Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation & LFB Evidence - Wednesday 16th June 2021 (1/2)

Wednesday 16th June 2021 · Janice Wray (KCTMO Health & Safety Manager), Counsel to the Inquiry · 2:58:12
▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

Janice Wray, KCTMO Health & Safety Manager, gives evidence about fire risk assessment quality, audit failures, and the handling of LFB deficiency notices. She admits to never auditing Carl Stokes's fire risk assessments and downplaying deficiency notices in reports to the TMO board.

Key moments

Full transcript

00:00:27 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear further evidence from janice ray so i'm going to ask the usher to bring this ray back into the rook please

00:00:51 good morning with you well ready to carry on

00:00:54 carry on oh yes good thank you very much yes mr miller mr chairman good morning thank you members of the panel good morning to you and miss very good morning to you uh final stretch uh i hope

00:01:05 you uh final stretch uh i hope can we pick up where we were yesterday by looking at the quality of mr stokesy's work for the tmo can we start please by looking at cst401084

00:01:23 now this is an email if we go to page one

00:01:26 one uh halfway down from raymond hilton to you hi janice of the eighth 19th of may 2017

00:01:35 may 2017 it's only a month before the fire at grenfell tower attached to comments following a review of the two fras and below that you can see a further email and the comments that are attached

00:01:47 email and the comments that are attached um is in in a separate document which is at cst three zeros one double zero

00:01:54 zero eight five the next one up in the series and uh you can see that this covers on page one premises called the sandhills at lemiston street

00:02:05 sandhills at lemiston street yes sw10 uh and if you go to page seven of this document

00:02:14 uh it covers i should say two two premises if you go to page seven of this document it concludes i do not believe that either of these fras are suitable and

00:02:25 either of these fras are suitable and sufficient the advice has put tmo at risk in both whitchurch is completely wrong and i would recommend new fra is completed as soon as possible taking the new guidance for specialized

00:02:36 taking the new guidance for specialized housing into consideration and do not rely on the advice the landlord is responsible for the flat front door no matter what is said in lease or any other agreement the lfb enforcement will issue against tmo

00:02:47 issue against tmo on every occasion there were lots more that could have been pointed to but no point in laboring the point um do you remember receiving these

00:02:58 um do you remember receiving these comments and reading them at the time yes were you concerned by them um initially i was concerned that i hadn't been advised that um these these documents were being sent off to anybody to be assessed

00:03:10 off to anybody to be assessed um so it came i think it came out the blue to me um the i i was a bit surprised actually because

00:03:19 because the um whit church house fire risk assessment we'd had quite protracted discussions with the fire brigade at this time on that very matter um there was some

00:03:30 on that very matter um there was some debate because it's specialized housing and there was some debate about whether um a stay put strategy or a um forgotten the terminology but basically a partial evacuation

00:03:41 a partial evacuation um so so so remove the the people either side of the flat on fire to behind the next self-closing door so they're in a separate compartment and the we'd had discussions with fire

00:03:52 and the we'd had discussions with fire brigade about what was what was most appropriate so um we it had been discussed at length and no no criticisms had been made so i was i was quite surprised at

00:04:03 made so i was i was quite surprised at some of the um some of the comments did you discuss these comments with raymond hilton given what you've just told us about your surprise um i believe so um i i think he was

00:04:14 um i believe so um i i think he was really more the conduit for providing the information to me i i um i i don't what was his role um he was he worked in the contract management team who worked for alex

00:04:25 management team who worked for alex baldwin

00:04:26 baldwin i think he worked on the um electrical contract so again i i was surprised that he had um he sort of sent these off to these individuals um and yeah the whole thing was a bit of a

00:04:38 and yeah the whole thing was a bit of a surprise in your discussions with raymond hilton did he withdraw all these criticisms and admit that he was wrong or or did he did you accept that at least in some respects you were happy to agree with them

00:04:49 with them um some of them i um so for example um the the leaseholder door issue um that so i think carl's way of

00:05:02 um that so i think carl's way of phrasing it was a bit was quite brisk i mean having spent a great deal of time um engaging with the fire brigade and getting council's opinion um engaging with individual leaseholders

00:05:14 um engaging with individual leaseholders to address potentially non-compliantly solder doors and then we were we were very clear that it was a point at which we still didn't entirely agree with the fire brigade but we understood that if they took

00:05:24 they took if they took um any action it would be against us as the landlord um so our way of trying to to deal with it when we had no enforcement position with the leaseholder was really to try

00:05:36 leaseholder was really to try and encourage and explain the need to do this and coax and cajole and we had quite a lot of success so regardless of how he has worded it we were quite clear about our role was and about who could take enforcement

00:05:47 about who could take enforcement action against us so there was nothing particularly surprising about that comment um right sorry um did you just did you forward these or send these to

00:05:58 send these to carl stokes and have a discussion about them yes yes he did did he accept that at least in some respects these criticisms were justified or did he

00:06:06 or did he deny all of them um well as i say the the one particularly the one that's on the screen now about the leaseholder door

00:06:13 door um i i wasn't concerned about because i was very clear about um our responsibility and and where we got to in terms of enforcement so this didn't tell me anything that i i didn't know

00:06:24 know um like without looking at the detail of the others i i can't remember his exact response sorry did you forward these to barbara matthews um i can't recall i may well have done but

00:06:35 i can't recall i may well have done but i i sorry i can't recall discuss these with barbara matthews i probably did but again i don't specifically remember now i asked you whether you forwarded these to carl stokes

00:06:46 these to carl stokes in fact if we go to the top of this email

00:06:49 email the email run i showed you before we can see that you did do and you uh wrote him a message that's

00:07:00 cst301084 and you say carl prepare to be cross one of my colleagues asked for a couple of our recent fra reports it was a bit vague but said he'd been to some seminar and wanted to

00:07:11 he'd been to some seminar and wanted to look at these with andy jack and graham fieldhouse h s consultant currently working at southwark i believe uh andy jack of course is lfb yes he's now given me the attached

00:07:22 yes he's now given me the attached reported with a load of issues raised in points challenged i'm going to try to meet with him next week and to discuss in more detail but you will no doubt want to respond to some of the points that they are raising

00:07:35 now did you have a meeting with him that is uh raymond hilton oh that's raymond hilton yeah that's not exactly

00:07:46 hilton yeah that's not exactly graham field house no because um graeme hill

00:07:49 hill i'm sorry raymond hilton had been my colleague who'd asked for these documents and not really giving me a steer what he wanted them for but fine he he requested them and and then

00:08:00 fine he he requested them and and then suddenly i was hit with a load of criticisms without really knowing the backstory

00:08:04 backstory so um i would i intended to meet with raymond hilton i can't honestly now tell you for sure whether i did or i did end but i certainly would have tried to

00:08:15 end but i certainly would have tried to meet with him i think he wasn't actually working full-time at that stage as well so there might have been some difficulty with diaries but it was certainly my intention

00:08:21 intention did you take any action at that point to reconsider carl stokes his suitability as a fire risk assessor for the tmo i think i would have looked in detail at the criticisms um and we're in may 17 aren't we

00:08:34 um and we're in may 17 aren't we i would look to detail the christmas and i would have discussed with carl and and i'm confident i would also have discussed with barbara um i i've commented on the leaseholder door

00:08:45 i i've commented on the leaseholder door issue um i think i've explained that that with whit church we were having protracted discussions with the fire brigade so i was surprised that other criticisms were being raised

00:08:56 criticisms were being raised and really without looking at the detail i don't think i can give you a definite answer did you take any action to review his other fire risk assessments these are only two sandhills and whit church as we've seen

00:09:07 sandhills and whit church as we've seen did you take any action to review his other fire risk assessments or have them reviewed by an independent third party uh i can't recall doing so at this stage sorry can you just remind me what was mr

00:09:19 sorry can you just remind me what was mr hilton's

00:09:21 hilton's field of activity um he was a contract manager

00:09:25 manager in the contracts management team he he reported to alex bosman and i think he was the electrical contracts manager did he have any experience in fire risk assessments um

00:09:36 assessments um not to my knowledge um he he was i think he was an interim and he probably had a range of experience but not to not to my certain knowledge

00:09:47 not to not to my certain knowledge right thank you

00:09:52 what was the upshot of these criticisms from mr hilton

00:09:58 i can't i'm sorry i can't actually remember i remember investigating them and some of them i've commented on i um didn't didn't feel good of course for concern but without revisiting all of

00:10:10 concern but without revisiting all of them now i'm sorry i can't i can't actually

00:10:12 actually it's a matter of general recollection do you do recall whether in may 2017 these comments caused you seriously to consider whether carl stokes was up to the job of fra for the

00:10:24 stokes was up to the job of fra for the tmo

00:10:25 tmo or did you essentially

00:10:29 satisfy yourself that there was nothing in these criticisms um as a matter of general recollection i would have investigated all of the um concerns and

00:10:40 all of the um concerns and some of them i felt were did not give me cause for concern and i don't recall being

00:10:46 being particularly worried but obviously i was intending to meet with raymond to see if i could um find out if there was more information that i needed to title right did the fact that mr hilton had no

00:10:57 right did the fact that mr hilton had no qualifications so to speak as a fire risk assessor calls you

00:11:02 calls you not to take his criticism seriously or give them the do you give them do you wait

00:11:07 wait um no um i presumed what he was forwarding to me came directly from these other two individuals um and i i've certainly met both of those individuals before and i know they have

00:11:19 individuals before and i know they have um fire safety remits so i would have taken them seriously i didn't dismiss them i would have investigated them yes having investigated them did you then dismiss or discount them completely or were there some that gave you lingering concern

00:11:30 concern as i say i don't think i can give you a full answer without looking at the detail of all of the individual allegations the ones that i've seen i i can comment i've tried to comment on but i would have to revisit it sorry

00:11:41 it sorry it's not really fresh in my mind right i mustn't have read this i mean the reason i we could spend some time going through the document line by line and you could you could answer that but my question is the more general one there's no record of you doing anything

00:11:53 there's no record of you doing anything in response to these criticisms do i take it therefore that either you didn't investigate them fully or you did investigate them fully and were satisfied that each and every criticism was invalid

00:12:04 criticism was invalid um i would have investigated them fully but i i've in order to do that i felt it was important to meet with raymond hilton because he was the person who'd had contact with the two people

00:12:15 who'd had contact with the two people who were raising the criticisms i really only had this this document to go on and

00:12:20 go on and what i i can't recall is if i manage to have that meeting um and that's probably why there is no audit trail it may have still been ongoing

00:12:30 ongoing i see now can we then turn to the question of audit you were aware i think uh as you told us earlier in your evidence of a standard called pass

00:12:41 called pass 97 yes

00:12:44 97 yes sorry past 79

00:12:47 and there's a 2000 and august 2012 edition of that could we go to that lfb double zero one one

00:12:58 one six nine two four

00:13:10 uh and this is i'm sorry i i have made a mistake i'm actually referring you to a different document which is past seven of 2013.

00:13:18 of 2013. uh i i'd assumed that what i had put in my note was a typographical error it is not it's a completely different document um first of all were you familiar with this document

00:13:29 this document oh yeah you were yeah uh you could see that it's called fire risk management system specification can we go to page 23 in it please

00:13:40 and if you go to page 23 look at the bottom half of the page you can see that there is a heading 7.45 risk assessment you see that yes and under 7.4.3

00:13:51 you see that yes and under 7.4.3 it says this the organization shall audit the fire risk assessment program after the delivery of the risk assessments 7.4.4 the organization shall conduct a review meeting at planned intervals to discuss the results of fire risk

00:14:03 to discuss the results of fire risk assessment audits and efforts to address findings

00:14:06 findings at uh at and after 2013 when past seven was published do you remember being familiar with those principles i've just read to you

00:14:17 principles i've just read to you um yeah i was aware that we should be doing regular audits yeah yes and conducting review meetings at planned intervals to discuss the results yes of fire risk assessment audits yes yes and efforts to address findings yes

00:14:30 yes and efforts to address findings yes yes

00:14:30 yes yes did you ever arrange for the fire risk assessment program to be audited i didn't arrange it no i i recall that initially when we i think when we still

00:14:41 initially when we i think when we still had salvers we discussed with them the need to have audits and my then uh manager lornette had requested a fire risk assessment audit i think i may have explained before or perhaps not um that

00:14:54 explained before or perhaps not um that audits were always commissioned at the executive team level um and i i wasn't

00:14:59 wasn't party to those discussions or or the i think they were agreed between internal audit council and our executive team

00:15:07 team so we we would then just get a program of audits for the year and that would happen so you didn't arrange for fire risk assessments to be audited did anybody ever arrange for fire risk assessment pro the fire risk

00:15:18 fire risk assessment pro the fire risk assessment program to be audited um i i think there were efforts made to include to a small degree fire risk assessment in the general health and safety audits which were undertaken

00:15:29 safety audits which were undertaken but not to the level of detail that this requires right did you ever discuss uh this obligation or guidance i should call it um

00:15:40 or guidance i should call it um with barbara matthews once she arrived in july 2015. i actually can't say i recall doing so i should have done but i i'm not sure whether

00:15:51 whether i did i don't recall this and what about before that between 2013 and 2015 with anthony parks did you discuss

00:15:58 discuss the need to have an audit of the fire risk assessment program with him i think it likely that i did but i i doubt i could evidence it did you ever arrange to to audit carl

00:16:10 did you ever arrange to to audit carl stakes's fire risk assessments no looking at that can you explain why there was no audit of either the fire risk assessment program

00:16:22 risk assessment program uh or a rev all review meetings at planned intervals or are the audits of carl stokes's fire risk assessments i can't explain um i i think i've said

00:16:34 i can't explain um i i think i've said before that we had a lot of contact but we did we didn't have as much formal contact in the contact context of this as

00:16:41 this as we should have done and i can't give you an explanation other than just um i was raising issues as they were raised with me for example the performance issues we just discussed

00:16:52 just discussed and seeking to investigate everything that was that was raised keeping an eye on the program and i just

00:17:00 i couldn't find the time to do it which i know i should have done right i mean given given that mr stokes if you stand back and look at it more holistically was the sole provider of all the risk assessments

00:17:11 of all the risk assessments for all of the buildings in the tmo stock for which for which the tma was the responsible person did it not occur to you that it would be important to audit his work from time to time to check his competence his competency

00:17:24 to check his competence his competency and also the accuracy of his findings and the um efficacy of his plans i wouldn't dispute that for a moment you're absolutely correct um i would say that we got some degree of

00:17:36 would say that we got some degree of reassurance by the the amount of assessments which were requested by the fire brigade and um and you know some of the the fire inspecting officers particularly really did scrutinize them and come back

00:17:48 really did scrutinize them and come back with with queries and questions so um we we were um having quite a lot of of contact and dialogue and when ra issues were raised they were raised with the assessor and and they

00:17:59 raised with the assessor and and they were

00:18:00 were um they were dealt with but um oh i accept that i should have done that in the light of that answer and some of the answers you gave yesterday

00:18:11 the answers you gave yesterday would i be right in thinking would it be a fair summary of your approach at the times that you regarded the lfb uh as having some kind of audit function um i i think that's possibly too formal

00:18:25 um i i think that's possibly too formal i i think

00:18:26 i i think that i did get a degree of reassurance because of the amount of interaction we were having with them and the amount of assessments they were requesting and queries that they were raising um so i i felt

00:18:37 i i felt it did give me a degree of reassurance that the quality was the quality that they were expecting that it was reaching suitable and sufficient standards which is obviously the obligation um that we were trying to meet i mean did anybody ever make it clear to you

00:18:48 did anybody ever make it clear to you that the lfb's role under the rro was as an enforcement body not as a not as an auditor i'm well aware of that i'm really trying to explain that the relationship that we had

00:19:00 relationship that we had and the reassurance that it gave me i know it wasn't their formal responsibility i'm not suggesting that it was um i'm merely saying that i i did get some

00:19:11 i'm merely saying that i i did get some degree of reassurance we'd had a lot of dialogue

00:19:14 dialogue we um we wanted to work to not just comply with with the legislation but actually to meet their requirements and that's what we were endeavoring to do would you agree that it would not be and

00:19:26 would you agree that it would not be and was not reasonable to rely on inaction or silence from an enforcement body as the basis for yourself deciding whether the fire risk assessments were

00:19:37 whether the fire risk assessments were suitable and sufficient i i do agree and i wasn't trying to make that point apologies if that's how it came across no thank you that's helpful um

00:19:49 standing even further back well we've got past seven on the screen can you tell tell us whether

00:19:56 whether there was any formal introduction of this guidance into the tmo whether there was any

00:20:01 was any any training on it any presentation of it

00:20:05 it i don't believe so um how did you come to

00:20:08 to learn of it um i think i just would regularly try and do my own research and keep up to date with with um cpd and and possibly through my

00:20:20 um cpd and and possibly through my iosh role or possibly i received quite a lot of emails um from people sometimes offering training or so a variety of ways professional journals whatever did you ever discuss

00:20:31 journals whatever did you ever discuss its contents with carl stokes um i'm not sure if i did actually no did you ever take any steps i'm assuming the answer is no given what you've just said but did you ever take any steps to

00:20:42 any steps to bring it to carl stokes's attention and discuss it with him i i don't recall doing something did did well who was responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this guidance

00:20:53 that the requirements of this guidance uh were observed who within the tma was responsible for ensuring that the contents of this guidance were observed um well ultimately the chief executive but

00:21:03 but in in the first instance it would sit with um

00:21:07 with um barbara and myself right you say ultimately the chief executive did robert black know of the existence of this document um

00:21:14 um i'm not aware no you did you didn't you didn't bring it to his attention did you i don't recall doing something right did you bring it to barbara matthews attention do you think um i think you've already

00:21:25 do you think um i think you've already asked me that and i i can't recall whether i did or i didn't now um

00:21:34 can i ask you to look on at

00:21:41 tm00880329 please and i want to go to page 85 in this document and we're not really changing topics but we're slightly moving sideways to discuss the lfb and the enforcement role

00:21:53 discuss the lfb and the enforcement role what i'm showing you here is an extract from barbara matthews notebook and this relates to a meeting of the 13th of october 2015. where you can see she records rb

00:22:05 where you can see she records rb nm it looks like dw jwbm i'm assuming the jw is you miss ray that's right it looks like team meeting um rupert bowler neural maya and dan

00:22:17 um rupert bowler neural maya and dan woods

00:22:17 woods oh rb i was going to ask you about that is that's not robert black no no it's rupert bowler yes where we were all barbara's direct reports i see meeting and uh and you

00:22:29 meeting and uh and you told us what the other initials were n m and d w

00:22:32 and d w and b m is barbara matthews herself and n m is neural maya neuromaya and dan wood wood right thank you

00:22:40 thank you um then on page 86 if we go to that please you can see that uh barbara matthews has noted uh under h

00:22:47 under h s you see that yes deficiency notice from lfb yes yes was that a reference to the adair tower deficiency notice dated 12th of october 2015.

00:22:59 october 2015. sorry what was the date of this meeting again apologies uh date of the meeting is the 13th uh of october 2015. it probably was that makes sense yes is it coming the day before

00:23:10 it coming the day before yes it probably works then yes do you remember

00:23:13 remember whether there was a discussion on that day about the deficiency notice um if there was it probably wasn't um too wide-reaching because we were

00:23:25 um too wide-reaching because we were quite disparate the people who reported to barbara so our team meetings um one dealt with finance one dealt with i.t homeownership health and safety so um we didn't go into too much detail we did that in our one-to-ones instead

00:23:37 we did that in our one-to-ones instead no i mean given that you had received the deficiency notice yourself because you're an addressee of it from the lfb the previous day 12th of october 2015 do you can you help us

00:23:48 2015 do you can you help us with whether or not it was likely that you would have brought that document to the attention of this meeting the following day well she's my specific reference to it so i clearly did but my point is that i

00:23:59 so i clearly did but my point is that i don't know to what extent i did because my other colleagues fulfilled very different roles and team meetings would have gone on for days if we'd all gone into every degree sorry i'm just trying to identify

00:24:11 degree sorry i'm just trying to identify whether it's that deficiency notice or something else i'm assuming that that's what that's the only one i remember receiving around that time so i think it must be yes now can we go there to tm00840583 please

00:24:27 now this is the tmo annual health and safety annual report for 2015 to 16 as you can see from page one you drafted this didn't you yes with

00:24:38 you drafted this didn't you yes with input from other colleagues yes and if we go to page six please and look at paragraph 7.8 in the middle of the page you can see there's a heading engagement with lfb uh and there's a reference to the by

00:24:49 uh and there's a reference to the by monthly meetings and then um if you look at the second paragraph down it says two lfb enforcement notices were received this year these followed a fire adair tower in

00:25:00 these followed a fire adair tower in october and these will be discussed in detail later in the report at 0.9 fire safety six notices of safety deficiencies were received five of these were issued on the same block and related to small quantities of

00:25:12 and related to small quantities of stored items within five of the communal staircases now the sixth notice of deficiency was for adair tower wasn't it i believe so yeah yes and why didn't you expressly say so here

00:25:25 and why didn't you expressly say so here in this report um i have no idea really i mean i didn't um i didn't expressly state the location of the others there was there was they can

00:25:37 the others there was there was they can be quite long reports they i i think i've always tried to be mindful if i'm making too long people aren't going to read them there was no reason not to i just i don't know if it's further down in the

00:25:48 i don't know if it's further down in the report when we discussed that the enforcement notices i'm not sure well you do discuss the enforcement notices of paragraph 16 too later in the document but this document is drafted or was drafted and presented in june

00:26:00 or was drafted and presented in june 2016

00:26:01 2016 yeah given that um the deficiency notice for our dare tower

00:26:07 tower predated the fire at our dare tower by only a matter of days effectively a couple of weeks why did you not expressly spell out the fact in this report um i can't give you any

00:26:20 in this report um i can't give you any explanation i think the enforcement notices obviously have entirely different standing and and our statutory notices so i think i was focusing on on what they required and what action we took to

00:26:31 required and what action we took to address that and and deficiency notices are non-saturating notices and relatively more minor so there was there was no reason not to put it in i just i just didn't put the addresses of any of them

00:26:51 didn't put the addresses of any of them let's um

00:26:52 let's um go on in this document to page 11 please

00:26:58 if we continue to page 11 you can see on that page there that there's your report on the adair tower as item one 31st of october 2015 uh which starts the first and most potentially the most serious

00:27:10 potentially the most serious fire occurred at adair tower on saturday the 31st of october when a fire broke out within a flat on the third floor flat 15.

00:27:18 bowman's scan what you say in that section which continues over onto page 12. we've not been able to find any reference there to the deficiency notice

00:27:29 reference there to the deficiency notice which was issued by the lfb before the fire well then i i didn't include it as i say i i must have decided that the important thing was to exp to to put the detail of the statutory

00:27:40 to to put the detail of the statutory notice the enforcement notices and what we were required to do and and how we were required to address them so it

00:27:46 so it it was i have no idea i mean it gets circulated for a comment and nobody nobody helpfully said oh why don't you add that level of detail so there was no reason not to when there was every reason to wasn't

00:27:58 when there was every reason to wasn't there you see because the fact that the lfb had already served a deficiency notice before the fire breakout would be something that would it would be important for the recipient of this report to know do

00:28:10 the recipient of this report to know do you agree with that well i i would agree with that if it hadn't been for the fact that i was confident that we'd already provided exactly that information to to board um to tmo board and the recep recipients of this because i'd already

00:28:21 recipients of this because i'd already had to do

00:28:23 had to do a considerable number of reports to the board and to the tmr operations group and i thought that had already been included or in robert's briefing notes whenever he he does his um chief

00:28:34 whenever he he does his um chief executive's report i thought that information was already in the public in the domain of the of the recipients of this report right let's just examine that can we go to tmo double zero eight six nine one

00:28:45 nine one five nine then and see if we can see if we can trace that through a little bit more closely okay uh this is an email from you to robert black

00:28:57 email from you to robert black um copied to a list of other people uh within the tma including sasha jevons uh and subject refi tower hi quick update

00:29:10 subject refi tower hi quick update you see that yes and if you look down at the next page

00:29:27 at the next page and if we carried out a recent audit of block and requested confirmation of extinction yeah yeah now this is a response to robert

00:29:34 robert this is this is your response to robert black's message of the same day 31st of october 2015 on page two yeah and and he says hi janice and sasha as discussed it's attracting attention

00:29:46 as discussed it's attracting attention of the press and three areas emerging in terms of speculation uh and then the third one is is what we need to look at what are our fire procedures and processes for this block mentioned fire extinguishers etc janice

00:29:58 mentioned fire extinguishers etc janice you say overall it's stay and be rescued and fb do not require fire extinguishers you say you had recent audit with fb and we got

00:30:06 we got some notice yeah small risk but of concern to me so i need to understand the risk

00:30:12 the risk yes now his reference there to small notice what was that a reference to

00:30:20 to well i presume that he was talking about the deficiency notice because the fire this was the fire had been extinguished but this was a very this was on the day of the

00:30:31 was a very this was on the day of the fire so we were responding to that so there was quite a lot of of information being passed back and forth by telephone and by email so i presume that i must have told him on the phone that we have that the brigade had done an audit and had issued

00:30:43 brigade had done an audit and had issued a deficiency notice and you remember when you told him that was it before the fire well unlikely to be before the fire because if i was about 8 55 in the morning and this is 10 57 so i

00:30:54 55 in the morning and this is 10 57 so i probably started to have phone contact with him sometime after nine o'clock yeah um and indeed the email starts as discussed and it doesn't seem as if this follows on from any other email change so

00:31:06 so just to get the order of facts right is this right the f there was the fire there was then a discussion between you and uh and robert black possibly sausage evans as well and then he sends this email the

00:31:17 and then he sends this email the question is was it during that conversation during the fire effectively that you told him that you had received the deficiency notice um it's likely to have been as we saw from barbara's notebook she she

00:31:26 she she was already aware of it and i wouldn't have known whether she had mentioned that sort of level of detail in her one-to-one sort exact team i i couldn't really say for sure but i was reiterating right um right

00:31:39 right um right you say he says got some notice i don't know whether that's some notice or some notice very vaguely clearly he's not entirely clear about what it is uh he says small risk but of concern to

00:31:52 uh he says small risk but of concern to me

00:31:52 me can you explain why he had he got the impression from the conversation um that there was a small risk i i can't explain i i can only say that at the time we were juggling quite a lot

00:32:04 time we were juggling quite a lot because the block had been decanted we were trying to get people to a local church

00:32:09 church and which had opened up as a rest center we were trying to liaise with the fire brigade

00:32:13 brigade um at that stage i was still working remotely because i wasn't able to get there to there was quite a lot going on um and there was quite and he was operating off his phone um so none of this would be the the way

00:32:24 um so none of this would be the the way that he would normally write things or the level of detail that would be so i i can't really tell you confidently we can see your response at page one which i

00:32:33 which i showed you but if you go to page two and the last part of it in the last paragraph you say lfb carried out recent audit of block and requested confirmation of extinguisher servicing

00:32:45 servicing this is the third paragraph down on the screen it also raised concern that not all flat doors were self-closing yes you didn't say there was a deficiency notice dated the 12th of october

00:32:56 october no you're right i didn't nor does it appear that you attached it to this email

00:32:59 email i i doubt because he was operating off his phone he'd been able to open it on his

00:33:03 his email i mean you're right i could have done but at the time we were very much responding to a live incident well i understand that that i understand uh but even then not withstanding the live incidents this is uh

00:33:15 live incidents this is uh if i may say so a lengthy detailed and well-articulated email is there any reason why you couldn't have simply said to him yes we got a deficiency notice two weeks ago uh well no i i mean i clearly he's he's

00:33:26 well no i i mean i clearly he's he's made reference to the notice so i've clearly said that to him on the phone but

00:33:29 but i haven't provided additional detail um and it could be that i didn't have my laptop

00:33:34 laptop i i i don't know maybe i couldn't even access

00:33:37 access the document it was pretty full on right do you remember we seen a record of of this but d did you do you remember send him the

00:33:48 did you do you remember send him the deficiency notice that day or the day after when things had calmed down a bit and you had access to your your laptop i honestly don't remember that as i'm sure you appreciate this led

00:33:59 that as i'm sure you appreciate this led to

00:33:59 to a great deal of briefing um and almost a daily update with exec team members and each pres ended up with a to-do list an action list for various individuals

00:34:10 an action list for various individuals do you remember what you told robert black about the level of risk which you had gleaned from the uh the deficiency notice i don't remember no sorry right well can we get back to the

00:34:21 we get back to the uh can we please go back to the health and safety report at tm00840583 please i want to go in it now please to page

00:34:32 i want to go in it now please to page 21.

00:34:36 we've seen so far that there's lots of detail about the fire at airtight but no reference at all to the deficiency notice here on page 21 we see a paragraph 16.2 under your

00:34:47 we see a paragraph 16.2 under your conclusion the following whilst we received our first ever enforcement notices from the lfb in this period it should be noted that these were in relation to a non-accidental fire which broke out due to arson within a dwelling

00:34:58 broke out due to arson within a dwelling in which

00:34:59 in which it would have been impossible for any landlord to prevent further this building had been audited by the lfb inspecting officer the month before the fire

00:35:06 fire and while several recommendations were received no comments were made about the ventilation arrangements the significant factor in the notices however we are committed to meeting the lfb requirements within timescales agreed with them

00:35:17 agreed with them and this work is on track and progressing well why did you refer to recommendations from the lfb inspection officer and not simply say it's a notice of

00:35:28 and not simply say it's a notice of deficiency i can't i can't i can't give you an explanation it's just the way i write these things um

00:35:38 yeah you're right i could have done but there are probably other ways of describing it there's there's no rhyme or reason to it well isn't there i mean this is gilding the lily isn't it it's a euphemism i mean saying recommendations received

00:35:52 i mean saying recommendations received is is not the same thing as a formal notice of deficiency specific demands for correction with a specific date for cure you're right it isn't the same as that were you trying to hide things from the readers of this

00:36:03 readers of this this goodness sake no i was not trying to hide things i'm sorry i i yes i didn't explicitly state and and like you said earlier i didn't explicitly say the addresses of each of the deficiency notices and part of the reason that i

00:36:15 notices and part of the reason that i circulated this was to get other people to give me input to advise what what they thought this document should contain and at no point did anybody say you should be explicit

00:36:27 should be explicit and so so i wasn't i mean i think all of the information is here and and from where we're standing now yes i definitely could have worded it differently but i don't accept that i was guilty and were you concerned that otherwise

00:36:39 and were you concerned that otherwise questions would be asked of you why a deficiency notice a formal deficiency notice had been served by lfb only a matter of a few weeks before a serious fire

00:36:50 serious fire i wasn't concerned i'd escalated it to my exec team member so if if it got challenged then she had the information to hand and she could respond to it and we were addressing it we were we

00:37:02 and we were addressing it we were we were continually trying to it to address it

00:37:04 it um i mean we didn't hide deficiency notices

00:37:08 notices as as time went on we became more um overt about publicizing them um but generally we were having conversations with the brigade about how best to to respond to them how best to

00:37:19 best to to respond to them how best to address that the issues that were raised which

00:37:22 which to me was the important thing to mitigate the risk and get on and do and yes i probably can could have communicated it better undoubtedly um and as time went on i probably would have done because because barbara was really quite proactive and often made

00:37:33 really quite proactive and often made recommendations for how i could do things better now as you've helpfully explained before barbara matthews undoubtedly knew uh pretty soon after the notice that a deficiency notice had been

00:37:44 that a deficiency notice had been received

00:37:46 received did you discuss with barbara matthews or rather did barbara matthews comment with you on the absence of any mention of the 12th of october 2015 deficiency notice in this report no

00:37:58 2015 deficiency notice in this report no because if she had i would have amended the report as i say it was it went to the health and safety committee

00:38:04 committee for for their approval um before it was finalized

00:38:07 finalized um there's quite a lot of information in here that was provided to me by other people so

00:38:11 people so it was a sort of um um you know a document that was produced after consultation and i endeavor to take on board comments so um no if it's not here then nobody has

00:38:22 um no if it's not here then nobody has has asked me to include it what was the readership of this document the intended readership of this document um i believe my understanding was initially many moons ago when i was

00:38:34 was initially many moons ago when i was asked to produce it um it was so that at board level they could have an indication of what was going on

00:38:41 going on and what our um objectives were in the coming year were there any trends were there any changes in legislation and it became we tried to to move it more towards reflecting performance

00:38:52 reflecting performance i'm sorry i'm going to i'm so sorry i do apologize

00:38:55 apologize this document 2015-16 what was the intended readership who was intended to read these documents this document it went to if not board it went to a board level

00:39:08 to if not board it went to a board level committee

00:39:09 committee i can't be absolutely sure which one because that would have been um i wouldn't have known the governance arrangements it would have gone to whichever committee i was asked to provide it to um um and it would have gone to the

00:39:21 um um and it would have gone to the corporate health and safety manager at the council and anyone if roberto obama or anyone else had a view of who else should have a copy then it would have gone to them

00:39:32 then it would have gone to them so leaving aside the executive offices of the tmo it would have gone to the board the tmo that's my belief is it went either to

00:39:44 that's my belief is it went either to the board or to the ops group or to audit and risk it went to a board level committee i just i'm i can't definitively say it was bored

00:39:54 was bored but it was one of their committees if not directly to them and to the corporate health and safety manager at the council of rbkc now unless this report had identified the existence

00:40:08 this report had identified the existence of a prior deficiency notice fraud air tower from the lfb

00:40:14 the lfb how would either of those entities either the tmo board or board level committee

00:40:20 committee or the or rbkc have known about it

00:40:30 in this instance i unless you tell me i'm wrong

00:40:34 i'm wrong i was confident that in the volume of reports that i was asked to write to board and to ops committee following the fire that that information was already contained in one of those reports

00:40:46 contained in one of those reports i mean if you tell me differently then that's an oversight but that was my understanding right now

00:40:53 right now can we go to tm00840583 please

00:41:14 uh just a minute can i just

00:41:19 um alert you to the fact that deficiency notices

00:41:24 notices issued by the lfb in relation to a tower are mentioned earlier in the report

00:41:38 if you look at page six of the report

00:41:45 paragraph 7.8

00:42:05 yes i do that simply because you've put it to uh miss ray that she was

00:42:13 was perhaps not keen to refer expressly to the existence of deficiency notices

00:42:22 that's true they're not referred to in paragraph

00:42:26 paragraph 7.8 i think we're looking at

00:42:34 i'm sorry the earlier paragraph we're looking at but mr chairman indeed and and

00:42:38 and i'm i've been struggling myself to find any reference in this document to the deficiency notice of the 12th of october uh well there isn't that one specifically but it was just that i didn't want um

00:42:49 it was just that i didn't want um a point to be put to miss ray on a false basis no entirely that's all no absolutely well [Music]

00:42:57 [Music] perhaps those behind me can just double check that i've been pursuing a correct line with the witness and if wrong obviously we will we will put a different question to her or or well i just didn't want it to be left

00:43:08 or well i just didn't want it to be left on the basis that there was no reference to deficiency notices because she was seeking to suppress their existence when on the face of it there seems to be other references yes

00:43:19 other references yes that's all no indeed

00:43:22 well we can yes we can read the report uh but i don't think i think i'm right in saying there's no specific reference to the to the ad deficiency notice of

00:43:33 to the to the ad deficiency notice of the 12th of october in here uh that may be uh yes all right well but if if that's wrong of course we'll correct that now can i then uh ask you about the

00:43:44 now can i then uh ask you about the deficiency notice in relation to grenfell tower um tmo double zero eight seven three four zero eight please

00:44:03 this is dated the 7th of may 2014 and it's the minute of the tmo health and safety committee meeting and if we

00:44:09 and if we uh look at page one mrs ray you can see that you were present yes yes and if you go to item 83 on page five

00:44:21 uh you can see there that it says uh there had been a joint visit to grenfell tower and neighboring finger blocks prior to major works taking place this had resulted in a deficiency notice being served in respect to the

00:44:32 being served in respect to the ventilation stroke extraction system in the tower

00:44:35 the tower however investigation confirmed that our ppm contractor had inspected and submitted confirmation that this system was fully operational in february as per requirement of british standard however a further contractor

00:44:46 however a further contractor has now been engaged to inspect and assess the system and report back yeah now that that's that was the position as of may 2014 yes um they had as as i think we

00:44:58 yes um they had as as i think we discussed earlier a deficiency note there'd been a deficiency notice for grenfell tower on the 24th of march 2014 hadn't there and we looked yesterday at carl stokes his letter of the 18th of march

00:45:10 his letter of the 18th of march which was written after his visit on the 17th of march which was in turn after the lfb's visit on the 12th of march but before their deficiency notice of the 24th of march yes remember that yes yes

00:45:21 24th of march yes remember that yes yes um uh now um what the question is was was the investigation that you refer to in the third line here of this minute uh the investigation done

00:45:33 minute uh the investigation done by uh uh carl stokes on the 17th of march or by anybody else um sorry could could could we just check

00:45:44 um sorry could could could we just check if alex bosman was on the list of attendees yes of course can we go to page one

00:45:48 page one please yes he was he was um then i believe that the investigation related to the um the

00:45:59 related to the um the certification in terms of plan maintenance right which would be an investigation undertaken by his contractor to ensure that that they'd been undertaking their regular checks and there was a current

00:46:10 regular checks and there was a current certificate yes i see let's pursue that a bit further then i think we can do this by reference to the carl stakes letter of the 18th of march cst full zeros three one double zero please

00:46:22 and uh let's go to page 15 in that document i i don't think i need to show you page one because we've already looked at it page 15 this is where um mr stokes annexes the maintenance

00:46:34 mr stokes annexes the maintenance logbook for the smoke extraction system and you can see there in the leftist hand column uh date second entry down 15

00:46:46 uh date second entry down 15 15 uh 13

00:46:50 15 uh 13 i think that is now clearly there are not 15 months in the year but um and that's the point that carl stokes makes uh but you can see that before

00:47:01 uh but you can see that before that the last date was was for service was

00:47:04 was the 11th of may 2010 yes yes that's what says

00:47:07 says carl stokes as i say read 15th of december

00:47:10 december 2013 to mean 15th february 2013. do you agree i mean he did do that in the in the report if that's what the report says then yes and if you go to page 16 a service maintenance engineer

00:47:22 page 16 a service maintenance engineer uh

00:47:24 uh certificate appears there dated the 7th of february 2014. yes you can see that just faintly from the top right hand corner of the document which shows that the fire alarm

00:47:35 document which shows that the fire alarm panel was checked in february 2014. yes um

00:47:41 do you agree that that doesn't itself show that the smoke extraction system was checked in february 2014 um i agree from what i can see that that is the case my my recollection is that michael lyons

00:47:53 my recollection is that michael lyons had done some investigation and had reported

00:47:55 reported back to one of the committees right and i saw it

00:47:59 i saw it and he at that stage partly reported in to alex bosman which is why i think the information came from alex at that meeting

00:48:06 meeting right now and was the deficiency notice about the aov from march 2014 reported to the executive team

00:48:17 um i'm fairly confident that i would have advised anthony parks so um and obviously it's mentioned in the health and safety committee and the health and safety committee minutes went

00:48:28 health and safety committee minutes went to the executive team so they they would have been made aware of it right well let's see how this goes historically can we then go to tmo double zero eight seven three four zero

00:48:46 five uh that is a minute of the tmo health and safety committee meeting of the 9th of july 2014. you are present uh alex alex bosman is also present

00:48:59 uh alex alex bosman is also present and you can see if you go please to page two

00:49:03 two paragraph 2.3

00:49:07 alex agreed to chase the contractor responsible for inspecting stroke assessing the grenfell tower ventilation stroke extraction system as this work remained outstanding this had been raised by the lfb and was likely that they would seek an update

00:49:18 likely that they would seek an update with progress made since their inspection you see that i do

00:49:24 now the next health and safety meeting took place on the 10th of september 2014 tm01 triple zero 7397

00:49:37 [Applause]

00:49:41 the reason i'm showing you both is because although we see reference to the grenfell tower ventilation stroke extraction system in the july minute

00:49:52 minute there is no mention of that in this minute 10th of september 2014. okay take it from me that there isn't um and my question is um did progress reports on deficiency

00:50:04 um did progress reports on deficiency notices

00:50:06 uh well did this one drop off the agenda do you think it's possible that it it dropped off this agenda because i was having separate meetings with alex bosman to chase up issues which were live and

00:50:17 to chase up issues which were live and current right um it should have reported we should have kept it on the agenda until it was resolved but i'm um and i i am actually also thinking that perhaps because the ops health and

00:50:28 that perhaps because the ops health and safety group was established um i think in the july 14 um unless i've got my dates wrong that it may be something that also got discussed at that look

00:50:40 did progress reports on deficiency notices often drop off the agenda of health and safety committee meetings without being resolved

00:50:47 resolved no i don't believe they do

00:50:53 can i then ask you about the resident's handbook

00:50:57 handbook uh this is a completely different topic it goes back to uh fire advice given to residents

00:51:02 residents uh and it's something that we discussed on the first or second day of your of your evidence seems like a long time ago it does yes um can i just show you tmo10041915 please

00:51:18 this is an undated version of what we understand to be the resident's handbook or residence handbook is that right um i

00:51:31 is that right um i i wouldn't know for sure to be honest you wouldn't know just looking at the first

00:51:34 first page which is striking for its monopoly houses and house keys nothing else uh is this does this look familiar to you at all i mean my recollection is the

00:51:45 at all i mean my recollection is the format changed on a fairly regular basis and so i it wouldn't necessarily i think i explained before that i would be asked to review my section i would send back the documents and then

00:51:56 i would send back the documents and then i probably wouldn't necessarily see until the final version right uh

00:52:01 right uh not sure all right um can we go to page 23

00:52:05 23 we can see on page 23 running to page 26 some detailed fire safety advice does that look familiar to you um we can scroll down to the next is that

00:52:17 we can scroll down to the next is that it or some more yeah there's more then scroll down to the next page 24. um and then 25 which has advice if a fire breaks out in your home

00:52:28 advice if a fire breaks out in your home and then 26. okay uh yeah i mean that sort of would have been current at one stage but i i don't know

00:52:35 know when well you say it would have been current at one at some stage or one stage

00:52:40 stage have you referred to the resident's handbook that contain fire safety advice my question is was this it yeah yeah my point my point is that it got reviewed regularly and looking at this i couldn't

00:52:51 regularly and looking at this i couldn't tell you

00:52:52 tell you when at what point i provided this to colleagues who were preparing the handbook and so therefore i don't know when it went into it or if it was subsequently reviewed again right the what i'm really trying to get to the bottom of is when you say it was reviewed was it reviewed

00:53:04 reviewed was it reviewed but drafts kept changing or was it reviewed and republished um well i can't really answer that because it would be that my policy colleagues but i believe

00:53:15 colleagues but i believe that they would issue information to the respective teams and say we're currently reviewing the handbook do you want to make any changes or alterations to this i would send back my final version and

00:53:27 i would send back my final version and then they would do the necessary my understanding is it would be it would be produced um i know the format changed i think historically it was one document and then there was possibly a period where there were separate booklets one for repairs and one for

00:53:38 one for various you referred to policy colleagues who were they um i think janet seward led on the um um yeah i believe so what about janice

00:53:49 yeah i believe so what about janice jones

00:53:51 jones uh janice jones is a housing management colleague right she's housing management can i just ask you to look at her witness statement tm0090052

00:54:08 this is janice james's statement to the inquiry about fire safety advice that was provided to new tenants at grenfell tower specifically and specifically during the period 2009

00:54:20 specifically during the period 2009 to 2017 uh if we go to page uh um if we go to page 22

00:54:31 well let's go to page nine actually i'm sorry page three paragraph nine to start with

00:54:40 page three paragraph nine she says that i recall that the tmo had a stockpile of the resident handbook and the repairs handbook when the resident handbook and the repairs handbook ran out completely there was no plans to publish any more

00:54:51 plans to publish any more books and it was decided later that the handbooks would be updated this project was managed by a senior manager and i recall that the tmo then changed the makeup of the welcome pack given the time elapsed i cannot recall

00:55:03 given the time elapsed i cannot recall the date of the change although the welcome pack there after contained various different leaflets rather than the letters mentioned above is that correct is what she says there correct

00:55:14 correct um i'm not on a position to say to be honest i i just to reiterate that my understanding was it was reviewed and republished on a regular basis it was done by the central team and then

00:55:25 it was done by the central team and then it would have been um distributed by some uh usually by private company so i honestly don't know i would my understanding was that it was being reviewed on a regular basis

00:55:36 it was being reviewed on a regular basis and that there was always a current handbook

00:55:38 handbook um so um i'd be surprised but i'm not in a position to say right can we go to page five please and look and see what she says there at paragraph 22.

00:55:53 she says uh i understand from the inquiry that mr razul has referred to receiving a copy of the tmo tenants handbook in 2004 the inquiry is asked that i confirm over which

00:56:04 is asked that i confirm over which period of time this handbook was provided to grenfell tower residents as outlined above i cannot recall with certainty when the stockpile of tenants handbooks ran out although i believe it would have been in or around 2008 to 2009. is it correct that uh

00:56:17 to 2009. is it correct that uh the stockpile of tenants handbooks ran out in around 2008 to 2009 or at any other date um again i can't

00:56:25 can't i can't confirm or deny um but it was always my understanding that there was a current version and if it had to be reprinted then it was reprinted or it was reviewed um and i i know from going through my

00:56:38 um and i i know from going through my old records in order to come here that i can see there's mention in health and safety committee and i think about may 2009 and then as you know i'd had correspondence with a resident in the south of the borough in 2011

00:56:50 south of the borough in 2011 where there was much more substantial fires so i know that i was i was i was providing reviewed information on at least those two occasions but i'm um i'm i'm not aware if that of that

00:57:02 um i'm i'm not aware if that of that right were you ever or were you routinely provided with the as published editions of the tenants handbook um not necessarily because they could be

00:57:13 necessarily because they could be reasonably weighty um if we needed them then we would go back to policy so as they were pumped out by the tmo to your recollection they didn't come through your office uh no no i i fed back my information and i

00:57:25 no no i i fed back my information and i would have likely asked for a time frame for when it was going to be republished um but then then it was someone else's role to get it out so i um thought that it was just a little bit

00:57:37 um thought that it was just a little bit more material on this if we may tmo double

00:57:39 double zero eight nine nine seven six two this is an a witness statement from daniel lewis who was a team administrator and then a

00:57:51 who was a team administrator and then a neighborhood coordinator from 2016 2016 if we go to page four in this statement which he

00:57:59 which he has given to the inquiry he says at paragraph 14 there i've been asked by the inquiry to confirm if a residence handbook was provided to new residents at grenfell tower and if so to confirm if the resident's handbook formed part of the welcome pack

00:58:11 handbook formed part of the welcome pack i joined the lancaster west office in 2016 and cannot recall that the residence handbook was part of the welcome pack i recall that when i joined the tma i was told that the residence handbook had been a work in progress for some time

00:58:22 been a work in progress for some time and was not finalized i did not recall that it was ever finalized after i joined the tmo is he correct about that about any of that

00:58:32 that um again i it was always my understanding that was a current hamburg he he's perhaps in a better position than than i am to be definitive but it was always my understanding otherwise

00:58:44 was always my understanding otherwise i'm not sure why i was providing reviewed information if it wasn't fed into something um with regard to as you know we we had um a letter that we put in the

00:58:55 we put in the the welcome pack for new tenants which i can certainly date back at least to 2013 i thought there was a preceding one um but yeah it was always my understanding that was the current one um and i can't

00:59:09 um and i can't sorry um iws401343

00:59:15 this is a witness statement from millicent williams who was sorry it's an email i'm sorry from melissa williams the tmo neighborhood officer who is corresponding with shah ahmed uh

00:59:28 who is corresponding with shah ahmed uh in grenfell tower and she says and this is an email from medicine williams to him copy to nicola bartholomew and councillor blakeman 24th of october 2016. good morning mr

00:59:40 24th of october 2016. good morning mr shah thank you agree to wait a moment we haven't got it on the screen yet oh right yes sorry thank you

00:59:49 good morning mr shah thank you for your email i'm so sorry let's just take a breath you can see it's from melissa williams goes to shah ahmed it's copy to nicola bartholomew and councillor blakeman

01:00:00 bartholomew and councillor blakeman and other councillors is dated the 24th of october 2016. subject re and there's a long number tenant handbook good morning mr shah thank you for your email

01:00:11 thank you for your email unfortunately i'm unable to provide you with a copy of the tenant's handbook at this time

01:00:15 this time as the manual is currently under review it is hoped that the tenant's handbook will be ready for distribution early next year 2017.

01:00:25 did you know at that time that there was no

01:00:28 no tenants handbook available because it was under review and would not be distributed until uh a few months hence i don't believe i did

01:00:38 did no do you accept certainly looking at this document the tenant's handbook was not finalized as at that date that's what it says here yeah do you know who told you or suggested to you

01:00:49 know who told you or suggested to you that it had been finalized either then or at any past time um i i'm sure i would have had discussions with policy colleagues after i'd resubmitted reviewed versions

01:01:01 after i'd resubmitted reviewed versions of my information um so

01:01:06 um so if it hadn't been finalized at the time i was providing the review i must have confidently come away thinking it was imminently about to be published um but yes yes did you have a check from

01:01:17 um but yes yes did you have a check from time to time with the housing team to see whether the resident's handbook was being

01:01:22 was being actually distributed i i probably i thought that i had um

01:01:31 i thought that i had and i certainly thought that i had checked with the policy team who were responsible for producing it um but

01:01:39 um but maybe that was a long time ago sorry so as far as you were aware what was being given to new tenants during the period let's say the two or three years up to 2016.

01:01:50 three years up to 2016. um in i certainly can see that i produced a letter in 2013 and reviewed it in 2016 and gave it to um colleagues who were doing the sign-ups with new tenants

01:02:01 doing the sign-ups with new tenants um so it was a two-page letter about fire safety and and set out that their the evacuation strategy and what they should do in the event of a fire and a bit more

01:02:09 bit more just a little bit more information about self-closing devices and things um so that there was a a pack that people

01:02:16 people received whenever they were new tenants and moving into the property and that letter was included in that and i also

01:02:22 i also asked the colleague to include a copy of the home fire safety leaflet from the fire brigade so that people had my letter and then if they preferred to go straight to the fire brigade for information then then they could do that right

01:02:34 they could do that right when you refer to a pack do you know what form it took um i believe it was produced in in the office by

01:02:41 office by um my my colleague who um mcdonald who did most of the the sign ups um and i think it it had a range of information about their tenancy

01:02:52 about their tenancy yeah i'm sure he did but did i mean what was it in a folder with lots of separate sheets in a folder or was it held together in some form would you i i believe it was in a folder but beyond that i probably couldn't tell you for definite i would i would have checked in with her regularly

01:03:04 checked in with her regularly to say are you still distributing that do you need additional copies of the home fire safety leaflet so i'm confident that she was including them but i couldn't really give you the detail because i don't think i looked at it

01:03:13 it in detail thank you okay um can i ask you to go to tm00865782

01:03:31 um can i ask you to go to tm00865782 uh this is an email run from april 2016 and

01:03:35 and if we could look at the second email down on

01:03:38 down on page one halfway down your screen it's an email from you dated the 15th of april 2016 to councillor mason copy to robert black and barbara matthews subject fire safety information for kctma

01:03:49 fire safety information for kctma residents

01:03:51 residents and in the first paragraph you identify how fire safety information is provided to residents and you say it's provided in a number of ways

01:04:02 and you refer there to the website and then you say in addition new tenants receive a letter outlining their fire procedure

01:04:08 procedure providing some fire safety advice and enclosing a copy of the referral leaflet for anyone wishing to arrange a free london fire brigade and fp home fire safety visit copies of letter and leaflet attached

01:04:19 leaflet attached fire safety articles are regularly included in our kctma publications the link

01:04:24 link and home ownership newsletter now there's no reference in there to a a resident's handbook or tenant's handbook is there no there isn't how strange

01:04:35 strange um can we also go then to four five tmo100459 zero eight

01:04:43 this is later in the year 2016 it's an email from you to uh in fact to councillor blakeman although her name has been redacted out copy to robert black barbara matthews

01:04:56 copy to robert black barbara matthews again and here you tell her what is sent to residents by way of fire safety advice and you can see that in the second main

01:05:07 and you can see that in the second main paragraph with regard to fire procedures in grenfell tower i can confirm that these were included in the newsletters in newsletters to the block they are also documented on our website further we do publish regular fire safety articles in the link magazine to

01:05:19 safety articles in the link magazine to all residents and we write to all tenant new tenants to outline the fire strategy for their block

01:05:23 block procedure to follow in the event of a fire in their flat and also a far elsewhere in their block and advise them of the london fire brigades lfb free free home safety visit and how to access this

01:05:35 this additionally i can advise that we're currently considering a program of installation of fire action notices similar to those now installed at hazelwood towers across all blocks and then you go on to talk about

01:05:46 then you go on to talk about a difference of opinion about notices uh again no reference there to uh the resident's handbook or tenants handbook is there no there isn't and i think i

01:05:57 is there no there isn't and i think i actually

01:05:57 actually forgot to include it in my statement because i think that's a conversation that we we'd had as well i have no idea why i mean looking at those two communications i've just shown you one from april 2016 and one from 20.

01:06:09 you one from april 2016 and one from 20. 4th november 2016. do you accept that at that time at least residence handbook was not a source of fire safety information uh to tenants

01:06:20 of fire safety information uh to tenants well it's

01:06:20 well it's i'm certainly not mentioning it so um i've i mean i mean it's possible at that time

01:06:27 time it was it was being reprinted or reviewed i don't know like it's strange that i haven't mentioned it i mean had it been i mean the explanation i would suggest you is that had the tenant's handbook been a source of fire safety information

01:06:38 of fire safety information to tenants you would have referred to it in both of these or at least one of these emails i would have expected to yes yes miss ray i've come to the end of my prepared questions and mr mr chairman

01:06:49 prepared questions and mr mr chairman that is

01:06:49 that is i would detect an appropriate moment for a break yes anyway well i think it's obviously sensible to combine the mid-morning break so to speak with the break that we would have at this point anyway

01:07:00 at this point anyway yes um if i were to say 25 past would that give enough time to people who are not in the room to put forward their questions it might but

01:07:11 put forward their questions it might but i i would

01:07:12 i i would i would urge a little bit of caution and i would ask for the half past with liberty to apply the usual way if i might the reason i do that is it is because miss ray has been giving evidence over a

01:07:23 miss ray has been giving evidence over a very long period of time but although there have been plenty of opportunities for those outside here and indeed for my team to review her evidence with a view to asking follow-up questions

01:07:33 questions nonetheless the the end of the witness tends to concentrate minds yes all right well we might have a slightly extended break at this point liz ray we'll stop now and we'll resume at a faster level please and see whether further questions

01:07:46 please and see whether further questions for you at that stage okay all right and please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room okay all right thank you thank you very much

01:08:01 right half us 11 then please

01:29:31 all right did you ask mrs ray to come back in please thank you

01:29:43 all right mr we'll see if there any more questions for you mr millet yes mr chairman one or two now ms ray you uh told us uh

01:29:55 ms ray you uh told us uh that from your perspective and you agreed that an fra was to all intents and purposes a public document that was a day 142 at page 173 yes 9-5 and you also told us

01:30:06 page 173 yes 9-5 and you also told us that you would have made the fras widely available

01:30:09 available and mr stakes knew that as well yes um can i ask you first were residents told how frequently an fra was completed for their block or all the dates when they were

01:30:21 or all the dates when they were completed

01:30:22 completed i'm not sure at that stage that they were told when when we did communication we would always advise that there was a current risk assessment and that it would be reviewed on a regular basis

01:30:33 reviewed on a regular basis i'm not sure that we ever clarified the frequency

01:30:36 frequency um and obviously to some extent that would have been dictated by things like material alterations um so no i've got a feeling we didn't communicate that right because if you didn't communicate

01:30:48 right because if you didn't communicate that how would a resident know when a new

01:30:50 new fra had been had been produced by the tmo

01:30:54 tmo so that they could ask for it um the answer to that is that they wouldn't know but they could always ask for it and i could give them the most recent one and advise them when the next one was programmed i mean was any consideration ever given

01:31:05 i mean was any consideration ever given to putting the fras on the tmo's website so that anybody could could look at them um and not at that stage and i i obviously

01:31:15 obviously the world has changed and people do things differently now but um i think it's probably discussion that we had with peers across um the sector and i think it wasn't common practice at that time but

01:31:27 common practice at that time but definitely the world now does that say post grenfell the world does it but not before

01:31:32 before i don't believe it did no not routinely anyway was any actual consideration given

01:31:37 given to that possibility at any time do you recall

01:31:41 recall i don't recall sorry could you be clear though that was there a decision made not to do it no no no no there was no decision not to i just i i can't be absolutely sure that we had a conversation or whether it was

01:31:53 we had a conversation or whether it was something that has happened subsequently and

01:31:55 and i've misremembered right now can i ask you different topic can i ask you please to go to your witness statement your first witness statement at paragraph 109

01:32:11 uh and

01:32:20 right uh fred i'm unable to ask you this question because i've not been provided with the right witness statement number but let me see how i go

01:32:27 how i go do you recall in one of your witness statements you said that it was never suggested to you um well let's try your third witness statement let's try that one rather than guessing just try your third

01:32:40 rather than guessing just try your third witness statement paragraph 109 and if that doesn't work i'll read out to you what is what is in one of your witness statements okay

01:32:50 no uh let's uh let's look at 109.

01:33:00 uh no i'll read to you what it what what is what you said in one of your witness statements and i apologize i'm unable to provide you with a precise number or quotation on the screen it was

01:33:12 number or quotation on the screen it was never suggested to me you say by the lfb or by carl stokes that this means of escape was unsatisfactory or posed a risk now that was that was something you've said in your witness statements do you

01:33:23 said in your witness statements do you agree with that first of all yes yes now can i now ask you to look at a document which we found the reference for

01:33:34 tmo10016548

01:33:39 this is an email from you to john allen who was in our bkc's uh building control department of the 3rd of april 2017

01:33:51 2017 and you say um thanks we've now got their commitment to enclose the riser in a two-hour fire rated boxing our assessor has already highlighted the breaches in compartmentation and

01:34:02 breaches in compartmentation and ng have confirmed these will be addressed and then you say a number of residents very unhappy and perceive this to be potential very high risk and we're asking rbkc to appoint an independent consult to investigate lfb is saying they're not

01:34:15 to investigate lfb is saying they're not yet in writing they are unhappy about the rise of being on the means of escape but as it is already installed not sure this will have any input looking at that do you accept that

01:34:26 input looking at that do you accept that it was suggested to you by the lfb that the single staircase posed a risk in the context of the gas pipe works um actually no they said they were unhappy they didn't say um it presented a risk i i raised this

01:34:39 um it presented a risk i i raised this with them at the liaison meeting because as you initially saw i consulted john allen from building control

01:34:48 control um on the issue of the riser um and he his responses were that it should be fine kind of distance himself from it i think i went back to him three times and he

01:34:59 him three times and he wouldn't engage um i raised it with the fire brigade because we were struggling to get um national grid to do the works that they said they were going to do to box in

01:35:10 going to do to box in with the fire-rated boxing etc and make good breaches um that the i recall it was um i forgotten his name he was rebecca's deputy he'd come to me um sorry

01:35:24 um sorry and he said that he thought that fire brigade would be unhappy about it but he'd refer it to his engineers and they would come back to me and they never did come back to me so i i was

01:35:36 i was trying to to get a steer from people who might be able to exercise some influence and i think i've read something subsequently that seemed to indicate that the fire brigade were suggesting that it be referred back

01:35:48 were suggesting that it be referred back to national grid so i don't think that's what it did say i think in an effort to try and that we were making to try and get national grids to to make good the breaches and install the two-hour box thing we were

01:35:59 install the two-hour box thing we were reaching out to all sorts of people who were saying things like yeah i'm not very happy but actually weren't following it up with anything substantial right i mean in the light of that did it not occur to you to instigate the appointment of an independent health and

01:36:11 appointment of an independent health and safety inspection for the gas pipe replacement work so as to be able to reassure the residents that it was safe to be honest um

01:36:23 we we we thought we we had struggled because we had no contractual relationship with the provider which unfortunately is is the way these things always work we were trying to chase them

01:36:36 always work we were trying to chase them and escalate to them constantly we were reaching out to other people who we thought could perhaps impact on this the residents were asking for an independent person which would be fine but we still would

01:36:47 which would be fine but we still would have been in a position of trying to get national grid to do what they said they were going to do that was the fundamental issue so we we could i'm sure that if we'd appointed an independent person they would have told us quite a lot of

01:36:59 they would have told us quite a lot of things that we already knew that we were we were using to try and get national grid to expedite the works but i'm not sure it would have brought us any closer to getting those works completed

01:37:09 completed maybe but did you actually consider it internally at the tmo and come to the conclusion formally that you've just told us

01:37:15 told us was your view um i think that we did we we've been through the risk assessor we've been through building control we've been through the fire brigade we'd um been hounding national grid finally got to meet with them

01:37:26 finally got to meet with them um i believe that we did um but at that stage nobody else wanted to be invested in it so we were we were left with trying to put significant pressure on national grid

01:37:39 significant pressure on national grid now ms ray um we've come to the end of your evidence and there are questions i ask of certain witnesses in this inquiry and you are one of those witnesses we've been discussing the past

01:37:50 been discussing the past uh over the last five and a half days almost

01:37:54 almost looking back on the evidence that we've discussed together isn't anything that you would have done differently

01:38:05 i think with more resource i could have done more

01:38:09 done more um and i could have been more rigorous about

01:38:12 about um auditing we discussed this morning that something that i would have would have liked to have done more on um i think i think with more resource across the whole stock we could have done things more

01:38:24 we could have done things more rigorously and i think we should have been able to find a way of expediting the fire risk actions which were outstanding

01:38:35 which were outstanding but to the best of my ability i was unable to find my way through that but it wasn't

01:38:39 it wasn't for the want of trying um those are the things that that's bring to mind really always ray it only remains for me to thank you very much for the assistance

01:38:51 thank you very much for the assistance that you've given to the inquiry and your statements and your oral evidence over the last five and a half days thank you very much thank you and miss ray i must thank you on behalf of all the members of the panel

01:39:02 members of the panel for your coming to give evidence to us i know it's taken us a very long time to hear everything you have to tell us and it can't have been an easy task for you to be here for so long but we are

01:39:13 you to be here for so long but we are very grateful because it's really important that we understand as much as we can about those aspects of the whole matter so we're very grateful thank you very much indeed and now the ordeal is over thanks

01:39:24 indeed and now the ordeal is over thanks and you're free to go okay thank you very much i'd just like to extend my sympathies to everybody who was affected by this tragedy sorry thank you thank you very much

01:39:46 right thank you mr millet now we have another witness waiting in the wings is that right yes we do and miss jones will be taking that witness uh uh but we will need a short break to um arrange matters here yes all right

01:39:59 um arrange matters here yes all right well we'll rise in for a couple of minutes um and we'll uh wait for the ashes to come and tell us you're ready all right thank you very much thank you chairman thank you

01:49:09 yes mr kenya now you have another witness for us so yes may i call rebecca burton

01:49:13 burton thank

01:49:27 good you miss burton i understand you're going to take the oath yes so there should be a testament there would you take it in your right hand please and read the words on the screen in front of you i swear by almighty god that the

01:49:38 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now do sit down make yourself comfortable

01:49:52 right yes mr clear when you're ready sir first of all would you mind confirming your name for the record it's rebecca burton thank you now three words of advice before we start first of all if you need a break at any

01:50:04 first of all if you need a break at any time

01:50:04 time please don't hesitate to ask for one secondly if any of my questions are unclear please say so and i'll rephrase them so that they are clear and thirdly please do keep your voice up it's so the transcriber

01:50:16 your voice up it's so the transcriber can capture everything you say and i should say there's a fourth piece of advice which is

01:50:21 is please do wait for the question to finish and then answer now um that all out the way first of all thank you very much for attending to give evidence today it's much appreciated now you provided two witness statements

01:50:33 now you provided two witness statements to the inquiry uh the first is date of the 29th of january 2019 which can be found at lfb quadru lfb triple zero three two double three one

01:50:46 and is that that statement yes and the second one is dated the 20th of december 2019 which can be found at lfb triple zero eight four zero nine eight again is that that

01:50:58 zero nine eight again is that that statement

01:50:59 statement it is yes thank you have you had the opportunity to read both of those statements recently i have and subject some corrections which we'll come to in due course are the contents of both those statements true they are yes

01:51:12 statements true they are yes and are you happy to have those statements taken as your evidence this inquiry i am thank you now have you discussed the content of your statement with anyone before coming today other than in preparation for giving the

01:51:23 other than in preparation for giving the statement with my legal representatives

01:51:27 now the first topic i'd like to discuss with you today is your role and training and the handover that you had when you assumed your position as team leader now first of all um you joined the lfb

01:51:38 now first of all um you joined the lfb in september 2007 as a fire safety inspecting officer is that right it is yes and from april 2014 until june 2017 you're the fire safety team leader

01:51:49 you're the fire safety team leader assigned to hammersmith fulham kensington and chelsea fire safety team is that right and can you confirm that the team leader role at hammersmith and fulham and kensington chelsea to which you were promoted in april 2014

01:52:00 to which you were promoted in april 2014 that was your first team leader role it was thank you now in june 2017 uh is it right that you left the fire safety team for a role within the lfb's central regulatory enforcement group

01:52:12 central regulatory enforcement group yes now in his evidence nicholas comrey said that he attended an intensive three-month course uh before starting in fire safety did you attend any such intensive fire

01:52:23 did you attend any such intensive fire safety course before you started when i became a fire safety inspecting officer we had a introduction period which was

01:52:34 introduction period which was it was different to what nick comory attended

01:52:37 attended that course that no longer was no longer available we attended training sessions in-house rather than going away which is what nick comrie had done so i undertook in-house training courses

01:52:49 so i undertook in-house training courses whilst

01:52:51 whilst being mentored within the fire safety team that i was placed in thank you and if we can go to paragraph 17 of your first witness statement which can be found at lfb triple zero three two three one

01:53:03 triple zero three two three one forward slash six and the last sentence in particular you say they're following on from your answer and i quote i have completed some fire safety courses included unit 7 8 9 10 11

01:53:16 included unit 7 8 9 10 11 of the level 4 fire safety certificate and unit 15 of the level 4 fire safety diploma

01:53:21 diploma in broad terms miss burton what subjects or skills did that training cover so they are fire safety qualifications and they

01:53:30 and they cover things such as the regulatory reform fire safety order and how

01:53:36 and how we apply that legislation regulations and how to undertake investigations thank you and when did you complete those units

01:53:48 those units so they were completed prior to submitting this statement so sometimes before some time before yep so around

01:53:58 so around 2015. thank you now if we can stay within this statement but go to paragraph five which is at page two uh you say in the first bullet point that the role of the fire safety team is

01:54:10 that the role of the fire safety team is amongst other factors to enforce the regulatory reform fire safety award of 2005

01:54:15 2005 through an inspection program and reactive inspections now in relation to high-rise residential buildings

01:54:22 buildings and as a general rule how regularly would you inspect such buildings at that time they were coming through our inspection program roughly once a year we work on a

01:54:34 roughly once a year we work on a risk-based approach and each premise is given a risk score based on the inspection that's been carried out previously and most high-rise premises would come out as

01:54:45 out as level five a risk or five and above and so they would come out roughly every year

01:54:52 year and when you're carrying out an inspection what are you looking for fire safety deficiencies so we would initially

01:55:00 initially look at any paperwork associated with a premises to the fire risk assessment any maintenance records of fire safety systems such as fire alarms fire doors emergency lighting and then

01:55:13 fire doors emergency lighting and then we'd conduct an actual physical inspection of the premises in what circumstances would the lfb

01:55:18 lfb issue a notice of deficiencies a notice of deficiencies is our sort of lowest level of enforcement action that we would take so we would take that action where we'd

01:55:29 so we would take that action where we'd found some things um that didn't require us to go back and ensure that they'd been completed so we wouldn't follow up on a notice of deficiencies we would leave that with

01:55:40 deficiencies we would leave that with the responsible person to manage themselves how would you make sure therefore that deficiencies had been cured within the time specified in the notice or at all

01:55:50 or at all with a notice of deficiencies unless there was a specific reason that we would go back so for care homes for instance we would go back for a notice of deficiencies and check

01:56:02 notice of deficiencies and check at the end of the time that the works had been completed but for other properties it would be a case where they came up for re-inspection we checked the previous history of that premises we'd be aware that a notice

01:56:15 premises we'd be aware that a notice was issued previously and we would take that into account on our new inspections in what circumstances would the lfb issue an enforcement notice this is when there's more serious

01:56:26 this is when there's more serious failings against the order and we would set a time scale and we would always follow that up and when you say more serious do you mean systemic and chronic failure to comply with the order yes

01:56:39 failure to comply with the order yes and just to assist the panel in the hierarchy of regulatory action where does the enforcement action sit

01:56:47 how serious is it put differently it's serious enough that we would issue a notice we don't issue those lightly likely if we're issuing an enforcement notice is because we have

01:56:59 enforcement notice is because we have serious concerns that there are risks within the building to the relevant people there and we need to make sure that those risks are

01:57:07 risks are remediated now we don't need to go to it but in paragraph six of your first statement you have to explain the role of team leader of the fire safety team and at the second bullet point you refer

01:57:18 and at the second bullet point you refer to quotes vetting of enforcement notices as team leader did you decide the level of red regulatory action that was appropriate uh for perceived deficiencies in a particular building

01:57:29 particular building that's initially completed by the inspecting officer we have a mobile device that we complete our inspections on and each article of the rro is assigned a risk

01:57:40 article of the rro is assigned a risk score

01:57:41 score and so it either be broadly compliant low risk or high risk and that determines the outcome of the actual audit whether that be a broadly compliant and

01:57:52 whether that be a broadly compliant and noticeable deficiency or a enforcement and once that's that audit is completed and it comes to me for vetting we can adjust the score if

01:58:04 we can adjust the score if i feel necessary thank you now if we go stay within the statement go back to paragraph 17 which is at page six um you say that and i quote when i was first appointed as

01:58:15 i quote when i was first appointed as team leader the previous team leader had already retired from the lfb some months before i was therefore not afforded a handover from the outgoing team leader now first of all i understand there's a correction you you want to make to that

01:58:27 correction you you want to make to that statement what is that correction so i was

01:58:31 was of the understanding that nick comrie had retired from the lfb when i took up that post hence in actual fact he'd he'd taken a period of leave before he retired thank you

01:58:43 retired thank you now if there was no handover how did you educate yourself how did you familiarize yourself with the current issues between the lfb and the tmo so i from that team i'd moved from our

01:58:55 so i from that team i'd moved from our enforcement team where i worked under andy jack and he'd obviously had a lot of liaisons with tmo at kensington chelsea and he briefed

01:59:06 tmo at kensington chelsea and he briefed me on all of those relationships there was also long-standing inspecting officers within the team

01:59:13 the team that gave me a history of the works that had been undertaken and now in relation to the uh to the tmo were you told the liaison meetings were held once every

01:59:24 liaison meetings were held once every two months yes now you say at paragraph eight of this statement which is at page three that the purpose of those meetings was to quote to discuss matters relating to

01:59:35 to quote to discuss matters relating to the whole of the kctmo housing stock and followed a standing agenda consisting of fire alarms shut-in lift occurrences enforcement action fires and anything else of note at the time is that a fair summary yes now if you

01:59:48 is that a fair summary yes now if you had concerns about the management of fire safety at the tmo would you have raised them at those bi-monthly meetings first of all yes and when you joined did you read the minutes of previous meetings so that you could familiarize yourself

02:00:00 could familiarize yourself with what had been previously discussed i didn't have access to previous meeting minutes can you help us as to why not

02:00:10 there wasn't a process of them being stored and saved so they weren't available so they weren't available um did you discuss um what had gone on previously with inspecting officers sohail

02:00:21 sohail dadaboy or matthew ramsey yes and did you have any contact with the tmo outside of these bi-monthly meetings occasionally i would receive emails

02:00:31 emails mainly from janice ray or i would need to

02:00:35 to contact her if something came up within the team

02:00:38 the team and they'd asked me to contact her

02:00:42 now you say in your first witness statement and the references at paragraph 17 again third line down that in terms of training i was not given any specific training courses relating to my role did you expect to receive any training

02:00:54 did you expect to receive any training and it wasn't provided or was it just that no training was provided for the team leader position at that time there wasn't a training program in place for team leaders did you feel that the lack of formal

02:01:06 did you feel that the lack of formal training for the team your leader role impeded or hindered your performance as team leader in any way no because i'd i'd worked with very experienced team leaders previously and understood the role

02:01:19 previously and understood the role that the team leader was to play and i had access to experienced team leaders within my area thank you now at the time did the lfb consider that in relation to high-rise

02:01:29 high-rise residential buildings fire safety guidance to responsible persons was primarily contained in the local government association's guide entitled fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats

02:01:40 purpose-built blocks of flats yes were you yourself familiar with the contents of that guide yes would you expect a responsible person to be familiar with the document yes and fire risk assessors definitely

02:01:53 yes and fire risk assessors definitely did you or your team ever have calls to refer to any other published guidance for example the government guide on sleeping accommodation which has been published in 2009 for premises that fell within the scope

02:02:05 for premises that fell within the scope of that guide yes and would you ever have caused a look at lay cores uh the housing fire safety guide which was published in august 2008 yes again would you expect the

02:02:16 yes again would you expect the responsible person and fire risk assessors to be familiar with both those forms of guidance yes now kai turned to a separate topic which is your knowledge of historical issues between the lfb and

02:02:27 historical issues between the lfb and the tmo

02:02:29 the tmo now on joining the team in april 2014 were you made aware of any of these following matters and we'll go through them first of all that a number of the tmos lifts including those at grenfell tower

02:02:40 lifts including those at grenfell tower did not meet all of the criteria of a firefighting lift and the tmo was in fact applying its own criteria to define what these lifts were no

02:02:52 from your particular regulatory perspective did you consider that a lift that only met some but not all of the criteria of a firefighting lift was nonetheless a firefighting lift no

02:03:05 a firefighting lift no there's clear guidance on the requirements for a firefighting lift and those requirements are there for the protection of our firefighters and for any persons that may need to be

02:03:16 and for any persons that may need to be evacuated using that lift so if it doesn't fit those requirements i would not call it a firefighting lift

02:03:26 were you informed at any stage that the tmo had notified senior lfb officers such as brian dees or deans or nick comray that they had their own definition of what constituted a firefighting list

02:03:39 and does it flow from your previous answer that information regarding what the tmo had previously told your predecessors would not be available to you because that there was no capacity for storage

02:03:51 secondly were you aware of or had you been given a copy of the tmos fire safety strategy from november 2013. i was given a copy but not until

02:04:03 i was given a copy but not until late in 2015. and what were the circumstances in which you were given a copy of that strategy it was specifically requested following the fire at their tower by you yes

02:04:17 thirdly were you aware of discussions between the tmo and the lfb about the applicable standards governing flat entrance doors yes enforcement issues concerning

02:04:28 yes enforcement issues concerning non-compliant flat entrance doors of properties occupied occupied by leaseholders yes fourthly were you ever made aware that on the 30th of september 2010 robert black the ceo of the tmo had

02:04:40 robert black the ceo of the tmo had assured brian deans of the lfb that the tmo would be producing personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents

02:04:48 residents quotes as and when people's disabilities are brought to r that's the tmo's attention close quotes no

02:04:56 were you aware of any discussions about peeps between uh the lfb and representatives of the tmo at any stage before you joined before i joined no

02:05:08 before you joined before i joined no were you made aware when you first started

02:05:11 started um as team leader of any concerns about the competence of carl stokes yes before you when you started yes and what were the concerns that were

02:05:22 and what were the concerns that were raised with you and by whom so they were raised by andy jack in his discussions with me regarding casey tmo and just general observations that

02:05:35 general observations that he may not be competent for his role can you give the panel a more detailed idea of the gist of mr jack's reservations regarding mr stokes

02:05:45 stokes it was mainly around the flat front door issue

02:05:49 issue um they had opposing opinions around how to enforce against leaseholder flat front doors

02:05:58 so it was the opinion that if he wasn't to risk

02:06:01 to risk assess those doors adequately then that could cause problems

02:06:07 now can i turn to a separate topic which is the first bi-monthly meeting you held with the tmo which is on the 14th of june 2014. is it right that at least to start off with you

02:06:18 that at least to start off with you didn't attend all of the liaison meetings

02:06:21 meetings it is yes and instead you appointed inspecting officer suhel dadaboy to attend on the lfb's behalf yes

02:06:28 yes did you brief mr daddy boy before those meetings just the point you wanted raised with the tmo no so sahel had been attending those meetings prior to

02:06:39 meetings prior to myself joining the team so he had a better understanding of what those meetings were for than i did at that time and would he debrief you afterwards yes

02:06:51 now we don't need to go to it but you say paragraph eight of your first witness statement which is a page three and is on the screen at the moment that the minutes of the bi-monthly meeting were prepared by janice ray is

02:07:02 meeting were prepared by janice ray is that right yes did you receive those meetings routinely following the liaison meetings yes did you read the minutes yes and did you ever comment on them and

02:07:13 yes and did you ever comment on them and ask further questions as to what was discussed either with janice ray or with mr daddyboy no

02:07:22 now turning to the minutes of the first bi-monthly meeting you attended they can be found at lfb triple zero three two double three four and if we go to page four

02:07:33 four and if we go to page four and item eight

02:07:36 and you'll see the bottom of the page under the heading fra issues the minutes recalled that janice ray summarized the tmo's approach to fras and the minutes summarize in the first line use of consultant pas 79 standard

02:07:48 line use of consultant pas 79 standard rolling program prioritized action plans etc can you now remember uh what else or what further detail miss ray gave you at that meeting

02:08:01 at that meeting um so at that meeting um she described the what the process was which was to categorize their housing stock into low medium and high risk premises

02:08:12 into low medium and high risk premises based on the height and also the type of occupancy so whether it was general needs sheltered or care homes that had taken about five years to get

02:08:24 that had taken about five years to get through

02:08:25 through that program of risk assessing all of that stock um and that they were happy that they carried out all those risk assessments and had

02:08:36 all those risk assessments and had completed the action plans um and she was extremely happy that they only had as it says here eight non-compliant fire doors for leaseholders did she offer or did you

02:08:47 offer or did you ask for copies of the fras and the significant action plans no were you made aware during the course of that meeting that tmo had started a program of fras for

02:08:58 tmo had started a program of fras for all their properties in september 2009 and that date's important i couldn't confirm the date no um were you aware that it been agreed between the lfb and the tmo

02:09:09 the lfb and the tmo that they had to have the entire property portfolio assessed within three years

02:09:13 years and remedial works to be fully compliant with the order within five yes and so applying the math the deadline for completion of all work was september

02:09:24 completion of all work was september 2014.

02:09:25 2014. yes now at that point in time did janice ray give you any indication that there was a backlog in dealing with fra actions no and so

02:09:37 no and so just to make a more detailed point to you she never mentioned to you that in march 2014 only three months before this meeting there'd been some 1400 outstanding actions

02:09:48 actions no the impression i was always given was that the

02:09:51 that the action plans were always actioned and i was never told about any outstanding actions from any of the risk assessments and can we take it from that you felt

02:10:02 and can we take it from that you felt you had no cause to interrogate miss ray's information any further yes now can i turn to a separate witness statement of yours it's your second witness statement

02:10:13 witness statement which can be found at lfb triple zero eight four zero nine eight and page three

02:10:20 and paragraph five which says from my review of the minutes i can see that fra issues was an agenda item when

02:10:27 item when i first attended and continued to be so up until the 19th of august 2015. this related to the initial fra program which had been introduced by kctmo adopting a process that had been

02:10:38 adopting a process that had been deployed by croydon borough council called the croydon model and you go on in paragraph six to say this and i quote kctmo was coming towards the end of this process of risk assessing

02:10:49 process of risk assessing all the buildings in their stock when i became team leader accordingly fra issues fell off the agenda as a standing item once that process was complete

02:11:00 once that process was complete now did the lfb consider that it had a role in ensuring that the tmo completed its program of fras

02:11:09 only in that when we inspect the premises if there isn't a fire risk assessment available then we would enforce against that and presumably would the same answer apply

02:11:20 presumably would the same answer apply to a question whether the tmo considered that it had a role in ensuring that the fra outstanding actions were completed

02:11:27 completed by september 2014 the agreed deadline yes

02:11:34 now can i turn to the next bi-monthly meeting which was on the 19th of august 2015 and in particular discussion of the aov system now at the meeting and the minutes can be found

02:11:46 minutes can be found at lfb triple zero three two three two nine forward slash four

02:11:56 and if we look at item 9.1 in particular we see that claire williams of the tmo informed you that the aov system at grenfell was quotes not fully up and running and

02:12:08 quotes not fully up and running and would not be until october now at that stage were you aware that matthew ramsey had undertaken an audit of grand fall on the 14th of march 2014 and the

02:12:19 on the 14th of march 2014 and the findings of his audit identified that approximately 25 of the automatically opening vents were not working at that time now i wasn't

02:12:32 and presumably for the reasons you gave earlier on you didn't have a library of notice of deficiencies to examine in order to test what you'd been told regarding uh previous compliance with

02:12:43 previous compliance with regulatory action by the lfb we would have a record of any deficiency notices served on our database

02:12:50 database but unless i had a reason to interrogate that system and you had no reason can we take it from that to look at the notice deficiencies from march 2014

02:13:02 march 2014 and so can we take it that you would have been unaware that the deadline for improvement of the aov uh was the fifth of may 2014. yes i wasn't aware were you aware that some 11 months

02:13:13 were you aware that some 11 months before on the 18th of september 2014 suhail dadaboy had attended a bi-monthly meeting where claire williams had informed him that quotes the ventilation extraction

02:13:24 that quotes the ventilation extraction system the communal lobbies is to be upgraded refurbished as part of the project this work is being prioritized and plans are currently being finalized sohail requested a time scale and claire advised that we were hoping this would

02:13:35 advised that we were hoping this would be completed by christmas were you aware of that from reading the minutes yes so and you read the minutes for the purposes of preparing the statement or at the time at the time

02:13:48 now given that you'd read that at the time

02:13:52 time and the anticipated deadline was christmas i christmas 2014 were you concerned to know in august 2015 that the aov was still

02:14:04 august 2015 that the aov was still not fully up and running to use miss williams's formula it didn't ring alarm bells mainly because

02:14:13 because i knew our local crews were carrying out regular familiarization visits at the premises

02:14:19 premises and they were not feeding back to me that they had any issues with the systems in place now in her evidence of the inquiry claire williams uh

02:14:30 claire williams uh told the panel this is day 121 page 166 line 16 to page 167 line 1 that she believed that she had informed the lfb that the aov

02:14:41 informed the lfb that the aov was not working do you recall miss williams contacting you at all with that information no

02:14:53 do you know to the best of your knowledge whether she contacted anyone else in your team with that information not to my knowledge

02:15:02 now apart from the discussion between claire williams and sohail dadaboy at the bi-monthly meeting in september 2014 were the lfb kept up to date between march 2014

02:15:13 to date between march 2014 and october 2015 by the tmo on the state of progress of works on the aov

02:15:21 grenfell tower was a standing agenda item

02:15:25 item um so it possibly would have come up then but without looking at all the minutes i can't say for sure whether we specifically discussed put differently can you remember having

02:15:37 put differently can you remember having any reservations about the completeness of the information you have been provided with by the tmo regarding the aov works no

02:15:47 were you told that the aov was not commissioned until the end of april 2016.

02:15:53 2016. so nearly two years after mr ramsay's notice of deficiencies was served

02:15:58 i can remember being told when it was up and running so to speak um i can't recall what date that was though were you concerned that it had taken

02:16:09 were you concerned that it had taken them so long to get the aov fully functional i.e more than two years after mr ramsey had served his notice of deficiencies at the time i was aware that that

02:16:21 at the time i was aware that that piece of work had been put on hold because they were carrying out the refurbishment work so it was then migrated into that scheme of work which seemed

02:16:32 work which seemed sensible

02:16:35 and i know they'd had some contractor issues

02:16:39 issues and the fact that it was keeping us up to date it didn't concern me at the time because the crews were also carrying out their familiarization visits and they weren't reporting any reservations or concerns back to you yes

02:16:51 reservations or concerns back to you yes now can i turn to a separate topic and that's one of flat front doors and self-closers and if we can go back to your second witness statement which can be found at lfb triple zero

02:17:03 which can be found at lfb triple zero eight four zero nine eight and page eight and power thirteen in particular you say there and i quote i was also aware that self-closing doors had arisen as an issue on some of the enforcement

02:17:14 as an issue on some of the enforcement notices and noticed deficiencies that i had vetted and in light of my reading of the adair tower fra now had concerns that there might be a more systemic problem regarding the kctmo's approach to self-closers hence wishing to raise

02:17:27 to self-closers hence wishing to raise it first of all what was the systemic problem you identified or feared so up until around this time i'd been working on the assumption from when i

02:17:38 working on the assumption from when i was first informed by janice that their stock only had eight remaining deficient

02:17:45 deficient fire doors within their stock um around this time my inspecting officers were starting to report that when they were visiting premises they were finding deficiencies

02:17:56 deficiencies mainly around um self-closers doors not having self-closers which obviously triggered a you know a moment of

02:18:04 moment of well i thought there was only eight was in the stocks that didn't have a self-closer so what's what's gone wrong here and then within the dare tower fire risk assessment uh mr stokes had

02:18:17 fire risk assessment uh mr stokes had where it mentions self-closing devices he'd put

02:18:20 he'd put n a not applicable and i can't see a reason why a self-closing device on a fire door would ever be

02:18:29 ever be not applicable and so did the problem come into sharp relief after the adair tower fire yes and can you remember now more precisely how soon after the fire

02:18:40 after the fire uh this issue uh struck you

02:18:44 uh it was obviously an issue during the fire because the the flat front door to the flat fire origin um was held open now i don't know whether that was

02:18:55 now i don't know whether that was because there was there wasn't a self-closure on that flat front door um but it might have been wedged open by debris or something but that had allowed

02:19:06 debris or something but that had allowed the smoke to enter the the lobby and to spread throughout the building so i was aware from the onset that there was a problem

02:19:12 problem with self-closing devices and then when we received the risk assessment within within a couple of days of the fire and reviewed it obviously then i was made aware to the

02:19:25 obviously then i was made aware to the comment of them not being not being applicable so early november 2015 yes thank you now bearing in mind that answer can we now move on to consider what was discussed at a meeting between

02:19:37 what was discussed at a meeting between you and the tmo on the 13th of november 2015.

02:19:40 2015. so in broad terms two weeks after the dare to have fire yes now if we turn and rather if we stay in your second witness statement and turn to paragraph 14 and 15 which is at page nine

02:19:54 you refer there to an email you received from janice ray on the 22nd of october 2015

02:20:00 2015 in which she requested a meeting to discuss the issue of self-closers and indeed that of far risk assessments more generally now if we go to that email which is lfb quadruple zero three double four

02:20:14 zero

02:20:24 i'll say that again lfb quadruple zero three double four zero

02:20:33 thank you and you'll see at the bottom of that page miss burton the email from janice ray sent 1202 on the 22nd of october to you request for a meeting please

02:20:47 and she says in the second paragraph of that email this and i quote our approach to self-closers has been dictated by our fire risk assessor

02:20:55 assessor following clarification he received from a discussion with the lfb head of policy and head of enforcement now just stopping there for the moment when she referred to the head of policy

02:21:06 when she referred to the head of policy and the head of enforcement do you know to whom she was referring yes nick coombe and andy jack thank you now staying with this paragraph miss ray then writes in the same sentence and i

02:21:18 then writes in the same sentence and i quote

02:21:19 quote and we have provided many fras the lfb over the years but not been challenged about this approach therefore in good faith we considered we were applying the appropriate standard if that is not the case or if the lfe

02:21:30 if that is not the case or if the lfe standard has changed its position on this i need to understand this not least because the potential impact on our organization first of all were you surprised by what

02:21:41 first of all were you surprised by what miss ray said there in the second paragraph of her email very surprised and how did you respond to her

02:21:49 to her um well i believe well if you go up to the top yes um so i was not convinced that that is what the

02:21:56 what the discussions that were had with our policy and enforcement team before we come on to the substance response maybe the better question from me

02:22:05 me should have been had the lfb in fact changed the standard and policy it was applying

02:22:09 applying no now we see your reply there sent at 1518 you suggest the meeting date of the 13th of november and request any records regarding the

02:22:20 and request any records regarding the discussion with policy and enforcement to clarify the position and you say in the second paragraph of my quote i'm not aware of any guidance that we have been given to allow fire doors

02:22:30 doors not to be self-closing especially ones leading on to the means of escape now did you receive the information from janice ray that you sought there i.e no the detail regarding

02:22:43 there i.e no the detail regarding discussion of policy enforcement did you ever receive anything no to clarify where she's coming from no now bearing in mind your request for clarity here on the first of november

02:22:55 clarity here on the first of november 2015 you emailed andy jack nick coomb who you referred to earlier on and nick comrie copping in spencer sutcliffe and that can be found at lfb quadruple zero one six one zero

02:23:13 and we see your initial email at the bottom of that first page sent at 21 27 and you say this i'm hoping one or all

02:23:24 and you say this i'm hoping one or all of you could provide me with some clarification over the past year i've attended meetings with janice ray was under the impression that work programs had been implemented to ensure all flat front doors met

02:23:35 to ensure all flat front doors met requirements i'd been told that a handful of leaseholder front doors were still outstanding but the tmo was still in negotiations with these people to complete the works turning over the page following recent inspections on properties owned by

02:23:47 inspections on properties owned by kensington chelsea tma it has become apparent that a significant number of flat front doors are not self-closing and an fra for a dare tower the risk assessor carl stokes goes so far as to say that flat front

02:24:00 goes so far as to say that flat front doors are not self-closing and this is in agreement with the lfb as you can see from the email below janus ray has provided details of a meeting attended by both sides where this decision was apparently

02:24:11 where this decision was apparently agreed

02:24:13 agreed the date provided for the meeting is clearly incorrect and you go on to say more but you conclude with this request can

02:24:24 can any of you provide any information relating to this meeting and what was discussed

02:24:28 discussed information provided this is of heightened importance following the flat fire

02:24:32 fire tower of the weekend which resulted in the common parts becoming involved in the fire

02:24:37 the fire and numerous fire survival calls being made

02:24:41 made now if we can go back to page one of this email chain we can see the reply from andy jack and that's at the top

02:24:52 and i'll just let you refresh your memory of that if you please indicate when you finish reading his email

02:25:36 is it fair to say that mr jack did not give you the clarity you were seeking because he did not uh say

02:25:42 say what had been discussed about flat front doors and self-closing devices at the meeting

02:25:48 in that email yes and if we can uh scroll further down this page we have the response from uh nicholas coombe

02:26:01 who says this i think this meeting took place but don't think i attended i doubt whether andy or nick would have accepted this

02:26:08 this did mr coomb's email give you the clarity and the clarification that you uh sought

02:26:12 uh sought in your email of the first november

02:26:16 only in broad terms now following uh those exchanges on the 4th of november 2015 you asked janice ray various questions relating to the post-fire review report following

02:26:29 to the post-fire review report following the adair tower fire and we can find that at tm00

02:26:37 and if we can turn to page three

02:26:45 there you go the email you sent to miss ray

02:26:48 ray and if we could turn over the page to page four

02:26:51 page four and the second complete bullet point from the top you ask this and i quote what is current status regarding fras undertaken for your estate and reviews undertaken do you have a rolling program

02:27:03 undertaken do you have a rolling program that is completed by carl on an ongoing basis what systems are in place to act on significant findings identified by the fras did you receive a response to those

02:27:14 did you receive a response to those queries

02:27:17 queries now that i can recall

02:27:20 now you attended the meeting with janet rae on the 13th of november to discuss the matters raised in your email before that meeting did you discuss the substance with either andy jack nick coombe nick comrie or spencer

02:27:33 nick coombe nick comrie or spencer sutcliffe about the approach to the tmos sorry about the timo's approach to self-closing devices i spoke to andy jack to get an understanding of

02:27:44 understanding of the discussions he'd had previously with them and to understand what program of fire risk assessments he thought should have been in place at that time

02:27:53 that time can you give the panel the gist of what mr jack told you if you can remember again it was it was based on the the croydon model which was a process of identifying everything that you have

02:28:05 everything that you have in your stock and risk assessing that based on

02:28:10 based on low medium and high risk depending on the height of the building and the occupancy

02:28:14 occupancy was he able to give you any further detail as what had been discussed regarding self-closing devices at the the meeting in november 2012. in relation to it was flat front doors in general

02:28:25 it was flat front doors in general rather than just self-closing devices um he told me that in some of those premises the fire doors were

02:28:34 were as existing from when they were built and we don't retrospectively apply regulations so for some of their stocks they would only have what we refer to as nominal

02:28:46 only have what we refer to as nominal fidos but that standard is still with a self-closer thank you now moving on to the meeting on the 13th of november itself

02:28:57 november itself other than you miss ray who else if anyone attended it was just the two of us now you summarize the discussions which took place in an email which can be found at lfb

02:29:08 email which can be found at lfb quadruple zero three double four five which you sent to the area fire safety manager who was spencer sutcliffe yes now that update

02:29:19 um was sent some time after on the 5th of may 2016. now if we look at the first page which is on the screen now in particular the

02:29:30 is on the screen now in particular the blue text

02:29:30 blue text under item 1 we see this during the meeting with janice around 13th november 2015 i discussed the following areas of concern that had arisen following the

02:29:42 concern that had arisen following the fire at a dare tower the first one is tmo's approach to reviewing risk assessments and acting on significant findings in a timely manner suitability of fire risk assessments particularly regarding approach to flat

02:29:54 particularly regarding approach to flat front doors and self-closers claim within the fire risk assessment that fire safety regulation had agreed self-closing flat front doors are not required

02:30:04 required apparent lack of systems in place to prevent the hindrance of access to the drm so the dry rising main during maintenance works fire risk assessments not demonstrating an understanding of the strategy for the building and how persons will be kept

02:30:16 building and how persons will be kept safe

02:30:17 safe in the event of fire it was agreed at this meeting that janice ray would consider each of these points and discuss with their fire risk assessor improvements that could be made now bearing in mind your email

02:30:29 bearing in mind your email is dated may 2016. on what basis did you provide this summary to mr sutcliffe of a meeting which had been roughly six months earlier

02:30:41 so that action plan that's created immediately post fire um dick nye who works within our policy group will routinely ask for an

02:30:52 group will routinely ask for an update on those actions so this was me providing a summary of the actions that have been taken from the original plan being made so you're satisfied it's a fair and accurate

02:31:03 satisfied it's a fair and accurate summary of the substance of the discussion you had with janice ray yes

02:31:11 now during the course of this meeting did you explain to janice ray that

02:31:18 senior lfb officers had told you that they had effectively not indicated that self-closers were not required

02:31:26 required yes and what was her response to that

02:31:32 she was surprised it wasn't her recollection was she able to point you to any document to support her recollection email or anything of that nature

02:31:46 did she give more detailed explanation to you as to why she'd reached the view that the lfb had endorsed absence of self-closing devices in certain circumstances only that she was

02:31:59 circumstances only that she was advised by her risk assessor and would conduct her work based on his findings as he was the competent person for that area

02:32:10 competent person for that area but differently did you advise her that self-closing devices were required on flat entrance doors yes are you absolutely clear about that yes can you help the panel by giving them as

02:32:22 can you help the panel by giving them as much detail about what you precisely said

02:32:25 said to miss ray on that question

02:32:29 if you can't remember now say so i can't remember exactly no other than we would expect to have a self-closer on any

02:32:36 any flat front doors that open onto a protected means of escape

02:32:42 and did janice ray give you any assurances or comfort as to what action she would be taken

02:32:49 be taken in response to your statement that self-closing devices were required she said she would take it up with her risk assessor um it would she explained it would be a

02:33:00 um it would she explained it would be a large-scale piece of work that would need to be undertaken and that would need to be programmed in and she would need to speak to

02:33:08 speak to obviously her chain of management in order to

02:33:11 order to put a program's works in place did you ask me

02:33:14 ask me i'm sorry to interrupt you um

02:33:19 what was there as part of this debate really

02:33:23 really any discussion as to whether the area into which the front doors were opening was a protected space in the conventional sense because it seems a bit surprising that

02:33:34 because it seems a bit surprising that there should be a debate about this unless there were a question over the area into which the doors opened yes so i had to make the distinction between enclosed protected means of

02:33:45 between enclosed protected means of escape

02:33:46 escape and flat front doors that are open to air

02:33:49 air yeah so that's where the clarification was and um was it perhaps in in the mind of carl stokes and and perhaps

02:34:00 perhaps miss ray that in this instance whether rightly or wrongly that the doors did not open into an enclosed space i seem to recall there was some debate

02:34:11 i seem to recall there was some debate about whether they opened into a an area which was holy or partially open to the elements it was partially open to the elements

02:34:23 it was partially open to the elements but the majority of the doors in that block were they weren't fitted with conventional self-closures they they had the old style perco closers yeah um so they they were

02:34:35 closers yeah um so they they were originally fitted to those doors just not maintained right um but what i just wanted to pin down if possible was was the root of the

02:34:48 possible was was the root of the disagreement if i can put it like that about the need for self-closers related to this

02:34:53 to this to the um nature of the area into which the front doors were opening that argument was never put to me in that context all right well that's helpful thank you

02:35:05 all right well that's helpful thank you yes

02:35:06 yes mr cleo sorry to interrupt you thank you sir um can we now turn to the 5th of january 2016 bi-monthly meeting so the one

02:35:12 one immediately after your november one now if we can go back to your second witness statement which is lfb triple zero eight four zero nine eight and paragraph seventeen which can

02:35:24 eight and paragraph seventeen which can be found at page 10.

02:35:33 now you say that the issues outlined above were discussed formally in the meeting on 5th of january 2016. why did it need why did those issues need to be discussed quotes formally

02:35:44 need to be discussed quotes formally close quotes in january 2016. i was conscious that myself and janice were the only people at that meeting and neither of us

02:35:55 people at that meeting and neither of us had

02:35:56 had taken minutes of the meeting so i wanted to make a formal record of those issues now had you received any information further information from miss ray since your november meeting

02:36:08 your november meeting regarding um the proposed program of works to the self-closing devices no

02:36:16 now apologies for jumping around your statements but if we could go back to your first witness statement which is lfb

02:36:22 lfb triple zero three two double three one forward slash four and paragraph ten

02:36:32 now in paragraph ten six lines down you say this

02:36:36 say this following the fire have you got that at a dare tower yep on the 31st of october 2015 it had come to my attention the self-closing devices were not being

02:36:48 self-closing devices were not being routinely maintained janus ray had confirmed to me that self-closing devices were checked either when they were reported as defective by resident

02:36:56 resident or when a property became vacant at this meeting i explained that the lfb would not

02:37:01 not accept this as sufficient maintenance to comply with article 17 of the order now the first question is the obvious one why did you consider the tmos approach to be insufficient

02:37:14 a self-closing device is crucial to a fire door if if there isn't one

02:37:22 one and a fire breaks out within a premises that's going to be its means for spreading throughout the rest of the building

02:37:30 building and affecting the other residents um now the difficulty with self-closures on flat front doors is they are liable to being tampered with or

02:37:41 with or taken off by the actual residents themselves because you know the doors constantly slam close um so to only inspect those when the

02:37:52 um so to only inspect those when the premises becomes vacant

02:37:56 isn't going to be often they're not you could have a resident in place for sort of 20 years and never know the condition of that self-closure so that's not a routine maintenance program what was ms ray's response to that view

02:38:10 she thought it would be difficult to put in any other sort of maintenance regime because of access

02:38:19 access and she would need to speak to her line management chain in order to come up with a program of maintenance for those

02:38:28 for those that meeting did she say or that she rely upon the fact in her view the lfb had sanctioned the approach that the tmo had historically been taking no

02:38:41 now in the next sentence of paragraph 10 of your first witness statement you say this and i quote we discussed ways in which the tmo could implement a new management process for maintaining self-closers and fire doors

02:38:53 maintaining self-closers and fire doors which included incorporating a check with any annual checks already being carried out such as electrical and gas safety checks

02:39:03 what system what arrangements did you expect

02:39:06 expect to be put in place by miss ray or the tmo

02:39:09 tmo so what i was looking for is some of her properties have caretakers on site so they could be put in a position to check the self closes

02:39:23 check the self closes or as a as i've said um these premises are subject to annual checks in other ways they could adjust their contracts to have those people that are already getting access to those buildings

02:39:35 getting access to those buildings to add on a check on the fire doors and the self closers did you give or intimate a deadline by which you expected uh remedial action to be taken or at

02:39:46 uh remedial action to be taken or at least in part

02:39:49 not at that meeting no because she made me aware that she would need to take it to

02:39:54 to a higher bolt now there you suggest that annual checks would be sufficient for the purposes of the order the reason i want to ask you a question about this is the lga guide itself

02:40:07 about this is the lga guide itself recommends inspection regime on a six monthly basis i can take you to it if if needs be

02:40:13 needs be but given the lga guide recommendation of six monthly inspection regime why was an annual inspection regime sufficient i was taking into account the size of their stock

02:40:24 their stock and the difficulty that people have in actually getting access to premises i didn't want to make something too onerous that then becomes impossible

02:40:35 impossible i'd rather have something less frequent but actually occurring than making something more frequent and it's

02:40:43 it's an impossible task thank you now can we look at action taken after the january 26 meeting 2016 meeting now and if apologies again

02:40:54 2016 meeting now and if apologies again if we can go back to your second witness statement

02:40:57 statement lfb triple zero eight four zero nine eight forward slash 10 and paragraph 17

02:41:08 and the second line again dealing with the meeting in january 2016 you say this and i quote after that i did not ask for the matters to be listed again as specific agenda items for the

02:41:19 as specific agenda items for the bi-monthly meetings as i did not feel it necessary to do so rather in my mind they would have been followed up under the standard recurring items enforcement notices deficiency notice lfb communications etc

02:41:31 deficiency notice lfb communications etc and or in relation to a concern about a specific

02:41:34 specific building now the one thing which is striking about that and flows from the answer you gave earlier on in your evidence

02:41:42 evidence is how would the process you anticipate there

02:41:46 there capture any further or continuing problems with for example self-closing devices

02:41:55 can you rephrase that sorry well i had i suppose put differently how could you given the problem was continuing how could the process you set looking at your words how can the process you set

02:42:07 your words how can the process you set out in paragraph 17 there ensure that tmo was doing what they were meant to be doing

02:42:16 as i said earlier the the high-risk premises generally come out for inspection annually at the next inspection my inspecting officers

02:42:27 inspecting officers would routinely check fire doors so if it became

02:42:30 it became if it continued to be a problem and resulting in notices of deficiencies or enforcement notices then that would tell me that they haven't actioned what i'd asked

02:42:41 they haven't actioned what i'd asked them to action and flowing from that does that mean that you didn't have cause to specifically instruct the teams who are going around the tower to look out for

02:42:51 out for and flat entrance doors and stuff closing devices because it was done automatically yes it isn't the problem here not so much one of inspection but of method i mean

02:43:02 method i mean if your team turn up and find yourself closer not working that will only tell them it's not working today exactly it won't tell them whether it was working yesterday

02:43:13 whether it was working yesterday no so at these what you needed to know i assume was that there was a system in place for inspecting yes so immediately following myself raising these concerns i knew there was a period where janice

02:43:26 i knew there was a period where janice needed to

02:43:27 needed to firstly devise a program and then put it to a board for that to be implemented um at these meetings she did update me as to what was

02:43:38 she did update me as to what was happening with those meetings and but we would also if my team had served any notices from in between the meetings that we had they would always be discussed so the

02:43:51 they would always be discussed so the content of those notices would be discussed

02:43:55 discussed and it would be then that she would tell me what action had been taken to remedy those deficiencies

02:44:03 i think the issue will become clear as we go through the bi-monthly meetings i suspect sir yes so you're probably right and imminently we now turn to the fourth of march uh meeting in 2016 which was the next bi-monthly

02:44:14 bi-monthly and staying in your second witness statement if we could jump to paragraph 38 please which is at page 20

02:44:23 and there you refer to a further discussion about self-closers on the 4th of march 2016 and you say in the second line of paragraph 38 this

02:44:34 the second line of paragraph 38 this janice ray noted she had become aware of externally fitted self-closers i advise that these were acceptable for use on flat front doors whilst it is not recorded in the minutes i also recall that i did comment that

02:44:46 i also recall that i did comment that this would assist in a regular maintenance regime as they can be seen from outside of the flat

02:44:51 flat did you know why janice ray had asked you about externally fitted self-closing devices she regularly attended

02:44:59 attended meetings with other housing providers and one of those had said that they recently started to use them did you sense it was a it was a properly considered suggestion

02:45:10 it was a properly considered suggestion from her

02:45:11 from her that external self-closing devices could be fitted yes now at that meeting did you receive any update on the management process or the arrangements

02:45:22 arrangements uh for a maintenance regime that the tmo intended to implement for the maintenance of self-closing devices

02:45:31 i did receive an update but i'm not sure if i can't be certain if it was at this meeting

02:45:36 meeting well if we can kiss it perhaps a different way and that's uh fire an email from james swindells or swindles dated the first of august 2016

02:45:44 2016 and we can find that at cst quadruple zero

02:45:48 zero nine seven zero four and if we could turn to page two in the email chain

02:46:04 now we see an email there from janet ray to james

02:46:08 to james swindle he's one of your fire safety inspecting officers i think his name he was yes

02:46:15 and she says this and the fourth paragraph of her email is at the top thank you and i quote

02:46:21 quote with regard to the doors i would highlight that the majority of the tents and doors in this block were replaced with fully compliant self-closing fd30 door sets in 2012 2013 as part of a larger door replacement

02:46:32 as part of a larger door replacement program and clearly at the time of installation the doors were fitted with operational self-closing devices i would investigate the time frame you have requested regarding reinstating any self-closures which have been disabled or removed

02:46:44 been disabled or removed but i would emphasize that we cannot control the action of residents it is possible that once reinstated you or one of your colleagues could return to this blog and find the number of tenants have again removed or disabled their

02:46:55 again removed or disabled their self-closer now if we go to page one of the email chain and it's mr swindle's response

02:47:06 mr swindle's response and you see there in the middle of the page his email sent at 1201 on the 1st of august and if we could expand the third paragraph of that which starts with the word although he said this although the time of

02:47:18 he said this although the time of installation in 2012 2013 these doors may have been compliant article 11 of the order places an onus on the responsible person to monitor fire safety systems in place and article 17 requires you to maintain

02:47:30 and article 17 requires you to maintain fire safety systems i understand that resonance may cause problems but if you put a system in place to monitor and maintain and the doors and the resins are not co-operative you have shown due diligence and

02:47:42 you have shown due diligence and residents then become responsible under five three and article 22 with regards to cooperation and communication it might be appropriate to remind residents of this and the fact that self-closure on their own front door is not for their

02:47:54 own front door is not for their protection but for their neighbours now you copied in to mr swindell's response did he discuss the substance of that can you remember before he sent it with you

02:48:08 before he sent it with you i can't remember is his response a fair reflection of the lfb's attitude to these matters at the time yes

02:48:22 now following that communication in august 2016 were you ever made aware that the tmo had not put in place inspection and maintenance program for self-closing devices on flight entrance stores

02:48:37 from my memory i wasn't aware that the system had actually been instigated but they hadn't put something in place michael yeah it was still in consultation

02:48:49 now can i turn to a separate topic which is michelle mchugh's audit of the tower in

02:48:53 in october 2016. um first of all who is michelle mchugh she was an inspecting officer in my team now on the 27th of october 2016 she conducted a fire safety audit of the

02:49:04 conducted a fire safety audit of the tower

02:49:05 tower which resulted in the service of a notice of deficiencies dated the 17th of november 2016. the reference for that but we don't need to go to it is tmo10017254

02:49:17 to go to it is tmo10017254 now you say in your first witness statement we don't need to go to that that michelle mchugh's audit of grenfell was vetted by the deputy team leader watch manager clive stewart is that

02:49:28 watch manager clive stewart is that right yes

02:49:29 right yes now the reason i ask is that michelle mchugh states in her statement that she submitted the form to her team leader and that she discussed the notice of deficiencies with you can you help us there seems to be just a

02:49:40 can you help us there seems to be just a tension there as to who vetted what and when

02:49:43 when um so when inspecting officers submit their work for vetting it goes into a an area that myself and my deputy have access to so we both undertake the role

02:49:54 access to so we both undertake the role of betting that particular audit was vetted by mr stewart um it gets recorded by your pay number as to who vets what and in terms of the

02:50:06 what and in terms of the conversation i don't recollect that conversation would you have seen the or did you see the notice of deficiencies before it was issued

02:50:14 issued would you see it after if at all i wouldn't

02:50:18 wouldn't see it at all unless it was brought to my attention now can we turn to that deficiency notice just briefly now tmo12017254

02:50:35 you'll see from the top left-hand corner it's addressed to miss ray at the kensington chelsea tmo why was it only addressed to miss ray and not miss ray

02:50:44 ray and for example rbkc

02:50:48 so the the standard of us addressing our notices

02:50:52 notices um if it was an enforcement notice it would be addressed to the chief executive for the kctmo and for deficiencies notice is they would go to miss ray

02:51:03 would go to miss ray but why why wasn't it also addressed the council

02:51:07 council that wasn't our process i suppose put a different

02:51:11 different way who did you understand to be the responsible person for the tower the kctmo

02:51:18 the kctmo alone

02:51:22 so it is a bit mixed in that um the council have delegated responsibility to kctmo and they have control of the premises

02:51:35 but rbk are still the freeholders and have control over some budgets so it's they can both be responsible but

02:51:46 so it's they can both be responsible but in terms of the day-to-day control management of the systems the tmo where the responsible person for deficiency notices yes now just following on from that can we turn to the enforcement notice for a

02:51:57 we turn to the enforcement notice for a dare

02:51:59 dare rbk treble0029298

02:52:08 we can see from the top that's addressed to the tmo that's the tmos address if we could go to the bottom of page two of this enforcement notice though

02:52:20 and we'll see that cc first of janus rate but second is the housing department rbkc town hall haunted street w8

02:52:33 town hall haunted street w8 can you help us as to why the enforcement notice was copied to the housing department of rbkc

02:52:41 the inspecting officer instructs who notices rcc too um so this would have been a decision by matt ramsey

02:52:53 possibly because there was a substantial amount of works um regarding the ventilation system that might have fallen outside of the budget of kctmo and therefore

02:53:05 of kctmo and therefore the council would need to be informed thank you and so is your assumption that he was taking a belt and braces approach to this then yes now if we can park the adata

02:53:16 yes now if we can park the adata gnosis for the moment and return to the grenfell nature deficiency um we don't need to go to it unless you'd like to see it but were you aware that

02:53:23 that missing self-closing devices had been identified as a problem or is it efficiency to be accurate uh no as i said

02:53:30 as i said i didn't vet that notice myself so i hadn't seen it

02:53:35 so it wasn't something that michelle mchugh necessarily raised with you before she issued the notice not that i remember and watch manager stuart hadn't raised it with you either

02:53:50 now can i turn to a bi-monthly meeting in january 2017

02:54:02 in january 2017 now so i'm going to i think i can get this done in five minutes yes now if we can go back to your second witness statement

02:54:13 witness statement lfb triple zero eight four zero nine eight

02:54:18 and page twenty 21 and paragraph 41.

02:54:23 now there you refer to a yet further discussion about self-closing devices with janice ray at the bi-monthly meeting on the 18th of january 2017 which followed and noticed deficiencies

02:54:34 which followed and noticed deficiencies being served regarding barren and walk and other tmo property now you say in the middle of the third line this and i quote i confirmed again in these discussions that the lfb's position

02:54:45 that the lfb's position is that all doors are opening onto the means of escape should be fire rated which is understood to be self-closing with windows fixed closed are advised that further discussions should be had with their

02:54:56 discussions should be had with their fire risk assessor close quotes was this discussion specifically in relation to flat entrance doors at barrandon walk or was it a broad discussion involving all of the

02:55:07 all of the tmo housing stock it was specific to barrendon walk this was a an odd building and they used to be open to air but they then enclosed it

02:55:19 open to air but they then enclosed it with an atrium so that the original doors were not fire resisting

02:55:25 resisting and then once they enclosed it they should have upgraded them at this meeting notwithstanding band and walk

02:55:33 walk did you have any further discussions with janice ray as to what management processes

02:55:39 processes had been put in place to ensure a suitable and sufficient maintenance and inspection regime for flat entrance doors and self-closing devices

02:55:56 now before you left in june 2017 were you given any clarity or assurance as to

02:56:05 as to when a maintenance inspection regime would be put in place so the the last update i'd had from janice was that she had written a strategy document which

02:56:18 written a strategy document which recommended a three-year program and that she had taken that to the board and they'd wanted to increase that to five years

02:56:29 five years to which i'd said that that wouldn't be acceptable and did you give reasons to her as to why that wouldn't be acceptable to the lfb

02:56:36 lfb because we'd already given them time in the pre

02:56:40 the pre previously you know when they first started their risk assessments to carry out this work and being assured that that work had actually been carried out and to the extent that only eight

02:56:51 and to the extent that only eight leaseholder doors were now deficient so from our point of view it was work that should have already been done and we was disappointed that it hadn't been

02:57:02 we was disappointed that it hadn't been done

02:57:03 done and because flat front doors are critical

02:57:07 critical to the safety of persons within our premises

02:57:11 premises we would want that work carried out sooner rather than later miss burton thank you very much sir it is nearly one o'clock that has been in place subject to your approval yes certainly

02:57:22 yes certainly well the time we all had a break for lunch this person so we'll take that break now we'll come back and resume at two o'clock please okay and i have to ask you while you're out of the room please don't talk to anyone

02:57:34 of the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it

02:57:36 to it okay all right thank you very much would you like to go to the usher then

02:57:50 you like to go to the usher then thank you two o'clock thank you

02:58:11 you

↩ All hearings