the other to test

01:49:43 test a switch

01:49:45 a switch which almost certainly will not fail when you test it every week but here's the point they should be going across london metaphorically to test the emergency lighting every month

01:49:58 test the emergency lighting every month uh and that is a reasonable thing to do it's it's

01:50:02 it's it's it's an essential thing to do so when they're doing the monthly testing of the emergency lighting it makes sense for them to do a test of the firefighting switch

01:50:11 switch now your question would probably be sir well then why did you not say that in past 79 or the lga guide and the answer is you're not allowed to write into one

01:50:22 is you're not allowed to write into one british standard something that conflicts with another british standard even if what the other british standard says is stupid um uh or that's unfair i'm julie onerous

01:50:35 um uh or that's unfair i'm julie onerous um and so we had to write it into past 79 and um if we'd written the lga guide and we'd said every month um i'd be sitting here and you'd be saying

01:50:47 i'd be sitting here and you'd be saying who who were you to change the british standard to every month but there's a more of a recognition now sir that

01:50:54 sir that that testing things in blocks of flats every week is probably unreasonable very quick i promise another analogy smoke control systems the interface with

01:51:05 smoke control systems the interface with fire detection the the new standard on that subject bs7273 part 6 says the interface between detection and smoke control systems

01:51:16 detection and smoke control systems should be tested every week but it goes on to say but not in blocks or flats

01:51:22 or flats for the very reason i've explained and it basically says in blocks of flats you can do it instead every month and the thinking behind that is exactly as i've described and to bottom the

01:51:34 as i've described and to bottom the point out i promise this is my last point uh the home office have a consultation out at the moment uh uh

01:51:42 uh uh sorry this the consultation is closed and is under consideration by the home office but the home office proposal is to make it a legal requirement to test firefighting

01:51:53 legal requirement to test firefighting lift switches uh regularly and that's in response to the chairman's recommendations and the home office proposal is that the period should be every month in recognition of the fact that that's

01:52:04 in recognition of the fact that that's that's actually what's reasonable mr todd

01:52:09 mr todd looking at 81 26 yes on the screen there it says in terms in the second line this will involve weekly operation of the of override switches yes

01:52:22 the of override switches yes uh

01:52:23 uh if that wasn't genuinely intended as part of the lgi guide uh why did you put it in i thought i just explained that sir so you put it in even though in fact you didn't expect it

01:52:35 even though in fact you didn't expect it to be complied with because you thought it was unreasonable um i we thought it was it's unduly onerous whether people would comply with it or not but

01:52:46 comply with it or not but it wouldn't have been appropriate in the lga guide again to conflict with the british standard what needs changed is the british standard or or the legal requirement but i i do not believe for one minute

01:52:58 i i do not believe for one minute there's a need to test that switch every week and and my view would be every month as now proposed by the home office in the last proposal that went for public consultation that would be perfectly reasonable

01:53:14 right um

01:53:19 so is your

01:53:22 is your opinion

01:53:25 that 81 26 in the second sentence second sentence where it says this will involve weekly operation of override switches didn't need to be observed and that that is my view yes sir even

01:53:38 and that that is my view yes sir even though this was a standard that you yourself or your organization uh really drafted drafted yes so that's right it's on the uh it airs on the side of

01:53:49 it's on the uh it airs on the side of caution

01:53:50 caution uh but

01:53:52 uh but while it was in the british standard it wouldn't have been appropriate for us to to change it it would have just been confusing for people did you have any discussions with the dclg or the unit in the dclg who sponsored this

01:54:04 the dclg who sponsored this uh document about going back to the british standard bsi and getting them to change the standards rather than trotting out something that you thought didn't need to be and wouldn't be complied with um

01:54:15 um no i don't think i don't think we actually did i don't i very much doubt bsi would have jumped to

01:54:22 jumped to issuing an amendment immediately they might well have said next time we do a revision we'll give it some thought but the the en said with the aen was less definitive it

01:54:34 said with the aen was less definitive it said regularly brackets typically every week

01:54:38 week so the en was was less definitive than the the the bs and

01:54:45 and i still maintain monthlies and in fact i think

01:54:49 think in past 79 part two we actually have changed it to monthly but i can't just remember yeah now can we look uh back please 882 of your main report on

01:55:01 back please 882 of your main report on page 89 again

01:55:05 uh page 89 of your main report paragraph 8.82

01:55:09 8.82 uh you say i attach greater significance to mr stokes is change of word change of the word testing to the word inspection yes fire safety and i would suggest the field of engineering generally there's a distinction between

01:55:20 generally there's a distinction between inspecting and testing indeed the common use of the phrase inspection and testing underlines the distinction between the two activities by analogy a dry rising main should be inspected every six months but should be subject to a test

01:55:32 months but should be subject to a test involving charging of the main with water on an annual basis yes sir now um concerning fire lifts or fire fighting lifts in what ways would inspection differ from

01:55:43 what ways would inspection differ from testing

01:55:45 as with anything testing means that you perform the operation of the device to see if it works

01:55:53 works uh inspection what what does that mean uh you could look at it i can't see there's a lot of well there's a point in it i suppose you could check that there's no sign of of damage but uh to me

01:56:07 damage but uh to me uh monthly inspection is not the same as as monthly testing but whether that was loose language or not i'm not very clear and it would appear from mr stokes

01:56:18 and it would appear from mr stokes evidence

01:56:20 evidence or rather his supplementary statement that he meant testing and he was he would say aware that it was being tested every

01:56:33 aware that it was being tested every month so i may have done him a disservice by being a bit too pedantic in terms of the technical language but um

01:56:44 you would have to accept his evidence as you will uh or not as to what he meant and what he thought was actually being carried out on the assumption let's make this assumption that mr

01:56:56 let's make this assumption that mr stakes meant inspection i.e looking at it

01:56:58 it rather than testing it i.e operating it um how could um diluting the past guidance that we've looked at be consistent with competence

01:57:09 well if he if he meant inspection and and he wasn't suggesting any routine testing

01:57:14 testing uh then

01:57:16 uh then um

01:57:18 um it uh

01:57:20 it uh that that would be inappropriate uh he he he wouldn't that would have been wrong with him to do that but it wasn't clear what he meant and he appears to have clarified i've dealt with this in my supplementary report sir

01:57:33 with this in my supplementary report sir where i said it would appear that i did him a disservice because he was talking about monthly testing yeah well let's look at that um can we go to that yes please raise it uh at page 12. it says this is cta

01:57:45 this is cta 6038

01:57:47 6038 page 12 and i think i'm right that you mentioned this disservice you think you've done in paragraph 512.

01:57:55 um you say if the public inquiry accepts the evidence in mr kalan's witness statement i may have done mr stokes a disservice to which i now draw attention in this connection mr kalan states that

01:58:07 in this connection mr kalan states that the rbkc maintenance contractor ils and not presumably specialist lift engineers checked all rbkc lifts every month and that this check did indeed as expected by mr stakes include use of the standard

01:58:18 by mr stakes include use of the standard drop key but why why would mr kulan's evidence that there was monthly use of the drop key by the maintenance contractor obviate the need for mr stokes to satisfy himself

01:58:29 need for mr stokes to satisfy himself that there was weekly and monthly there was a weekly and monthly testing regime in place for the lifts well i think in that uh could we go back to uh mr stokes risk assessment where

01:58:41 uh mr stokes risk assessment where uh in effect he was by virtue of taking a box making a statement if i can put it that way could we just see that again sir

01:58:53 uh

01:58:56 yes which which particular fire risk assessment would you like me well the one the one you showed me uh or any of them that dealt with that particular item i think they all did

01:59:07 particular item i think they all did let's look at the anyone the june 2016. cst403145

01:59:27 and if we go in this document too

02:00:02 you'll forgive me for a moment when i try and find it for you thank you sir it's in the the sort of tick box it will be towards the end sir where we come to testing and maintenance that's

02:00:15 come to testing and maintenance that's exactly right and

02:00:19 and you've asked me a question i'm taking my time to answer it for you testing and maintenance is at 23 at page 32. let's try page 32. thank you

02:00:34 is that what you here we go is that what you want yeah that's it exactly so so so by virtue of ticking the box he's making a statement he is saying yes monthly inspections of switches and

02:00:46 yes monthly inspections of switches and annual testing of evacuation lifts uh that that work is carried out now i felt the reason i criticized his risk assessment

02:00:57 assessment was that

02:00:59 was that to me monthly inspection is not the same as monthly testing but then mr killarne says well actually monthly testing was carried out

02:01:10 carried out uh and therefore um

02:01:13 um this this inspection that mr stokes is talking about uh appears to actually have been a monthly test i was also doubtful because i think mr stokes in his statement said

02:01:24 i think mr stokes in his statement said it was carried out by lyft engineers and i couldn't imagine lyft engineers coming every month but then mr killarne said it wasn't actually lift engineers it was just their general maintenance

02:01:35 just their general maintenance contractor who was doing monthly maintenance checks and that that use of the drop key was part of that so it would appear to me that

02:01:47 so it would appear to me that this inspection mr stokes was talking about he apparently knew about was actually the testing that i would have wanted

02:01:55 wanted i follow but um use of the drop key which is what this this is what this is mr kalan was talking about is testing the lifts it's simply one lift function isn't it

02:02:06 isn't it uh yes but that it's it's the uh it's the override key that you you you want to do the test of i mean i mean you you wouldn't normally uh

02:02:17 uh test that the the peekaboo facility works and then take it to another floor check that the peekaboo uh works on that floor the weekly testing is really of this switch yes that's not testing of the lifts in

02:02:29 yes that's not testing of the lifts in their entirety is it no it's not no uh it's only one lift function isn't it correct so you can't spell from the fact out from the fact that the drop key was tested

02:02:40 the fact that the drop key was tested weekly the the fact that the lifts were tested weekly no but the function of that regular test was to test the override switch the the firearm and switch

02:02:51 firearm and switch and the way you do that is with the drop key

02:02:54 key yes

02:02:56 yes so what i would expect them to do is operate the drop key make sure the lift grounds make sure the doors are open and it's it's you're not testing the whole of the lift control mechanism you're

02:03:07 of the lift control mechanism you're testing a switch because it's a fallible device yeah so it's a limited weekly test yes right but not a complete weekly test as per pass 79 and ldlj guide i'm not sure

02:03:20 pass 79 and ldlj guide i'm not sure that's what they meant i'm sorry to do this to you but i i need to see the words again but but the intent was the switch the intent of what the intent of the lga

02:03:31 the intent of what the intent of the lga guide and past 79 was it well let's just um let's look at the words again i think it's important because words matter let's go back to the lga guide then at hom home3045964 page 125 paragraph 8126

02:03:52 yes you see there it says weekly test weekly operation of the override switch that's the override switch is just another name for the the fireman switch which is another name for the firefighter switch

02:04:04 firefighter switch i see

02:04:08 so you say that the weekly test weekly operation of the override switches was essentially the week a weekly test of the lift as a whole for this purpose did you say it was or wasn't was

02:04:20 wasn't was no i said it was the weekly test was a test of the switch not off the lift as a whole

02:04:28 it says it says that this this will involve weekly test operation of the override switch now let's um let's uh look at the checking that was done can we go back to

02:04:39 checking that was done can we go back to your statement please

02:04:47 and look at 886 please on page 90.

02:04:52 90. and here you identify mr stokes's reliance

02:04:56 reliance on his uh understanding that the tma's estate service assistants or esa's check the fire control switch yes now we've heard evidence now from mr steadman paul stedman who was an esa

02:05:08 steadman paul stedman who was an esa he confirmed that they never tested the fire control switch at least in the lifts of grenfell tower and for our record that's day 146 page 70 lines 20 to 22. well that that's no surprise sir

02:05:21 to 22. well that that's no surprise sir would you agree that mr stokes was required to understand the routine inspections and tests on the lifts at grenfell tower yes yes and to understand both who was

02:05:32 yes yes and to understand both who was undertaking those tests and inspections and also the scope of those tests and inspections well he certainly was required to to verify that someone was

02:05:43 was and would a competent fire risk assessor ask about those matters if they were going to rely on it in their fire risk assessment yes they would they would ask are you testing the the lift switch

02:05:54 lift switch and inevitably they wouldn't leave it they will yes somebody tests it without understanding who and would you agree that given mr stokes's reliance on unverified information about the esa's lift

02:06:06 information about the esa's lift inspections his fire risk assessments uh were deficient no because his far this it was in his evidence he said it would be checked by the esa's but in his fire risk assessment he simply says it

02:06:19 fire risk assessment he simply says it was checked he didn't say by whom yes but uh if he if in fact he was relying on what he understood to be a check by the esa's in saying they were checked in his fire risk assessments

02:06:31 checked in his fire risk assessments but in fact hadn't asked the questions would his fire risk assessment not be deficient

02:06:37 deficient if

02:06:39 if he

02:06:41 he misunderstood how it was tested then i would tend to agree if he knew it was tested then i would tend to to

02:06:52 was tested then i would tend to to disagree and i'm not sure what his basis was for for the statement to be honest he seemed to be it was almost as though he was he had several lines of defense and giving

02:07:04 several lines of defense and giving evidence

02:07:07 some of which um

02:07:10 i think we're possibly with the benefit of hindsight

02:07:15 well that's um but that's perhaps being unfair to him and that's for the chairman to decide of course interesting to hear your view but i think probably not a matter for your expert opinion no indeed my question i absolutely agree and i withdraw the comment if it's an

02:07:27 and i withdraw the comment if it's an appropriate chair don't worry mike you'll be forgiven but my question was was about your expert opinion i'll just put it again would you agree that given his reliance on unverified information about the lift

02:07:39 on unverified information about the lift inspections by the by anybody but the esa in particular do you have do you agree that his fire risk assessments were deficient in that respect

02:07:49 i'd like to help you with that sir but i can't i can't really

02:07:55 agree with you because if we go up to 885

02:07:59 885 we see that mr stokes also states that he would have made sure that there were records of monthly inspections of the lifts by competent lift engineers now

02:08:09 now it wasn't lift engineers it would appear from mr killarne it was maintenance engineers

02:08:15 engineers and and therefore it would appear that he had some knowledge but it's very unclear as to its source

02:08:26 its source it would appear that

02:08:30 he he has some knowledge that it was tested every month and the statement in his risk assessment that it was tested every month appears consistent with the evidence of mr killarne which is a

02:08:42 evidence of mr killarne which is a matter for evidence of fact of course so the statement he made wasn't wrong sir so it would appear well i think we probably exhausted that topic can i just ask you to look at your supplemental

02:08:53 ask you to look at your supplemental report

02:08:54 report uh cs sorry cta 6038 page 12. paragraph 510

02:09:00 510 yes um

02:09:03 yes um here you say i draw attention to mr kalan's distinction between the refurbishment you underline that word yes these lifts that was carried out as opposed to the replacement of the lifts as occurred in

02:09:14 replacement of the lifts as occurred in the case of the hydraulic lift in my opinion this is a very important distinction particularly in relation to any suggestion that the lifts should at the time in question have been upgraded to firefighting lifts um why is that distinction important for

02:09:27 um why is that distinction important for considering the adequacy of mr stokes's fire risk assessment

02:09:35 um can i just put this in context by reading the whole thing yes of course

02:09:45 can you just go up a little bit for me please sir if we scroll up to the page um

02:09:49 um the top of the page thank you yes

02:09:57 [Music]

02:10:03 i think this was just uh it was it wasn't so much uh

02:10:08 uh in relation to the adequacy of mr stokes risk assessment it was more really that um

02:10:16 i just wanted to to draw attention to a a relevant uh piece of evidence it wasn't it wasn't anything stronger than that i see so this isn't actually an

02:10:27 that i see so this isn't actually an opinion about mr stakes's assistant no no no no not not really sir right um can we then turn to a different topic altogether which is doors the flat entrance doors

02:10:39 flat entrance doors before leaving that topic could i just make one other point sir yes had mr stokes realized it was a fireman's lift uh rather than a firefighting lift it begs the question what would a competent

02:10:51 begs the question what would a competent risk assessor have said about that or done about it and all they would have done was included as narrative that it was a fireman's lift but they most

02:11:02 was a fireman's lift but they most certainly wouldn't have included a recommendation in the action plan that steps be taken to upgrade to firefighting lyft standard that would be outside the scope of the risk

02:11:13 be outside the scope of the risk assessment and disproportionate the most that might have been said was if you ever come to refurbish it do think about whether you can upgrade it but it wouldn't have been recommending

02:11:26 but it wouldn't have been recommending it wouldn't have triggered a recommendation for upgrading i just wanted to make that clear sir yes thank you

02:11:32 you now um doors yes i want to start with the topic of fd30 fd30s doors or door sets yes now

02:11:42 now there has been um quite a bit of discussion in this module about flat engine stores and the classification of those doors i see in relation to the applicable standard uh could you believe could you briefly

02:11:54 uh could you believe could you briefly explain to us the characteristics necessary for a door set to qualify as fd30 fd30 so it would have to be a door set as you correctly

02:12:08 to be a door set as you correctly describe it that would pass the current fire resistance test for doors now you've got two options in that respect you've got bs 476 part 22 and then you've got the bsen

02:12:22 476 part 22 and then you've got the bsen on fire resistance testing and you can use either they won't necessarily give you quite the same result but either would be acceptable and in that test

02:12:34 and in that test it would meet the criteria for fire resistance for a period of 30 minutes and there are three possible criteria that you probably don't want the detail of

02:12:45 the detail of um and how does that specification differ for fd30s okay so an fd30s door is a door that meets the same fire resistance standard but in addition has

02:12:57 resistance standard but in addition has a smoke seal fitted to it think of that as something very akin to a draft seal and that will then be tested uh in accordance with 476 31 1

02:13:10 accordance with 476 31 1 which is the test for smoke sales and and it's really it's actually tested more like a draft seal because it uses air right and the smoke seal fitted is in the door or or in the door

02:13:21 door either the door of the frame oh i see but the is the door frame tested for fire resistance no you test the door you use the word correctly sir when you said door set and the door set is the door

02:13:33 door set and the door set is the door and the frame and the furniture yes that's right but the fire resistance test am i right in thinking applies to the leaf of the door only no you test you test it this is very enticing

02:13:45 you test it this is very enticing right i see uh so the only difference then between fd30 and ft30s is the addition either on the door jam or the leaf of the door of a smoke exactly so

02:13:56 leaf of the door of a smoke exactly so right

02:14:00 and tell me about the relevance of bs 476 part 31.1

02:14:06 part 31.1 that was the testing for smoke leakage cold smoke leakage correct and uh

02:14:14 and uh how is that relevant to whether it's an fd30 door or an fd30s door because the effectively it's testing the performance of the smoke seal got it right so what you do is you pressurize

02:14:26 right so what you do is you pressurize the the chamber um

02:14:29 um to

02:14:29 to i think it's three different pressures you can use uh and then you look at at the leakage so that's why i said it's tested a little bit like a drop almost as so it's a draft seal it's it's holding back the air and therefore will

02:14:41 holding back the air and therefore will hold back smoke yes and so to be an fd30s door is this right if i got this right that it is a door set which has not only been tested and passed the fire

02:14:52 not only been tested and passed the fire resistance tests under bs476 part 22 but also has a cold smoke seal fitted to it and been

02:15:03 a cold smoke seal fitted to it and been tested as a door set to bs 476 part one point one four ambient or cold smoke leakage that would be correct so thank you and and to be to be clear then you

02:15:14 you and and to be to be clear then you you can't just take in order to be a 30 s door you can't just take an fd30 door fit seals to the door or the frame and then

02:15:23 then say voila it's an fd30 for hope for the best um that that that is sometimes what what people do on a pragmatic basis because

02:15:34 people do on a pragmatic basis because uh you wouldn't be sure that you've actually achieved the performance of the british standard but you know it'd be better than it was before right but it wouldn't be a 30 an fd30s

02:15:45 right but it wouldn't be a 30 an fd30s store because it had not been tested no you would in the in the lga guide we define three different types of door are you going on to that sir

02:15:56 maybe not today possibly very quickly okay

02:16:01 okay so we we talk about three different types of door in the lga guide we talk about

02:16:06 about an fd30s store and that is if i can use the term the full monty that you've just described

02:16:13 described at the other extreme we talk about a notional fd30 door and what we mean by that is a door that met the standard for 30 minutes fire resistance at the time the door was

02:16:25 resistance at the time the door was manufactured or the block was built and standards have changed over the years

02:16:31 years so an original door back in the 60s or 70s that was rated at 30 minutes to the the fire resistance test prior to 1972

02:16:48 or that met the glc specification for doors if you tested that to today's standard

02:16:54 standard you would probably struggle to get 20 minutes fire resistance you'd probably get something between 15 and 20 minutes fire resistance so but these doors we know

02:17:05 resistance so but these doors we know perform perfectly well in real fires it's just that the test has changed so under certain under most circumstances we actually said these notional doors could remain so we've got the fd30s at

02:17:16 could remain so we've got the fd30s at one end the notional door at the other end and we said under some circumstances there might be a halfway house where you could make the door better by fitting a smoke seal and injustice strip

02:17:29 fitting a smoke seal and injustice strip not just the smoke seal sir um and then it'll perform better than it did before you couldn't say hand on heart you get fd30s performance you just know that you get something better than the old fd 30.

02:17:42 get something better than the old fd 30. this is to say this i think what you've just identified for us is the three options yes i think we do come to that when we come to see mr stokes's uh

02:17:51 uh letter yes i thought you might sir yes so let's go to that then um could we go please to cst402660

02:18:01 this um is a letter sent by carl stokes to janice ray on the 10th of november 2010

02:18:07 2010 and if you uh look at the title it's criteria for prioritizing the fitting of new entrance doors to flats and then there are eight criteria set out there and then he says under options can you see

02:18:19 he says under options can you see options i do there are three of them one replace the old door and frame the door set with new 30 minute fire rated door set

02:18:27 door set incorporating into mess and strips and cold smoke seals fd30s yes with a self-closing device and over the page

02:18:35 the page to replace the old door with a new 30 minute fire rated door inserted in the old frame incorporating intubation strips and cold smoke seals in the new door fd30s with a self-closing device

02:18:47 door fd30s with a self-closing device and then three fit into messenger strips if not fitted and cold snake seals in the existing door and a self-closing device to the door now

02:18:56 now did mr stakes correctly advise that the specification of those replacement doors under the first two options would be or should be fd30s

02:19:10 if you replaced an old door with a new leaf

02:19:16 leaf in the old frame

02:19:19 you couldn't be absolutely sure that uh

02:19:24 that uh you get fd30s but you you could make an assessment or a competent person could probably make an assessment that it would be something very very close to it

02:19:35 close to it um

02:19:37 um so

02:19:38 so he he

02:19:40 he's not actually defining the same three could you go back to the first one again

02:19:44 again spot on page two please can we have that replace the old door frame with the new ft30s

02:19:52 ft30s so

02:19:55 so i'm just trying to think what these are options for it was dealing with flat entrance doors so the first option is the first option that i described sir yes

02:20:07 yes what i call the full monty if you like he doesn't actually countenance my notional fd30 could we turn to the next

02:20:18 notional fd30 could we turn to the next page

02:20:22 he doesn't actually countenance uh doors leaving doors not having uh strips and seals uh so his three

02:20:36 says is my middle one and his two is something between my middle one and my first one would it be correct to describe his two as fd30s

02:20:49 describe his two as fd30s you couldn't you couldn't be sure of that because it had not been tested correct now

02:20:57 now can we go to uh cst3013074 please

02:21:04 this is a letter dated the 7th of march 2011

02:21:07 2011 uh which mr stokes updated on the 10th of march 2011 some days later after a meeting with simon throp on that day as you can see and the subject is replacement of entrance doors to some residential

02:21:19 entrance doors to some residential apartments and uh he says in the third paragraph down on the man's master door limited company website it states that their doors meet the requirements of part m of the building

02:21:30 requirements of part m of the building regulations and fire check versions have also been successfully tested to bs 476 part 22.

02:21:37 part 22. can it please be confirmed that the doors are to be fitted under the contract are the 30-minute fire doors fd 30

02:21:46 fd 30 version and could the company forward all the relevant documentation to confirm this in the specifications and information there appears to be no mention of self-closing devices being fitted to the apartment entrance doors nor that the

02:21:57 apartment entrance doors nor that the doors will have intumescent seals um now

02:22:01 um now should mr stokes in your opinion have asked for confirmation that the doors were fd30s yes that that would have been appropriate yep yes the only thing i would say is in

02:22:13 the only thing i would say is in practice

02:22:15 practice a manufacturer of a door that was giving you a 30-minute door intended as a flat entrance door would would know that

02:22:25 that you wouldn't want an ft-30 without the smoke sale everyone would know that

02:22:31 there's no evidence we've seen that mr stokes insisted that the doors or door sets were certified fd30s right

02:22:41 right would you have expected mr stokes to have raised that with the tmo and and said you need to make sure that that gets certified as an fd30s door set yes if you're fitting a new door and

02:22:54 yes if you're fitting a new door and you're paying you're going to the trouble of fitting a new door um

02:22:58 um you would want the new door to be fd30s now if you go to cst 50 is 991 please you can see that uh after the fitting of

02:23:09 you can see that uh after the fitting of the first

02:23:10 the first mance master door door mr stokes rights to janice ray on the 23rd of may 2011 as you can see from what's on the screen subject the fitting of the first replacement entrance door to flat 16

02:23:22 replacement entrance door to flat 16 grenfell tower thank you for inviting me he writes to view the installation of the first replacement entrance door to flat 16 of grenfell tower on the 11th of may my comments are limited to that of the fire requirements needed to be compliant with

02:23:34 requirements needed to be compliant with the fire safety order 2005 from the information given to me by the installation team on site and the technical sheets beforehand by yourselves the door fitted was a fire rated version fd 30

02:23:46 rated version fd 30 of the shore door grp range etc and then it goes on to the next a little bit lower down uh to say that the door was fitted with a self-closing device intumescent and cold smoke seals

02:23:58 device intumescent and cold smoke seals and a fire rated letterbox all in accordance with the details supplied beforehand the door set has been according to the manufacturer's information been successfully tested to bs 476 part 22.

02:24:12 uh and then he goes on a bit lower down in the next paragraph to say from the technical information given to me and what i observed during the on-site visit i have no

02:24:23 during the on-site visit i have no adverse comments to make now in oral evidence when he was taken to this document mr stokes appeared to suggest that he was seeking confirmation that the doors installed were certified as fd 30.

02:24:35 as fd 30. uh and i want us to show you what he said in the few minutes that remains this afternoon thank you sir can we please go to day 138 at page 54

02:24:54 and if we go to line 20 on page 54

02:24:59 um he's shown this letter and then asked at line 20 so after the trial door installation it seems that you provided your opinion on whether the door or doors complied with

02:25:11 whether the door or doors complied with the requirements of the fire safety order and approved document b yes answer correct

02:25:16 correct question and you confirmed that they were fd30 yes answer top of page 55 line one from the information i was given yes

02:25:25 yes and that question and that was contrary to your advice wasn't it of the requirements for the doors which you gave before the installation which was that at least according to the parts of adb that you highlighted in green they

02:25:36 adb that you highlighted in green they should be fd30s answer i disagree the doors are fd30 as it says in this document the so it says here the door fitted was an fd30 then it says there is

02:25:47 fitted was an fd30 then it says there is fitted reinforced frame the door was fitted with a self-closing device intumescent and smoke cold smoke seals so therefore that makes it the s now

02:25:58 now in effect

02:25:59 in effect one can read the transcript but mr stokes is explaining why he considers his note that the door installed an fd30 was not contrary to his earlier advice that it needed to be fd30s

02:26:12 advice that it needed to be fd30s is he is his explanation correct in your opinion

02:26:17 opinion uh

02:26:17 uh technically not in what way well first of all we can dispense with the reference to the self-closing device and the intumescent because that's nothing to do with the s um so what he's saying is i saw a cold

02:26:30 um so what he's saying is i saw a cold smoke seal so that makes it an s and that's that he's making something of an assumption um to be ridiculous about it someone could have gone down to being queue and bought a

02:26:41 bought a a draft excluder and stuck it on and it would have looked like a smoke seal but it wouldn't make it an fd30s right

02:26:48 right so

02:26:50 so just being specific when he says that line

02:26:53 line seven to 12 on that page um that the door being fitted with cold smoke seals makes it the s is that right or wrong the chances are it does

02:27:05 right or wrong the chances are it does but you can't be sure i say chances are it makes it s because it might have the effect it might pass a um a bs 476 part 31.1 test it might not

02:27:16 um a bs 476 part 31.1 test it might not correct and someone someone's gone to the bother of fitting the smoke seal so he he's made the assumption they wouldn't have done that and then sold the door unless it had been tested as an ft-30s but that there

02:27:29 been tested as an ft-30s but that there is there is an assumption there uh and you can't say that categorically would you know whether the seal had been fitted by the manufacturer or not i mean depends depends on the door

02:27:41 depends depends on the door um

02:27:42 um these these were these were composite doors yeah um they tend the the the strip and seal tend to come as a single component uh sir rather than two different bits so you

02:27:55 rather than two different bits so you get a combined intumescent strip and smoke seal and

02:28:00 and the probably i mean this is the assumption that the manufacturer would have fitted uh

02:28:06 uh a combined intumescent strip and smoke seal that they knew would perform correctly

02:28:13 correctly um

02:28:15 um but

02:28:15 but sometimes it depends on the the make of door sometimes they the smoke seal is is sort of sorry the introduction is kind of flushed in and is the same color as the door and

02:28:26 and is the same color as the door and it's difficult to see so it looks like a smoke seal without an inch messing so it depends what component they've used sir

02:28:34 used sir i mean

02:28:35 i mean of course ultimately it's for us the panel to decide what what was fitted on these doors but it seems slightly surprising one might think is that the smoke seal and into missing would

02:28:47 the smoke seal and into missing would not have been fitted by the manufacturer yeah well manufactured yeah for those for those

02:28:52 for those doors for those doors they would have been

02:28:55 been i would have expected them to have been it would come as a door set from from the manufacturer yeah

02:29:04 yeah um yes

02:29:06 um yes if it's a timber door you might just wrote it and fit the instrument strip

02:29:12 right

02:29:15 well it might raise the same question as to who would have done that and when but yeah but these weren't timber doors no no we're not worried no they weren't would you characterize mr stakes's advice

02:29:26 advice uh that by adding uh the smoke cold smoke seals that makes it an s

02:29:32 it an s as

02:29:33 as you say is incorrect potentially incorrect um did that fall below the standards of competence customary in the trade

02:29:40 trade um

02:29:41 um i i i think he was just being pragmatic and unassumed that no one would have sold them

02:29:48 sold them a door with a a strip and seal unless it was an fd30s and in the vast well in the vast majority of cases notwithstanding there were problems with

02:30:00 notwithstanding there were problems with those mans master doors that would be correct i think it was just pragmatism given that he'd taken it upon himself to spell out to the tma what was required oh yes

02:30:09 oh yes he did yeah given that he'd done that was his was his advice um

02:30:16 um competent or up to the standards of competence customary in the trade i think it would be a reasonable assumption for him to make sir yes a reasonable assumption what

02:30:27 reasonable assumption what he saw he saw a new composite door it had been sold as a flat entrance door it came fitted with an inch message strip and smoke seal it would be a reasonable assumption

02:30:39 it would be a reasonable assumption that the door provided would be an fd30s and that means does it that it was a reasonable assumption on his part in your opinion that it had been tested to bs 476 part 31.1 yes the the

02:30:52 tested to bs 476 part 31.1 yes the the the seal that the manufacturer knew that the seal would perform yeah can you just clarify something this may sound a silly question obviously you obviously can't do a fire resistant

02:31:03 you obviously can't do a fire resistant test

02:31:04 test on the new door because it wouldn't dry the door exactly as far as the smoke seals are concerned um again do you test the prototype if that's the right one yes you you the the

02:31:16 that's the right one yes you you the the doors are tight tested exactly

02:31:19 exactly or the the seal uh

02:31:22 uh you can get the seals and and and the the seal will have performed in in like doors so so when you when the test body does the assessment um there

02:31:36 test body does the assessment um there are certain uh you you can't have it exactly the same as the the model tested so there are certain uh changes you can make that the test house put in the the

02:31:48 make that the test house put in the the the global assessment that that indicates that the door will still perform

02:31:53 perform the point i want is to clarify is the door that's fitted to my flat yes i'm a tenant has not itself been tested no it is simply reflect a

02:32:04 been tested no it is simply reflect a test on a type yes yeah much the same as your bmw hasn't been individually tested by you know whoever certificates vehicles

02:32:17 you know whoever certificates vehicles for sale and and under the uh construction of useful regulations or whatever they are it will have been tight tested then you you trust that bmw are turning out more bmws the same that is what i thought but

02:32:29 bmws the same that is what i thought but i just thought we'd better no that wasn't a silly question sir yes one final question if i made mr chairman nating the time yep given that the manufacturer

02:32:40 given that the manufacturer itself did not say that these doors were fire rated if you like to fd30s why was it a reasonable assumption on the part of mr

02:32:51 reasonable assumption on the part of mr stokes that they were um

02:32:55 um simply because of the if i could call it again telltale signs it came with a fire rated letter box it was sold presumably as a flat entrance door i think that that

02:33:07 entrance door i think that that particular product was intended as a flat entrance store it was absolutely universally known in the the industry that a flat a new flat entrance door had to be fd30s so the chances are

02:33:20 door had to be fd30s so the chances are the chances of someone selling them a door

02:33:23 door that would not perform uh with a seal that they they knew would perform correctly uh the chances of that happening would be or should be very slim

02:33:36 be or should be very slim supposing the manufacturer uh had submitted the door set to an uh bs 476 part 31.1 test and it had failed and had decided to manage to market the door as

02:33:47 decided to manage to market the door as an fd30

02:33:49 an fd30 uh

02:33:50 uh the assumption that it was an fd30s would be wholly misplaced wouldn't it it would but that would be a strange thing for a manufacturer to do if he was selling it as a flat entrance door knowing that flat entrance doors need to

02:34:02 knowing that flat entrance doors need to be fd 30s

02:34:05 be fd 30s yes thank you thank you very much um mr chairman

02:34:09 chairman clearly it's an it's a more than convenient moment for the end of the day um and therefore i would invite us to stop there yes well mr todd we slightly overrun the usual witching hour but that isn't a

02:34:20 usual witching hour but that isn't a problem um but i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you to come back again tomorrow for some more questions yes sir i gathered i think you probably had that in your program anyway didn't you um i had it as a fallback and i have a

02:34:32 had it as a fallback and i have a contingency plan for getting clothes well um i'm sorry we're gonna have to fall back because we haven't quite finished so we'll break now we'll resume uh tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock please

02:34:44 uh tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock please thank you sir i look forward to seeing you then thank you very much oh and the usual requests please don't talk to anyone about your evidence overnight thank you very much

02:35:02 yeah so thank you mr millet 10 o'clock tomorrow

02:35:18 you