David Jones, building control surveyor from Herefordshire Council, gives evidence about issuing the LABC approval certificate for Kingspan K-15 insulation in 2009 despite having no relevant expertise in high-rise buildings or product testing.
00:00:06 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing uh as before i'm joined by my fellow members of the panel
00:00:13 panel with syria istafan and mr ali akbar good morning good morning everyone now today we're going to hear evidence
00:00:25 now today we're going to hear evidence from
00:00:25 from mr david jones who is on the building control department of the herefordshire county council and we can now meet mr jones and i'll check
00:00:36 we can now meet mr jones and i'll check that he can see and hear me mr jones good morning are you there good morning yes i am oh good um you should have
00:00:48 um you should have on the screen in front of you the words of the affirmation which i think you're going to make do you have them yes i can see them
00:00:56 see them good thank you well can i ask you then please to make the affirmation by reading out the words in front of you i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be
00:01:08 that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth very good thank you very much indeed now there are one or two things i need to run through with you before we start uh taking your evidence uh first can you
00:01:20 uh taking your evidence uh first can you confirm that you are alone in the room from which you're giving your evidence i am yes thank you can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you
00:01:31 with you i can confirm that thank you very much and finally can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages
00:01:44 which is capable of receiving messages i can confirm that the case thank you very much
00:01:48 very much now you might like to know that your legal representatives are in the virtual hearing room uh they will as it were look after your interest they can
00:01:58 they can if they consider it essential intervene in the hearing but in general we have other means of enabling them to contact our council so i've asked them to keep their microphones and cameras switched off
00:02:10 microphones and cameras switched off but they are there um i don't i hope we shouldn't have any problems with the sound or vision if we do we'll probably take a short break while we ask our technicians to sort them out
00:02:24 we shall have a short break during the morning
00:02:27 morning and the afternoon the morning break normally comes around about 11 15 but if at any stage you feel you need to have a break for other reasons will you just indicate that and we'll do our best to accommodate you
00:02:39 and we'll do our best to accommodate you all right
00:02:40 all right um i'm going to mention this now while i'm talking about breaks it is very important that once you've started giving your evidence you don't discuss your evidence with anyone
00:02:51 anyone nor anything relating to it until you've completely finished i'll remind you of that when we have breaks but if for any reason i forget to do so
00:02:59 do so can you please bear that in mind is there anything you'd like to raise with me or any questions you'd like to ask before we start no nothing thank you good thank you very
00:03:10 no nothing thank you good thank you very much
00:03:11 much well in that case i'm going to invite miss troop to uh put some questions to you
00:03:15 you yes mr yes thank you good morning mr jones
00:03:20 jones before i start could you just confirm please that you can see and hear me clearly i can yes can i start then by thanking you for attending this public inquiry to give
00:03:31 attending this public inquiry to give your evidence it is very much appreciated and just a couple of things to run through if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions
00:03:41 questions that i ask please just say so and i can repeat the question or try to put it again in a different way all right
00:03:50 and then also if you can try to keep your voice up there's a transcriber on the call who's taking a note of all of the evidence so it's important that she hears all of your answers
00:04:01 your answers yes the other thing is that if you're answering yes or no please do try not simply to nod or to shake your head for yes or no but but actually to say
00:04:12 for yes or no but but actually to say the words because obviously a nod or a shake of the head doesn't show up on the transcript all right all right yes mr jones you've provided
00:04:20 provided two witness statements to the inquiry yes yes that's right so the first witness statement if we can get that up on the screen please is it hbc6029
00:04:34 if we just look at the the first page is that your witness statement yes it is can we go through please to page 62 of that statement
00:04:47 yes and and we can see there at the very bottom of the page that the statement is dated the 18th of december 2019 yes yes and that there's a signature
00:04:58 yes yes and that there's a signature there
00:04:58 there is that your signature it is yes and if we look now please at your second witness statement which is at hbc 6051
00:05:13 and if we go to page six again we see a signature there at the bottom is that your signature yes it is and we can see that that second witness statement is dated the
00:05:25 second witness statement is dated the 9th of november 2020 yes yes mr jones have you read both of your witness statements recently i have yes can you confirm that the contents of
00:05:37 can you confirm that the contents of both of them are true and accurate yes to the best of my recollection they they are yes and lastly have you discussed the content of your witness statements witness statements with anyone before
00:05:49 witness statements with anyone before coming here today no i haven't i i've only discussed procedural matters with my legal representatives but not yet thank you
00:05:58 you all right i'm going to start by asking you some questions about your background and your career and some training so if we can go first please to page three of your first witness statement
00:06:09 witness statement which is hbc 6029
00:06:18 we can see a heading there about halfway down the page education and career history yes yes you tell us first there yes thank you under that heading that you
00:06:29 you under that heading that you studied up to 1995 for a bsc in construction management yes yes that's right and then going down
00:06:40 yes that's right and then going down that from 1995 to 2001 you worked at a company uh first called higgs and hill western limited originally as a site manager and then as
00:06:52 originally as a site manager and then as a project quantity surveyor is that right
00:06:55 right that's right yes then moving on from late 2001
00:07:01 late 2001 until may 2003 you explained that you were self-employed you were essentially doing
00:07:06 doing freelance project management i think is that right that's right yes and then in june 2003 you joined herefordshire council building control department
00:07:19 building control department yes that's right if we can turn over now to page four please
00:07:28 i'm summarizing uh this first section but i think essentially and you must correct me if i'm wrong between june 2003 and 2005 your role was as a building control surveyor
00:07:41 as a building control surveyor thereafter between june 2005 and november 2011 your role was a senior building control surveyor
00:07:49 surveyor yes yes can i take it that that move was a promotion yes it was right and then i think we see another promotion in november
00:08:00 we see another promotion in november 2011
00:08:02 2011 up until july 2014 and during that period
00:08:06 period you were building control team leader or manager yes yes right and as i understand it again i am summarizing um from this section of your witness statement you left
00:08:18 statement you left uh herefordshire building control in july 2014
00:08:22 july 2014 and went to work for another private company for a number of years is that right
00:08:26 right that's right yes and i think you were a construction manager during that period yes and in your second witness statement we don't need to go to it at this stage
00:08:39 don't need to go to it at this stage um but for the record it's a page two paragraph five you explain that in october 2020 you returned
00:08:47 returned to herefordshire building control as a senior project officer yes uh no not not to herefordshire building control uh return to herefordshire council uh but it's it's not a role within
00:08:58 uh but it's it's not a role within building control i see are you still in that role now yes i am
00:09:04 i am in summary what is that role what does it involve uh project management it's about bringing together the resources the people and the finance to make
00:09:14 make council projects become a reality to to achieve the objectives of the council which may be construction related but may not it's any project that that has a defined
00:09:26 it's any project that that has a defined end objective i understand so not a building control role at all not at all no i understand all right if we can go back now please
00:09:37 all right if we can go back now please to your first witness statement hbc6029 and to page five i'm just going to explore with you a little about the training you received uh in the early part of
00:09:48 you received uh in the early part of your career yes thank you you've been asked by the inquiry at the top of that page about training you'd undertaken before
00:10:01 about training you'd undertaken before 2013 in relation to various matters and specifically you were asked about training you've received in relation to the requirements of the building regulations
00:10:12 building regulations and associated guidance on fire safety the requirements for the use of combustible materials over 18 meters and any training on fire testing
00:10:25 testing if we look at your answer and if we can move to the second the second paragraph but it begins in early 2004.
00:10:36 begins in early 2004. you explain there and again i am summarizing so you must correct me if i have it wrong that you attended in early 2004 a four-day training course on the
00:10:47 a four-day training course on the building regulations is that right yes that's right and i think you say that that training was designed for those individuals who who were completely new to the building control
00:10:59 completely new to the building control profession was it yes yes it was you say uh i think it's four lines up from the bottom of that first paragraph beginning in early
00:11:10 that first paragraph beginning in early 2004
00:11:12 2004 that during that training you were given an overview of the requirements uh 13 at the time in early 2004 in a to n
00:11:23 in early 2004 in a to n and all of the associated approved documents yes yes as far as you can remember mr jones was any particular um priority or focus given to any one of
00:11:35 um priority or focus given to any one of the approved documents or was it an overview of all of them in in more general terms it was an overview of all of them in in very general terms um i think in terms of the time spent on
00:11:47 um i think in terms of the time spent on each the
00:11:48 each the the larger approved documents would have justified more time than some of the simpler ones but it was a very a very high level overview of the approved documents in in the time that
00:12:00 approved documents in in the time that was available yes i understand thank you and part of that obviously will have included approved document b as it stood at the time yes
00:12:12 as it stood at the time yes you've explained very helpfully that the course itself was quite high level in terms of giving an overview of all of those approved documents did you at any stage as part of that training read approved
00:12:23 as part of that training read approved document b can you remember um i can't recall the detail of the course but
00:12:31 but from memory yes we would have had approved document be open during the training so that we could follow the program of training that was being delivered yes
00:12:43 delivered yes all right thank you did you come to understand at that stage in so far as fire was concerned that the primary
00:12:54 fire was concerned that the primary function
00:12:55 function of the building regulations and the guidance
00:12:58 guidance in approved document b was to protect life
00:13:02 life yes you did and other than that talking more generally about your training in the early part of your career other than that four-day training course which we've just discussed i i think you
00:13:16 which we've just discussed i i think you refer
00:13:16 refer also to a later course on uh bs 9999 the code of practice for fire safety in the design management and use of buildings
00:13:28 of buildings that's a paragraph three on page five of your witness statement we don't need to go to it and i think you say there that the focus of that training was mostly on means of escape was it
00:13:41 was mostly on means of escape was it yes i seem to remember that um bs 9999 was was new at that time and and the most significant thing about
00:13:52 and and the most significant thing about it in terms of what had gone before was a different approach to means of escape and so that's what the training focused on yes i see other than that you tell us that
00:14:04 other than that you tell us that your other learning was on the job learning with support from more senior colleagues and other members of the team at hereford is that right yes that's right can we go back now
00:14:18 yes that's right can we go back now please to your first witness statement and to page five i just want to look at a particular section of that with you
00:14:28 if we can go please yes to the penultimate paragraph or on that page
00:14:36 it starts halfway through the third line beginning i had no training do you see that
00:14:42 that yes you say that i had no training specific to the use of materials in buildings over 80 meters or in the testing and certification of building products and materials
00:14:55 building products and materials please note that there were no buildings with stories over 18 meters in herefordshire for me to gain any on-the-job training in
00:15:03 in areas of design relevant to such buildings
00:15:07 buildings yes yes just to ensure that i am clear what is the period that you're talking about there do you mean up to 2013
00:15:20 um the question relates to the time up to 2013 but actually it would be throughout my career i i've never worked on on buildings over 18 meters in any role
00:15:34 on buildings over 18 meters in any role yes and that's essentially because of geography that there were and are still no high-rise buildings in herefordshire is that right that's right yes thank you i want to
00:15:45 that's right yes thank you i want to move on now please to uh king span and to the approval certificate that was issued by the labc for kingspan's k-15 product in may 2009
00:15:57 for kingspan's k-15 product in may 2009 and we're going to look in some detail at your
00:16:01 at your role in that all right okay i'm going to start with how this work came to you in the first place i think it's right that it came to you
00:16:12 i think it's right that it came to you through your line manager at the time kris jenner at hereford is that right that's right yes right and as far as you understood it
00:16:23 right and as far as you understood it was it the case that your line manager chris jenner by the time the master came to you had already been in touch with the labc about a proposed
00:16:35 in touch with the labc about a proposed approval certificate for k-15 yes from from emails that i've seen since that does seem to be the case yes all right let's go to one of those so that i um
00:16:45 that i um i can help you with that the first one please is at hbc6049
00:17:04 please is at hbc6049 yes if you look at the top email there i think this might have been what you were referring to we can see an email from phil harrison to kris jenner sent on the 26th of november 2008 at 10
00:17:16 sent on the 26th of november 2008 at 10 14.
00:17:17 14. do you see it yes phil harrison worked at the labc at the time yes yes he did and we can see from that email if you look at his
00:17:28 email if you look at his sign off that his title was business development director yes yes so looking at the email phil harrison says there good morning chris
00:17:39 there good morning chris thank you for agreeing to take on this system approval for kingspan pausing there if we look back to the subject line of the email
00:17:51 back to the subject line of the email at the top we can see that it says forward labc system approval for a walling detail incorporating cool firm k-15 do you see that yes
00:18:02 cool firm k-15 do you see that yes can we agree therefore that it seems clear
00:18:05 clear that the system approval uh phil harrison is referring to in this email is is the one for k-15 yes thank you if you
00:18:17 thank you if you go on to where i had read to um in the same email mr harrison goes on as you've probably already noticed andrew pack's contact details are at the foot of this string of
00:18:28 foot of this string of emails and then he says attached as agreed for ease of reference is a pdf of the type approval service manual
00:18:37 manual together with a copy of the certification flow chart yes yes that first document the type approval service manual is one which we will come back to
00:18:48 will come back to at a later stage for now is it the case that at some stage after this email on the 26th of november 2008
00:19:00 the 26th of november 2008 your line manager mr jenna allocated the work of researching and carrying out this assessment to you yes that's right can you remember how that came about was it through a
00:19:12 that came about was it through a conversation uh i can't recall the detail um i haven't seen any emails to that effect so i suspect it was it was available
00:19:23 was available yes all right i want to take you back now please to your first witness statement hbc 6029 and
00:19:31 and page seven
00:19:37 if we look please at the third paragraph beginning it is my understanding do you think do you have that yes
00:19:44 that yes i'm just going to read that with you you say that it is my understanding that herefordshire council was selected by labc
00:19:52 labc not for reasons of any particular technical expertise and then in brackets a herefordshire council exercise in the aftermath of the grenfell tower fire confirmed that there are no buildings in
00:20:04 confirmed that there are no buildings in herefordshire with stories over 18 meters and there was no specific relevant expertise within the herefordshire council building control team
00:20:15 building control team at that time and then you go on but because of its proximity to kings to kingspan's pembridge offices yes yes
00:20:26 pembridge offices yes yes so just pausing there in terms of the exercise
00:20:30 exercise that you explain was conducted after the grenfell tower fire and the confirmation that at the time uh so retrospectively there was no
00:20:42 uh so retrospectively there was no specific relevant expertise within the herefordshire council building control team as far as you are aware is that a matter the technical expertise of the team
00:20:55 the technical expertise of the team to which any thought was given at the time
00:20:58 time in late 2008 yes it was it was discussed um i i recall
00:21:09 when when the work was first delegated to me i was reticent about taking it on because although i didn't know a lot about the product at that stage i could see that it was to do with material testing and certification
00:21:21 material testing and certification and i knew that that was not within my scope and that there was nobody else within herefordshire council who had any more experience in that area um and as i remember
00:21:34 um and as i remember chris jenner sort of listened to that and
00:21:37 and and suggested i call labc and discuss what they want and and see if what they were asking for was within our capabilities or not so it there was some thought given to a guest
00:21:48 there was some thought given to a guest yes i see so do i understand correctly from the answer you've just given that you did express your reticence to your own line manager chris jenner yes and that as a result he made the
00:22:01 yes and that as a result he made the suggestion that you uh call someone at the labc to discuss it in more detail yes yes right
00:22:11 if we can go back please to your witness statement at page seven going on to the fourth paragraph you say this is the one starting i
00:22:23 you say this is the one starting i believe do you see it yes thank you i believe the work was delegated to me because at that time i had a specific role in the team for marketing activity
00:22:34 role in the team for marketing activity and the type approval system was viewed very much as a marketing tool to raise the profile of the labc brand there was a potential marketing benefit in this for herefordshire council
00:22:46 in this for herefordshire council through its association with the labc brand
00:22:49 brand yes yes when you say that in the second line that it was viewed very much as a marketing tool forgive me who had that view
00:23:01 tool forgive me who had that view just so that i'm clear do you mean the labc
00:23:06 i think it was my view but in in my experience at least it was the view of other building control surveyors and it that that's how we viewed the the type approval
00:23:18 viewed the the type approval system a certain amount of uh of the activity within the type approval system seemed to me to be mirroring perhaps what companies like the nhbc were offering on a nationwide basis uh
00:23:31 were offering on a nationwide basis uh and and so the activity of labc was was almost a marketing activity to try and counter that competition by offering a similar similar service yes i see
00:23:45 similar service yes i see so thinking about that paragraph that we've
00:23:48 we've just read you believe do you that you were
00:23:52 were essentially picked because of your role in the team um in marketing rather than for any technical knowledge or expertise i think that's how it would have begun because i did have a specific role for
00:24:03 because i did have a specific role for marketing and this fell into the marketing category uh on the face of it um it would have been the case that i would have been as experienced in in
00:24:15 experienced in in building control generally as anybody in in the heritage building control team at that time and perhaps more experienced than than most yes i see if we can go back
00:24:26 yes i see if we can go back please to your witness statement the first witness statement and to page 19.
00:24:34 just thinking further about this issue and about your understanding of the purpose of an labc system or type approval if we can go please to your answer it's just under halfway down the page
00:24:45 halfway down the page under question 29 starting i understood do you see that yes we look at that together you say i understood it to be primarily a
00:24:56 i understood it to be primarily a marketing tool many product manufacturers like having their product associated with and endorsed by the labc brand it can also be said that an labc system
00:25:08 it can also be said that an labc system approval certificate can assist in the products processing through building regulations approval which again can be used by manufacturers as a marketing benefit and then you go
00:25:20 as a marketing benefit and then you go on to
00:25:21 on to refer to some of kingspan's marketing literature which we might come to a little later can you just help me i mean you may have answered this but
00:25:33 answered this but just in the event that you have any further detail how had you come to understand this process of approval to be primarily a marketing tool because as a local authority building
00:25:46 because as a local authority building consumer service um most of our uh activity with labc was for marketing purposes labc were primarily uh handling marketing uh activity
00:25:59 uh handling marketing uh activity that benefited us as a local authority council they were also involved in coordinating training uh for regional um building control groups but primarily labc was a marketing uh
00:26:11 but primarily labc was a marketing uh organization for us and so my my feeling would have been that anything that came to us from labc would be most likely to be marketing
00:26:22 would be most likely to be marketing related
00:26:24 related yes thank you so is it correct for me to say
00:26:28 say that in a way then you must you must tell me if i'm not correct this approval process in terms of marketing
00:26:36 marketing served to benefit everyone kingspan would benefit through their association with the labc brand the labc brand would have its profile
00:26:47 the labc brand would have its profile raised
00:26:48 raised through being promoted as part of kingspan's marketing literature and in turn herefordshire would benefit through its association with labc is that fair i think that's
00:26:59 with labc is that fair i think that's fair
00:26:59 fair fair to say yes yes what about the reader it may seem a ridiculous question but do you think the reader of these
00:27:10 the reader of these any approval certificate would have understood those certificates primarily as a marketing tool
00:27:19 i think that there would have been some understanding that that was the case the labc type and system approval certificates were not particularly in-depth uh
00:27:32 were not particularly in-depth uh and i think i think that would have been appreciated by most people reading them certainly if i speak as a building control officer in instances where i came across an labc
00:27:43 in instances where i came across an labc type approval certificate for something i was dealing with as part of a building regulations approval i found them to be a very limited value because there are so many project specific issues that you're needing to consider
00:27:54 consider that the the scant information that is in an abc certificate is of limited value to technical terms so i think i i think there would have been a general understanding that it was as
00:28:06 general understanding that it was as much about marketing as anything else but that's just my opinion
00:28:10 opinion yes that's very helpful so in terms of what you've expressed about finding labc certificates to be of limited value and not very in-depth
00:28:22 and not very in-depth as far as you were aware thinking about 2009
00:28:26 2009 let's take is that a view that was shared
00:28:30 shared by others in the building control profession
00:28:35 um i'm i'm not sure i can answer that but i believe i believe yes i don't believe it was a view that was unique to me
00:28:41 me no do is it something that you remember being discussed amongst colleagues for example
00:28:47 example yes i believe i do yes
00:28:52 do you think then do you think it is right
00:28:55 right that non-building control professionals so for example architects contractors builders would have relied on the terms of labc
00:29:08 would have relied on the terms of labc approval certificates as independent certification of a product and its compliance or otherwise with the building regulations uh
00:29:20 with the building regulations uh no i i don't believe so i i always uh viewed the labc certificates to be more for the benefit of the the building control
00:29:32 of the the building control body that was processing and approval as background information to the work they were doing rather than something for the uh the designer to rely upon i see how did you come to that understanding that there were more for
00:29:43 understanding that there were more for building control than for a designer or an architect to rely on
00:29:52 i i think it was just a i felt it was a common understanding at the time that they were aimed more at the building control bodies yes i i just wonder and it may be that
00:30:03 i i just wonder and it may be that you're not able to answer if a designer or architect did happen to be reading an labc approval certificate would you agree with me that it may not be clear to them that that certificate
00:30:17 be clear to them that that certificate was designed primarily as a marketing tool they may take it to be an independent certification of a product's compliance or otherwise with the building regulations
00:30:29 regulations yes i can see that that would be the case but
00:30:32 case but in any in any live project the design would ultimately have to go through all the project specific approvals with building controls so anything anything that the designer was
00:30:44 anything anything that the designer was relying upon in the certificate would later be vetted by a build control body as part of the approval
00:30:51 approval yes i see that's at the very the very end of a project isn't it so did you see given your view of the value of labc
00:31:04 given your view of the value of labc uh approval certificates did you see any danger for designers and architects in the long period leading up to sign off by building control on a project if they were relying on the terms
00:31:16 were relying on the terms of an labc certificate um i i would say that anything they relied on
00:31:22 relied on in the certificate would be vetted not on completion but during the design approval stage at the beginning of you know pre-construction not at the end of a project so any issues
00:31:33 at the end of a project so any issues should come out of that stage not a not completed yes i see
00:31:41 despite or even if it was your view that um labc type approval certificates were of limited value and perhaps were not
00:31:53 limited value and perhaps were not terribly in-depth would you agree or do you agree that it would be of the utmost importance that the technical content
00:32:03 content of any such certificate was clear and accurate
00:32:08 accurate as speaking from where we are now looking back i i agree that yes it should be done properly or not at all well forgive me did you have a different
00:32:19 well forgive me did you have a different you said speaking from where we are now looking back did you ever have a different view as to the importance of the content being clear and accurate no no i would have i would have felt
00:32:30 no no i would have i would have felt then that it needed to be as as accurate as it could be within the scope of the certificate being done it was it was not a you know it was a very limited exercise but but as far as that exercise went
00:32:42 but but as far as that exercise went i would have i would have wanted it to be accurate yes yes i wouldn't have been relaxed about that thank you can we turn now to
00:32:50 now to some correspondence again this is from the early stage of your involvement in the certification for k15 if we can go please to kin3024985
00:33:16 yes thank you and if you look first please mr jones at the second email in the chain the one sent by kris jenner to andrew pack on the 26th of november 2008.
00:33:29 on the 26th of november 2008. we can see do you see it yes i do thank you we can see that mr jenna says there hello andrew we at herefordshire council build and control will be pleased to work with you on your proposed system approval
00:33:41 on your proposed system approval application david jones will be your dedicated contact in relation to this application and we'll contact you in the near future to discuss the project the product i'm sorry and process of
00:33:53 the product i'm sorry and process of achieving approval and then he says however please feel free to contact me anytime to discuss this or other related matters that is your introduction to and first
00:34:06 that is your introduction to and first contact with andrew peck i think is it yes i believe it was so if we go up to mr pax's response at the top email in the chain
00:34:16 the chain we can see that he responds on the same day
00:34:19 day and yes on the same day uh to both you and chris jenner and in the last line of his email he asks you to arrange a meeting to to
00:34:30 he asks you to arrange a meeting to to discuss the matter yes yes we're going to come on to that meeting shortly in quite some detail but before we do that i want to ask you a little more about
00:34:41 about your understanding at that time so before you went to a meeting with king spann
00:34:46 spann about the approval process itself and what it would involve
00:34:52 you've explained already that having expressed your resistance about this particular project to kris jenner
00:35:00 jenner he suggested to you that you make a call to the labc yes yes
00:35:07 yes yes and if we can look in fact please uh at your first witness statement at page 14.
00:35:24 yes and at the top of the page under the first underline section so under the question
00:35:30 question you say this at the outset of the 2009 k15 approval i knew nothing about the type system approval process having not been involved in it previously the first thing i did was to
00:35:42 previously the first thing i did was to call our contact at labc for an explanation of how the process worked what my part in it should be and how i should go about doing it
00:35:53 and how i should go about doing it and then you go on the first thing i was told
00:35:56 told was that the procedures were in need of tidying up and that the terminology was not really appropriate and then in brackets the term type dated back to the system approval of
00:36:08 dated back to the system approval of house types for house builders while the term system was being used for products
00:36:15 products rather than systems for want of another name
00:36:19 name yes yes that's that's how i recall the conversation with it just pausing there can you help us as to when this call took place so was it before or after
00:36:32 took place so was it before or after you met with representatives from kingspan about k-15 i believe it would have been before because i would have tried to find out about
00:36:42 about well firstly i had to establish whether i was actually going to carry on and do this work but but in the event that i did i needed to find out more about what was involved so i believe it would have been before the
00:36:53 believe it would have been before the meeting with kingsman thank you can i take it from what you've just said that you actually took the decision as to whether or not to take on this work
00:37:04 whether or not to take on this work during or just after but as a result of your call with your contact at the labc so prior to that call at to the labc you were still deciding whether or not
00:37:15 were still deciding whether or not you would accept this piece of work essentially yes prior to that call i think i was veering towards um declining and saying i don't think we are the right people for this it was
00:37:26 we are the right people for this it was that it was that call i think that where i was persuaded that yes
00:37:30 yes given the scope of what's required you can do this yes i see
00:37:38 if you had decided mr jones that if you had not been persuaded by that call with the labc and if you had decided to decline the piece of work would that have been
00:37:50 the piece of work would that have been easy for you to do would it have caused any difficulties with your own line manager or would you have been perfectly comfortable to decline it um i had a good relationship with my
00:38:02 um i had a good relationship with my line manager i could speak frankly with him but i was i was a conscientious employee i'd been asked by my manager to do something so i think it would have been a drive internally to try and do what was being
00:38:14 internally to try and do what was being asked of me it wouldn't have come naturally to me to just throw it back and say i i'm not doing this so there would have been a conflict there there would have been a pressure to try and find a way that yes i can do this if if
00:38:26 find a way that yes i can do this if if i
00:38:27 i believed that i could yes but but in an internal or personal pressure because of your own work ethic essentially yes yes yes
00:38:40 just thinking about the meeting with kingspan
00:38:43 kingspan um if it does help i think it might help to
00:38:47 to to date it if we can go please to
00:38:51 kin3024987 and this mr jones is really just to help you to set the timeline in context
00:39:05 this is quite a long series of emails between you and mr pack on the 26th and 27th of november 2008 once you've been introduced to him
00:39:16 introduced to him and i don't think we need to go through them all because if we look to the top email
00:39:22 email we can see there that it appears that a meeting
00:39:26 meeting date has been settled between you for friday the 5th of december at 2 p.m do you see that yes i do would that date accord with your recollection of when the meeting with
00:39:38 recollection of when the meeting with kingston took place that would sound right to me yes and you think that the call you had with your contact at the labc came before that meeting on the 5th of
00:39:49 came before that meeting on the 5th of december 2000. i believe so yes
00:39:55 while we're on this email can could you just take a look please at the second email
00:40:00 email in the chain which is sent by you to mr pack at 1002 on the 27th of november do you see that yes
00:40:07 yes in the last sentence of your email you say this
00:40:11 say this i haven't been on to the kingspan site in a while should i just come to the main reception had you been to kingspan's site at pembridge
00:40:22 pembridge previously i had just once i believe i seem to remember they they had some outline proposals at one time to extend one of their warehouses and i was asked to come out and
00:40:33 asked to come out and do a site visit to see what what the potential for that would be in terms of the building regulations i see if we can go back now to think about the call that
00:40:44 go back now to think about the call that you made to the labc in terms of who that was i think you tell us in your first witness statement and we don't need to go to it but i think you tell us there that you cannot recall who it was
00:40:55 there that you cannot recall who it was at the labc that you spoke with no i can't and and is that still the case now
00:41:04 case now it's still the case uh having seen the emails
00:41:07 emails which show that it was probably phil harrison that made the first contact with
00:41:11 with chris jenner yeah i think it's likely that i would have picked up the phone to chris
00:41:15 chris sorry to to philip harrison but whether he took the call whether somebody else fielded the call or whether he passed me on to somebody else i can't say i can't recall all right that's helpful
00:41:27 i can't recall all right that's helpful that was going to be the next question in in terms of your involvement in the period prior to the 5th of december i think the only person from the labc with whom
00:41:38 the labc with whom you had had written contact was phil harrison wasn't it yes that seems to be the case can we go back now please again to your
00:41:50 can we go back now please again to your first witness statement and to page 15.
00:42:01 yes and if we look to uh the section under question 19 so beginning i cannot really answer do you see that yes i just want to read that with you
00:42:13 yes i just want to read that with you you say that you've been asked
00:42:19 what assessment of the product or system was normally or should be carried out and your answer is this i cannot really answer for what would have been normal as this was the first
00:42:30 have been normal as this was the first time i had been involved in an approval but i did seek advice in in the initial contact with labc as to what level of assessment was expected and how it should be approached
00:42:42 expected and how it should be approached and then going on you say i was told that the assessment should not be particularly in-depth and should consist of an initial meeting with the client followed by a review of manufacturers
00:42:55 followed by a review of manufacturers details
00:42:56 details and any third-party certification to assess the product attributes and the way it could be used where the third-party guidance is deemed reliable
00:43:05 reliable there would be no need to dig any deeper and the statements therein could be accepted at face value
00:43:14 is that right that was that was certainly my recollection because it was quite significant in terms of um the decision to agree to take on network in the end i
00:43:27 agree to take on network in the end i i was i knew enough about sort of the testing and certificate certification of products that that i knew there would be an awful lot of test reports and testing standards involved and i knew that that was not
00:43:38 and i knew that that was not within my expertise uh so being told that actually the key thing is this product has a bba certificate the bba have already done all that checking and vetting of all the test information
00:43:51 all the test information and you can use that information that was quite important to me it was quite significant that that actually i was i was able to use a bba certificate and not have to verify the information that was within it yes i
00:44:04 the information that was within it yes i see
00:44:05 see so it was is it your recollection that your contact with the labc during that call
00:44:11 that call specifically mentioned the existence of a bba certificate for the product yes i do recall but that was quite important yes yes and and and when you say that it was
00:44:23 yes and and and when you say that it was significant do i understand correctly that it was significant that this was mentioned because it provided you with some reassurance
00:44:34 it provided you with some reassurance that you were not going to be required to go
00:44:37 to go deep into areas of complex testing and standards which were not within your expertise that's right
00:44:44 right yes
00:44:47 can we go back please to the paragraph we've just looked at in your witness statement on page 15.
00:44:57 if we look please at the second paragraph
00:45:01 paragraph starting i was told that we've just read and at the end there you say where the third party guidance is deemed reliable and i think this is what you were told during the call
00:45:13 during the call just so that i'm clear as far as you understood it who was to decide whether or not third-party guidance was reliable
00:45:25 was reliable was that for you to decide or the labc um i believe it was it was guidance given by the labc uh that our ucas
00:45:36 ucas accredited um certification body could be deemed reliable um and it
00:45:44 um and it that mirrored industry practice really that there were certain that there were certain certification bodies the bba being the key one that across the industry were viewed with with this level of trust
00:45:56 with this level of trust that actually you could take the content of a bba certificate and and trust that it was reliable yes in terms of those certification
00:46:08 yes in terms of those certification bodies
00:46:08 bodies and the view across the industry or industry practice in terms of reliance and levels of trust you said in that answer that the bba with a key
00:46:19 with a key organization what were the others at that time as far as you were aware mr jones who were viewed or whose certificates were viewed with that degree of trust
00:46:32 with that degree of trust i believe there was reference in in the labc
00:46:35 labc guidance to ucas accredited certification bodies uh i couldn't tell you what others there were the bba was the one we came across almost universally um in in that context yes
00:46:48 um in in that context yes and i think the reference to ucas accredited organizations comes in the labc manual which we will come on to that we will come on to that a little later
00:47:02 as far as you are aware and you may have answered this were there any third-party certification bodies or organizations in 2009 whose certificates or guidance would not be
00:47:15 certificates or guidance would not be deemed
00:47:15 deemed reliable or would that depend on whether or not they were ucas accredited
00:47:22 i think it would depend on whether they were ucas accredited i i can't recall any
00:47:27 any that i would have said were not reliable but i can't recall any alternatives at this time
00:47:40 yes can we go please back to your first witness statement and and this time to page 34 please
00:47:56 if we go to the first paragraph that is not italicized beginning these statements thank you you're talking here about
00:48:10 thank you you're talking here about um a presumption of compliance or the degree of trust that you've just described to us that was placed in in the content of bba certificates and you say there these statements are
00:48:23 and you say there these statements are consistent with the brief i was given in 2009 by the labc and if there were doubts about the content of the bba certificate it would have been for labc as the
00:48:34 it would have been for labc as the scheme administrator to question this yes yes you then go on this is really what you've just described to say this view of the status
00:48:46 described to say this view of the status of bba certification as a trusted source of reliable information was consistent with the way they were viewed in the wider building control profession not just in type approvals is that right
00:48:59 not just in type approvals is that right yes that was my experience
00:49:03 i want to ask about my understanding is that
00:49:08 that during your call with the labc and against the background that you understood the bba to be a trusted and reliable source and that that was the general view
00:49:19 that that was the general view during your call with the labc you've told us that assertions made within a bba certificate you would
00:49:26 you would you were to take at face value yes that was my recollection yes i just want to ask about that practice or your understanding of that
00:49:38 practice or your understanding of that was there not a risk
00:49:41 if you were to take that approach
00:49:46 in just accepting at face value statements within another third party certificate that an error could end up being perpetuated
00:49:59 error could end up being perpetuated does that make sense yes yes it does make sense and and yes it is a risk when when when one certificate is based on another anything anything inaccurate in the
00:50:10 anything anything inaccurate in the first certificate will naturally be reflected in in the second one yes because
00:50:15 because if every third-party certification organization took that approach one early error could end up being perpetuated on and on and on and on couldn't it becomes a bit of a house of
00:50:27 couldn't it becomes a bit of a house of cards possibly do you think that's fair i think that's fair to say yes yes is that a risk that to which you gave consideration at the time
00:50:40 gave consideration at the time of your call with the labc or afterwards at any stage
00:50:46 i i had no reason at that time to doubt what was in the bba certificate and i've been told that this really is what you should base your your assessment on so i don't
00:50:59 your assessment on so i don't think i fully considered that risk at that time
00:51:02 that time i think i was i accepted the logic that that the information can i put forward could be based on the bba certificate um i i remember questioning both with
00:51:14 um i i remember questioning both with labc and with kingspan but actually what is the point of this if all i'm doing is taking a bba certificate and and reformatting if you're like representing that information which is essentially
00:51:25 that information which is essentially what the brief was about um what what's the point of it what's it going to achieve if they've already got a bba certificate surely that that gives gives kingspan everything
00:51:36 that gives gives kingspan everything they need
00:51:37 they need um but i didn't consider i wouldn't have expected there to be a risk of brave errors in the bba certificate then it just wasn't how reviewed the bba at that time no i i i appreciate
00:51:51 the bba at that time no i i i appreciate that it's your evidence that you had no particular reason to doubt the content the tech any of the technical content of the bba certificate i suppose really out of interest and given your profession
00:52:03 given your profession what i i'm trying to understand is whether
00:52:06 whether in terms of the wider risk of the practice of simply repeating assertions made within one third-party certificate in another in 2008 and 2009
00:52:18 in another in 2008 and 2009 did you give consideration to that wider risk
00:52:21 risk that an error not necessarily in the bba certificate for k-15 you were dealing with but an error could end up being perpetuated endlessly
00:52:32 could end up being perpetuated endlessly i imagine i would have given some consideration to it i can't recall in what way but certainly as part of the process
00:52:40 process um i sent my report off to labc who who i understood were going to get it get it checked and verified through their network and i sent it to kingstown for uh for an accuracy check
00:52:51 accuracy check so clearly in my mind it was something even though in in my mind i was only representing information that had already been established by the bba i did clearly feel it needed
00:53:02 feel it needed another level of checking so i didn't just yes i didn't just put it forward and
00:53:07 and and say because it's from the bba it must be right i think i put it forward to say this is this is based on the bba certificate but please
00:53:16 please review it and and
00:53:19 see if you agree that it is accurate so i suppose that's that's the only context in which i questioned what i was doing in that respect
00:53:28 respect yes thank you just going back to um something you said a short while ago that you questioned both with the labc
00:53:39 that you questioned both with the labc and kingspan what is the point of this
00:53:44 if i'm just essentially replicating what is already in a bba certificate what's the point of doing it at all is that fair is that what you were asking that was one of my early questions yes
00:53:56 that was one of my early questions yes yeah because in in a way and you must tell me if i'm wrong
00:54:01 wrong the impression i have is that you were you understood yourself to be being asked to do a bit of a cut and paste job is that fair yes i think i think that probably does
00:54:13 yes i think i think that probably does describe it i was i was to go and meet with kingspan take the information they gave me verbally take the vba certificate extract the information filter out
00:54:25 extract the information filter out the the parts of it that didn't relate to the building regulations and and just represent it in a format that sort of matched the uh the building regulations a to a to p yes um i was representing
00:54:37 a to p yes um i was representing information yes i'm sorry i spoke over you and so am i right to say that it was that understanding that reassured you enough
00:54:48 understanding that reassured you enough to accept the job yes that was a key part of it it was when i say in one of my written responses that i was told it was not to be a particularly in-depth assessment
00:55:00 particularly in-depth assessment that's what i that's what i meant really that actually i was only taking this information and representing it i did not need to dig beyond it to verify that information and that was very important to me in
00:55:11 and that was very important to me in terms of
00:55:11 terms of well can i actually do this or not yes when you you say that you raised this this is one of the first questions you asked
00:55:19 asked in your call with your contact at the labc
00:55:23 labc and mr james when you asked that question what is actually the point of this
00:55:27 this what was the response can you remember from labc i i can't recall in detail but but i
00:55:34 but i i think to the best of my recollection what they said was well go and speak to kingspan and find out from them what they want to achieve from it what's the point of it for them because they're the ones paying for this service yes
00:55:48 for this service yes and then as i understand it from your previous answer you did ask kingspan at your meeting what is the point of this yes yes can you remember
00:55:59 yes yes can you remember what the answer we're going to come i'm afraid back to that meeting in some detail but just on this point can you remember
00:56:05 remember what the answer was to that question during your meeting with kingspan well my recollection is that they they were very keen to be associated with the labc brand i said we like working with
00:56:16 labc brand i said we like working with labc
00:56:17 labc we would like to be able to put the labc brand on our marketing we'd like it associated with our product so again it links back to this marketing aspect of the process
00:56:28 marketing aspect of the process yes all right thank you in fact i think if we can go back please to your first witness statement and to page
00:56:42 19.
00:56:48 if we look please just under halfway down the page uh under
00:56:56 uh under question 29 yes you say there halfway through the first line many product manufacturers like having their product associated with and
00:57:07 their product associated with and endorsed by the labc brand essentially what what you've just explained
00:57:14 explained that was kingspan's well that was your impression of kingspen's view was it during your meeting yes in terms of the uh in terms of the question of what is the point of this when you already have a bba certificate
00:57:25 when you already have a bba certificate yes
00:57:26 yes yes and then at the next sentence you say
00:57:29 say it can also be said i'm sorry we've already looked at this section but to go back to it it can also be said that an labc system approval certificate can assist in the product processing
00:57:40 can assist in the product processing through building regulations approval yes yes
00:57:45 yes yes as far as you can recollect were the kingspan representatives at your meeting on the 5th of december aware of that aspect of
00:57:57 aware of that aspect of having an labc approval certificate that it could make the passage through building control easier oh i believe they were yes do you remember that actually being
00:58:08 do you remember that actually being discussed
00:58:11 i can't remember the the detail of the discussion but i find it hard to believe in in introducing the the system approval to them i find it hard to believe that that wasn't discussed
00:58:22 wasn't discussed so do you think that you explained that to them in introducing the system approval process at the meeting i think i would have yes
00:58:31 right thank you can we go now i'm sorry back to your first witness statement again and this time to page 15.
00:58:44 time to page 15. i want to come back to um a couple of other matters in relation to your initial call to the labc
00:58:51 labc before you decided to accept this piece of work
00:58:55 of work at the final paragraph of this page beginning one of the first do you see that
00:59:00 that yes you say that one of the first questions
00:59:03 questions i had for labc was how i could go about considering background information to system approval when k15 was just one element of a rain screen
00:59:14 screen cladding system as far as i recall this was something i was told
00:59:20 was told not to worry about not to worry about that and that i was just to describe the product
00:59:28 product explore what systems it might be part of and assess it on the assumption that all other parts of the system complied with the relevant guidance in their own right
00:59:40 their own right is that correct that's that's as i remember it yes and i think this this possibly links back to an earlier part of that conversation where they talked about the terminology being wrong
00:59:51 terminology being wrong actually it's system approval but we we we'd like to call it something else but for the moment we're stuck with this because
00:59:57 because it's what we've got um but but yes i i think i was told don't worry about the tag system approval you'll just you know just look at what
01:00:08 you'll just you know just look at what you've got in front of you yes had that been a worry for you yes i think when i before before i went to meet
01:00:17 to meet um before i did anything with this i i seem to remember i i looked up the product probably on the kingsman website uh and and i remember my first impression looking at the diagrams was
01:00:29 impression looking at the diagrams was that perhaps kingspan made an entire system perhaps they made a cladding product and a system of cavity barriers but as i got deeper into it i could see that the only product that was defined was the k15 so
01:00:40 was the k15 so this was i wrangled with this quite a lot how how can i do a system approval i don't know what the system is yeah as a building control officer i was looking at this perhaps as i would a building
01:00:50 building regulations approval for a live project where
01:00:53 where i can't approve things without knowing what they are yeah so this was this was a difficult one for me at that stage yes i understand and when the person you were speaking with at labc
01:01:05 with at labc told you not to worry about that did that completely satisfy your concerns about
01:01:11 about this aspect of this particular approval um i wouldn't say it completely satisfied my concerns but of course i was going to this meeting with kingspan
01:01:22 meeting with kingspan some some days later and and so i i suppose it satisfied it satisfied my concerns enough at that stage to go on to the meeting with king's fan and find out more about
01:01:33 and find out more about how it would might work can we go back now please to page 27 of your first witness statement
01:01:51 if we can go to the third paragraph or the second non-underlined paragraph please which starts i sought advice do you have that yes i'm going to read that you say there
01:02:02 yes i'm going to read that you say there i sought advice and i'm so sorry i should put it in context we can see from the paragraph above that this is about advice you were seeking from the labc so prior to the meeting with kingspan
01:02:15 so prior to the meeting with kingspan you say that i sought advice mainly on a the procedure for type approvals and herefordshire council's part in it b how they thought i should go about the assessment
01:02:27 assessment c how in depth the assessment should be given my level of experience d how it was possible to undertake a system approval
01:02:37 approval when only one part of the system k15 is known and e what the point of a system approval would be for a product which already has bba
01:02:48 for a product which already has bba certification yes yes so i think we've covered now uh together a number of those i just want to ask you about this looking at see how in-depth
01:03:00 looking at see how in-depth the assessment should be given my level of experience do you mean there that you told your contact at the labc about your level of experience with type
01:03:12 about your level of experience with type approvals and in terms of this product were you clear about that about your own lack of experience i believe i
01:03:19 believe i would have been yes i you know i started this conversation angling towards not doing this work towards declining it and i i'm i have no doubt that i i would have been
01:03:30 i have no doubt that i i would have been clear on why you know i wasn't i didn't have any experience in the testing and certification of materials i i didn't have working knowledge of test standards uh and i believe i would have explained
01:03:42 uh and i believe i would have explained that to them in in giving my reasons why i don't think we can do this for you oh i see
01:03:48 i see so you were perfectly open with the labc contact about the the fact that you were hesitating as to whether or not to take on the work yes i believe i was because at the start
01:03:59 yes i believe i was because at the start of the conversation i think that's how i was thinking yes and and what was that person's reaction to that and to the information you gave about your own
01:04:11 the information you gave about your own lack of experience in that particular area
01:04:14 area i just remember this bba certificate being the key factor that um no it's okay don't worry it's got to be the a certificate and that was it that was that was the answer really
01:04:26 answer really yes i see so as far as you can recollect is it fair for me to say that whoever it was that you were speaking with at the labc
01:04:34 labc uh did not express any concern about your level of experience no not the not that i recall i know no i and i think i would have been clear and
01:04:45 and i think i would have been clear and labc themselves we worked with labc as i say in marketing and training terms so i think the labc contact would have had a good idea what our capabilities at herefordshire council would be from
01:04:57 herefordshire council would be from those previous activities yes i see you were not unknown to one another no no i understand
01:05:08 no no i understand going to move on now and we're going to start to look at the the meeting with with king span which we think took place on the 5th of december 2008 all right
01:05:19 december 2008 all right what prior to the meeting i think you said that you might have looked at kingspan's own website to look at the k-15 product is that right i believe so yes and we also know that
01:05:31 i believe so yes and we also know that you had your initial call with your labc contact
01:05:35 contact yes before the meeting with king's ben was there anything else that you did to prepare for that meeting or to gain some more knowledge about what you were going into
01:05:49 not not that i can remember i i think that meeting with kingspan was intended to be
01:05:55 to be an enlightening uh experience if you like that that was part you know much the reason for the meeting was to find out more about the product yes and what kingsman wanted to achieve
01:06:07 yes and what kingsman wanted to achieve yes
01:06:07 yes so when you say that you you were going to be enlightened at the meeting is this right just so that i'm clear you were looking to hear more about their product obviously from
01:06:18 product obviously from king span and as to what their aims were in seeking labc um approval at all is that right yes that's right right
01:06:31 if we can go to your first witness statement again please and enter page nine
01:06:46 please and enter page nine if we look at the it's the penultimate paragraph actually starting to the best do you see that yes we look at that you say there to the best of my recollection
01:06:58 say there to the best of my recollection andrew pack led that meeting for kingspan
01:07:01 kingspan and i recall there being at least one other person from kingspan in attendance but i cannot remember names without having any contemporary records to refer to there was nobody in attendance from labc
01:07:14 there was nobody in attendance from labc yes yes
01:07:17 yes yes philip heath of kingspan has has confirmed that he was present at the meeting does that sound right to you
01:07:25 you yes yes it does looking in that same paragraph you say in the top line that andrew pack led that meeting
01:07:36 that andrew pack led that meeting for kingspan i want to ask you about that because mr pack was asked about this in his evidence
01:07:45 evidence to the inquiry i don't want to take you to it but for the record this was at day 86 page 128 lines 23 to 25
01:07:58 lines 23 to 25 um and his evidence was that he would not
01:08:01 not say that he led the meeting he also talked a little in the same section of the transcript about having been the person who met you at reception
01:08:12 person who met you at reception um and said that he could not remember who
01:08:15 who between him and his colleague philip heath
01:08:18 heath did most of the talking so just to get your recollection when you say there that andrew pack led the meeting can you help us more specifically as to what you mean
01:08:30 specifically as to what you mean by that yes when i say he led the meeting
01:08:34 meeting uh he he set the meeting up he met me at reception he took me to the meeting room made the introductions and sort of started the meeting off so he did everything that you might expect the chair of a meeting to do um i would say that
01:08:47 to do um i would say that once we were sat around the table uh the three of us it would have been probably much more
01:08:53 much more informal it wasn't a structured meeting as such so during that discussion um i i think andrew and philippe could have spoken
01:09:04 andrew and philippe could have spoken equally i i wouldn't say i couldn't i couldn't say for certain that andrew did more talking than philip or vice versa i think it was a very informal round-the-table discussion at that stage yes i see how long did the meeting
01:09:17 yes i see how long did the meeting go on for can you recollect i don't recall no i i i can get some indication from the fact that
01:09:27 fact that um the meeting appears to have been at 2pm yes
01:09:31 2pm yes on a friday yes but perhaps it was a couple of hours but i'm only speculating there yes all right thank you
01:09:40 i i think if we can just pause there for for a moment mr jones uh mr chairman i'm looking at the time and i realize it's a little early in the morning but i've come to a a good
01:09:52 in the morning but i've come to a a good place um for us to take a break if you thought that's appropriate well it would be better to break now wouldn't it a bit early rather than break up a line of questions all right
01:10:03 break up a line of questions all right well i said we'd have a break about 11 15 mr jones it's a bit early but we'll take it now anyway so we'll come back please at 25 past 11
01:10:14 at 25 past 11 and i'd ask you please to not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while we're on the break all right
01:10:22 all right we'll see you again with us thank you very much
01:25:02 welcome back everyone we're now going back to mr jones to continue taking his evidence
01:25:07 evidence mr jones welcome back are you there can you see me and can you hear me i can see you uh my screen has gone off full screen for some reason right well if you go to the top right hand corner
01:25:19 if you go to the top right hand corner there should be a button that says you there we are yes that's fine i'm afraid you have to reset that every time we have a break otherwise all right yes thank you and ready to carry on are
01:25:31 yes thank you and ready to carry on are you yes
01:25:32 you yes yes thank you yes ms troop when you're ready then thank you mr chairman mr jones we're going to go back to the meeting you had with kingspan and we'll be on that for a little while if we can go
01:25:43 if we can go back to your first witness statement please enter page nine
01:25:58 yes at the very end of that page the fi in the final line you say this from memory the main themes of that meeting were and then going over the page please the
01:26:10 and then going over the page please the kingspan representatives gave an overview of the product and its properties and how where it was intended to be used in particular the technical representatives were
01:26:21 the technical representatives were enthusiastic about the fire testing that kingspan had commissioned for k-15 and the fact that it had been shown to be suitable for use in buildings with stories over 18 meters just stopping there
01:26:34 over 18 meters just stopping there please
01:26:35 please and taking that information step by step can you remember what either philip heath or andrew peck said to you in terms of their overview
01:26:46 said to you in terms of their overview of the product it's purely from memory and it is difficult
01:26:54 difficult 12 years later but yes my my impression of it was that it it quite closely mirrored what was in their technical literature
01:27:05 their technical literature in terms of you know where this product should and could be used and and what it was used for yes so just so that i'm clear
01:27:16 yes so just so that i'm clear did you have their technical literature before
01:27:20 before you arrived at the meeting
01:27:24 i i know i'd seen it before the meeting and as i said before i'm fairly sure i looked the product up you know when when this first came to me from from christiana um i my best recollection is that they
01:27:37 um i my best recollection is that they also handed me copies of the technical literature and the bba certificate on the day but but i would i believe of seeing whatever was on their website ahead of that meeting yes and your
01:27:49 ahead of that meeting yes and your recollection in general terms is that what they told you in terms of an overview of the product
01:27:55 product accorded with what is said about the product in their marketing literature which you had seen previously yes yes yes we are going to come on to that
01:28:06 yes yes we are going to come on to that literature for now still looking at the paragraph in your witness statement that we've just
01:28:12 just read when you say in the third line that the king spent or the technical representatives were enthusiastic about the fire testing for the product
01:28:24 about the fire testing for the product are you able to be more specific what was it
01:28:28 was it that denoted enthusiasm to you
01:28:33 i i think from from memory it was just the
01:28:36 the demeanor when talking about that aspect of it you know this was this was something
01:28:41 something quite significant about the product and and not a new thing you know i want to be clear that as far as i was being told at the time this this product had been was being marketed for buildings over 18
01:28:53 was being marketed for buildings over 18 meters and had been for some time so it wasn't it wasn't a new thing but it was
01:28:59 it was it was significant to them and of course the bba certificate was the most recent developments that allowed them to to be a little more enthusiastic about it
01:29:09 it they tell you during the meeting as far as you can remember what you've just explained that this wasn't new and that k15 had been had been being marketed
01:29:20 k15 had been had been being marketed for over 18 meter use for some time i i recall being aware of that at that meeting yes i see and did they make you aware at the
01:29:32 i see and did they make you aware at the meeting
01:29:33 meeting that the bba certificate had been fairly recently issued or was that something you already knew i think i already knew that at that stage um but i think it's quite
01:29:44 at that stage um but i think it's quite likely that they talked about it it was one of the documents they gave me and i think they would have had it handed it to me as here's our new bba certificate yes mr jones am i correct in thinking that
01:29:56 mr jones am i correct in thinking that there were two documents handed to documents handed to you during the meeting the bba certificate which we will come on to and the product or marketing
01:30:05 marketing literature for k15 yes were there any others handed to you at that time no no again i'm afraid we'll need your
01:30:18 no no again i'm afraid we'll need your witness statement back up please and to page 10
01:30:30 going back please to the paragraph i had just read to you in the third line so we've discussed the enthusiasm and how you form that impression
01:30:41 and how you form that impression and you you then use the words in terms of their enthusiasm about the fire testing that kingspan had commissioned for k-15
01:30:49 for k-15 just so that i am clear was that a reference
01:30:53 reference as you understood it at the time fire testing that kingspan had commissioned to tests that had already taken place or to tests that they had commissioned
01:31:04 or to tests that they had commissioned and were coming up in the future uh my understanding would be tests that had already been taken place and were described at the bba certificate i see do you remember
01:31:16 i see do you remember what those tests were as they were described to you in the meeting
01:31:23 um i can't recall what they said about them in the meeting um i
01:31:31 um i i believe i was referred to the bba certificate where the where the tests were listed and described um certainly i believe that
01:31:42 um certainly i believe that the br 135 uh test or or the test that led to that would have been discussed because that was a key part of what they were what they were presenting to me yeah i
01:31:54 what they were presenting to me yeah i can't recall detail about what they said about those tests no all right i want to um just take you to some of kingspan's evidence about what you've said here about their enthusiasm about fire
01:32:06 about their enthusiasm about fire testing
01:32:07 testing and to ask you about it if we can go please to the transcript at day 86 page 122 and to line
01:32:24 23 yes if you look do you see it line 22 this i'm so sorry so that yes this is the evidence of andrew peck and he had been asked whether
01:32:36 and he had been asked whether essentially the section of your statement that you and i have just read was read to mr peck and he was asked whether he remembered that that's at line 22. do you see that yes i do and his answer
01:32:49 do you see that yes i do and his answer was this i don't remember being enthusiastic no and i then said to him do you think he is wrong about that he being a reference to you and mr pax's
01:33:00 he being a reference to you and mr pax's answer
01:33:01 answer uh which will go over the page was all i can recall is that we had brought along to the meeting a copy of our k-15 product literature and we brought along with us our bba
01:33:12 and we brought along with us our bba certificate we brought no fire testing data
01:33:15 data into the meeting and then he goes on so i couldn't have been very enthusiastic about fire testing data if i had nothing in front of me
01:33:26 of me that was his answer can i take it from what you have said that you would say that he is not right about that about being enthusiastic sorry yes
01:33:39 about being enthusiastic sorry yes um i suppose enthusiasm is subjective but certainly it was my impression that uh the the 18 meter uh
01:33:51 the the 18 meter uh factor and the br 135 and the testing behind it was significant enough to them that it
01:33:57 that it it was worthy of emphasis uh which i took as a level of enthusiasm but it was certainly emphasized as as the key feature of the product uh mr jones i know it's difficult as
01:34:08 uh mr jones i know it's difficult as you've said it was some years ago can you remember whether which of andrew pack or philipp heath were enthusiastic in the way that you've described or
01:34:19 described or or was it both um i'm sorry i can't i can't recall who said what
01:34:27 said what all right if we can go back to your witness statement please into page 10.
01:34:34 at the second paragraph there you say this i asked what kingspan hoped to achieve from the labc type approval process
01:34:42 process given the supporting information they already had in the form of test results and a bba certificate the response was that it was very much a marketing aim to have the labc brand associated with
01:34:55 to have the labc brand associated with their product and they wanted the opportunity to further emphasize the suitability of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters again for marketing
01:35:06 over 18 meters again for marketing purposes
01:35:07 purposes yes yes
01:35:10 yes yes all right looking at what you say there in the second line the supporting information they already had in the form of test results and a bba certificate
01:35:22 and a bba certificate i think you may have answered this but are you able now to say what test results as supporting information you understood them to have at the time of the meeting
01:35:35 them to have at the time of the meeting and to be absolutely clear i'm talking about
01:35:38 about for the use of the product over 18 meters
01:35:43 meters only the test results that were listed in the bba certificate and the reference to br135 that accompanied those results all right we'll come on to those
01:35:56 results all right we'll come on to those did you understand did you actually look through the bba certificate and the tests
01:36:01 tests that are listed within it during the course of the meeting
01:36:06 i'm not sure um i certainly wouldn't have been able in that meeting to properly read and digest the bba certificate you know it was a discussion rather than
01:36:18 was a discussion rather than an opportunity to read so i i don't suppose i would have um read the vba certificate in detail until i came away from that meeting um but it's possible i suppose that they
01:36:31 um but it's possible i suppose that they directed me towards specific paragraphs during the meeting i i can't really remember
01:36:35 remember the detail this time all right did you ask during the meeting to see any of the test results or reports that
01:36:46 any of the test results or reports that they were referring to
01:36:49 i didn't at the meeting now did you at any other time no why did you not
01:36:59 um we've talked earlier about the fact that i i knew only too well that i didn't have working knowledge or experience in testing of products
01:37:10 testing of products test standards and that i was basing my my summaries on on on the conclusions within the bba certificate had i asked for the test reports i
01:37:23 had i asked for the test reports i suppose the question is what would i have then been looking to do with those test reports because to analyze those test reports would have been a very different exercise to to to analyze the test
01:37:34 exercise to to to analyze the test conditions uh to compare them to the test standards on which they were based to interpret the results and if necessary challenge or ratify the results
01:37:42 results that's that's a process that was way outside of my expertise at the time so i suppose it begs the question what's the point in asking for the for the test reports unless i'm going to go through that process
01:37:54 go through that process which i know i'm not going to be able to so and again if we link back to the briefing
01:37:59 briefing to me by labc at the very start i'm where i'm being told actually you don't need to dig down and verify the test results because the vba have already done that for us and you can take the summaries and
01:38:11 you can take the summaries and conclusions um as as read yes i see so yes i think i think this is right isn't
01:38:23 yes i think i think this is right isn't it
01:38:23 it at no stage did you see any test data or test reports for before the may 2009 labc approval certificate was issued
01:38:35 certificate was issued no i didn't and is this what you're explaining please do correct me if i i have this wrong
01:38:43 wrong it during the meeting you didn't well during the meeting or at any other time you did not ask for any evidence at all that the tests
01:38:54 for any evidence at all that the tests had been carried out because by the time of the meeting you had already reached a decision that you would not read or analyze those reports
01:39:04 reports and therefore there was no point in requesting them is that what you're saying
01:39:08 saying i i think that is true i i've been told during that initial contact with labc that that wasn't part of my brief i wasn't required to do that because the bba had already done been through that process they'd already done
01:39:20 through that process they'd already done that
01:39:21 that yes even if even if you understood that it wasn't a requirement did you consider it all asking to see the underlying test reports
01:39:32 the underlying test reports just to have the background and in case you wanted to refer to them when you were carrying out your assessment
01:39:42 i can't recall whether i considered it but i didn't i didn't feel it appropriate um because i i suppose if i
01:39:53 um because i i suppose if i if i took the test reports
01:39:58 and and did not raise a query with them didn't challenge them then by implication i'm accepting their accuracy
01:40:05 accuracy but i knew that i wasn't competent to do that to accept their accuracy um so
01:40:13 um so i think again and in my mind i've been told i i didn't need to check the reports i didn't need to actually check the underlying results so i had that in my mind that i was doing basically doing what had been asked of
01:40:24 basically doing what had been asked of me
01:40:27 me yes i see that thought process that you've
01:40:30 you've just described well hang on if i take the test reports and don't query them then i'm effectively accepting them as accurate is is that a thought process you went through at the time or is that what
01:40:42 through at the time or is that what you're thinking now just so that i'm clear i think i would have gone through it at the time i think you know i knew i knew of the testing so i knew there were test reports out there yeah and i knew that i could request them but i said
01:40:54 request them but i said i'm sure that at that time i would have been questioning in my mind that if i do request them what what what purpose am i requesting them for what am i am i going to check them in which case am i capable of doing that am i going to get them checked by
01:41:05 am i going to get them checked by somebody else but again that wasn't part of the brief if if it had been i think the initial conversation with labc would probably draw on a line under it we probably wouldn't have gone any further
01:41:16 probably wouldn't have gone any further with it
01:41:16 with it so yeah yes i probably did consider it uh at the time all right did you wonder and you may not have done did you wonder
01:41:28 and you may not have done did you wonder why
01:41:29 why the kingspan representatives didn't offer any of the underlying test reports to you
01:41:38 i don't remember i don't remember thinking it odd at the time but i can't i can't recall i'm sorry no are you able to say if andrew pack
01:41:51 no are you able to say if andrew pack and philip heath had turned up at the meeting with not just
01:41:55 not just the marketing literature and the bba certificate but a number of test reports which are cited within the bba certificate would you have taken them or would you have said actually thanks very much that
01:42:06 have said actually thanks very much that that's outside my remit i don't want to see those
01:42:10 see those i would have taken them if they were part of the package being handed over but i think i would have taken them on the understanding that checking the checking reports is not part of the remit of this assessment
01:42:21 part of the remit of this assessment i've seen can we go back to page 20 please of your first witness statement
01:42:35 and to the first paragraph please if i just read that with you referring back to part of my answer to questions 9 and 29 i
01:42:46 my answer to questions 9 and 29 i believed
01:42:47 believed from their responses you're talking there about mr peck and mr heath my questions in the initial meeting that it was very much a marketing aim to have the labc brand associated with
01:42:59 to have the labc brand associated with their product furthermore they wanted the opportunity to further emphasize the suitability of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters again for marketing purposes this
01:43:12 for marketing purposes this letter point seemed to me to be significant to kingspan who wanted to capitalize on the testing which had been carried out and the very recent issue of bba certificate 084582
01:43:24 certificate 084582 which incorporated details of those tests
01:43:29 tests and again i appreciate that it is difficult but are you able to assist us with how or in what way the issue of the suitability for use of
01:43:41 the issue of the suitability for use of k-15 over 18 meters seemed to be significant to kingspan during the meeting
01:43:50 um it was clearly a market that not all insulation products could could enter so there was there was a
01:44:01 could enter so there was there was a clear
01:44:02 clear business advantage to them in having a product that could be marketed in in that context but give me just stopping you there for a moment did they say that or is that something you already knew
01:44:13 uh i don't think i already knew that no no i i don't before that meeting i don't think i knew the significance of the 18 meter
01:44:21 issue i think i think that was something that was conveyed to me in that meeting i see thank you and i'm sorry i stopped you actually go on please you were talking about how it how it came to you
01:44:32 it how it came to you to seem to be significant to kingspan um well yes it's a particular area of business an area of sales for them um they they had to my
01:44:43 of sales for them um they they had to my understanding got the tests in place but but the the icing on the cake for them i suppose they've got a bba certificate now from from october of that year that actually ratified uh what they
01:44:56 that actually ratified uh what they would what they were doing and how they were marketing the product and then the labc endorsement was going to be
01:45:02 to be just just another another factor in in that for them yes can you remember exactly what either mr pack or mr heath said to you
01:45:13 either mr pack or mr heath said to you about
01:45:15 about the use of the product over 18 meters in terms of
01:45:19 terms of compliance with building regulations
01:45:23 i can't remember remember the detail but the key part was br135 and the the way in which this product had performed in fire tests
01:45:34 mr jones were you told that more than one fire test relevant to bl-135 had been carried out successfully
01:45:46 i don't believe so no because you referred just then i think to fire tests in the plural
01:45:56 yes sorry go ahead yes there were there were other tests referred to in the bba certificate um so that's why i used the plural
01:46:07 um so that's why i used the plural yes i understand did you understand and we are going to come on to did you understand any of the tests in listed in the bba certificate which are not br135 or bs8414
01:46:21 which are not br135 or bs8414 did you understand any of the others to be relevant to the use of the product over 18 meters no no they were background information more than
01:46:31 more than specific i've seen
01:46:36 were you told in terms during the course of that meeting by either mr heath or mr peck or both the k-15 as a product was suitable for
01:46:47 the k-15 as a product was suitable for use
01:46:47 use over 18 meters i believe i was yes and i believe that mirrored the the sentence in the bba certificate which referred to the product uh having been having reached the
01:46:59 uh having been having reached the standards for bi135 and you remember that to be the explanation do you that it was suitable for use over 18 meters because it k-15 the product has met
01:47:11 because it k-15 the product has met the standards in br135 yes it was it was it was the product that was being talked about because of course the system was was undefined so there were yes there
01:47:22 was undefined so there were yes there was emphasis on the on the characteristics of the product and and how those length length to being suitable for for use over 18 meters
01:47:33 over 18 meters yes i see would you have known going into the meeting so before it what testing needs to be carried out
01:47:44 what testing needs to be carried out to show that a product like k15
01:47:49 let me put that differently well no would you have known uh going into the meeting what testing should have been carried out for k-15 to be suitable for use over 18
01:48:02 for k-15 to be suitable for use over 18 meters
01:48:04 meters i think that depends at what stage i properly read the bba certificate and i'm not sure as i said whether that was before or after the meeting um but that the description of the tests they made the link between bs8414 and
01:48:17 they made the link between bs8414 and br135
01:48:18 br135 so that would have been the extent of my knowledge yes i see and and so it may have been before or just afterwards but you did come to understand that bs8414 in particular
01:48:30 bs8414 in particular was a relevant test series for the use of this product over 18 meters yes correct
01:48:38 how many tests to bs 8414 did you understand during the meeting that kingspan had carried out
01:48:49 that kingspan had carried out successfully on any system incorporating k-15
01:48:55 i'm not sure if the number of tests had been discussed but i think perhaps i would have assumed it was one it was it was the one that was described in the bba certificate you think you might have assumed it was
01:49:07 you think you might have assumed it was one yes because the bba certificate talked of a specific test yes it did did you ask at any stage during the meeting how many tests to bs 8414 had been
01:49:18 how many tests to bs 8414 had been carried out on systems incorporating k-15 i i don't remember
01:49:24 remember sorry
01:49:27 do you remember either andrew peck or philip he's uh specifically mentioning that only one test
01:49:35 test to bs 8414 had been successfully carried out
01:49:38 out or on a system incorporating k-15 i don't specifically remember that now no
01:49:45 no do you remember either of those individuals telling you that k-15 was only suitable for use over 18 meters in
01:49:56 only suitable for use over 18 meters in one specific tested configuration no that was that was definitely not the case i mean i think i think from very early on in that meeting uh
01:50:07 from very early on in that meeting uh one of the first principles that came across was that k15 could be used in different configurations within the parameters of the testing that had been carried out who told you that mr jones
01:50:21 um i can't i can't recall what whether it was was andrew or philip um but i've said previously that the the
01:50:32 but i've said previously that the the meeting to my memory closely mirrored what was in the kingspan technical literature which i know talks of different
01:50:43 different types of assembly uh without without any caveats to say this this is only you know the 18 meter criteria there was nothing to indicate that only certain
01:50:55 nothing to indicate that only certain certain uh criteria fitted that yeah so that that's the content of the the addition of the marketing literature which we're going to come on to look at
01:51:07 to come on to look at in terms of what was actually said to you at the meeting is it your evidence that whatever particular words were used you were given to understand
01:51:19 were used you were given to understand that k-15 as a product could be used over 18 meters without qualification is that what you're saying
01:51:30 um within within the parameters of the testing that had been carried out uh which which i believe to be reflected
01:51:41 uh which which i believe to be reflected in the
01:51:42 in the vba certificate and the literature so the the impression i was given there is is that the tests that have been carried out set
01:51:51 out set parameters in which k-15 could be safely used uh and expected to perform as it had done in the tests and i think the general principle as i
01:52:03 and i think the general principle as i as i recall the impression i came away from that meeting with was that that you could you could use different
01:52:09 different products as part of the system as long as
01:52:13 as the fire performance of those products was equal to or better than the parameters set by the testing yeah
01:52:24 no i'm sorry i spoke over you please do go ahead
01:52:29 go ahead um sorry i think i think i'm finished all right so just going back to that answer you said i recall the impression i came away from
01:52:41 i recall the impression i came away from that meeting was that you could use different products as part of the system as long as the fire performance of those products was equal to or better than
01:52:51 than the parameters set by the testing yes yes that was the impression i had first of all
01:52:58 of all is i i mean it's very difficult for you to recall i understand but is that what was actually said did either mr heath or mr pax say that to
01:53:10 you i believe by the by the i had such a strong impression of that coming away from the meeting my feeling is that they must have done uh and and that
01:53:21 uh and and that in turn is consistent with what was in the kingspan literature so i whilst i'm working from from memory of what was said 12 years ago something gave me that impression in
01:53:33 something gave me that impression in that meeting i came away thinking that was the case yes and what were the parameters set by the testing which you've referred to as you
01:53:44 which you've referred to as you understood what were those parameters the non-combustible substrate referred to in the bba certificate and a system of cavity barriers
01:53:56 a system of cavity barriers um and and it it was what was described in the ba
01:54:00 in the ba bba certificate to me and a and a non-combustible um cladding panel yes i see can we go please to uh the transcript and this is again to the
01:54:12 the transcript and this is again to the evidence of andrew peck and this is at day
01:54:14 day 86 page 130 and i want to look starting at line 21 please
01:54:26 yes so the question he was asked there is did either you or philip heath as far as you can recall tell david jones that k15 in december 2008 when you met him was
01:54:38 in december 2008 when you met him was suitable for use over 18 meters only in one specific configuration and mr pack's response was i cannot recall the words we actually used but i
01:54:50 recall the words we actually used but i would have emphasized that it was based upon a non-combustible substrate and a non-combustible cladding sorry that's actually over onto the next page yes does that accord
01:55:03 onto the next page yes does that accord with your recollection is that what you were told
01:55:07 were told i think that that that's the impression i had yes it did mirrored what was being described in the bba certificate uh the non-convertible substrate and a non-combustible padding board which was a fairly generic type in
01:55:19 board which was a fairly generic type in that test description
01:55:22 as far as you can recall mr jones did either
01:55:25 either philip heath or andrew peck tell you that the only successful test to bs8414 on a system incorporating k-15
01:55:36 on a system incorporating k-15 had been carried out using old technology k-15 which by december 2008 was no longer being produced or sold
01:55:47 being produced or sold no certainly not because every every part of my judgment thereafter would have been null and void with that information
01:55:59 did either philip heath or andrew peck tell you that the version of k-15 then being sold in late 2008 and going into 2009
01:56:10 into 2009 that the new technology k-15 had been incorporated into four systems tested to bs 8414 part two
01:56:20 two all of which had been unsuccessful no no they didn't would that too have affected the assessment you went on
01:56:32 have affected the assessment you went on to carry out absolutely it would have been a different product any any assumptions made on previous testing would have been irrelevant yes
01:56:44 did either philip heath or andrew peck explain to you that the one successful test ws 8414 carried out on a system incorporating k-15 was on a
01:56:56 on a system incorporating k-15 was on a masonry-backed system so to part one and was therefore not relevant to steel frame systems no they didn't no when mr pack was asked
01:57:08 no they didn't no when mr pack was asked about this if we can go back to his evidence
01:57:09 evidence please at day 86 page 149
01:57:16 and this is it starting at line 15 i think please
01:57:23 yes i've asked in there did you tell david jones at that meeting or at any other time that the system tested in may 2005 was a masonry backed system not a steel frame system his answer yes
01:57:36 not a steel frame system his answer yes it would have been based upon a masonry background yes and he was asked again you told him that and his answer was yes however the literature we had i believe showed
01:57:49 the literature we had i believe showed masonry and steel frame with a non-combustible backing and i believe it was from that that the labc
01:57:56 labc was wrote do you remember mr pack telling you that no no i don't my understanding was clear that it
01:58:06 that it it was a non-combustible substrate um that that was the test condition all right mr jones did you tell
01:58:18 all right mr jones did you tell andrew pacquiao phillip he's at any stage either during the meeting or at any stage thereafter about your own levels of expertise and experience as you have described them to us
01:58:31 um i don't suppose i would have been as explicit as that in in giving them my background it wouldn't have been appropriate in in that meeting but i believe that as as the meeting progressed the the
01:58:44 as the meeting progressed the the questions i was asking and the nature of the things i was saying would have been it would have been obvious to somebody who who worked in this field what my level of experience was
01:58:56 of experience was all right thank you just so that i'm very clear your level of experience that you say would have been obvious during the meeting due to your questions are you talking there
01:59:08 are you talking there well which of the following three things are you talking about are you talking about
01:59:12 about the k-15 product that type of insulation or use of such products over 18 meters or are you talking about your level of
01:59:23 or are you talking about your level of experience in terms of the type approval process or a mixture of those i think probably a mixture of them i mean the type approval process
01:59:32 process was new to me but i had at least had had a briefing from labc on how that worked so i could talk about the type of approval process um with some competence but in terms of my knowledge of of
01:59:44 my knowledge of of k-15 of buildings over 18 meters and of testing and certification generally
01:59:50 generally i think it would have been apparent you know from as i say the question the sort of questions i was asking and the statements i was making that that i wouldn't have been trying to hide
02:00:01 hide you know my my lack of knowledge the whole point of this meeting was to elicit this knowledge from kingsman to find out from them what i needed to know no i mean would it be fair for me to say that you would
02:00:12 be fair for me to say that you would have
02:00:13 have no reason would you to hide your lack of knowledge about k-15 or its particular uses no no this was supposed to be a a relatively collaborative exercise
02:00:26 a relatively collaborative exercise between
02:00:26 between hereford council kingspan and labc all bringing to the table their own particular expertise to to to come up with a a usable document
02:00:39 can we go back to your first witness statement again please into page 37
02:00:53 if you look please that's about two-thirds of the way down the page at question 61 you've been asked there as far as you are aware
02:01:02 are aware did any employee or ex-employee of kingspan at any stage state that k15 was a material of limited combustibility whether verbally or in writing so that's
02:01:14 whether verbally or in writing so that's the question and you're asked to give details
02:01:17 details your answer if we can read it together please is this if this happened it would have been in my initial meeting with kingspan at the start of the herefordshire council assessment however i cannot from memory recall
02:01:29 however i cannot from memory recall exact wording or who said what and so on that basis it would be wrong of me to say that anybody used the specific phrase limited combustibility
02:01:40 limited combustibility i can say with some certainty however that i left that meeting going over the page please to 38
02:01:55 that i left that meeting with the clear impression that this is what k-15 was yes yes can you recall specifically what it was
02:02:08 can you recall specifically what it was during that meeting that gave you the impression that k15 was a material of limited combustibility
02:02:17 i think whilst i can't talk about specific wording as you know after all this time that this this very clear impression i had and i believe this was how it's presented it to me um
02:02:28 presented it to me um was that k15 has been put in these test conditions large-scale test rigs in a situation where only a limited combustibility
02:02:40 where only a limited combustibility material would do and it's passed it's it's behaved in those in those conditions in those in these test tricks it has behaved as you would expect and hope uh a a material of limited
02:02:51 uh a a material of limited combustibility would that that was the impression i had after that meeting it was it was the testing had proved the characteristics of this product when subjected to a fire
02:03:04 subjected to a fire yes were those large-scale test rigs described to you by andrew pack and or philip heath no right
02:03:17 did either philip keith or andrew pack tell you
02:03:20 tell you in terms that k15 was a material of limited combustibility i can't say that they did
02:03:29 i think it's
02:03:32 there's there's the the specific term limited combustibility which has a meaning in itself and there are lots of other words that can describe a material that has a limited capacity to
02:03:43 material that has a limited capacity to burn and it's i think perhaps it's difficult sometimes to draw the line between one and the other or it was for me at that time anyway yes did either of them use some words
02:03:54 did either of them use some words to the effect that k-15 had a limited capacity to burn
02:04:01 i can't remember words but again i remember it being the distinct impression that i had so i believe that somehow in that discussion words must have been used that to give me this very distinct
02:04:13 that to give me this very distinct impression that you could you could subject this product to fire and it would not it would not i'm not going to say it would not burn because we know that these products burn but it would not burn it would burn in a
02:04:24 but it would not burn it would burn in a very limited way i see did either philip heath or andrew pack
02:04:31 pack tell you that the test which had been carried out to bs 8414 somehow meant that k15 could be considered
02:04:42 meant that k15 could be considered to be a product of limited combustibility
02:04:48 i couldn't say they use those specific words but i think that that was the
02:04:55 that was a principle that came out that it's behaved as you would want a material of limited combustibility to behave in these circumstances therefore you know that
02:05:06 know that and these were my words later of course but it can be considered a material of limited combustibility by virtue of the way it's performed when subjected to fire yes i
02:05:17 performed when subjected to fire yes i see
02:05:17 see i understand that those were your words later and certainly will come to those and i do appreciate that it's your evidence that you can't in fact recall specific words but just going back to that last
02:05:28 that last answer you said that was a principle that came out that it's behaved as you would want a material of limited combustibility to behave in these circumstances therefore
02:05:39 in these circumstances therefore it and then you you stopped and went on to something else is the principle that came out is this your evidence the principle that came out whatever the words that were used was
02:05:51 whatever the words that were used was that
02:05:53 that because it had behaved like a material of limited combustibility it could be considered to be one yes that was that was how i interpreted
02:06:05 yes that was that was how i interpreted what was being said
02:06:13 i want to take you to the evidence of both philippi and andrew peck on this particular issue if we can take them in turn if we go to philip heath first please
02:06:24 first please at day 79 page 178 line 25
02:06:39 yes it's the very final the last line there did you ever tell mr jones during that meeting that k15 and going over please to page 179
02:06:52 was a material of limited combustibility and his answer absolutely not and then the question did you ever tell him that the test to bs8414
02:07:02 bs8414 in 2005 meant that it could be considered to be a material of limited combustibility answer no i wouldn't have said that no question did you ever give mr jones the
02:07:15 question did you ever give mr jones the impression that k-15 was suitable for use over 18 meters without qualification answer no i didn't
02:07:25 mr jones is that evidence true as far as you can recollect
02:07:32 uh in terms of them telling me directly that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility um as far as the
02:07:45 um as far as the the actual wording goes i think his evidence could be correct but he didn't say that directly in in the way it's worded there in terms of the question in in in line seven um yes
02:07:58 seven um yes i think i was given the impression
02:08:02 that that k-15 was suitable for use over 18 meters perhaps not without qualification because we still had the parameters set by the testing yeah but but the parameters set by the
02:08:14 yeah but but the parameters set by the testing were given to be quite broad uh in terms of non-combustible substrate non-combustible cladding panel and the requisite uh cavity barriers and and the like in in between yes and
02:08:27 and the like in in between yes and anything non-combustible and some cavity barriers basically that that was it yes yeah great turning to mr pax evidence on this please at day 86
02:08:38 please at day 86 and and page 148
02:08:48 and if we go to line 15
02:08:53 can you see that he says that but i this is so these are mr pax words at a answer but i absolutely disagree with the comment that he left that meeting under the understanding that our product was
02:09:05 understanding that our product was limited combustibility and then i think i said to him i'm not sure you can disagree with his recollection that he left the meeting with that impression i think what you're trying to say is
02:09:16 i think what you're trying to say is that you didn't give that impression are you
02:09:18 you and he said absolutely he was then asked did either you or mr heath say that k15 was a material of limited combustibility answer i can comment on i can only
02:09:30 answer i can comment on i can only comment on myself and i did not say the product was limited combustibility or infer
02:09:36 or infer that it was of limited combustibility and asked again you didn't say it or infer
02:09:42 infer it and his answer yes again is is that right what what do you say about that i i believe there must have been some form of inference
02:09:53 form of inference i i i came away with that impression of the product and i must have got that from somewhere yes
02:10:04 going back please to your first witness statement now at page 38.
02:10:15 statement now at page 38. to the first paragraph yes at the top there
02:10:19 there it do you see the sentence beginning i recall thinking yes so this is just after you've explained that you left the meeting with a clear impression that k-15 was of limited combustibility
02:10:30 limited combustibility you go on to say that i recall thinking that this was consistent with a general opinion among building control surveyors i had known that kingspan products would not really burn but would char slowly
02:10:42 burn but would char slowly and self-extinguish once the ignition source was removed yes yes do you mean there just for clarity that you recall thinking that after the meeting with
02:10:53 thinking that after the meeting with kingspan
02:10:54 kingspan yes it's something it's something that stuck in my mind that i came away from that meeting with the impression that that this product had behaved as as a material of limited combustibility
02:11:05 limited combustibility would be expected to and then thinking actually yes that's that's what people have always said about it um in in that i i can recall a marketing video which i think was from kingspan of that time
02:11:17 think was from kingspan of that time which i've seen and i'm sure many of my peers had seen which showed a piece of kingspan board being subjected to a blowtorch and it shows how it doesn't actually catch light it turns black it glows red around the edges the blowtorch
02:11:29 the edges the blowtorch blow torch is turned off and and the flame peters out so there was there was definitely an impression in the industry that that was how his products behaved in fire so what what i was being told didn't seem
02:11:41 what what i was being told didn't seem so outlandish with that in mind yes that general opinion or that awareness that you had of that view
02:11:53 that you had of that view of how kingspan products would perform in fire
02:11:57 in fire am i correct in understanding you you were not talking there in your witness statement about k15 only that that was your impression of kingspan products in general their insulation boards
02:12:09 insulation boards this generic form of product yes i see
02:12:15 this memory you had all this awareness that you had and the general opinion among building control
02:12:22 control surveyors that kingspan products would not
02:12:25 not really burn but would char slowly and then self-extinguish once the source of flame was removed did you understand that to mean the same as
02:12:36 understand that to mean the same as being of limited combustibility i don't i don't think i made that direct comparison i mean i think what i would say is that
02:12:47 say is that now at this stage i understand that a very great significance attached to the to the two words limited combustibility and i mentioned earlier that actually is
02:12:58 and i mentioned earlier that actually is there a difference between a material of limited combustibility and the material which has a limited capacity to burn there can be two different things i i don't i don't think in 2008 and 2009 i would have quite understood
02:13:12 and 2009 i would have quite understood the distinction between those two things yes do you see a distinction between them now
02:13:22 them now yes from the analysis post-rental yes i don't think there can be many industry professionals who don't see the words limited combustibility and
02:13:33 see the words limited combustibility and and and hear alarm bells but that i don't believe that was the case in 2008 i don't i don't think it was as well understood i see
02:13:41 i see could you tell me when did the words limited combustibility come to mean something different to you than they had done in late 2008 early 2009
02:13:52 late 2008 early 2009 i think this the significance of it has been in the last year or so you know nearly a year and a half
02:14:00 half when i was first asked to start answering questions by this inquiry i mean bearing in mind that i haven't i haven't worked in in the building control profession since early in 2014
02:14:11 control profession since early in 2014 so i haven't you know it hasn't been something that i would have considered since then yes thank you going back to your witness statement first witness statement again now please
02:14:23 first witness statement again now please and to page 28.
02:14:29 if we can look at the
02:14:34 second paragraph from the top no i don't think that is oh yes that is it at the first paragraph there you say
02:14:46 at the first paragraph there you say there is no doubt that my wording in the type approval summary would have been influenced by things that were said by kingspan representatives at the initial meeting and by things
02:14:58 at the initial meeting and by things that were written or shown in the kingspan technical literature
02:15:06 is that right i i believe it would be i believe that first meeting set sort of set the scene if you like it set the initial principles
02:15:17 the initial principles um and and in some ways the direction that i took it from there yes could we just scroll down that page please is this another section that i'm
02:15:29 please is this another section that i'm looking for and that is not currently available to my brain no we'll come back to that all right uh can we go now please to
02:15:40 uh i want to show you some email correspondence if we can go please to kin30s
02:15:45 kin30s 249 89 please
02:15:54 thank you and if we can go down please to the third email down in the chain so i think it's yes so this is your
02:16:07 so i think it's yes so this is your email to andrew peck sent on the 26th of january 2009 at 1446 yes yes you say there i'm just going to go to
02:16:19 you say there i'm just going to go to the second paragraph so the larger paragraph
02:16:23 paragraph i have now done the research necessary and come up with what i think will be a usable certificate for acceptance by labc across the uk
02:16:34 for acceptance by labc across the uk what i have tried to do as we discussed is to get away from just assessing k-15 as a product in isolation and extend the certificate to represent a system approval for the whole external
02:16:46 a system approval for the whole external wall arrangement of course with the other components being undefined and with various options available this does present some problems as we established when we met
02:16:57 established when we met what i have done though is to refer to the three standard details contained within the kingspan literature unless you have any other standard detail drawings that you think may be more appropriate
02:17:09 more appropriate and instead of applying a manufacturer's reference to the undefined elements i have specified a generic standard for each
02:17:17 each using british standard references the conclusion being that k-15 can be accepted in all locations provided the other parts of the wall construction meet the standards stated
02:17:28 construction meet the standards stated and reflect the kingspan standard details
02:17:32 details inevitably most mainstream products will have been manufactured to the appropriate british standard and so the system in each case should be fairly easy to pin down
02:17:43 fairly easy to pin down and the contribution of k15 to the relevant parts of the regulations obvious all right sorry it's quite a long passage to read but just looking at the second line of that
02:17:55 just looking at the second line of that paragraph
02:17:56 paragraph in this yes in the second line about halfway across where you say what i've tried to do as we discussed
02:18:04 is this something that you had discussed with andrew pack at your meeting in december 2008 and by that i mean the idea of extending the certificate to represent a system approval
02:18:16 represent a system approval for the whole external wall arrangement rather than a product approval for k-15 yes i believe this is probably the first
02:18:27 yes i believe this is probably the first contact i had with andrew since the meeting in december and i believe it's a sort of continuation of the discussion we had in that meeting uh about
02:18:38 that meeting uh about how you know and this goes right back to the question uh i had at the start is how do i do a system approval when i only have one part of that system and and how that question developed into a discussion
02:18:50 question developed into a discussion in that meeting that eventually led to this email um you know i think if we go back to the original email chain from labc we see it's
02:18:59 it's we as hereford council were being asked to do a system approval and not not a product approval and i'd wrangled
02:19:06 wrangled again and again with how can i do this but i think that the meeting with kingspan
02:19:13 kingspan covered this in in quite quite some detail as to how we can make it a useful certificate because a certificate just just for the product just for an insulation product was going to be of no value to kingspan
02:19:24 was going to be of no value to kingspan it didn't say anything it just so this is a this is a slab of insulation so it was clear that they wanted something more they wanted it to be something that that could be representative of a system or
02:19:36 could be representative of a system or gear that that system hadn't been defined
02:19:38 defined and i think this email is you know i've gone away from the meeting and i've wrapped my brains to see well how could we define a system while still staying within the parameters of of what's been tested and what what what
02:19:51 of what's been tested and what what what this product can be used for yes in terms of this issue being discussed at the meeting and you've just said there that it it was discussed in quite some detail because
02:20:03 discussed in quite some detail because i think it's fair to say it was quite an obvious problem with this whole process was it yes to me it was it was a very as i say i wrangled over a lot to say how on earth can i do this
02:20:16 say how on earth can i do this yes who was it who raised it at the meeting was it you or was it one of mr heath or mr peck uh the problem of i believe it would have been me because i think it was one
02:20:27 have been me because i think it was one of my questions you know that i went to that meeting armed with i see and can you remember what either philip heath or andrew peck said about it you said a few moments ago i think
02:20:38 it you said a few moments ago i think that it was clear that they wanted something that could be representative of a system is that what one or both of them said to you
02:20:49 you yes that's i mean again i can't remember the wording but that was discussed yes all right can we go back again please to andrew pack's evidence and this is at day
02:21:01 85 but i think it might be 86 at page
02:21:10 152.
02:21:19 yes and then if we look at line 19 please mr pack is being asked there about the email you and i have just looked at where you said
02:21:31 looked at where you said as we discussed at our meeting and the dis
02:21:35 dis what you say in the email about system approvals and extending the certificate all right and mr peck says no that wasn't it wasn't kingspan that came up with that idea
02:21:47 that idea we talked to herefordshire council about the product he went away discussed with labc and came back
02:21:54 came back and his conclusion was that we should treat it as a system approval and then this was put to him well no but hang on
02:22:03 hang on what he says here is and mr jones this is a reference back to the email if you look at the second line of that larger paragraph and then yeah going over this quote at
02:22:15 and then yeah going over this quote at the top is from your email that we've just looked at what i have tried to do as we discussed is to get away from just assessing k-15 as a product mr peck says yes and then the question
02:22:28 mr peck says yes and then the question is so that must have been discussed at the meeting he didn't come away from the meeting come up with the idea that he would extend the certificate into a system approval
02:22:38 approval and then announce it to you here he is saying to you here isn't he we discussed that idea at the meeting and here's how i'm going to go about it do you see and then
02:22:50 do you see and then that's what i'm saying so at the meeting we discussed just the product in isolation
02:22:56 isolation i say yes mr pac then says when outline 14 he then went away and said actually i've now discussed it and i have another solution
02:23:06 solution which is to treat it as a system approval
02:23:10 approval then if we go down to line 18 please mr pack says this so in the meeting we had we were looking at the product it was just the product in isolation on its own
02:23:21 just the product in isolation on its own just like we did with the tapered insulation it was talking about the insulation obviously
02:23:27 obviously he has now gone away and said actually i've now come up with a proposal and the proposal is that we look at it as a system approval i realize i've read quite a lot
02:23:38 approval i realize i've read quite a lot there but
02:23:39 there but is he right about that is that what happened that you went away afterwards and came up with this idea no i don't agree with that uh account of events
02:23:50 events um i i can distinctly remember from the meeting that that any suggestion that it was just could be a product approval was of limited value even to the extent that i feel that if i had
02:24:01 had said that i don't think it would have gone any further you know obviously they hadn't at that stage paid labc any money but i think if it had just been a certificate of a slab of insulation
02:24:12 it was of no value to them and they wouldn't have gone any further with it so that email we were looking at a moment ago from me clearly contained some proposals from me about how we might move it
02:24:24 from me about how we might move it forward
02:24:24 forward but there were proposals designed to meet the needs that kingsman had expressed in that meeting it was it was it began with with their requirements yes should we go back to that email
02:24:38 yes should we go back to that email um that might assist you it's kin3024989 please
02:24:54 yes so at the fourth line down you say of course with the other components being undefined and with various options available this does present some
02:25:05 available this does present some problems as we established when we met does this i mean having having been taken to mr pax's evidence and you've very helpfully
02:25:16 pax's evidence and you've very helpfully said that you don't agree with that account of events can you help us to
02:25:22 what were the problems you established when you met as you referred to in the essentially the fifth line of that paragraph of that email what were those
02:25:31 those well it was it was about how to define a system that would stay within the parameters that we needed them to stay within for the testing that had been carried out
02:25:43 the testing that had been carried out um if if we didn't specify any products as part of that system then that left it open to use just about anything
02:25:52 anything uh which which wouldn't have stayed within the parameters of the test so that was the problem how do we how do we define these products in a way that
02:26:03 we define these products in a way that that limits the system to the parameters needed
02:26:08 needed without actually knowing what those products are yes and you then go on to set out how you propose to get around the
02:26:19 how you propose to get around the problems
02:26:20 problems that you had discussed which you've just described
02:26:24 described can i take it that you considered at the time
02:26:27 time that the proposal you set out there was accurate and correct i believed it to be i i believe that what i was trying to define there was within the parameters of the testing
02:26:40 was within the parameters of the testing that we discussed within the parameters of the testing as those had been described to you by king span
02:26:48 king span yes yes this is this email is a continuation of the discussion in that meeting
02:26:54 meeting yes i'm sorry can i just um ask for your help on something mr jones you were obviously very concerned that you were being asked to produce
02:27:05 you were being asked to produce a certificate for a system uh when the test had only been or the appropriate certificate would be for a product
02:27:15 a product why do you why did you feel it necessary to go to such lengths to satisfy kingspan's requirements
02:27:24 i perhaps asked myself the same question now but it's because that's what labc had asked us to do it asked us to do a system approval they'd asked us to go to
02:27:35 they'd asked us to go to to meet kingspan and find out what kingsman wanted so i i suppose from from every angle i was being pressured by labc and by kingspan if you like to find a way of doing a system approval
02:27:46 to find a way of doing a system approval and i suppose i was just trying to i was just trying to please all parties um but at the same time come up with something coherent as far as i felt it was at the time yeah
02:27:58 as far as i felt it was at the time yeah that's helpful thank you very much yes it's true sorry thank you no could we go back to your first witness statement please enter page 41.
02:28:20 yes could you look please do you see the third paragraph which is quite a big paragraph if you could go yeah that one if you could go to
02:28:31 could go to it's four lines up from the bottom of that paragraph beginning in terms of merit
02:28:36 merit do you see that yes i just want to read that with you you say that in terms of merit i believe it would be true to say that information by information released by a company like
02:28:47 information released by a company like kingspan
02:28:48 kingspan a world leader in insulation products with an extensive budget for research and development and a reputation for integrity
02:28:56 integrity would have been viewed not with unconditional acceptance but with a degree of trust now i i think in fact you're talking there in particular about the technical
02:29:08 there in particular about the technical or marketing literature that is released by kingspan would it be true to say or would it be fair to say that the same thinking would apply on
02:29:20 that the same thinking would apply on your part
02:29:22 your part to information you were given by kingspan representatives at a meeting absolutely yes
02:29:31 from where had you learnt what you described there as kingspan's reputation for integrity
02:29:39 i i just i'd worked in the construction industry
02:29:43 industry um all my all of my career up to that point not always in building control of course but but kingspan are one of the
02:29:51 the the most prominent material manufacturers in in the uk i believe and so we all knew a lot about the company now maybe
02:30:00 now maybe maybe my you know impression of them as a company of integrity was misplaced but it was it was how i felt at the time they were
02:30:11 it was how i felt at the time they were they were an industry leader they were driving
02:30:15 driving certain parts of the of of industry agenda of regulatory agenda the whole industry turned to them for advice on
02:30:22 advice on um part l compliance and insulation products at a time of course when when cartel was at the top of the regulatory agenda so we all knew kingspan we all knew of them
02:30:35 we all knew kingspan we all knew of them yes
02:30:36 yes you said that the whole industry turned to them for advice on part l as far as you were aware at the times they were talking again about early 2009
02:30:47 they were talking again about early 2009 were kingspan consulted by industry by other
02:30:50 other uh organizations or individuals in industry or on other aspects other than part l yes i believe they would have been it's the suitability of their products and of course in the case of k-15
02:31:02 course in the case of k-15 it isn't just the part-l compliance it's also for part b compliance and and any other relevant you know building regulations requirements so yes they were providing this this advice service to the industry
02:31:14 advice service to the industry yes and as far as you were aware in in 2009 or late 2008 and your impression of kingspan or your understanding that of a
02:31:26 or your understanding that of a reputation for integrity was that shared by your colleagues do you think yes i would say it was yes all right mr jones we're going to move on to talk about your understanding
02:31:37 move on to talk about your understanding at the time you were carrying out the research to produce the 2009 certificate of certain key terms so i'm going to ask that we go please to your first witness statement
02:31:48 please to your first witness statement at page 29.
02:32:00 you've been asked uh here by the inquiry above
02:32:03 above about your understanding in may 2009 that's at the top of the page of a series of different uh words or phrases and i just want to take you through those if we look at a
02:32:14 look at a you've been asked about the meaning of limited combustibility and you say there i would have understood limited combustibility in quite a literal sense to mean a material that had the capacity
02:32:25 to mean a material that had the capacity to burn
02:32:26 to burn so could not be considered non-combustible but would ignite with some difficulty and would not allow flame to spread easily through it yes yes where had that
02:32:39 yes yes where had that understanding come from
02:32:44 uh i think it was just a perhaps a literal interpretation of the words limited combustibility and perhaps links to an earlier question where i said it it is about
02:32:56 question where i said it it is about making this distinction between limited combustibility and materials that have a limited combust capacity to burn which which i think at that time
02:33:07 that time i don't believe i had and i don't believe i was unusual in that but but so i think it is quite a literal interpretation and i don't think there was a wide
02:33:18 and i don't think there was a wide understanding of what limited combustibility was in the industry then in my experience so is your understanding of the meaning of that phrase limited combustibility different now
02:33:32 limited combustibility different now yes yes i mean i was aware in 2008 that uh there was a a table in the in the back of
02:33:40 back of uh approved document b that that gave a criteria for limited combustibility so i i i knew that much but but i still i still would have viewed it as well
02:33:52 i still would have viewed it as well there may be other ways of defining a material that has a limited capacity capacity to burn as we were always it was always drummed into us to spill the control officers that you know the approved document is one way of
02:34:05 know the approved document is one way of achieving something but you should always be open to looking at other evidence to see if the functional requirement is met so the functional requirement in my mind for limited combustibility would be something that had this limited capacity
02:34:16 something that had this limited capacity to burn
02:34:17 to burn yes i see so you were aware at the time that there was a table defining the term within approved document b were you yes it would
02:34:25 it would it would have been that that table was referred to in section 12 so i you know i would have i would have been aware of that yes yes but is this right you decided
02:34:36 yes yes but is this right you decided that
02:34:37 that there might be other ways to view it or of defining a material as having a limited capacity to burn yes about looking at a functional
02:34:48 yes about looking at a functional requirement and then as i say this was something that really was jumped into us as building control surveyors we all knew that the approved documents could be um very limited in in in terms of well
02:35:01 very limited in in in terms of well they could be very confusing they could be open to interpretation they were always
02:35:04 always behind the times in terms of industry development so it was a requirement of the job that you'd be prepared to look at and properly consider alternative approaches that you
02:35:15 alternative approaches that you that seem to meet the same functional requirement yes i think i understand all that just so that i'm clear would you not you say that you were aware of the table
02:35:27 you say that you were aware of the table in approved document b defining limited combustibility and uh giving that phrase its particular meaning in in this context
02:35:38 meaning in in this context before deciding on the basis of all the things about the approved documents which you've just mentioned before deciding that that it would be good to look at alternatives
02:35:50 would be good to look at alternatives and other ways to define it would it not be sensible to actually check the definition in that table in in approved document b to see whether you need it to go outside of it in any way
02:36:01 way um i believe i would have done that in in that it was referred to in section 7 which is where i would have started i see all right we'll we'll come to that then
02:36:12 then uh thank you if we can go back to your witness statement which i think is still on
02:36:16 on should still be on the screen and look at b
02:36:19 at b this is about the meaning of uh national class naught a classification to national class naught and you say there
02:36:31 and you say there let me go down the page a little please
02:36:39 or maybe on to the next page i don't know
02:36:43 know yes thank you say there actually if we look at
02:36:46 look at b and onwards together you say first i would have understood class naught to be the highest possible national standard when judging the ability of a material to prevent fire from spreading across
02:36:57 from spreading across it and then you say at sea i would not have had a particular understanding as to how class naught was achieved
02:37:05 achieved but would have known that there were tests which could demonstrate whether a material achieved class naught yes
02:37:12 yes yes you then go on to say i would have been aware that those properties which allowed
02:37:18 allowed some materials to be designated as class naught
02:37:21 naught could be the same properties which allowed them to be classed as materials of limited combustibility and vice versa however i would have known that a material of limit i'm so sorry i would
02:37:33 material of limit i'm so sorry i would have known that a material being designated class naught would not have automatically allowed it to be considered limited combustibility even though that might often be the case
02:37:44 even though that might often be the case yes
02:37:46 yes yes and then at the last paragraph you say i can recall a great deal of confusion over this both in the wider construction industry and within the building control profession
02:37:57 profession i would say from my experience then that it was common to hear people say even within building control circles that if a material doesn't allow fire to spread across it
02:38:09 spread across it then it must be of limited combustibility yes yes given that you've identified that well let me just check actually
02:38:20 that well let me just check actually were you aware at the time of that confusion you described in industry
02:38:26 uh yes i was aware of the confusion it was something was building control officers we often had to correct in the in the wider industry that the difference between fire resistance and fire retardance and combustibility
02:38:39 fire retardance and combustibility it wasn't widely understood no but those were matches which you as a building control
02:38:44 control professional had to have a good enough working knowledge of to be able to correct
02:38:49 correct the misunderstandings of of others is that right uh yes yes
02:38:58 can i take it then that in 2009 there was absolutely no confusion in your mind as
02:39:04 as to the difference between and the relationship between the classification to national class naught and a material of limited combustibility yes i i knew that it was two separate
02:39:16 yes i i knew that it was two separate things
02:39:17 things that the the class naught designation of k-15
02:39:21 k-15 was was a piece of background information that that viewed alongside everything else might have pushed you towards a certain conclusion but i knew that that in itself
02:39:31 itself didn't didn't uh allow a material to be called limited combustibility i mean i think the the only and this is all from from memory of how i thought at the time
02:39:42 thought at the time i think the only possible confusion would be that i think there was a there was a
02:39:50 was a sometimes an understanding that if you have a material that is a class naught
02:39:57 that the material making up the surface layer of that material would be of limited combustibility because if it wasn't
02:40:05 wasn't fire would spread readily across it so
02:40:10 a class o product might have a limited combustibility surface but what lies behind it is not i suppose the question comes then what if you've got a product that is a solid block
02:40:20 block of something like you know a cyber insulation if you make if you make the judgment that the surface of it has a tube class o so the surface layer must be
02:40:31 o so the surface layer must be of limited combustibility but actually the middle of it is made of the same material could that be limited to combustibility again i don't think i would have um you know that's that in itself wouldn't have been enough for me to to say this this product's limited
02:40:42 to say this this product's limited combustibility that there were other factors
02:40:45 factors but it was just another piece of evidence you know when i'm weighing up the facts to make a judgment yes all right
02:40:53 right thank you if we can go back to page 29 of your witness statement please
02:41:04 no i'm so sorry to page 30 in fact and to paragraph e which i think is about halfway down yes
02:41:11 yes then you had been asked about the relevance if any of a class naught classification to an insulation board such as k-15 and you say the only direct relevance i
02:41:23 and you say the only direct relevance i would see
02:41:24 would see is in relation to cavity barriers in table 13 of approved document b where the extent of subdivision is linked to surface spread rating of surfaces
02:41:33 surfaces within the cavity yes
02:41:41 do you see that
02:41:52 hello yes i can hear you now i'm so sorry could you repeat your last couple of sentences i think you were speaking but i couldn't hear you
02:42:02 you sorry yes i was just i was just agreeing that yes i can see that yes all right thank you is that something you were aware of in 2009 or something
02:42:13 in 2009 or something you've become aware of at some stage since then you know i think that was something i was aware of in 2009 because once again it's
02:42:21 it's something that's referred to in section 12. yes all right let's go to page 31 please and paragraph f here you're being asked
02:42:32 paragraph f here you're being asked about your understanding as of may 2009 of the 8414 test series and you say i would not have had any real knowledge of the bs8414 test series
02:42:44 real knowledge of the bs8414 test series other than the fact that it set the standard for testing external cladding systems
02:42:48 systems and had links with br135 it had never come up in anything i had dealt with up to that point yes yes
02:42:58 yes yes did you appreciate prior to the issue of the labc approval certificate in may 2009
02:43:05 2009 that bs8414 is a system test rather than a product test
02:43:13 i i wouldn't have had a detailed understanding of the test series now but well fair enough i appreciate that but did you did you know that did you know
02:43:25 did you did you know that did you know that it was a system test yes sorry i i think
02:43:29 think yes i i knew by virtue of its links with br135 that it was a test of the system yes yes i think i think what i what i meant to say was i i wouldn't have appreciated uh
02:43:41 i i wouldn't have appreciated uh the the the very specific nature of the test as in a bs8414 test is only valid for an exact replica of the test that it's based on you did not appreciate that at the time
02:43:53 you did not appreciate that at the time not at the time now when did you come to appreciate that only in uh preparing for for for the responses to the inquiry in
02:44:05 for the responses to the inquiry in all right and then um we perhaps don't need to go back to it but you no we probably do back to page 31 please into paragraph
02:44:16 h
02:44:24 you say that in the first line i would not in 2009 have appreciated the difference between parts one and two of bs8414 is that right that's right was that the case both
02:44:36 that's right was that the case both before and after your meeting with kingspan
02:44:38 kingspan in december 2008 yes i believe so yes do you remember whether at any stage of your meeting with philip heath and andrew peck
02:44:49 with philip heath and andrew peck the difference between part one and part two
02:44:53 two of bs8414 was touched on i don't believe it was because i think it would have prompted me to research it further yes did you at any stage
02:45:04 stage read bs 8414 either part one or part two before the approval certificate for k-15 was issued no i didn't
02:45:17 given that bs8414 well i think you said that neither bs8414 nor br135 had come up in anything you had dealt with up to that point and
02:45:30 up to that point and you were aware that the r135 as you put it i think set the standard for external cladding systems
02:45:38 systems were you not prompted by this piece of work
02:45:42 work and what it encompassed so to look up bs8414 or br135
02:45:51 um i wasn't at the time no i i i believe i i thought that the fairly definitive statements in the bba certificate were enough to say
02:46:02 certificate were enough to say this product has has met the classification necessary for the l135 and then that was the information i i went forward with yes
02:46:13 i went forward with yes without even knowing what the classification criteria in br 135 were yes having had no experience with those british standards
02:46:24 those british standards it just wasn't i think when using third-party guidance in particular british standards i i was always taught that you've got to be careful not to pick and choose you if you're going to use a
02:46:35 choose you if you're going to use a british standard you either use it fully or or you don't use it at all you can't just
02:46:41 just use bits of it and pick and choose the bits you understand so i think perhaps i felt that not having any knowledge of 8414 or testing standards in general that
02:46:54 or testing standards in general that i wasn't going to learn about about these test series in the in the scope of this exercise that i was doing i see are you saying essentially that it was better to proceed with
02:47:06 was better to proceed with no knowledge at all than to start trying to learn about it at that stage it was it was just beyond the scope of what i've been asked to do by labc i think is just
02:47:17 think is just is the key to it um if if as i described earlier if my grief had been to
02:47:23 to properly analyze and vet the test results
02:47:27 results that were based on the s8414 then i would have naturally needed to have a proper understanding of a414 in order to do that to see if the test conditions matched what was required by the
02:47:39 matched what was required by the standard but because all of this was outside of the scope of the brief it wasn't part of what i was asked to do yes mr jones are you able to say if in your call with the labc
02:47:50 your call with the labc that person had said to you right you're going to need to understand bs8414 parts one and two the criteria in br135
02:48:01 br135 and the circumstances in which kingspan's particular test was carried out do you think you would have accepted this piece of work no no i think that
02:48:12 no no i think that that would have had we taken on that piece of work our services council we would have had sort of outsourced that to a
02:48:20 that to a to a fire specialist because we didn't have that expertise within the department uh and quite honestly if that were the case we would have said to labc look just go straight to a fire consultant there's no point in coming to
02:48:31 consultant there's no point in coming to us
02:48:31 us uh in between you might as well go straight straight to a consultant yes were you familiar you've referred to it i think now a couple of times
02:48:43 it i think now a couple of times did you look in the course of your uh review or looking at the documents in order to write up your type approval summary
02:48:53 summary did you go to approve document b yes i did to what section can you remember
02:48:59 remember we'll come on to look at it if that will help but um i i think i think it's section 12 the the part that deals with
02:49:10 moving now um on in time after your meeting with kingspan can you tell us what work you did at that stage what research if any did you carry out
02:49:21 you carry out after the meeting after the meeting i think i i would have gone away um read in detail the bba certificate and the
02:49:29 and the um the kings band literature referred to the notes i've taken in the meeting with king spann and i would have related that back to approved document b
02:49:40 approved document b well and some of the other approved documents that are referred to in that in that report but mainly improve document b yes did you consider it open to you following your meeting with kingspan to
02:49:52 following your meeting with kingspan to request
02:49:52 request more documents from them if you had wanted to do so
02:49:58 yes i i i wouldn't have proceeded if i felt there were documents i needed that i didn't have no it you would have requested those yes but um you felt am i right at the time
02:50:12 but um you felt am i right at the time that what you had was enough i felt that what i had was enough to follow
02:50:18 follow for the scope of the exercise that labc had
02:50:21 had delegated to us yes if we can go please to page 22 of your first witness statement
02:50:36 first witness statement and to the first paragraph there you summarize essentially what you did after the meeting with kingsfan you say to the best of my recollection which i think you're summarizing the
02:50:47 which i think you're summarizing the process in general to the best of my recollection it began with me attending an initial meeting with kingspan technical representatives at their office at their offices followed by a review of
02:50:59 at their offices followed by a review of the technical literature provided for the product and the bba certification for the product alongside the functional requirements of part b of the building regulations and the guidance in approved document b
02:51:11 guidance in approved document b yes yes when you describe there alongside the functional requirements of part b and approved document b do you mean in very practical terms do
02:51:24 do you mean in very practical terms do you mean that you had approved document b open in front of you while you were drafting this summary um when i say alongside i i'm not meaning physically alongside
02:51:36 i'm not meaning physically alongside but looking at the documents in tandem looking at looking at them and relating them to one another yes all right and if we go on uh to the second paragraph there
02:51:50 to the second paragraph there you say that your findings were drawn together in the form of a type summary and then you say that initially that was for the purpose of an internal review
02:52:00 review yes yes that would have been the first stage
02:52:03 stage and you go on the internal review was held at one of the regular team meetings we used to hold monthly i recall involving myself the building control manager and the other four senior building control
02:52:15 other four senior building control surveyors
02:52:16 surveyors there are no written records of these meetings for the most part these meetings were focused on technical matters
02:52:22 matters and attempted through discussion to gain a common approach to matters which were open to different ways of interpretation the review would not have been particularly in-depth and would have
02:52:33 particularly in-depth and would have involved
02:52:33 involved informal discussion about the key features of the product review yes yes did you explain to any of the colleagues
02:52:44 did you explain to any of the colleagues at that meeting that you had formed a judgment that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility can you remember i i can't remember but i think as one of the key
02:52:56 i think as one of the key features in the report it would have been mentioned yeah what was their reaction can you recall
02:53:04 recall um i can't recall exactly what the reactions were but there was no there was no challenge nobody said wait hang on no no strong disagreement
02:53:15 wait hang on no no strong disagreement right at that stage did you take any kind of
02:53:19 kind of other informal advice about any aspect of your assessment of k-15 no i didn't can we go now please to page 27 of your first witness statement
02:53:40 if we look at the final paragraph on that page you say i did not see the need to seek further advice beyond this in the knowledge that the work i was doing would ultimately be checked and
02:53:51 doing would ultimately be checked and verified by labc i cannot answer for any labc employees in respect of this question but if they did then i was not told yes
02:54:02 but if they did then i was not told yes yes i think we may come back to the question of what checks you understood would be carried out by the labc following your assessment but for now
02:54:14 but for now do you say there do you mean that the only reason you took no further advice on your assessment was because you were aware that there was some system of checks
02:54:24 checks to be carried out by the labc
02:54:30 i think that was very significant yes to me that
02:54:33 me that the knowledge that it was going to go through a a further level of checking um gave me gave me more well in the first instance it gave me more confidence to
02:54:44 instance it gave me more confidence to have a credit you know at a time when i was doubting my ability to do it right back at the start um but but also at this stage knowing that
02:54:53 that others would be looking at it and vetting at it through the labc network i think i think that was a that gave it a sort of robustness to me that i thought okay i can put this in as
02:55:05 that i thought okay i can put this in as it is and
02:55:06 it is and and see what comments come back i see so it was a source of is it fair for me to say that it was a source of comfort to you that that would be taking place yes comfort would be the right word yes
02:55:18 yes comfort would be the right word yes all right
02:55:20 all right when you described then the uh issues you had around your confidence as to whether or not you could carry out this assessment right at the beginning before you spoke with the labc
02:55:32 are you telling us that once you've spoken with the labc you had no further concerns about your ability to carry this out
02:55:44 ability to carry this out i still saw it as something quite challenging because it was very new to me
02:55:47 me and there's no question about that i i wasn't suddenly confident uh to do something new but i think that the nature of that discussion and the very
02:55:58 the very limited scope that they were asking made me think that well actually but in terms of that scope perhaps i can do this and
02:56:05 this and i know in any case somebody else will be checking afterwards so between us between kingspan uh herefordshire council and labc whoever they use for the checking yes we should be
02:56:17 for the checking yes we should be something meaningful as a collaboration essentially which is what i think you described it as earlier yes that's that's exactly right all right mr jones again i'm going to uh
02:56:29 all right mr jones again i'm going to uh just pause for a moment there in order to ask the chairman whether this might looking at the time be an appropriate time to stop for lunch i realize it again little bit early but it's a good time uh
02:56:41 little bit early but it's a good time uh in terms of how we're running all right and it's uh obviously convenient from your point of view in terms of questions it is all right well uh it's very nearly one o'clock mr jones i think we can
02:56:53 one o'clock mr jones i think we can stop there to have some lunch uh we'll resume at two o'clock please and uh please don't talk to anyone over the break
02:57:01 the break either about your evidence or anything relating to it all right right we'll see you at two o'clock then thank you very much
02:57:25 you