Herefordshire Building Control Evidence - Thursday 4th March 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:20:37 welcome back everyone we're now going to resume hearing evidence from mr david jones i'll begin by checking that mr jones can see me and hear me well mr jones good

00:20:49 see me and hear me well mr jones good afternoon yes yes i can good thank you very much and uh

00:20:53 uh are you ready to continue is there anything you want to raise first uh no no i'm ready to carry out very good in that case i'll invite this troop to go on with her questions yes it's true thank you mr jones i want

00:21:05 yes it's true thank you mr jones i want to take us forward a little in the timeline so i'm going to ask you to look now at an email which is at labc302281

00:21:18 it's a series of emails rather from january 2009

00:21:28 if we go to the second email in the chain please which is yours you sent an email to phil harrison at the labc on the 14th of january 2009 at 1107. do you see it

00:21:41 2009 at 1107. do you see it yes i do i i just want to read through that with you you say dear phil i've been following up on your email below with regards to type approval for kingspan's brainscreen

00:21:52 type approval for kingspan's brainscreen cladding insulation board if i understand the process correctly i now need to pass it back to labc for an invoice to be raised etc i met with andrew pack before christmas

00:22:03 i met with andrew pack before christmas to discuss what we could offer them through the type approval scheme and suggested that in view of the scope of the certificate the minimum fee of 500 pounds would be adequate

00:22:13 adequate he was keen to proceed with this after our meeting and so i have since carried on

00:22:18 on and done the necessary work to produce the certificate though i haven't forwarded anything on to andrew as yet just pausing there on what basis

00:22:29 just pausing there on what basis had you determined at that stage that the minimum fee for your work of 500 pounds would be adequate

00:22:37 adequate i believe that was that was based on the original

00:22:41 original brief given to me by abc the subsequent discussion with um with kingspan about what they wanted uh and sort of a final agreement that yes that that scope is

00:22:53 yes that that scope is is if everybody had a common understanding then that that was the scope

00:22:57 scope and that that was the fee that would be that would be done and i believe going back further i'm sure there were conversations with um labc where the minimum fee was was discussed

00:23:07 discussed you know on the basis that actually you're not going any further than the bba certificate so it's not going to be a

00:23:13 a long drawn out process yeah so it was fairly straightforward so in your mind the minimum fee was appropriate is that

00:23:22 that is that it for what had been asked for of us

00:23:25 of us yes yes if we go on in that email you say this is at the third paragraph the most we can really offer in this case would be a product approval

00:23:37 case would be a product approval k15 is just the insulation component of the rain screen walling system both the inner structural frame and the rain screen cladding itself are unknown variables

00:23:46 variables produced by a third party and so system approval would be impossible to pin down i did emphasize this to andrew to be clear that the type approval would not go any further

00:23:57 go any further than the current bba certificate but he was happy that it would still be worthwhile if only to get the labc seal of approval and so again just pausing there i think

00:24:09 and so again just pausing there i think that accords would you say with what you have told us about kingspan's aim in having their products associated with the labc brand it was it was a marketing

00:24:21 the labc brand it was it was a marketing aim

00:24:23 aim yes i i think that it it does sort of um support that and also shows that i'm still wrangling over this um this difference between product and system at this stage

00:24:35 system at this stage it does doesn't it because in that paragraph if we look at the third line you've actually said a system approval would be impossible to pin down

00:24:44 pin down yes so can i take it from that given that by the time the certificate was issued it was in fact a system of approval

00:24:52 approval that you had done further work and you had developed your thinking further and found a way forward to make it into a system approval uh no because the report that i'm

00:25:05 uh no because the report that i'm forwarding to phil harrison undercover of this email is the same report that went to them finally um to for consideration against the certificate so

00:25:16 against the certificate so the report as we or my report as we've seen it

00:25:19 seen it was already in existence at this stage but i think throughout it was it was always in my mind a product approval and even though ultimately it came out from labc

00:25:29 from labc on a form titled system approval to to me it was still essentially a product approval uh in that how could it be anything else because only one product is actually defined in it

00:25:39 it and i think that the fact that the certificate was titled system approval comes back to this um original point of labc that the terminology is all wrong we have to call it system approval

00:25:50 we have to call it system approval because that's what our forms say yes would you agree despite the fact that to you it was always a product approval that that would not be apparent to a reader of the certificate

00:26:01 apparent to a reader of the certificate reading it now i can see that yes yes where labc perhaps said don't worry about it we're going to be revamping this soon but just go with what you've got actually we shouldn't have done that it should

00:26:12 we shouldn't have done that it should have been it should have been made clear that we were just talking about a product when did you come to determine that mr jones that it should have been made clear and it shouldn't have been done in this way i think that's

00:26:24 i think that's more over over the last um year and a half in in seeing perhaps how this certificate was used after it sort of left labc and and what kingsmen

00:26:35 sort of left labc and and what kingsmen were doing with it yes all right if we can go on in this email if we could scroll down or if we start at the final paragraph we can see there

00:26:46 can see there you go on to give mr harrison um an outline of how you how you intend to approach your summary and you say this i would suggest then that the type approval certificate be for k15

00:26:58 approval certificate be for k15 as part of a generic but undefined system and refer to the following documents all attached our summary of building regs compliance issues considered and then if we can go on down please bba

00:27:11 and then if we can go on down please bba certificate 084582 kingspan's own literature i would be grateful if you could let me know what the next step should be yes yes and attached to this was your type

00:27:23 and attached to this was your type approval summary was it yes right if we can go up then please to mr harrison's response to you which is at the top of page one

00:27:34 at the top of page one he says there and this is the 19th of january

00:27:38 january good morning dave attached for your use as agreed

00:27:42 as agreed are the latest versions of a type approval application form and the compliance declaration thank you for sorting this out so thoroughly did you take from

00:27:53 so thoroughly did you take from this email approval by the labc of the work you had done

00:28:00 i did at that stage yes although um knowing that i was sending them the type of approval at this stage for for the first time uh i obviously knew that the checking process hadn't yet occurred so

00:28:12 process hadn't yet occurred so so i knew that was still to come i see and and i imagine that during the course of that process if any queries arose then then labc would come back to me to discuss yes do you know whether phil

00:28:25 to discuss yes do you know whether phil harrison

00:28:26 harrison had a technical role at the labc uh i didn't know anything much about phil harrison's background um his his title i think was business

00:28:38 um his his title i think was business development which suggests marketing he does uh but i don't know whether you know he could have been a technical practitioner who went into marketing sure all right i'm sorry i overspoke you

00:28:49 sure all right i'm sorry i overspoke you again

00:28:51 again that's okay great uh he mentioned in that email a compliance declaration form he sent that to you if we can go to that now please that's at hbc6021

00:29:15 and to the second page please

00:29:18 that is the compliance declaration form isn't it

00:29:22 isn't it uh yes did you fill out the main body of that form

00:29:30 i believe i did yes yes so you would have i think you've blacked out no or yes um as appropriate in the middle section

00:29:41 um as appropriate in the middle section extent of recommended regulatory approval

00:29:44 approval is that right yes and if we go to the bottom

00:29:48 bottom of that page please we can see that the document is unsigned and undated

00:29:57 undated did you understand that to be for signature and dating by the labc was it for them to declare compliance or you

00:30:06 you uh my my understanding was that it was for them to declare compliance because this this um what i was sending them at this stage still had a number of processes to go

00:30:18 still had a number of processes to go through before it became an abc certificate so ultimately compliance would be the sum of all these exercises including the checking that was still to come

00:30:29 the checking that was still to come um so no i wouldn't have i wouldn't have anticipated when i sent this that this was the be all and end or this is how it would look this was just me sending to labc everything that i'd considered

00:30:40 considered for them to to take take on board and for them to check as necessary and for them to

00:30:46 them to ultimately issue a certificate i think the fact that it's not signed is more likely to be because i sent it as an electronic document and didn't sign it fine all right i want to take you now please

00:30:57 to take you now please to the labc approval certificate and to the summary that you prepared so if we can go please to kin405705 please

00:31:16 so that's the certificate itself at page one and it's stated in the right top hand corner the first of may 2009 yes yes and just looking through it

00:31:27 yes yes and just looking through it uh at section one we see the certificate holders details that's obviously kingspan

00:31:34 kingspan and then we see at section two system title

00:31:37 title description kingspan call them k15 rain screen board i mean we've been over this but k-15 is not a system is it no no it's not

00:31:50 at section three if we can move down halfway through the second subheading in section three we see

00:31:58 we see an area called drawings and documentation to be referred to do you see that

00:32:04 see that yes and just to clear it up the first document referred to in that list

00:32:11 list herefordshire council type approval summary revision one third of march 2008 that date i think you've explained in your witness statement is a typographical error

00:32:22 typographical error isn't it yes it is there was no earlier type approval summary no no that is in fact a reference to your type approval summary from 2009

00:32:37 to your type approval summary from 2009 that's right yes yeah all right so the two

00:32:40 two documents we're left with are kingspan publication cool firm k15 rainscreen board eighth issue november 2008 and the bba certificate 084582 dated the 27th of october 2008. yes

00:32:55 dated the 27th of october 2008. yes yes if we can go on please to page three there's actually a blank page at page two so if we can go on to page three this is the type approval summary

00:33:06 approval summary yes yes and just to be clear these the wording in this summary all of it is yours yes yes

00:33:17 all of it is yours yes yes right we see there a section at the start called overview which describes the product would you agree yes and then below that

00:33:28 would you agree yes and then below that are heading the system

00:33:32 we can scroll down a little bit please i'd like to look at the whole of that section the system so you say here in the opening paragraph the overall wall construction

00:33:43 the overall wall construction must reflect standard design details as shown in figures one two and three of kingspan technical literature cool firm k-15 rain screen board eighth issue

00:33:54 issue november 2008 the standard forms of construction contained therein and as considered under this system approval would consist of and then you have four bullet points

00:34:07 of and then you have four bullet points am i correct in thinking that what you have done there is explained what can be seen in figures one two and three

00:34:14 three within kingspan's marketing literature yes if we look at the fourth bullet point please a rain screen cladding weathering layer

00:34:25 a rain screen cladding weathering layer structurally fixed back to the inner substrate

00:34:28 substrate and so on those first words a rain screen cladding weathering layer could be taken to mean any rain screen

00:34:39 could be taken to mean any rain screen cladding do you agree

00:34:42 it could although i think further on in the document limit that to a fire performance of limited combustibility yes

00:34:54 of limited combustibility yes and in fact at the first bullet point you've specified from kingspan's marketing literature that the inner substrate needs to be reinforced concrete masonry

00:35:05 needs to be reinforced concrete masonry or hollow metal framed walling forming part of the building's superstructure yes yes can we go on to the fourth page and to the heading requirement b

00:35:26 yes so if we look at requirement b fire safety considerations we see that the words k15 has been tested in accordance with and you then list four test methods

00:35:39 and you then list four test methods eight four one four part one one three six four one and bs476 parts six and seven and under that we see this sentence from the results it can be considered

00:35:51 the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and

00:35:54 and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame just to be absolutely clear you had not at any time seen the test results to which you are

00:36:07 seen the test results to which you are referring

00:36:08 referring the reader there had you no i know i'd copied those out of the bba certificate i believe

00:36:15 and just looking quite strictly at the wording you have used from the from the results it can be considered which of the test standards listed in

00:36:28 which of the test standards listed in that section did you consider gave a result that could lead to the class naught classification you cited

00:36:38 did you know no the class the class naught classification was simply repeating what was stated in the bba certificate but d did you know at the time or do you

00:36:49 but d did you know at the time or do you know now

00:36:50 know now whether any of those test standards can lead to that classification i don't believe i i knew fully at the time um but i i do know now that that the reference to

00:37:02 i do know now that that the reference to class

00:37:02 class naught was was misplaced both on the bba certificate and repeated here or i believe it to be i'm not you believe it to be misplaced

00:37:13 believe it to be misplaced i i don't believe the test results listed there um are able to to give a class norm classification i i might have used the wrong phrase there are no

00:37:24 used the wrong phrase there are no actual test results listed there these are

00:37:26 are simply the test standards aren't they sorry the test standards yes i'm not correcting i'm correcting myself all right looking at the same wording from the results it can be considered which of the test standards listed there

00:37:39 which of the test standards listed there did you consider gave a result that could lead to the material being one of limited combustibility

00:37:47 i think the key one was the bs8414 where where it has been told that here here we

00:37:54 here we we've put this product into a into a system test where uh only limited combustibility will suffice and it's so as far as those test standards go it

00:38:06 so as far as those test standards go it would be the first one the s8414 although it that wasn't the only thing that led me to the limited combustibility wording it was a range of

00:38:16 range of a range of factors that that i took as a whole

00:38:19 whole to make a judgment yeah yes we'll come on to those factors by the time

00:38:26 the time this certificate was issued had you looked up

00:38:30 looked up or read any one of those test standards

00:38:34 no if we go on to page five now please

00:38:44 yes at the top there's a section entitled requirement before external fire spread and i'm going to re read that with you the first paragraph certainly since k-15 can be considered a material

00:38:56 since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b

00:39:03 b volume 2 including those parts of a building

00:39:07 building more than 18 meters above the ground in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirement for

00:39:18 must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility where the substrate is a metal frame wall system rather than masonry or concrete and non-combustible lining board must be specified to the external face

00:39:31 must be specified to the external face of the metal frame wall e.g calcium silicate board or similar

00:39:40 performing essentially you're repeating there what you had said to

00:39:51 mr harrison in your email of the 14th of january 2009. and what i mean by that is that since k-15 can be considered i think this is what you mean since k-15 can be

00:40:03 what you mean since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility and because you're extending this to be some sort of system approval

00:40:13 it is suitable for use over 18 meters as long as all the other components of the external wall arrangement are also materials of limited combustibility is that what you intended this to mean

00:40:25 is that what you intended this to mean yes i believe so yes right

00:40:31 yes right can we go please to page 35 of your first witness statement and we're going to go through now the fractures

00:40:40 fractures which you have set out which led you to form a judgment that this was a material of limited combustibility

00:40:49 yes the question is at question 57 which test results in specific terms led to the assertion that k-15 can be considered a material in limited combustibility and you start that by saying as building

00:41:01 and you start that by saying as building control surveyors we were conditioned and expected to gather evidence and use our judgment when considering the compliance or otherwise of building work yes yes when assessing the

00:41:14 yes yes when assessing the combustibility of k15 i considered each of the following and we'll start with a you say that the claims about the material and its properties discussed in the initial meeting

00:41:25 initial meeting with kingspan now i think we've dealt with that meeting in some detail now are you able to assist any further as to which claims made in

00:41:36 any further as to which claims made in the meeting specifically influenced your decision that k-15 could be considered to be a material of limited combustibility

00:41:48 material of limited combustibility it's the the the claims from that meeting that uh the bs8414 test pass has been achieved because of k-15s

00:42:01 pass has been achieved because of k-15s combustibility characteristics as in you know when put in that system it did not bill or did not burn to any great degree uh to cause a risk so

00:42:11 so it was that claim that i was referring to in bullet point a thank you going on to b your second factor is

00:42:20 factor is the statement on the first page of the bba certificate behaviour in relation to fire the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard just

00:42:32 or present a smoke or toxic hazard just to put it in context let's get that up please it the document is bba

00:42:38 bba 6038 and we need to go to page one

00:42:48 yes so if we just uh identify this this is bba certificate 084582 and if you look to the left-hand bottom corner we can see that it's dated the 27th of october

00:42:59 27th of october 2008. do you see that yes i think we can agree can we that this is the one you saw at the time of your assessment yes it is right

00:43:10 yes it is right looking at this page do you see under the heading key factors assessed there are four factors listed in both and the fourth is behavior in relation to fire

00:43:22 and i think that is the phrase you're referring to at your paragraph b in your witness statement we've just looked at the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard

00:43:34 present a smoke or toxic hazard yes yes

00:43:37 i understand your evidence is that this particular assertion formed part of your consideration in forming your judgment as to the combustibility or otherwise of the product can we go

00:43:48 or otherwise of the product can we go back please to page 45 of your first witness statement where separately you were asked about this particular assertion in the bba certificate yes it's an inquiry question 78

00:44:02 yes it's an inquiry question 78 you were asked about the meaning of it and you said i took this to mean that the k-15 boards were not capable of burning to an extent where they could contribute towards the development or spread of a

00:44:13 towards the development or spread of a fire this was one of the statements which led me to conclude that k-15 was of limited combustibility yes yes was this particular factor and

00:44:26 yes yes was this particular factor and that assertion in the bba certificate something you ever considered taking any advice on or did you consider it to be sufficiently clear

00:44:37 sufficiently clear it was quite a direct statement and i took it

00:44:41 took it as as as it reads it was quite it was very significant to me at that time in terms of this judgment on the combustibility of the product very similar very significant i'm so sorry i just spoke to you go

00:44:52 i'm so sorry i just spoke to you go ahead sorry yes it was very significant and i think without without that statement i don't think the other factors i considered would have been enough to to make that the judgment has to limited

00:45:04 the judgment has to limited combustibility i see so this is the one that sort of swung the balance towards limited combustibility was it yes yes all right going back to your

00:45:15 yes yes all right going back to your list of factors in your witness statement at page 36

00:45:26 if we look at c and d i'd like to take those together because they go together if i read those to you

00:45:34 to you you say the fact as stated in both the bba certificate and the kingspan literature that the product had been successfully tested to bs 8414

00:45:43 bs 8414 it would have been my view at the time that the insulation board would have to be a material of limited combustibility to pass such a test and then that's essentially repeated in d

00:45:54 essentially repeated in d in respect of br135 do you see yes great

00:46:01 yes great so as far as i know as far as i understand from your evidence thus far although you use the plural there in the

00:46:12 although you use the plural there in the second line of paragraph d you were aware i think that only one test to 8414 had been carried out on a system incorporating k-15

00:46:23 incorporating k-15 yes i believe that you'd be right yes and you understood that bs8414 was a system test not a product test yes

00:46:37 i think you said earlier that you had not understood at the time that it was a system test meaning that every component these were not your

00:46:49 every component these were not your words i'm summarizing but i think you said you had not understood that every component part or the system and every part of it would have to be replicated exactly in order to be used in compliance

00:47:03 in order to be used in compliance with approved document b is that right that's right yes when did you come to understand that the system had to be replicated exactly

00:47:14 uh in the last um 16 months while while reviewing the matter for this inquiry yes

00:47:25 the matter for this inquiry yes all right i want to ask you now about the second sentence which is mirrored at paragraph c and d it would have been my view at the time that the insulation board would have to be a material of limited combustibility

00:47:36 material of limited combustibility to pass such a test and we've referred to this a few times in terms of the meeting that you had with kingspan i just want to be absolutely clear what do you mean by that sentence

00:47:48 do you mean by that sentence the insulation board would have to be a material of limited combustibility to pass such a test i think it links to what i was saying of my impression uh from kingspan at that meeting

00:48:00 that meeting that uh this principle that that the product had been put into a test situation where a limited combustibility material would be a requirement would be the minimum requirement and it's fast it's behaved as as it would be

00:48:12 it's fast it's behaved as as it would be expected to be so i think after that meeting it that gave me the view that uh it it must

00:48:23 that uh it it must perform equally to a material of limited combustibility in order to have passed the bsa414 test uh now

00:48:30 uh now i would draw a slight distinction between what you've said there it would have to perform equally to a material of limited combustibility and the wording in your statement do you

00:48:41 and the wording in your statement do you mean

00:48:43 mean i just want to be absolutely clear on this do you mean that you understood that in order to pass a test to 8414 the board would have to be of limited

00:48:55 the board would have to be of limited combustibility or are you saying as i think you've just said that it would have to perform equally to a material of limited combustibility

00:49:06 they're not quite processed sorry i'm so sorry i said they're not quite the same are they do you see they're not quite the same no you're right i i'm not sure my thought process at that time

00:49:17 sure my thought process at that time would have drawn the distinction between the two

00:49:20 the two um but i think if if you look at the way i've written at that time in in my report to labc i've allowed

00:49:31 i've allowed that view to to to result in the conclusion that that it can be treated as a limited combustibility material not that it's like

00:49:41 like a material of limited combustibility give me a just to make sure that i haven't misunderstood i i i'm not sure you say in in the certificate it can be treated as a

00:49:52 certificate it can be treated as a material of limited combustibility do you i think you say it can be considered to be one yeah yes yes that's right i did we spoke earlier about the fact that you

00:50:03 about the fact that you um referred during your work on this assessment to approve document b and in particular to

00:50:10 to um section 12 i think i want to take you to that please if we can go to clg 1607

00:50:22 to clg 1607 and to page 95 mr jones this is approved document be as it stood at the time that you were carrying out your assessment not not as it stands now

00:50:35 so i'm sorry it's yes i think it's coming up

00:50:39 coming up yes if we look on the right hand side of the page towards the bottom under the heading external wall construction that's paragraph 12.5 we see there the following wording the

00:50:51 we see there the following wording the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials in the chatting system and extensive cavities may present such

00:51:04 and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings external walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria

00:51:16 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the bre report br135 for cladding systems using full-scale test data

00:51:24 test data from bs8414.1 or part two yes yes

00:51:32 so keeping that wording in mind external walls should either meet the guidance in 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria in br135

00:51:43 br135 can we go over the page please to page 96

00:51:47 96 within adb and to paragraph 12.7 and we can see that that is the relevant paragraph for insulation materials yes yes in a building with a story 18

00:52:01 yes yes in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction

00:52:12 used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a and what i want to ask first is this did you read these two sections

00:52:23 you read these two sections at the time you were carrying out your work on this assessment

00:52:28 i did yes would you agree with me then that it is clear that these two routes if i can put it in that way are alternatives

00:52:39 are alternatives either the material is one of limited combustibility or it meets the criterion br135 yes i can i can see that that is the

00:52:50 yes i can i can see that that is the case

00:52:51 case did you see that that was the case at the time

00:52:55 the time i i've i've looked at this repeatedly over the last um 14 months and tried to recreate my thought process when looking at this

00:53:06 when looking at this and

00:53:09 i find it difficult to recall how i interpreted it at the time um i think i can only i can only say that i'd never used this section of approved

00:53:21 i'd never used this section of approved document b before because it related to a type of building and a situation that had never come up for me previously yes and and i would certainly not go about it in the same way again

00:53:33 about it in the same way again but at the time

00:53:36 i i'm not sure i had that i wasn't on the right track with it i would say all right can i take it that you did not realize

00:53:48 can i take it that you did not realize at the time that they were alternatives

00:53:53 i i think i realized from the word or would have realized from the wording of it that that's two alternative approaches but i think it appears as if i've mixed

00:54:04 it appears as if i've mixed mix and matched a bit there in terms of the limited combustibility term which which i agree was was not the right way to go about it all right we'll come on to that i mean

00:54:16 all right we'll come on to that i mean in

00:54:17 in layman's terms from reading 12.5 taken together with 12.7 it it if you are clear now that those

00:54:29 it it if you are clear now that those are posed in the alternative so either the material is one of limited combustibility or you meet the criteria in br135 by testing to bs8414

00:54:41 testing to bs8414 it follows doesn't it that if k15 was a material of limited combustibility there'd be no need to test it to the s8414

00:54:50 s8414 no that would be right did that occur to you at the time

00:54:57 i i'm not sure quite how i thought about it at the time i i think it would have done in that i would have i would have been able to read those paragraphs and understand them at the time just

00:55:08 and understand them at the time just wasn't used to applying them in in real world situations i see all right let's go back to your list

00:55:19 list of factors in your witness statement if we can go back to page 36 please and to paragraph e

00:55:34 page 36 please and to paragraph e so this is the next factor that contributed towards your decision to uh assert that the product was one of limited combustibility and you say there the statement in section seven of the

00:55:45 the statement in section seven of the bba certificate that the product displayed limited fire spread away from the source so let's go back and look at that please it's bba6038

00:56:06 we need to go down to page five to section seven

00:56:13 the heading there is behavior in relation to fire do you see it yes it's quite tricky to find but if you go to the

00:56:23 end of the the first quite big paragraph to the the final three lines the third line up from the bottom beginning within

00:56:34 beginning within i think that's where that phrase comes from within the stated test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source

00:56:46 fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated within the r135

00:56:51 r135 that is the phrase you're referring to in your factor e is it yes yes so that is contained within

00:57:00 within a description there of the way in which the system tested to bs 8414 is said to have met the criteria

00:57:08 criteria in br135 yes while we're on this section this makes clear does it not this part of the bba certificate that there's one test to bs8414

00:57:21 there's one test to bs8414 yes and that is to part one yes when you saw that did it prompt you to look up

00:57:31 look up either part one or part two or even a summary of the differences between them

00:57:38 i don't believe it did uh i believe i was led by the the comment in in in the uh third line down actually the first line where it refers to a non-combustible

00:57:49 where it refers to a non-combustible substrate and i think that that led my thought process to a more generic non-combustible substrate being the parameter of this test yes and as far as i understand it from your evidence that accorded with what

00:58:01 your evidence that accorded with what you were told by kingspan when you met with them did it it did and and this was a big part of um of the process for me that when i came away from the meeting what i was seeking to do was go back to

00:58:12 what i was seeking to do was go back to the bva certificate and see if the statements and the impression i'd been given in the meeting could be supported by the bba certificate and this was one of the

00:58:20 of the one of the phrases that led me that way and said yes okay that is consistent with what kingstown was saying yes i see this

00:58:28 this appeared to be appeared to you on review to be consistent with what either andrew pack or philipp heath or both had told you yes that's right i see all right

00:58:40 yes that's right i see all right can we go back to your witness statement now page 36 and to your uh factor at f

00:58:49 you say there the reference in section 7 of the bba certificate to a bsdn1364 part 1 test where an assembly containing k-15

00:59:00 where an assembly containing k-15 achieved a fire resistance of 53 minutes it would have been my view at the time that the insulation board would have to be a material of limited combustibility to pass such a test to this standard

00:59:13 to pass such a test to this standard i don't think we need to go back to that in the bba certificate i just want to ask you this on what basis

00:59:20 basis did you determine that the result of a fire resistance test of bsen 1364 part 1 could tell you anything at all about the

00:59:31 could tell you anything at all about the combustibility of a product um i don't think it didn't directly uh i think the the paragraph f was just background information it was

00:59:42 was just background information it was just another piece of evidence in the background that suggested this this insulation it didn't readily burn as i've been given to understand

00:59:53 given to understand so i understand that the test standard referred to there had no relevance it wasn't mentioned at all in section 12 of approved document b but it was it was just in terms of gathering as much

01:00:04 just in terms of gathering as much evidence as i could to try and make a judgment it was just another bit of background information i see moving on to g then you say there i think this might be the

01:00:16 you say there i think this might be the last one

01:00:17 last one the suggestion in paragraph 7.2 of the bba certificate that k15 could be suitable for use with stories over 18 meters if the certificate holder kingspan

01:00:28 certificate holder kingspan were to say so and the subsequent statement from kingspan in their technical literature saying so that k-15 is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the building

01:00:40 meters in accordance with the building regulations i want to take a look with you please at the product literature that was provided to you by kingspan that is at kin409703

01:01:00 the title of that uh piece of literature is cool phone k-15 rain screen board insulation for use behind rain screen chatting systems and if we can just zoom in a little bit

01:01:12 and if we can just zoom in a little bit on the top right hand corner please

01:01:18 we can see that that is the eighth issue dated november 2008 yes yes moving to page six please

01:01:32 if we look at the section it's on the left hand side about halfway down entitled fire performance

01:01:40 there in the smaller letters still even smaller letters we can see four test standards listed on the left and result on the right yes

01:01:51 on the left and result on the right yes yes

01:01:53 yes and under that we see this so under those four test standards and results

01:02:00 results uh we see the following assertion kingspan call firm k15 rain screen board meets the criteria within br135 fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story

01:02:12 insulation for walls of multi-story buildings

01:02:13 buildings and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance scroll up a little bit please

01:02:23 or scroll down a little bit i mean

01:02:30 in any event in accordance with the building regulations and standards is that the section to which you were referring in your witness statement um yes i have referred to that

01:02:41 referred to that that paragraph uh which i think that was whether consciously or not uh instrumental in leading me towards the combustibility

01:02:53 the combustibility approach because i suppose there's only one way

01:02:57 one way that kingsman could make such a blanket statement about about the product and that is to link the quote link it to the performance of the product rather than the system um because that

01:03:08 rather than the system um because that is a blanket statement now we're in that document does it say actually that only applies in in certain very limited circumstances and i think perhaps in my mind i was trying to rationalize that to say i actually

01:03:19 rationalize that to say i actually in order to say that you've got to be prepared to to to um allocate some characteristics to this product what how can this product be

01:03:31 how can this product be suitable for use in situations above 18 meters on a blanket basis like that unless we're talking about the combustibility properties of the product yes can we go

01:03:43 properties of the product yes can we go back to that document please uh kn409703

01:03:49 when you say blanket statement that statement we've just looked at is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters

01:03:56 meters i think this is what you referred to earlier it contains no caveat or qualification does it no it doesn't you know i find it very misleading now when i read it back knowing the background to it i see

01:04:10 knowing the background to it i see can we go up please to page two i want to look with you at the diagrams we discussed a little earlier um which you refer the reader of your type

01:04:21 which you refer the reader of your type approval

01:04:22 approval summary directly to do you remember yes yeah so if we look at those please i think you said in relation to these and we can go back and check it if not

01:04:33 and we can go back and check it if not that you saw these and understood them to be standard design details again with no caveat or qualification as to any height restriction in terms of

01:04:45 as to any height restriction in terms of how they should be installed is that right that's right we see these diagrams alongside that statement that k-15 is suitable for use over 18 meters no

01:04:54 meters no no qualifications no limitations and so i think it's very misleading to put those diagrams there and then and then read those alongside the bba certificate describing a non-combustible substrate

01:05:06 non-combustible substrate which which you have in each of those three diagrams and under limited combustibility cladding um panel which again i believe we have in those three diagrams so everything about those diagrams seems

01:05:18 so everything about those diagrams seems to lead you towards the 18 meter paragraph and and it left me with the impression that these three diagrams were all within the parameters of the test that uh that

01:05:29 the parameters of the test that uh that that allowed kingspan to claim the 18 meter

01:05:32 meter suitability on the basis that there is nothing

01:05:36 nothing there to say that these fall outside the parameters of that test that's right yes so did you examine these diagrams and the wording around them

01:05:47 the wording around them during your assessment i would yes i would have examined them and looking at the key factors as in the combustibility of the substrate and the declining panels

01:05:58 substrate and the declining panels yes all right can we go uh back now please to the bba certificate bba

01:06:11 now please to the bba certificate bba 6038

01:06:15 and again to page five section seven

01:06:28 thank you if we go in fact i'm so sorry down to page six and to section 7.3

01:06:38 here we see the bba advising as follows in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder is that what you were referring to mr

01:06:50 is that what you were referring to mr jones

01:06:51 jones when you said in the section of your statement that we've just looked through the bba certificate says that it's okay for use over 18 meters if kingspen were to say so

01:07:02 to say so that's right yes yes this refers you to kingston and of course i was i was talking to kingspan about this so so yes

01:07:13 did it strike you at the time as all a bit circular the kingspan cite their bba certificate and when you go to the bba certificate if you're looking to use the product

01:07:24 if you're looking to use the product over 18 meters you're directed back to kingspan

01:07:27 kingspan yes i'm not sure if it did at the time but it certainly does now yes all right can we go back to your witness statement pleasing to page 36 i'm afraid i'm

01:07:39 36 i'm afraid i'm i was wrong there is one more fracture that we need to take a look at there which uh contributed towards your judgment that the product was one of limited combustibility and that's

01:07:51 of limited combustibility and that's this that's at h the assertion in both the bba certificate and and the kingston literature that k-15 is classified as a class naught product not in itself evidence of limited combustibility as discussed under a

01:08:03 combustibility as discussed under a previous question but another piece of evidence which viewed alongside all of the above would have helped support the judgment that it was yes yes

01:08:15 in what way did you determine that a classification to class naught helped support a judgment that a product was one of limited combustibility

01:08:26 um only to to link to one of my previous um

01:08:29 um answers where i talked about classo products having a surface material that that would more often not be of limited combustibility

01:08:41 limited combustibility the very the very feature that allows it to pass a test to class class naught and the fact that in the case of k-15 it's a solid block

01:08:53 in the case of k-15 it's a solid block of insulation so the material that has achieved class naught on the surface is the same material all the way through and again this this is not this is not a direct link to limited combustibility but it's

01:09:05 link to limited combustibility but it's another piece of background information when i'm when i'm gathering the evidence to try and make a judgment one way or the other it's another bit of background information that pushes me to towards the conclusion i made all right

01:09:21 towards the conclusion i made all right i just i want to ask you uh something else about h i notice in the final line of that paragraph that you use uh the word would would have helped support the judgment that it was

01:09:33 support the judgment that it was and in fact i think you've used that in some of these other factors that you've set out for us it may just be the way that it's been phrased but just say that i'm here is it your evidence that you considered

01:09:46 is it your evidence that you considered at the time each of these factors that you've listed here in your witness statement at a to h or is it on having been asked about it that you have thought it

01:09:58 about it that you have thought it through

01:09:59 through in this way no i i i recall looking at each of those uh each of those examples listed at the time and and using them all to make a judgment

01:10:12 i see all right can we go uh i'm going to look with you at the under h the next paragraph and just read from there on the basis of my knowledge at that time

01:10:23 at that time the range of evidence in a to h above was sufficient for me to make a judgment that k-15

01:10:29 that k-15 could be considered a material of limited combustibility i was aware that if defined as a material of limited combustibility it could in principle be used in stories

01:10:41 it could in principle be used in stories over 18 meters in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of approved document b but i was being told by the bba certificate and the kingspan literature that k15 had met the criteria for br135

01:10:55 that k15 had met the criteria for br135 so had already been proved to be suitable for stories over 18 meters in any case and going over please to page 37

01:11:13 yes at the top there my type approval summary to labc was only confirming something which was supposedly already known yes yes

01:11:25 yes yes basically is this right you thought at the time that you were saying nothing new in your approval by calling this material one of limited

01:11:36 by calling this material one of limited combustibility that is right i thought i was simply representing the information i'd been given

01:11:42 given uh both both verbally from kingston and in the documents they they gave me i i honestly didn't uh appreciate at that time that using the

01:11:54 appreciate at that time that using the words limited combustibility was was opening any doors for kingsman that hadn't already been opened by the information that was already available

01:12:03 available i see when did you come to appreciate that using the words the specific words a material of limited combustibility would have the effect that you've just

01:12:15 would have the effect that you've just described

01:12:17 described um i don't think i had cause to revisit in that in that context in that detail until i was asked to um contribute to the inquiry

01:12:28 the inquiry in 2019

01:12:31 mr jones did it not strike you as odd if that is the case forgive me if that is the case and you were saying nothing new

01:12:42 nothing new and k-15 was a material of limited combustibility did it not strike you as odd at the time that neither the bba certificate nor kingspan's own

01:12:53 the bba certificate nor kingspan's own product literature said so

01:12:57 um i think perhaps i put a lot on that statement on the page one of the bba certificate that appeared to me to be saying to be to be describing

01:13:11 to be saying to be to be describing uh a material that had a limited capacity to burn i made the link from that to limited combustibility fine did you notice that neither the bba

01:13:24 fine did you notice that neither the bba certificate nor king spanzone product literature anywhere made the claim that k-15 was a material

01:13:31 material of limited combustibility or could be considered to be one i think i probably did but as as i've said previously i i don't think

01:13:43 as i've said previously i i don't think at that time i was making a clear enough distinction between

01:13:47 between the specific phrase limited combustibility and a product which had a limited capacity to burn

01:13:54 to burn i i i understand now that that's two very different criteria but i don't think i understood that at the time so the fact that the specific phrase limited combustibility wasn't

01:14:05 phrase limited combustibility wasn't used

01:14:06 used i i don't think it registered with me as as being significant at that time i see and at the time you made your judgment

01:14:17 and at the time you made your judgment on the basis of the matters we've just been through in some detail and you considered at the time that your judgment was sound is that right yeah i did yes yes

01:14:29 is that right yeah i did yes yes right and i was also aware of course that this was just the first stage and and that this would go forward for further checking and verification yes can we just uh go back

01:14:42 yes can we just uh go back please to your witness statement at page 33.

01:14:45 33. i want to just look again with you at your answer to what your understanding was as to the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility in may 2009

01:15:05 not sure that is the right page actually just bear with me for a moment

01:15:15 yes actually let's look at that section you say there in response to question 52 i had made a judgment based on the range of statements and test results referred to in the documents reviewed that the product had a limited capacity

01:15:27 that the product had a limited capacity to sustain fire and was therefore limited in its combustibility

01:15:36 you've just explained that you did not appreciate at the time the distinction between those two things just to be absolutely clear with you were you aware in

01:15:49 were you aware in late 2008 and early 2009 that the words of limited combustibility have a defined and specific meaning within approved document b

01:16:01 meaning within approved document b yes i knew of the reference in in document b and appendix a yes i thought you said to us earlier you must correct me

01:16:12 earlier you must correct me if i'm wrong but i thought you said to us earlier that it was from your analysis after the grenfell tower fire that you had come to understand that there was a specific

01:16:24 that there was a specific and defined meaning for those words now i knew of the appendix a definition in the approved document from having read section 12 during

01:16:36 from having read section 12 during my my assessment of of this product in 2008.

01:16:40 2008. i see but but in section 12 i think you're talking about 12.7 it simply says in brackets appendix and that you're aware that there existed a definition or did you know what it was i i knew

01:16:53 or did you know what it was i i knew that there existed a definition but but i i i would have been very much in a frame of mind at the time that that's that's an approved document definition but there may be other ways

01:17:04 definition but there may be other ways of proving that the functional requirement and i think that that's key to how

01:17:10 to how i was trained to to think as a building control

01:17:13 control officer to to read requirements in an approved document but not just

01:17:20 not just to reel them off of their patent to understand why they were asking for what they were asking for so in in 12.7 i asked myself why is approved document

01:17:32 i asked myself why is approved document be asking for limited capacitability what's what's the end

01:17:37 end objective of that and of course it is to make sure that the installation product can't contribute to the development of a fire and then of course i come back to

01:17:48 and then of course i come back to the statement on page one of the bba certificate which tells me actually it does it does achieve this aim

01:17:55 aim so not via the definition in appendix a but

01:17:59 but via a more functional definition that says this insulation will not contribute to the spread of fire

01:18:08 i'm not sure i follow we'll come back to some of the substance of what you have just described in terms of your process of thinking but in very basic terms is what you're saying this you were aware from paragraph 12.7 that

01:18:21 you were aware from paragraph 12.7 that there

01:18:21 there existed in appendix a a definition of the phrase limited combustibility yes you did not look that up and were not aware of

01:18:32 aware of what that definition was

01:18:35 i believe i probably referred to it i believe i probably did look it up disregarded it you i'm so sorry did you say disregard i wouldn't have disregarded it i would

01:18:46 wouldn't have disregarded it i would have looked i i believe i would have looked it up having having seen it referred to in paragraph 12.7 i see so you saw it referred to in 12.7 you went to appendix a and then you

01:18:58 you went to appendix a and then you decided

01:18:59 decided based on your training um and different ways to meet the functional requirements of the building regulations that you would give it an alternative definition is that what you're saying

01:19:10 definition is that what you're saying that's

01:19:11 that's that's right that that i've seen at the other statements and in particular that statement on the first page of the bba certificate that indicated to me that the functional requirement we would be looking for in

01:19:22 requirement we would be looking for in an installation panel i.e that it not contribute to the spread of a fire is in in the opinion of the bba

01:19:28 bba achieved because they they say so in that statement albeit that it doesn't use the specific phrase limited combustibility yes i i think i follow what you're saying i'm

01:19:39 i think i follow what you're saying i'm just i'm going to come back to this i'm afraid

01:19:43 afraid you say that you did uh go to appendix a and decided to come up with an alternative definition than the one you found there for a material limited combustibility

01:19:56 i'm not sure that i'm clear on why you did that

01:20:04 did that i think it was just a case of gathering the evidence i had uh and i'm saying okay there isn't a test report that links to the definition of a

01:20:15 that links to the definition of a limited combustibility that is in appendix a but there is there are other evidence that seems to suggest

01:20:22 suggest that it achieves that functional requirement that appendix a is trying to ensure

01:20:30 did you not consider that you might be taking quite some risk in unilaterally deciding to step outside of the definition that is set out for you in approved

01:20:41 that is set out for you in approved document b and coming up with an alternative one well i think stepping outside of the strict criteria of the approved documents was it was was an established

01:20:53 documents was it was was an established practice in building control then it was it was almost expected of us you know that we'd be prepared to look at alternative solutions uh in any given situation

01:21:02 situation um in terms of whether i thought it was a risk i think i probably read a great deal into the statement on the bba certificate in terms of you know how this how this product

01:21:12 product performs when when put in a fire situation

01:21:15 situation the statement on the first page that the boards will not contribute to the development stages of the fire yes all right i i think i follow to some extent

01:21:25 extent uh and you must forgive me what you're saying about almost being expected to step outside of the approved document criteria because and to come up with

01:21:37 because and to come up with alternative ways of meeting the functional requirements i think i follow what you're saying i'm not sure that i follow that in relation to stepping outside of defined terms specifically defined

01:21:50 of defined terms specifically defined phrases that is surely a different matter wouldn't you say um

01:21:57 perhaps looking at it now yes um but at the time it was it was such an established practice that it is okay to put the approved document to one side and look at other evidence that

01:22:07 that i just think that's what i was doing at the time

01:22:11 the time the difficulty i mean did it occur to you

01:22:14 you that you were not on this occasion stepping outside of the confines or the language of approved document b on one building project you were certifying a product which might go on

01:22:28 certifying a product which might go on to be used in hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of building product projects and stepping outside the defined criteria

01:22:39 stepping outside the defined criteria of a material of limited combustibility to do so you were taking an enormous risk weren't you um i suppose i didn't

01:22:51 um i suppose i didn't see it that way at the time because i knew that every every actual building that was built would go through a full design and statutory approval process you know regardless of this

01:23:02 you know regardless of this labc certificate um that every every building would be improved on its own merits as a as a bespoke um design so

01:23:14 um design so there were other layers of of um

01:23:19 other layers of checking that would that would ensure it was it was used appropriately yes all right can we go please to appendix a and specifically to table a7

01:23:31 table a7 we'll find that at page oh sorry i should give the document first that's clg 1607 yes 1607 and i'd like to go to page 121

01:23:46 please

01:23:58 uh so down a couple of paid o yes i see all right so if you look on the right hand side under the heading materials of limited combustibility

01:24:10 we see there materials of limited combustibility are defined in table a7 yes yes do you think you looked at this

01:24:21 yes do you think you looked at this i i believe i would have yes i i know because it was referred to in paragraph 12.7 all right so let's go to table a7 please which is on page 132 of this document

01:24:39 and if you look thank you on the left hand side of table a7 we see sort of three rows down the words references in adb guidance to situations where such materials should be

01:24:51 materials should be used yes yes and then if you follow that column down if we scroll down please to number eight

01:25:02 we can see this specific situation insulation material in external wall construction referred to in paragraph 12.7

01:25:14 referred to in paragraph 12.7 yes yes and then in the right hand column

01:25:18 column we are given if we go scroll back up please

01:25:25 we see the definition of materials of limited combustibility is given to us for national class in the in the left-hand section and if we go back down i'm so sorry to

01:25:36 and if we go back down i'm so sorry to number eight we can see there that what can be defined as a material of limited combustibility for this situation is any of the

01:25:49 for this situation is any of the materials in a b or c above and i'll come to those or d

01:25:54 d any material of density less than 300 kilograms

01:25:58 kilograms it goes on which when tested to bs 476 part 11. so rather than reading that any further it is right i think that no one had suggested to you that

01:26:10 that no one had suggested to you that k15

01:26:11 k15 had at any stage been tested to bs 476 part 11 had they no you had seen no reference to a test to that part of bs476

01:26:22 to that part of bs476 no so k15 cannot fall within d would you agree with me let's go up please to look at a b and c

01:26:35 we just scroll up we'll come back to a because it's going to take us to another table

01:26:41 table b again this is a reference to particular results following a test of bs 476 part 11 and you've just agreed that you saw no reference to k-15 being tested to that

01:26:52 reference to k-15 being tested to that section

01:26:54 section yes yes so it can't fall under b can it no

01:27:01 can it no and at c we see a description any material with a non-combustible core at least eight millimeters thick having combustible facings on one or both sides it goes on

01:27:12 both sides it goes on k-15 is not a material described there is it

01:27:16 is it no it's not right so we're left with a let's go up please to table a6 at page 131

01:27:27 and here we come to four more options a b c and d

01:27:31 b c and d if we can deal first please with a and d again in a you're asked to look at particular results to bs 476 part 11 and you knew of no such tests

01:27:45 part 11 and you knew of no such tests is that right that's right yes so we can scrap that one it can't k-15 cannot fall under a looking at d please products classified

01:27:56 looking at d please products classified as non-combustible under bs476 part four you had seen no indication of any testing at any stage to part four of bs476 on k15 had you

01:28:10 to part four of bs476 on k15 had you yeah right so it can't fall under d either and we're left with b and c b refers to totally inorganic materials such as concrete fired clay ceramics

01:28:22 concrete fired clay ceramics it goes on k-15 is not one of those materials is it no and we're left last with c concrete bricks or blocks

01:28:33 bricks or blocks meeting a particular british standard well k-15 is certainly not either of those things is it no mr jones in the simplest possible terms

01:28:43 terms just following this investigative trail which is set out for you in approved document b rather than piecing together all the bits and pieces of evidence you appear

01:28:54 bits and pieces of evidence you appear to have picked up from the bba certificate and kingspan's own marketing literature is it fair for me to say that had you carried out the exercise we have just carried out

01:29:07 the exercise we have just carried out within the space of about eight minutes you would have concluded that k-15 is not a material of limited combustibility as defined within approved document b

01:29:18 approved document b um as per the document b definition yes i would agree yes did you in truth carry out the exercise

01:29:29 did you in truth carry out the exercise we have just carried out to establish whether or not this material

01:29:34 material meets the definition of non-combustibility in improved document b

01:29:41 i i can't recall but i believe i would have referred to these tables

01:29:47 i'm not sure my now i i can't recall the detailed process i went through um i think i i was

01:29:58 my my judgment was perhaps skewed by the the impression i have what i've been told that but this

01:30:09 what i've been told that but this product had already by virtue of br135 being given the okay to be used over 18 meters so so it was

01:30:19 was like that i didn't believe in terms of the risk

01:30:23 the risk of the judgment i didn't i didn't believe i was saying anything new as i looked at it at that time do you accept mr jones that had you simply followed

01:30:36 simply followed the definitions within approved document b as we have just done you would never have ended up writing in a certificate for k-15

01:30:47 a certificate for k-15 this material can be considered a material of limited combustibility no i would not okay that's correct

01:30:58 do you think it is possible in fact that you simply did not know in late 2008 and early 2009 that limited combustibility carried a

01:31:09 that limited combustibility carried a specific and defined meaning

01:31:14 i think it is possible yes yes but i didn't understand the significance of that

01:31:18 that do you think it's possible that you were unaware that it had a definition with within approved document b uh i because i can't recall how i refer

01:31:30 uh i because i can't recall how i refer to the document all i can say is that i believe that i would have referred to those tables simply because they were referred to in paragraph 12.7 but i but i can't recall how i went about it

01:31:41 about it in that respect so i can't say for certain

01:31:47 all right mr jones i'm going to pause you there for a moment just looking at the time mr chairman i wonder whether this might be an appropriate time for us to take a short break it might be how are you getting on i'm

01:31:59 it might be how are you getting on i'm doing

01:32:00 doing fine for time and this is a good a good point

01:32:03 point as good a point as any

01:32:06 all right well we'll take our mid-afternoon break a little earlier than usual mr jones we'll um come back at half past three please

01:32:16 please and while we're having our break please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or

01:32:21 or anything relating to it all right all right

01:32:24 right there you go thank you very much we'll see you at our street room please thank you very much

01:50:36 welcome back everyone we're ready to continue hearing from mr jones mr jones just check that you can you're there you can see me and hear me yes i can very good ready to carry on

01:50:50 yes i can very good ready to carry on yes yes thank you very much well when you're ready ms troop thank you mr jones i'm going to take you back

01:50:58 back now in time do you remember we looked at an email

01:51:02 an email uh from november 2008 when you first became

01:51:05 became involved in this process and phil harrison of the labc sent to your line manager chris jenner a pdf document called type approval service manual

01:51:17 type approval service manual yes if we can just go please to your second witness statement which is hbc6051 and to page four

01:51:35 and to page four i want to look with you please at paragraph 14 where you're talking about that service manual you say there i cannot categorically say whether i saw the service manual or not at the relevant time

01:51:47 at the relevant time i may well have seen it and a clue to this is that the 500 pound minimum fee i quoted to which i referred in an email to phil harrison of the 14th of january 2009

01:51:59 of the 14th of january 2009 that's the email i was just no that's not the email i was just talking about there's a later one but seems to reflect section four of the guidance yes yes and then if we go over the page please to paragraph 16 oh

01:52:12 over the page please to paragraph 16 oh no down the page i'm so sorry so back up to page four and to paragraph 16 you say there the manual confirms what i was told by labc about accepting

01:52:25 what i was told by labc about accepting the content of the bba certificate without further interrogation and you refer there at the last line to section

01:52:33 section 3.3 of the manual verification yes yes let's go to that please uh it's at hbc 6040

01:52:53 and if we go to page 17 we should find section 3.3 of the manual there we are do you see under the heading verification

01:53:04 verification yes we see there uh the following to ensure compliance particularly in relation to some system and product approvals the scope of assessment will perforce be

01:53:15 the scope of assessment will perforce be wide

01:53:16 wide it should embrace verification of the following and there are then a number of bullet points setting out certain

01:53:23 certain checks or site visits visits or ongoing audits yes yes if we look at the paragraph under those bullet points we see this in the two circumstances marked above

01:53:36 in the two circumstances marked above the holding and submission by the customer of authoritative independent third party verification particularly if it is from a ucas accredited source or other method recommended in approved

01:53:48 or other method recommended in approved document

01:53:49 document seven is likely to indicate an acceptable level of satisfaction for our approval purposes and eliminate the need for any additional checking within that aspect is that the section

01:54:03 within that aspect is that the section to which you were referring

01:54:07 it is yes and and it it it links to what i was uh told verbally by labc when i spoke to them uh in that first telephone conversation

01:54:18 telephone conversation yes can you remember now whether you picked up the advice to accept whatever the bba was saying at face value

01:54:29 face value from your phone conversation or whether you additionally read this document at the time it was sent to you in late 2008. well sent to mr jenner i'm sorry yes my recollection was was

01:54:43 i'm sorry yes my recollection was was being

01:54:44 being told this or discussing this during that telephone conversation but this document was within her future council's possession at that time so it's possible that i'd also read this document at that time

01:54:56 document at that time um and and and that might have prompted me to to ask during the conversation you know what what does this mean

01:55:05 my memory is a little bit fuzzy on that uh when i when i wrote my first witness statement i couldn't remember this document

01:55:11 document although there are elements of it that i now remember being aware of yes all right can we go back now please to your first witness statement

01:55:22 your first witness statement uh hbc60 sorry to interrupt you miss troop but

01:55:25 troop but i'm just curious on this page that we're looking at the uh passage you just referred us to with the double asterisks at the

01:55:36 with the double asterisks at the beginning suggests that there may be some circumstances marked with double estuaries

01:55:42 estuaries where are they it does i'm afraid we haven't been able to discover the answer to that question there don't appear to be any particular sections marked with a double

01:55:52 double astra oh i'm being told i think that it's

01:55:58 ah i think uh mr chairman that that is a reference to section 3.3 itself and to section 3.2 above because do you see that at the end of

01:56:09 because do you see that at the end of the list of bullet points there are two asterisks

01:56:13 asterisks i see that's meant to govern the whole of three three is it it is i think that's the answer i see all right thank you very much

01:56:25 mr jones can we go back please to your first witness statement which is hbc6029 and to page 41.

01:56:45 if we go please to

01:56:50 the fourth paragraph there starting i have no doubt no in fact if we go just above that this is a section we've looked at already

01:57:01 is a section we've looked at already starting in terms of merit do you see it yes and that's where you you um described your views at the time of kingspan a world leader in insulation

01:57:14 of kingspan a world leader in insulation products with a reputation for integrity yes

01:57:17 yes yes you say at the end of that section in

01:57:21 in in reference to their product literature would have been viewed not with unconditional acceptance but with a degree of trust and then we going on you say i have no doubt that in 2009 with the level of

01:57:32 doubt that in 2009 with the level of experience and knowledge i had i would have tended towards trusting what they were telling me in their literature after all their products had been researched and developed by people with extensive specialist expertise in the

01:57:44 extensive specialist expertise in the field

01:57:45 field and the company was viewed as being one with integrity it's fair to say is it that because of your own level and level of experience and knowledge in in

01:57:56 level of experience and knowledge in in 2009

01:57:58 2009 you would not have been in a position to challenge

01:58:01 challenge kingspan as to any of their assertions no i i would say that would be true i didn't have the specialist knowledge or experience that would be necessary to be

01:58:12 experience that would be necessary to be able to

01:58:13 able to to say hang on what you're saying doesn't sound right the same is true is it in relation to anything

01:58:19 anything asserted by the bba yes that would that would be right and and although you have said there that

01:58:29 that their assertions would not be viewed with unconditional acceptance would you agree that the overall effect of the project you undertook seems to be that you did in fact

01:58:41 seems to be that you did in fact unconditionally accept what you were being told both by kingspan and by the bba yes certainly the bba and to some extent the kingspan

01:58:52 the kingspan information as well uh not least because the key points appear to be supported by statements in the bba certificate indeed the two pieces of the two documents supported one another

01:59:04 documents supported one another did they not yeah yes they did yes all right i want to just look with you at some aspects of uh the evidence of some of the kingspan witnesses if we can go

01:59:16 witnesses if we can go please uh just briefly to the witness statement of philip heath which is kin3020709 and to page 60.

01:59:39 if we look at paragraph 8.20 please he says this

01:59:42 says this i cannot recall the labc system approval being issued as a draft by hereford however we would have checked the document in any event and we would have identified any errors or any

01:59:53 would have identified any errors or any points of interpretation of the building regulations with which we did not agree this did not mean that kingspan assumed any responsibility for the accuracy of the certificate

02:00:04 the certificate which remained an labc document we considered the labc and hcbcd which is hereford to be experts and that the certification

02:00:15 to be experts and that the certification would reflect their understanding and interpretation of the building regulations and approved document b so we can see there that where in a

02:00:26 so we can see there that where in a sense

02:00:26 sense you are saying that you relied on the specialist expertise and research and integrity of kingspan at the same moment kingspan say they were relying

02:00:37 were relying on your expertise do you see i do see yes i can see that mr heath says there that he he cannot recall um your system approval being

02:00:49 um your system approval being issued as a draft i think we know now that that was done and that you did send to andrew peck a draft of your certificate in summary would you have

02:01:00 certificate in summary would you have expected kingspan to pick up any inaccuracies or errors in that certificate and summary i would that was the expertise that they

02:01:11 i would that was the expertise that they were bringing to the exercise uh they knew the product they knew how it could be used i mean they as a as a company were advising the industry on how it should be used so that was expertise they had and i

02:01:23 that was expertise they had and i expected them to be honest and pick up any inaccuracies that's why i sent it to them not out of any naivety but at that time i just wouldn't have imagined that a company in kingspan's

02:01:34 company in kingspan's um position would want to risk the reputational uh damage from from knowingly marketing something

02:01:43 something with with the wrong information i see all right can we go now please to the witness statement of ivan meredith which is at kin3022312

02:01:56 is at kin3022312 and to page 42.

02:02:13 so it's kin three zeros two two three one two

02:02:20 thank you if we look uh please at paragraph

02:02:23 paragraph 92 d it's in about the middle of the page

02:02:28 page starting if you took no action why not and just to set it in context mr meredith was being asked there about this 2009 certificate

02:02:39 there about this 2009 certificate and why kingspan did not take any action in respect of its wording and technical content there he says this

02:02:47 says this we were paying experts to make opinions based on our product properties and their applicability in accordance with building regulations we supplied the product data they would write the guidance

02:02:59 write the guidance these bodies usually kept themselves in check

02:03:02 check and we were clutching at anything that would support the use of our products and very busy trying to balance all the needs of the company's business development therefore i believe it went unchecked

02:03:13 therefore i believe it went unchecked properly by us that being said the documents were very cheap

02:03:18 cheap compared to normal agrimon certificates that could cost twenty thousand pounds per year

02:03:23 per year compared to an initial two thousand pounds to produce the whole document focusing uh really there on the middle section

02:03:32 section were you aware at any stage of your involvement in this approval certificate that kingspan

02:03:39 kingspan were clutching at anything that would support the use of their products no i had no indication of that in any of our

02:03:47 our conversations or emails it was never even alluded to no were you aware that kingspan say

02:03:58 were you aware that kingspan say they were relying on your due diligence and expertise uh no i i don't believe that to be accurate because in in terms of my involvement it was very

02:04:09 in terms of my involvement it was very much a collaborative exercise that they they were providing expertise to the process uh they it wasn't all on on herefordshire or on labc no

02:04:22 on herefordshire or on labc no but but it was surely more on herefordshire and labc than kingspan who are after all the product manufacturer you and the labc are producing an approval certificate

02:04:33 approval certificate yes that that is true and and it was it was my belief at the time that that with with my work then going to labc for a further

02:04:41 a further uh check technical check that that there was a robust procedure in place to to counter that yes all right i mean the reality is

02:04:52 yes all right i mean the reality is putting it brutally i'm afraid is that no due diligence was carried out in respect of any of the assertions made in your type approval summary was it

02:05:03 it it doesn't appear to be the case or certainly there are some there are some matters there that should have been flagged up as concern that went yes all right can we

02:05:15 concern that went yes all right can we go back please to your first witness statement at page 40.

02:05:28 hbcs6029 thank you and if we look at your response please to question 68. i want to look in particular at the final paragraph there

02:05:40 final paragraph there where you say i think a point to make here

02:05:45 here is that there was sometimes a great deal of pressure to consider and accept innovative solutions for clients

02:05:52 clients which did not necessarily follow rigidly the approved documents private building control bodies were frequently known to exploit local authority going over please

02:06:14 stereotypes in their marketing go to the local authority and get tied up in red tape and rigid application of outdated approved document solutions come to us and we'll give you innovative

02:06:25 come to us and we'll give you innovative and free thinking approaches to compliance you then go on to say

02:06:31 to say this did lead to pressure on local authority surveyors to be open to new products

02:06:36 products and innovative solutions which the approved documents had yet to assimilate and approved documents did tend to be several steps behind industry development at any given time

02:06:49 industry development at any given time we then go on to say it was not uncommon for prospective clients to test our willingness to think outside the box before placing their business with us

02:07:00 before placing their business with us once you go down that road the next question is where you find the evidence

02:07:05 evidence to support these alternative approaches

02:07:09 i want to ask you about that because given what you have said thus far in your evidence about the nature of approved document b or the approved documents in general the

02:07:22 or the approved documents in general the training you had to think more widely and to think outside

02:07:27 outside of the approved documents and to come up with alternative routes or definitions was that in part because of this pressure that you've described

02:07:38 pressure that you've described here

02:07:41 here i'm sorry could could you repeat the question but of course i'm so sorry i don't think i put it very well or it's far too long you told us earlier that when you were coming to formula judgment that k-15 was

02:07:53 coming to formula judgment that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility you decided in part as a result of your training

02:07:59 training to step outside of the strict definitions within approved document b and to come up with an alternative yes yes and all i'm asking

02:08:11 alternative yes yes and all i'm asking is whether that was in part related to this pressure that you've described in the section of your witness statement i've just read to you

02:08:22 i've just read to you uh yes it was now i think the important thing

02:08:26 thing difference to to point out is this is this is a

02:08:30 this is a a principle applied in our building control business as when we were dealing with building control clients which was our our bread and butter if you like that's what we did so as far as this this sort of limited

02:08:42 so as far as this this sort of limited exercise with kingsman goes there was no incentive for me to try and

02:08:47 try and you know please kingspan or or keep them happy in terms of future business because there was no future business kingspan were not clients of ours but i felt when i was writing the statement that perhaps it was important to point this out

02:08:58 to point this out as the backdrop against we were which we worked

02:09:01 worked and it perhaps might explain why when dealing with the kingspan exercise my the way i went about it might have been influenced by the way i

02:09:13 might have been influenced by the way i went about our normal building control activity i see so more broadly because of the pressures you've described here to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions

02:09:25 and come up with innovative solutions that had become a way of working which may have affected the way in which you approach this assessment is that it that's right even though that incentive wouldn't have been there for kingspan

02:09:36 wouldn't have been there for kingspan it wouldn't have mattered to us whether we kept kingspan happy or not if i'm honest because we weren't going to get repeat business it wasn't it wasn't part of what we did but but i'm sure

02:09:45 i'm sure that's the way we worked and and that would have come out in the way i approached this exercise why do you say there was no incentive for hereford and you weren't going to get repeat business

02:09:58 well i mean these type approvals certainly that well the kingspan ones were the only ones we dealt with uh but they came along once in the blue moon and the the the payment was

02:10:11 and the the the payment was inconsequential really 500 pounds is about what we would have charged for the building control on a kitchen extension so it was

02:10:17 so it was in terms of our income it was neither here nor there it was it was inconsequential so really there was there was no incentive

02:10:28 really there was there was no incentive for us to to do these type approvals other than a sort of obligation to help labc when they asked us to um and there was certainly no incentive

02:10:39 um and there was certainly no incentive to to be overly generous in to kingspan not deliberately because you know this wasn't a source of income this wasn't an income stream for us there was

02:10:49 there was they were small sums of money once in a blue moon

02:10:52 blue moon usually at a time when we were busy enough anyway and would rather not have the extra workload all right i want to take you back please to the uh service manual we looked at earlier if

02:11:04 service manual we looked at earlier if we can go back to that it's eight hbc 6049 and if we can go i think to page 16

02:11:23 yes if we look please at section 3.2 assessment checking level of service we can see this in the opening paragraph it is vital for the type approval service

02:11:35 the type approval service that a high level of assessment is applied in order to secure user confidence service credibility and to avoid repetitive faults due to an

02:11:46 and to avoid repetitive faults due to an initial

02:11:47 initial oversight accordingly all type approval projects

02:11:51 projects should be comprehensively checked in all respects

02:11:55 respects singular reliance upon a risk-assessed acceptance or other form of exclusions from full checking

02:12:03 checking or reliance upon previous examples should only form a limited controlled and recorded part of any assessment process do you see that

02:12:14 that yes do you know whether or not you read that

02:12:17 that at the time you were carrying out your assessment i don't know i i was certainly aware of this second level of checking labc committed to um and my recollection is

02:12:30 committed to um and my recollection is that this was discussed in the telephone conversation but as with the discussion about the bba certificates i i i can't recall whether whether i'd read this

02:12:40 read this section or whether it was just given to me verbally or both but i was certainly aware of it yes so i know that this section goes on to discuss a second

02:12:51 discuss a second check and and what is required in in respect of a second check do you consider that the first paragraph of this section that i've just read to you

02:13:00 you is directed not to you the author of the certificate in summary but to labc

02:13:08 i i believe it to be yes because when we look at the bullet points which which define the uh the type of checking that might be carried out that would have been labc um

02:13:20 that would have been labc um activity not not heritage council i see and what about the section towards the end of the first paragraph that i've just read to you which says that they should be

02:13:31 which says that they should be comprehensively checked in all respects

02:13:35 and then goes on to say that singular reliance

02:13:39 reliance upon previous examples should only form a limited

02:13:43 a limited controlled and recorded part of any assessment process if we think about that it's fair i think for me to say that

02:13:53 that your type approval summary relied entirely

02:13:57 entirely on previous assertions which went unchecked by you is that fair yes in in respect of the bba certificate yes

02:14:08 in respect of the bba certificate yes yes

02:14:11 but you consider that that paragraph and the advice in it as to the level of quality was not directed to you and not for you to consider is that it i

02:14:22 and not for you to consider is that it i i

02:14:22 i read it to be a a sort of a robustness to the process that meant that no one local authority could issue a document

02:14:31 document without it being verified by other means you know to stop inaccurate information circulating in the wider industry

02:14:44 industry i see do you consider that the work you carried out was of an adequate standard mr jones

02:14:56 was of an adequate standard mr jones um i i think in terms of the scope of what i did it it matched what um what labc had asked of us but

02:15:07 asked of us but with hindsight i don't believe that that scope was adequate i i don't i don't believe it should have been done

02:15:14 been done uh to that sort of level i see and we've we've obviously looked at some of the work i did and and appreciate that because of my lack of experience

02:15:26 of experience some of it was not it was not what uh what should have been written so in terms of

02:15:33 terms of given what you have said about the scope of the project as it was set out for you what you're saying is that you did follow that and you did carry out that work adequately within the parameters of that

02:15:45 adequately within the parameters of that scope but the scope itself essentially broke this from the start is that fair

02:15:52 that fair i believe so i i when i when i look back at the scope that was asked of us you know 500 pounds worth of work i don't believe it was appropriate the the result of that sort of scope

02:16:04 the the result of that sort of scope in terms of the certificate was always going to be very very limited and barely scratched the surface and i can see now with hindsight that when you work to a very limited

02:16:15 that when you work to a very limited scope like that there's a high risk that you don't dig down into the into the real meat of it um in which case then it begs the question

02:16:26 begs the question should it be done at all as you either do it fully or not at all can we just go down please to section 3.5

02:16:35 3.5 i think it's on page 18.

02:16:42 this is about resources and competency labc hq and local authorities shall deploy sufficient experience and qualified staff to type approval

02:16:53 qualified staff to type approval projects

02:16:54 projects in order that every application is given a high level of professional assessment and decision making and and so on and then there are three bullet points um above which the manual states if a

02:17:06 um above which the manual states if a local authority is faced with resource or logistical problems in respect of any particular project or proposal it should either seek to pass the project to another authority

02:17:16 authority refer the matter to the technical coordinator or set up a joint working arrangement as far as you are aware was any consideration given

02:17:27 consideration given at any stage given your acknowledged lack of

02:17:31 lack of experience to passing it to another authority

02:17:35 authority or setting up a joint working arrangement or looking for any kind of formal help i think the consideration was that that initial um an initial discussion between myself

02:17:47 um an initial discussion between myself and chris jenner and between myself and labc where i was considering declining doing the work uh not just for me but powerful council

02:17:57 council and say actually i don't think we have that expertise and that would be in line with

02:18:01 with with you know what this section of the document is saying actually do we have the expertise but it was actually that conversation with labc where the very limited scope was discussed yes where we concluded that

02:18:14 discussed yes where we concluded that oh okay yes for that sort of scope uh yes perhaps we do have the resources and the competency to go as far as that scope needs us to go and and

02:18:25 go and and perhaps you know in in a different world had all parties to that process being honest and open then then the result would have been very different potentially but that i i think we did give consideration

02:18:37 that i i think we did give consideration to it

02:18:38 to it and it was the and it was the scope given to us by labc that uh that allowed us to go forward all right um referring back to what you

02:18:49 all right um referring back to what you said there about had all parties been honest and open can i ask you this do you consider that you were misled during this process yes i do

02:19:00 during this process yes i do by whom

02:19:03 i i would say by uh kingspan and by the bba although i don't know to what extent kingspan influenced the content of the bba certificate

02:19:14 bba certificate you know with knowing now what was going on

02:19:17 on but by both those documents there were some very misleading statements very misleading diagrams that seem to me now to be designed quite deliberately to lead

02:19:28 designed quite deliberately to lead people down a certain a certain interpretation you know it would have been so easy to include

02:19:35 include clarifications and caveats about what the testing actually related to what the what the limitations on the use of the product in systems over 18 meters

02:19:46 of the product in systems over 18 meters where it would have been very very easy to do both in the kings fan literature and in the bba certificate and it seems to me odd

02:19:53 to me odd that there's almost a deliberate move not to include those clarifications and allow

02:19:59 allow different interpretations by ordinary industry professionals like me not not specialists but just industry professionals yes yes thank you you've spoken a little

02:20:12 yes thank you you've spoken a little about the checks that you understood would be carried out at the labc when you had finished your part in this assessment but i think we can go to it if we need

02:20:23 but i think we can go to it if we need to

02:20:24 to i think in your first witness statement you actually say that you're you were not sure in 2009 what arrangements were in place or what those checks would comprise is that right

02:20:37 would comprise is that right that's right i i knew there was a checking procedure and it's and it's possible and likely that i saw that section of the manual but of course that lists out quite a number of different options for checking so i i didn't know

02:20:49 options for checking so i i didn't know which of those labc would choose to use they they had access to every local authority building control department in the country including the urban ones where high-rise buildings

02:21:01 the urban ones where high-rise buildings are the norm they had access to technical consultants because

02:21:06 because labc were marketing i think some technical consultancy services in the wider industry so they had various options to that they could have used to take my report and and

02:21:17 report and and and get it checked but i didn't know what they proposed to do i just knew they were going to do some level of challenge yes all right and

02:21:24 and you said to us earlier that that knowledge provided you that knowledge was significant to you and it provided you uh with some comfort when you carried

02:21:35 uh with some comfort when you carried out your work did you consider no first did you flag up to anyone at the labc that you were relying on

02:21:46 were relying on them to check very thoroughly the work you had been done or that you were expecting comments or that you were concerned in any way i i believe i did in that

02:21:57 in any way i i believe i did in that initial

02:21:58 initial telephone conversation i see there was an exchange where where you know i went from actually i don't think we can do this to oh okay if what you're saying is true

02:22:09 to oh okay if what you're saying is true about the scope and about the checking procedure then maybe i can and i think that in itself was an indication that the knowledge of the checking procedure was one was a key factor for us saying yes okay we'll do it yes but you

02:22:22 saying yes okay we'll do it yes but you had no way of knowing did you i mean i know it's difficult because we don't know who it was that you spoke to initially

02:22:27 initially initially at the labc but you had no way of knowing whether that person would have any involvement at all in the final checks so i suppose what i'm asking is did you consider at a later stage perhaps when

02:22:40 consider at a later stage perhaps when you sent in your draft document flagging up to the labc again that you you didn't in fact have any experience or knowledge of these areas and that you were relying on them to

02:22:51 and that you were relying on them to check what you had done did you consider doing that no i didn't think i did i think i trusted otc to to do what we discussed i think i was aware that herefordshire council was it was a known quantity to them in

02:23:03 was it was a known quantity to them in terms of you know the type of type of work and expertise we had and and

02:23:08 and and i just i knew that once i submitted the report to labc there was another process to go through it was all in the manual and the process flow chart so i think i trusted that they would do what

02:23:20 think i trusted that they would do what was necessary um but i didn't pursue that with them again i wish i had if i'm honest um but no i didn't

02:23:31 if i'm honest um but no i didn't all right i want to look with you very briefly um at another certificate for k-15 issued by the labc in 2013 and by that

02:23:42 issued by the labc in 2013 and by that time it was called a registered detail certificate and i think you did have some involvement in it if we can go to the certificate please it's a kin

02:23:58 409546

02:24:09 yes so this is the certificate itself and we can see on the left hand side of the page that the date of issue is the 28th of august 2013. yes yes and that statement sorry and that

02:24:22 yes and that statement sorry and that statement

02:24:23 statement is signed off by barry turner on behalf of the labc if we go on please to the drawings and document list which came with this certificate

02:24:34 came with this certificate that is at kin409547

02:24:46 yes you tell us in your first witness statement i don't think we need to go to it but if you need to we can do that this assessment

02:24:57 we can do that this assessment this renewed certificate the assessment was undertaken by colin davis at hereford building control is that right that's right yes and i think at that

02:25:08 that's right yes and i think at that time you were his line manager were you yes

02:25:16 do you know how this assessment came to be the responsibility of mr davis rather than

02:25:22 than rather than you was it just because of your respective positions at the time yes it's because i was as the manager of the department i was doing far less technical assessment work uh at that time but colin was a fully

02:25:36 uh at that time but colin was a fully practicing very competent building control officer or senior voter control officer so i i discussed with him in taking the renewal

02:25:47 in taking the renewal yes all right and did you review any part of this work before it went back to the labc

02:25:55 did you i think i did i i believe colin brought it back to me he knew of my previous involvement so i think he after he'd done his work i think i i i talked it through with him before he did his assessment

02:26:06 his assessment and probably did a review with him afterwards um of what what his findings were can we just scroll down in this

02:26:17 can we just scroll down in this in this drawings and document list please

02:26:24 perhaps to the to the next page

02:26:28 yes and we see that it takes quite a different form than than the one that you prepared doesn't it

02:26:37 it yes yeah what i can tell you we can go through it if we need to but what i can tell you is that this renewed certificate does not contain the words

02:26:47 words k15 can be considered to be or can be considered a material of limited combustibility anywhere and all i wanted to ask you was whether you know why

02:26:59 whether you know why that particular wording was removed for this issue of the registered detail certificate um i think the the document i

02:27:11 um i think the the document i created in 2008 2009 yes there was a version of that created for this renewal by colin he in fact took took the

02:27:22 by colin he in fact took took the original document and and amended it um and and the wording remains in in that document so it wasn't it wasn't removed it just doesn't appear in in the part we're looking at now um in

02:27:34 in the part we're looking at now um in fact

02:27:35 fact the part we're looking at now was was wording that was put forward by kingspan um was in fact this was suggested word for word by gareth mills of king spen wasn't it

02:27:46 of king spen wasn't it yes it was yes all right but you say do you that there's another part of this document which you think does contain the words material of limited combustibility yes as i say it's the original document

02:27:58 yes as i say it's the original document that i wrote in 2008 amended by colin davis i see and do you think that change was made at the labc

02:28:10 uh which change the addition of this appendix was added by labc but in consultation

02:28:22 by labc but in consultation with myself and colleen i see all right we might come back to that if we need to i just want to look now please at um some email correspondence from a little later in 2013.

02:28:34 later in 2013. if we can go please to labc 305351

02:28:51 if we can go down please to page three which is the bottom of that email chain

02:28:59 yes if we can

02:29:02 zoom in on on the last email chain there that is an email chain from david ewing of the labc to you date of the 19th of december 2013. do you see that

02:29:14 you see that yes yeah and i would like to take you to the section it's a bit dense i'm afraid but if you go after hi dave if you go one two three four five lines down to the section

02:29:27 four five lines down to the section starting i have also been approached do you see that yes yeah he says to you there i have also been approached by celetex who have queried our interpretation of

02:29:39 who have queried our interpretation of adb

02:29:40 adb in relation to the k-15 product i have no technical data behind our archive system so can't dig into it essentially the query is in relation to use of a

02:29:51 use of a pur board in a position requiring fire resistance particularly if it is used over 18 meters adb 4 12.5 to 12.7 and definition of

02:30:03 adb 4 12.5 to 12.7 and definition of limited combustibility wondered if there was any testing undertaken to demonstrate the external boarding protected the internal core of the board

02:30:13 the board or any background on the research process undertaken i appreciate this may have been some time ago as i think it was originally a lantech certificate i think that's a little bit confused in

02:30:25 i think that's a little bit confused in terms of its wording but would you agree with me that essentially what mr ewing is saying there is that celetex

02:30:32 celetex are questioning the the terms of the original certificate from 2009 in relation to limited combustibility it does seem to be heritated yes yes all

02:30:44 it does seem to be heritated yes yes all right

02:30:44 right so can we go up please to your reply which comes the next day so if we scroll up

02:30:55 uh i'm afraid and up again i think your email is quite a long one and again sorry so page one

02:31:09 you say there hi david i'm not sure what specific issues have been raised by celetex but below are some extracts relevant to the fire performance and testing of k15

02:31:22 performance and testing of k15 firstly from the bba certificate and then you have copied and pasted section 7

02:31:29 section 7 behavior in relation to fire from the bba certificate into your email yes yes all right let's scroll down please

02:31:40 to the next section of this page

02:31:55 and then at the very bottom in the smaller blue writing i think this is you again you say followed by an extract from kingspan's own technical literature and so now if we go over to page two

02:32:08 please that is it's quite difficult to see but that is the section we looked at earlier isn't it from kingspan's marketing literature yes containing the phrase at the end of

02:32:21 yes containing the phrase at the end of it and is therefore acceptable for use um above 18 meters yes yes yes and then just below that there's in blue this is you again

02:32:32 this is you again and these from our internal assessment and if if we can scroll down again please

02:32:44 here you have copied and pasted sections from the type approval summary the relevant sections requirement b and b4 external fire spread yes yes so scrolling down

02:32:57 yes so scrolling down a little more please to the bottom of that page

02:33:01 that page you say at the bottom there in blue essentially as the board is described as class naught it can be termed a material of limited combustibility and so in terms of the relevant part of

02:33:13 and so in terms of the relevant part of doc b

02:33:14 doc b it is suitable for use within the wall construction even at heights over 18 meters do you remember writing that mr jones

02:33:26 i i don't remember writing that and that seems to be a real simplification i mean i've sent i've sent all the backgrounds to the to the judgments but i haven't

02:33:37 the judgments but i haven't it's a very simplistic way of writing i can't i can't recall that i'm not sure it's a simplification it's it's inaccurate isn't it yes yes and the reason i wanted to ask

02:33:49 yes yes and the reason i wanted to ask you about this is because in your evidence earlier you seem to be very clear that many years before this in 2009 you were very clear as to the difference

02:34:01 you were very clear as to the difference between class naught and limited combustibility and how those

02:34:06 how those things uh related to one another in fact she went so far as to say that you describe the confusion in industry about that matter

02:34:17 about that matter confirmed that you had no confusion in your mind on that issue and in fact i think you said that you were required to understand it well enough to

02:34:26 enough to correct the misunderstandings of others is that right yes and i still believe that to be the case yes yes so how did you come in 2013 at the end of 2013

02:34:38 end of 2013 to be saying in response to a request from the labc for an explanation as to how your type approval

02:34:47 approval certificate said what it said how do you come to be saying this to david ewing of the labc can you explain that i can't explain

02:34:59 can you explain that i can't explain that other than it's it's wrong do you think it might be the case mr jones that you were not quite so clear in your own mind

02:35:10 own mind in 2009 or even in 2013 as to what class naught and or limited combustibility might have meant i believe that i

02:35:23 might have meant i believe that i was clear on it it was it was it was quite a fundamental requirement i don't

02:35:30 don't i don't think for me there was there was a sort of ambiguity that that sentence suggests no but that sentence is equally that sentence is very clear

02:35:41 equally that sentence is very clear do you have any idea how you can have come to write that it's just an aberration is it it it is i i can only say it it has been so long since i'd since i don't have any detailed involvement in this but but

02:35:54 involvement in this but but i i've written a very simplistic account of

02:35:59 of of how i arrived at the conclusions well again forgive me but it's not simplistic it's us it's just wrong isn't it it is wrong yes yes all right do you know whether david

02:36:12 yes all right do you know whether david ewing went back to celetex with that explanation did you hear any more about it

02:36:17 it i don't believe i did no right other than this and this series of emails

02:36:24 emails were you at any stage made aware of any concerns or complaints from any individual or organization in relation

02:36:34 relation either to the 2009 certificate for k-15 or to the 2013 certificate for k-15 i i can't recall being made aware of any

02:36:46 i i can't recall being made aware of any no all right but mr jones at this stage i can tell you that i've come to the end of my prepared

02:36:54 prepared questions for you but i'll um hand back over to the chairman because we need now to take another short pause yes thank you very much well mr jones at

02:37:05 yes thank you very much well mr jones at this stage we have a short break so council can check that there aren't any questions that she's omitted to ask and also to allow other people following the inquiry to suggest

02:37:16 following the inquiry to suggest possible further questions so we'll have a break until half past four and at that point we'll find out whether there are any more questions for you all right right and usual instruction

02:37:28 all right right and usual instruction don't talk to anyone about your evidence please

02:37:31 please during the break right so you would have passed for them thank you

02:55:45 welcome back everyone now see if there are any further questions for mr jones mr jones just to check up can you see me and hear me clearly yes i can very good um we'll now see

02:55:57 yes i can very good um we'll now see whether

02:55:58 whether uh miss troop does have any further questions for you miss troop yes just one further question

02:56:07 and uh it's this we've been through a great deal of evidence in just one day and we've discussed a number of issues and i want to ask you this looking back

02:56:18 and i want to ask you this looking back over all of that is there anything that you would have done differently

02:56:25 i from from where i understand the thing i would have done differently was was go with my first instinct right at the very start and say i don't believe we're equipped to do this exercise yes

02:56:36 exercise yes all right thank you thank you well mr jones

02:56:41 jones um it's right that i should thank you on behalf of not only myself but the whole panel for making yourself available today to give us your evidence um i'd like you to know that it's been extremely valuable to us to hear what

02:56:52 extremely valuable to us to hear what you have to tell us so we're very grateful to you for coming along to do that

02:56:57 that and uh that is all the questions we have for you

02:57:00 for you and so you'll know as it were free to go about your business thank you very much indeed thank you and that's the end of the hearing for today we will resume

02:57:12 today we will resume at 10 o'clock on monday with another

02:57:20 witness

02:57:23 you