Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Evidence - Monday 7th June 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:20 yes would you ask australia to come back in please

00:00:33 all right mr are you ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes thank you very much mr chairman ms ray before the lunch break we were looking at tmo tm00870171

00:00:46 break we were looking at tmo tm00870171 you can just have that back up on the screen please this is a this is the document we looked at

00:00:54 at dated december 2009 entitled fire safety policy

00:00:59 policy um taking from me that there's no reference in it to fire risk assessments appointing a fire safety assistant fire prevention general fire precautions

00:01:10 fire prevention general fire precautions dangerous substances training of staff or cooperation or coordination with other responsible persons i'm right am i in thinking that this document so far as you're familiar with it at all doesn't and

00:01:21 familiar with it at all doesn't and doesn't purport to implement the selves recommendations it doesn't be quite correct um can we

00:01:29 um can we look then at tm00870933 i just want to ask you about what this is

00:01:38 is uh it's a document entitled fire protection systems policy and procedure latest working document 10th february 2012 version 7. um are you familiar with this document

00:01:49 um are you familiar with this document um

00:01:50 um yes it was drafted by john bora who's a policy and compliance officer who was based in um asset and regeneration the technical division

00:02:01 division um and

00:02:04 um and yeah i think there were various versions of it right this one was signed off by the health and safety committee as you can see

00:02:09 can see from the box in june 2012 did you have any input into its production uh very little i should think um right john was based in the technical

00:02:20 technical division um and he had ready access to the contracts management team so presumably he would have worked with them to put this together i see you can see from the box that versions one two and three

00:02:32 the box that versions one two and three are drafted or rather authorized by a d a i e and then d

00:02:37 then d a e who is a d and d um i'm guessing it could be assistant director um or director absolutely yeah assistant director

00:02:47 director a i'm assuming ad is assistant director and d is director and a i and e were assets investment in engineering right which was the name of the assets and region division before it got changed

00:02:59 region division before it got changed changed to to assets and regeneration regeneration i see do you know who finally approved it it says

00:03:06 says signed off by h s committee who who was it who signed that off uh don't know really um it would have just been wafted in front of the health and safety committee at some stage but i don't really recall to

00:03:17 some stage but i don't really recall to be honest

00:03:18 be honest right um

00:03:21 right um underneath the uh well how did this document relate to the fire safety policy dated december 2009 that we've seen or can you

00:03:32 december 2009 that we've seen or can you not help us with that um i think they're entirely separate right

00:03:36 right was this policy and procedure created in response to salvos recommendations to create

00:03:40 create policies and procedures to maintain fire safety systems um it may be one of the it may be one of the documents that um

00:03:52 it may be one of the documents that um john was putting together as part of his input into that right i see um now um can we look please at tm00899327

00:04:05 this version is uh dated january 2017 and this is version 8 as you can see and this was last updated in june 2012 so it goes from 2012

00:04:17 so it goes from 2012 to january 2017. so it's the next one on okay um do you know what um uh well first do you know why this document wasn't updated between 2012 and

00:04:29 document wasn't updated between 2012 and 2017

00:04:30 2017 no sorry do you know why it wasn't reviewed in june 2013 as version 7 suggested it should be no i don't know that either you don't uh do you know what prompted

00:04:42 you don't uh do you know what prompted this document to be updated what caused it to be updated at that point january 2017. i can only suggest that it might be because at that stage we were reviewing the strategy

00:04:54 stage we were reviewing the strategy document the first safety strategy document and that may have prompted john to

00:04:58 to resurrect any anything else that he had can you help us with why although the date of this document is 10th january 2017 it was going to be reviewed by may 2017 only five months on from that

00:05:11 2017 only five months on from that sorry i can't right you could see that you were the person who authorized this document

00:05:18 uh yes you look you sound puzzled why is that um just because it would normally be signed off by the health and safety committee and not just by me well well it appears

00:05:30 and not just by me well well it appears to have been signed off just by you we've taken it that you were responsible for this document is that wrong um yeah that's wrong i mean it was largely drafted by john in in um consultation with his technical

00:05:42 in um consultation with his technical colleagues and at that point he would normally have come to the health and safety committee for approval and i would not normally sign off somebody else's documentation on my own that's not

00:05:53 that's not my i see style i just want to ask you one specific question about the differences between version 7 which was june 2012 and version 8 january 2017. can we have

00:06:05 and version 8 january 2017. can we have both up at the same time please so we've got this one which is uh this document can we have version seven tmo double zero eight seven zero nine three three uh and i just want

00:06:16 zero nine three three uh and i just want to go to page two of each document under paragraph 1.2

00:06:23 and under 1.2

00:06:27 you can see that there is a list of planned preventative maintenance service visits carried out as follows and if you look at the um 2017

00:06:38 and if you look at the um 2017 version you can see that there is some there is a reference to the automatic opening vents as the last item there you see that yes frequency has agreed and that's

00:06:49 yes frequency has agreed and that's absent from the 2012 version do you know why this was added to the fire protection systems procedure in 2017

00:06:57 in 2017 only no presumably because it should have been in the previous one and for reasons i don't understand and can't explain it wasn't well

00:07:07 well thank you my question the next question was was the aov not a significant omission from the previous drafts of this policy yes yeah um can i then turn

00:07:18 yes yeah um can i then turn to the document you referred to earlier on this morning which was your 20 november 2013 fire safety strategy and i'd like to start the history of that document please with cst40118

00:07:34 now this is an email dated the 18th of january 2013 in which you send a draft copy of something called a fire safety policy draft sept

00:07:45 fire safety policy draft sept 2012 to colin sorry carl stokes and you are you say to him attached is a very very rough draft of this and i'd be really grateful for

00:07:56 of this and i'd be really grateful for your comments specifically what else should i include are there areas where more detail is required and other appendices to be included etc the last page is a brain dump of other things i maybe should include what do

00:08:07 things i maybe should include what do you think

00:08:08 you think really appreciate your help with this is i'm sick of the sight of it and then there's something personal in the last line um now um you've you can see from the attachments that it's it's saved as a draft september 2012.

00:08:22 it's saved as a draft september 2012. the attachment uh is at cst402046

00:08:30 if we look at that please

00:08:35 you've referred to the document as a first safety policy but in fact it's entitled tmo fire safety strategy do i take it that there was no substantive distinction between calling

00:08:46 substantive distinction between calling it a policy uh or a strategy no i probably hadn't just made my mind up at that time very well did you draft this document to address

00:08:54 address one of the failings or more than one of the failings identified by salvas in there september 29 yes i did yes yes you did and was it intended do you know to

00:09:05 and was it intended do you know to replace or update the december 2009 fire safety policy signed by robert black we saw earlier or can you not help us given your ignorance of that document um

00:09:18 i think when i've been pondering that what the document that you showed me i wonder if that was my embryonic start at pulling together a safety strategy document that then got parked in view of

00:09:29 parked in view of other work i can only assume that was the case i don't think that was ever adopted

00:09:33 adopted so this would have been to replace that obviously right now for the purposes of drafting this document do you recall whether you referred to any particular policy documents such as for example the lga guide which was by then about a

00:09:46 the lga guide which was by then about a year old

00:09:46 year old or the sleeping accommodation guide i thought i

00:09:50 thought i would have mentioned the lga guide i may or may not have mentioned the sleeping guide i'm not sure

00:09:59 did you seek the advice or guidance from the rbkc health and safety advisor when you were drafting this document or anyone within their department i don't believe so did you seek

00:10:11 i don't believe so did you seek help only therefore from carl stokes um from my colleagues i think the email that you showed me was sent to adrian and cyril my colleagues but i would have also consulted widely

00:10:22 consulted widely in the operations division because i was trying to reflect the practices that they had in terms of inspections and maintenance and all of the other areas that were under their control right um i'm sorry just one last thing

00:10:33 right um i'm sorry just one last thing and i may have consulted the fire brigade on specific aspects of it or if if i was looking to be clear that we were um adhering to their standards right now we know that carl stokes replied with his comments

00:10:45 replied with his comments to you as we can see from this document uh and he did so on the 1st of february 2013. we don't need to go to the email it is for reference purposes that's cst

00:10:58 3030180 do you know what happened to this draft document

00:11:04 document after carl stokes had returned his comments to you on first of february 2013

00:11:09 2013 i don't other than if it's in a more finalized version i may have sought um comments from my line manager or

00:11:21 um comments from my line manager or comments from other people who's any changes he's made if they've impacted on other other people's work um i i don't know sorry i just want to pick up one thing in this document for

00:11:32 pick up one thing in this document for the time being if i may can we please go to page 13 and go to paragraph 24.

00:11:40 fire procedures i'll read it to you

00:11:45 staff who are not fully able-bodied and who may need assistance to be alerted to the fire alarm and or require assistance to evacuate from the office are required to have a personal emergency evacuation plan peep

00:11:56 emergency evacuation plan peep the h s team will meet with the individual and together they will complete a pro forma clarifying their specific evacuation procedure in some cases this involves the use of a lightweight evac chair and training of staff

00:12:08 evac chair and training of staff in its use and any additional assistance they will be provided etc the peep will be reviewed on a regular basis and when the needs strike ability of the individual change in any way a copy of the peep pro

00:12:20 change in any way a copy of the peep pro forma

00:12:21 forma is at appendix 9. that's page 33. now we'll come we'll come back to that in due course but it looks from this document as if it had attracted no comments

00:12:33 had attracted no comments from carl stokes that's right isn't it doesn't appear to happen no now we'll come back to that as i say can we then move on into 2013 and go please to tm01

00:12:44 into 2013 and go please to tm01 triple zero two six four eight

00:12:53 these are the minutes of a meeting of the assets and regeneration and repairs health and safety group of the 18th of april 2013. and you were

00:13:04 of the 18th of april 2013. and you were you are there as you can see yes from the end of the first line of day's present yes yes now um this group where did that sit within the tmos structure of uh committees groups um

00:13:19 uh committees groups um so i i think it dates back to shortly after we commissioned salvas when we were generating fire risk actions um initially i was meeting with managers of the teams who are receiving the actions

00:13:31 the teams who are receiving the actions on a sort of fortnightly or monthly basis

00:13:33 basis to to try and trigger them along and make sure that they were completing the actions in the required time frame i think um that that that group then became more kind of formalized and

00:13:44 formalized and because there were operational people mostly

00:13:48 mostly in relation to repairs and contracts management the assets in regeneration and repairs health and safety group was formed and i think i believe john bora chaired that group as their compliance

00:13:59 chaired that group as their compliance and policy what happened to that group i don't actually know to be honest um i'm wondering if once we got a workflow which was imminently due

00:14:11 a workflow which was imminently due it came in in the first of august 2013 um

00:14:15 um that actually we were able to provide them with much better information consistently and i'm and and then actually um the operations health and safety group started at about

00:14:27 health and safety group started at about the same time so i think it got superseded by i was going to ask you whether this mutated in in part at least into the operations committee right i see now can i ask you to look at page three please um item one item 7.1

00:14:41 um item one item 7.1 fire safety policy and this is under the heading risk assessment progress update a fire risk assessment progress update this fire safety policy being drafted

00:14:52 this fire safety policy being drafted nearly completed will include inspection frequency evacuation strategy how we deal with lessee doors etc you see that

00:15:00 see that yes now um

00:15:03 do you recall a discussion on the subject on that subject

00:15:09 i don't recall it but we very likely would have had one right and the fire safety policy is that the document which should come back to you from carl stokes on the 1st of february 2013 we saw earlier yes sorry i obviously keep interchanging

00:15:21 yes sorry i obviously keep interchanging the language which isn't very helpful but yes but that right i see now then let's

00:15:26 let's um look please at uh later in the year tmo one triple zero four seven two six

00:15:36 this is a set of minutes of the operational health and safety committee meeting of the 15th of november 2013. you are present second item down and you can see some other names from

00:15:49 and you can see some other names from the

00:15:50 the um assets and regeneration repairs and health and safety group earlier in the year uh but by now can we take it that the operational health and safety

00:16:00 safety group was up and running yes yes um and if you gave please to page six and look at the last bullet point under aob

00:16:10 that reads fire safety policy we need to provide the lfb with our policy in mid-december janus will circulate the draft policy and would welcome feedback in advance of this deadline is the draft policy the

00:16:23 this deadline is the draft policy the document that you'd sent to mr stokes in the january of that year and got back from him on the 1st of february with the yellow and green highlighting it would seem so yes did you in fact circulate

00:16:35 circulate a draft or the draft policy before that time

00:16:39 time um i probably circulated it several times because it it was in preparation for far too long as you can right do you remember what the document was that you were looking at at this meeting or referring to at this meeting was it

00:16:50 or referring to at this meeting was it the one that mr stakes had sent back to you

00:16:52 you in february or had there been further changes to it since then i believe there would have been further changes too do you know when those have been made or what they said or what the sorry i'd right i don't know we haven't seen i

00:17:03 i'd right i don't know we haven't seen i think any

00:17:04 think any any of those um do you remember getting any feedback from this meeting on that draft

00:17:09 draft assuming it to be the same document or substantially the same document um it's it's likely that they would have taken it away um to and i would have had any comments back by

00:17:20 back by separate email right um um all right then let's go to the strategy itself this is at

00:17:30 tm00830598 is the document we looked at earlier on this morning yes and on page 15 it has november 2013 and your name at the bottom is this the document that was referred to at the operational health

00:17:42 referred to at the operational health and safety committee meeting on the 15th of november do you think probably uh do you remember whether you received any comments on the substance of this document from the members of the health and safety committee the operations health

00:17:54 safety committee the operations health operational health and safety committee uh i don't know i don't know is unfortunately the answer but

00:18:05 unfortunately the answer but there's clearly quite a lot in here about neighborhood inspections um and such like so i would have had to be clear that what it was in here reflected their working practices right um so if i didn't get feedback i

00:18:16 right um so if i didn't get feedback i would have been chasing them just to confirm that this was this was an accurate reflection of what they were doing

00:18:21 doing do you remember whether you based it on the rough policy document you'd sent to carl stokes in january and he'd come back to you on the 1st of february probably if you don't recall no do you remember starting from scratch in 20th after february 2013.

00:18:34 in 20th after february 2013. no no that was my working document it may have changed many times subsequently but yeah it was based on that right and when drafting it what materials did you work from or refer to do you think

00:18:45 do you think we've got the last page there but go back to the first page if we would please

00:18:49 please um i know that there were some appendices um i think did we append the esa checklist

00:18:57 checklist and such like yes well if you go to page 15

00:19:02 15 or page 16 you are right that that is appendix 1. just pop that up page 16. estate staff inspection checklist that's appendix one so that was appended yes um you drafted that i assume

00:19:14 yes um you drafted that i assume did you um i didn't draft the original but i added to it and reviewed it and and um worked with martin barr they're a state

00:19:21 state services team leader

00:19:25 was it this document that you gave to nick cummery of the lfb at the bi-monthly meeting yes in december yes it was did the nfb comment on that no they

00:19:36 did the nfb comment on that no they literally never came back to me just for reference purposes that's lfb50987

00:19:42 lfb50987 page two item nine there's no need to turn it up given your crystal clear recollection of it um can i then ask you about the next operational health and

00:19:54 about the next operational health and safety committee meeting on the 17th of january 2014 uh tmo double zero eight four zero three eight four

00:20:04 first page third bullet minuted fire policy

00:20:08 policy michael and janice will meet to discuss any changes janice informed the group that the fire brigade have already been given the draft however the finalized version could be signed off at next month's meeting had the fire safety strategy that we saw

00:20:22 had the fire safety strategy that we saw not been approved by this time or had it been approved it had can i just um clarify so michael was only recently appointed he was the repost direct health and safety

00:20:33 was the repost direct health and safety manager and that's michael lyons yes that's right um and i had already signed it off and as

00:20:40 as as you say given a copy to the fire brigade but i thought well there was value in him seeing what our strategy looked like and he might have had

00:20:47 have had something useful to contribute we could always have reviewed and going for a subsequent version um so i gave that to him um and well probably you'll lead me on to

00:20:58 and well probably you'll lead me on to it but he sent back something that was entirely different um and based on a structure that we didn't actually have so in in all of the documentation there is a fire safety policy which is allegedly

00:21:10 policy which is allegedly written by michael and myself that we never adopted because it didn't it didn't

00:21:14 didn't reflect um right working practice i think you've encapsulated in summary what i am going to come on to sorry uh no it's all right um just just at this stage though just on on what was happening

00:21:25 on what was happening at this time yes you had drafted the november 2013 fire safety strategy you'd given that to the lfb in in december they'd effectively improved it approved it but

00:21:39 approved it but at this meeting mr lyons is brought on board

00:21:43 board and he's going to have another look at it well he's he's their health and safety manager i wasn't sure whether he'd have any comments to make but it was important that he saw it because obviously he's he's responsible

00:21:54 because obviously he's he's responsible for the responsive repairs so if there are things in there that he feels need to reflect their working practices differently or their time frames or whatever now was the time to find out really what was his role in the fire safety strategy

00:22:07 was his role in the fire safety strategy um well repost direct were always kind of entirely separate but obviously when there are actions that that are of a responsive nature then they need to be allocated to them so from my perspective i saw him as

00:22:19 so from my perspective i saw him as expediting anything that needed to be done making sure it was done to the right standard that it was done to fire resisting

00:22:24 resisting um etc did you discuss any substantive changes with michael lyons no and i was rather surprised that when he responded to my email it was with an

00:22:35 responded to my email it was with an entirely different document okay but let's just take this in stages then uh

00:22:41 then uh you say that the lfb were provided with a copy of the draft fire safety strategy did they ever get a further version beyond the one that mr cummery got in december no no right now moving on in time we know that the

00:22:53 now moving on in time we know that the next operational health and safety committee meeting was on the 21st of march 2014. um let's look at the minute to that but i'm really i'm asking you a series of negative tmo double zero eight four four

00:23:05 negative tmo double zero eight four four zero two four there's the minute of it

00:23:12 okay there it is 21st of march 2014 you are present as is michael lyons now one can scroll down through this document

00:23:21 document but take it from me that there is no reference in this this minute to the fire safety strategy or policy do you know why that was um possibly um when i received

00:23:33 possibly um when i received michael's email appending an entirely different document i looked through it and it set up a structure

00:23:40 structure for managing fire safety which wasn't the one that we currently had and it seemed to um reflect that the that the oversight of the fire risk assessment process would be

00:23:51 assessment process would be a contract manager role uh newly created reporting to alex bosman um and so i sent which was news to me i i hadn't been made aware that there were going to be

00:24:02 made aware that there were going to be substantive changes so i sent the copy of the policy through to anthony parks my line manager and said actually michael's given me this does this reflect a change that's going to happen

00:24:13 reflect a change that's going to happen um and he came back and said no that wasn't the case um that that i imagine that those discussions must have been had and ultimately they must have

00:24:24 been had and ultimately they must have decided not to progress that but i wasn't party to any of those conversations so i can't really tell you anything

00:24:29 anything no i'm just trying to work out what happened to the november 2013 fire safety strategy it was signed off by the operations committee and the lfb but then was left open

00:24:37 open does this tell us that because of the uh arrival if you like of michael lyons the november 2013 fire safety strategy was never actually formally approved and adopted by the opera either

00:24:49 approved and adopted by the opera either the operational health and safety committee

00:24:51 committee or the health and safety committee no it was it was it was adopted it was it was merely from my perspective it was finalized it i wouldn't have given it to the fire brigade if i didn't feel it was it was

00:25:02 brigade if i didn't feel it was it was just

00:25:02 just as a courtesy because michael was new and he was um integral in getting some of the actions progressed it felt like he at least ought to be aware of what we were saying but also if he felt strongly that something

00:25:14 if he felt strongly that something needed to be edited i wanted him to have the opportunity to do that i follow that that that's very clear now then i think we can take the rest of this a little bit more quickly can we go please to

00:25:24 to tmo1004 dub um i'm sorry tmo10040770 um this is a 2014 fire safety

00:25:37 um this is a 2014 fire safety policy uh

00:25:40 policy uh author job title health and safety manager

00:25:44 manager date of issue january 2014 review date january 2015 at the very bottom of your screen you can see author michael lyons is this a document that arrived in your inbox from him

00:25:55 inbox from him i believe it is we're not expecting no right

00:25:58 right um now there are various iterations of this document but the most recent one we have

00:26:02 have is i'll show it to you tm00856458 and it's got an issue date of may 2014

00:26:13 and it's got an issue date of may 2014 as you can see there with joint authorship at the bottom you and michael lyons do you recognize that document uh no uh can you explain how your name

00:26:24 uh no uh can you explain how your name appears as author i can't um if i'm sure this is the same document which clearly shows the fire safety function sitting within um the contracts management team in

00:26:35 um the contracts management team in which case i would never have authored that document because that did not reflect

00:26:38 reflect our um our structure uh you sound as if you're familiar with this is that because you've reviewed this document closely before giving evidence so you can say that i think i've spanned it i'm confident that i've scanned it fair enough

00:26:49 that i've scanned it fair enough all right

00:26:53 so so can we take it then this document um

00:26:58 um as it were came from nowhere and went nowhere pretty much right um then we uh let's move on then into may 2014

00:27:06 may 2014 proper uh tmo one triple zero six three five eight and i'm going to ask you about matt hodgson uh what i'm showing you is a minute from

00:27:17 uh what i'm showing you is a minute from the operational health and safety committee meeting on the 16th of may 2014 and you are present um you can see that uh uh peter madison and saturday evans are

00:27:28 peter madison and saturday evans are also present and if you go to page three under the uh item progress with review

00:27:38 it's actually part of three i think although the three has gone a bit awry progress with review stroke adoption of matt hodgson's h s policies do you see that

00:27:46 that and it says sj sasha jevons raised concerns over the lack of formality of signing off new processes pm suggested that jw should take the comments straight feedback from this group to anthony

00:27:58 feedback from this group to anthony parks

00:27:59 parks before presenting it to the board the group discussed how best to finalize stroke implement matt's policies and it was agreed that this should be tied into the session with et on third june as well as including it

00:28:11 on third june as well as including it with within the report to the board meeting in july now matt's policies is that a reference to matt hodgson it is yes and his role was what to include uh providing health and safety

00:28:23 include uh providing health and safety services to the tmo yes um he was engaged by um anthony and robert i believe to have a look at health and safety across the organization

00:28:34 across the organization this was in an action in the follow-up to the audit report which got limited assurance so he was appointed to do that he he interviewed quite a few of us and

00:28:46 he he interviewed quite a few of us and he eventually produced a report which he presented to exec team

00:28:50 exec team um which made quite a lot of recommendations i think you might showed me some of it earlier the one where he said it was the competent person yes um and so there were a range of things

00:29:01 um and so there were a range of things that he recommended and some of them were

00:29:03 were fairly specific policies around legionella and such like and he went on i presume he was then commissioned to go on and draft some of these policies do you know why sorry sorry i'm so sorry

00:29:14 do you know why sorry sorry i'm so sorry no no i was going to say at this stage um

00:29:16 um i think there was some frustration about there not being any formal sign-off for the policies that he was drafting right and did it was his role to include fire safety policy

00:29:27 fire safety policy no i don't think he really had a remit specifically in regards to fire safety policy

00:29:31 policy right why was sasha jevons concerned about the lack of formality about signing off new processes do you remember um i mean i sorry

00:29:44 i mean i sorry anthony from the best of my recollection anthony

00:29:47 anthony engaged matt and i had never seen his brief so i wasn't really clear what he'd been asked to do but that was absolutely fine

00:29:53 fine but then i think the brief also changed and i i think sasha's frustration was that she was perhaps not party to those conversations i assumed they were ahead with all of the executive team but perhaps not right so and there were things um

00:30:06 right so and there were things um happening that she was unhappy with or she she felt related to her areas and she perhaps didn't have control over oversight of i'm

00:30:13 i'm i'm speculating but that's my sort of memory of that's okay now tell me do you know

00:30:17 know in simple terms what was the reason why matt hodgson was retained in the first place

00:30:21 place um i think it was in relation to the limited assurance audit and there was a view well let's have a more rigorous look at all of our compliancy all of our health and safety issues and see if if there are any

00:30:33 issues and see if if there are any issues that we need to decide rather than just look at the the rbkc audit which was fairly short fairly brief now there's no reference here to the 2014 fire safety policy

00:30:47 to the 2014 fire safety policy or indeed in any of the health and safety committee meeting minutes in 2014 is that because as you agreed with me earlier the michael lyons draft

00:30:59 michael lyons draft went in one area out the other pretty much right yeah it i mean it wasn't adopted because it didn't reflect our practice now moving then on to 2015 uh can i just show you something

00:31:13 uh can i just show you something from alpesh patel this is rbk three zeros five eight two four five this is alpesh patel's second witness statement to the inquiry and he's explaining the march 2016 rbkc

00:31:26 and he's explaining the march 2016 rbkc audit of tmo's health and safety system that's his statement on the screen yes do you remember him being involved in the 2016 audit

00:31:34 audit um yeah he he was involved in several audits um

00:31:38 audits um and so he obviously in in doing that work he would spend some time with my colleague adrian and with myself right now if you go to page 12 please in that statement paragraph 32

00:31:49 that statement paragraph 32 you'll see that he says this at the end of the third line

00:31:56 he says the testing schedule shows that janice ray provided me with examples of the latest internal policies and procedures which had recently been refreshed and updated examples of which included the water management policy

00:32:08 water management policy water management procedures asbestos policy gas access and gas safety policy and

00:32:12 and fire safety policy and strategy ap 238 uh now he exhibits ap 38 and that is at rbk

00:32:21 rbk three zeros five eight two three six let's just tease that out it's a document as you'll see entitled fire safety policy and strategy which is

00:32:32 fire safety policy and strategy which is how he correctly refers to it uh and it's in a format we saw earlier the michael lyons format and it's dated may 2014 with a review date of 2015 and you are the author at the bottom do

00:32:43 and you are the author at the bottom do you recognize this document uh not at first glance um could i look inside you absolutely let's go to page one

00:32:56 go to page one well rather let's go to page two there's there's all three um okay it looks at a glance like me reformatting what we already had

00:33:07 like me reformatting what we already had in our strategy document being the november 13th yes it may well go looks like it goes beyond that and obviously it mentions the lga guide

00:33:16 guide um so it looks like uh a slightly updated but right sort of now we've seen no record that this document was ever presented to the operational health and safety committee for approval

00:33:28 health and safety committee for approval is that correct yes probably is so do you know whether it was ever approved and adopted formally

00:33:37 um i don't uh given that we have no record that the health and safety committee approved this document uh do you know under whose authority it was issued if it was ever issued it says

00:33:48 was issued if it was ever issued it says date of issue may 2014. do you know whether it was actually a sued i don't believe it was right um i wonder if it was it was in a draft version that i gave to alpesh

00:33:59 draft version that i gave to alpesh i can't why would you have given it to alpesh patel if in fact it was it was never approved well if i'd explained that it was a draft version that we were we were looking to work to i don't know

00:34:10 we were looking to work to i don't know i mean that's all i can suggest right on our review the content is closely similar to or similar at least to the 2013 november 2013 fire safety strategy you drafted

00:34:22 2013 fire safety strategy you drafted and which was approved was this intended to be a revised version of that document

00:34:29 i think that the feedback i had from anthony parks to the document that michael lyons produced uh sort of said oh i like i like this aspect of and i like that aspect of it

00:34:40 aspect of and i like that aspect of it and i i maybe took on board some of what he said and tried to redraft but this didn't get adopted we were still we're still on 2013 right okay then let's move into 2016

00:34:51 right okay then let's move into 2016 proper can we go to your first witness statement please at paragraph 190 tm050890 page 42 paragraph 190. and you say there

00:35:03 paragraph 190. and you say there in november 2016 it was agreed between the tmo health and safety committee and the rbkc that the tmo fire safety strategy would be revised now would you agree just pausing there

00:35:15 now would you agree just pausing there that the process for reviewing the fire safety strategy started in april 2016. yes and we know that because there's a health and safety committee meeting on

00:35:26 health and safety committee meeting on the 12th of april 2016 where that's referred to yes that's that's right i think rbkc got involved by

00:35:34 by november because that's when we were talking to them about budgets for self-closures and um right let me just put that up on the screen so that everybody can see what you and i are talking about it's tmo one double zero one two eight

00:35:46 it's tmo one double zero one two eight one one

00:35:47 one one page four let's have page one to start with

00:35:50 with to set to show you the date and the attendees of the meeting

00:35:56 uh can we just that's it we can see you're there 12th of april 2016

00:36:03 2016 uh page four please bottom of page four item six

00:36:10 review fire safety policy and strategy janus advised that it was timely to review our fire strategy to ensure it continues to be compliant with legislation and best practice and that we are able to effectively control the fire risks

00:36:21 control the fire risks that we face uh and the result of that was as you say in your statement uh a rev

00:36:29 rev that there should be a revision um let's go then to tm010024351 this is the document you presented i think to that meeting

00:36:41 think to that meeting just confirm that first of all it's a document entitled review of fire safety strategy paper paper four so is that a document it looks like it yes

00:36:52 is that a document it looks like it yes but page two has your your name at the bottom you just go to that yeah the date of april 2016. and if we look at the second if you go back to page one and look at the second paragraph of that you say

00:37:04 paragraph of that you say uh that uh health and safety committee is encouraged to provide their views on our current strategy and any changes that they feel are required to assist with this process a copy of

00:37:15 to assist with this process a copy of the current strategy is attached and some initial points for consideration summarized below if you look at page three the current strategy

00:37:24 strategy is there uh the november that's the november 2013 version of the fire safety strategy

00:37:30 strategy yes but with a note which says for review april 2016 and again just to be absolutely clear page 20

00:37:39 page 20 is where we see your name and and date november 2013. okay so it it looks as if uh suddenly by april 2016 the november 2013 fire safety strategy

00:37:52 the november 2013 fire safety strategy was still in force yes yes uh and hadn't been superseded by the 2014 michael lyons document or the 2015 document that you gave to alpha patel in the spring of 2016. yes yes yes right that's very clear

00:38:05 yes yes yes right that's very clear um now if we uh go please to page one of this document

00:38:13 document we can see that you say uh it is the first paragraph it is timely to review this strategy to ensure that our policies continue to comply with legislation and london fire brigade advice straight

00:38:26 and london fire brigade advice straight guidance and requirements just pausing there and you set out uh after the second paragraph a long list of bullet points for review uh second one is management

00:38:37 for review uh second one is management arrangements for fire safety the third is lfb home fire safety visits the fourth is fire extinguishers hose reels dry and wet risers the fifth is about fras and if you look

00:38:49 the fifth is about fras and if you look at the third bullet point or sub bullet point there it deals with material alterations you see that significant changes to block or type of resident or major fire and then the sixth bullet point stay put

00:39:01 and then the sixth bullet point stay put evacuation strategy better publicity query now that was in paper four that's what you produced for the health and safety committee

00:39:11 committee do you know whether this paper was presented to any other tmo committee or the executive team or senior management team smt um

00:39:22 smt um it would be my assumption that because this committee feeds directly into the executive

00:39:27 executive committee and barbara's role as executive team health and safety person i would assume that she discussed this with them also as you know sasha's also on this

00:39:39 also as you know sasha's also on this group so we've already got two members of executive team who are kind of engaged in this process i i can't tell you what goes to senior management team because i was never a member and i i didn't see their agendas or i don't even know how frequently they

00:39:51 i don't even know how frequently they met so i wouldn't be in a position to advise on that right now do you know can you remember what triggered

00:39:56 triggered this uh list or this this um suggestion that there should be a a new review and it that it should include these points

00:40:08 points um we need to review things regularly um the most obvious reason for it being now is the adult how far which had obviously just happened um but there's a lot of things

00:40:19 there's a lot of things here that we've been thinking and pondering about how we could do differently or how we could do better so this is just me kind of doing a brain dump of things that i think should be considered but obviously it's not necessarily comprehensive

00:40:30 necessarily comprehensive it's just a starter for 10 really now if we go back to where we were in your statement paragraph 190 page 42 please you say

00:40:41 42 please you say uh the main changes were intended to implement where we intended to implement were a more proactive approach to the installation of self-closing devices to flat doors see that yes uh across the stock an

00:40:53 see that yes uh across the stock an increasing an increase in the frequency of fras and a requirement for fire action notices in the communal entrance lobbies of all blocks

00:41:00 blocks then you go on to say i provide the history uh now in the beginning of that paragraph you refer to an agreement with rbkc to cover those topics who was it at rbkc who was involved in

00:41:14 who was it at rbkc who was involved in the decision to make those changes do you know

00:41:18 um my understanding is that barbara um was it called joint management team i think barbara discussed with laura and laura's colleagues um i don't know what what stage the

00:41:29 um i don't know what what stage the engagement started but the the decision about self-closure as an inspection programs

00:41:34 programs um was discussed with i believe laura possibly also amanda i'm not not clear then we then come to 2017 uh and i just want to ask you about the version of the fire safety strategy

00:41:48 version of the fire safety strategy in play in that year the year of the fire tm010017036 this is the tmo fire safety strategy

00:42:01 this is the tmo fire safety strategy dated june 2017

00:42:05 yes and if we go to page 17 you can we can see it bears your name and date

00:42:16 and date uh i'll come back to uh well i may not need to but in your statement can we just go look at your uh first statement please at page 41.

00:42:34 paragraph 186 you say at the time of the fire the tmo had in place a fire safety strategy which was an overarching strategy document outlining how fire safety was to be approached by the organization

00:42:46 approached by the organization you refer to the document i've just shown you

00:42:49 shown you i produced the first draft which was reviewed by the health and safety committee before it went to the executive team i'm aware that there are many draft versions of this strategy as it was often reviewed and discussed

00:43:00 often reviewed and discussed however a version was always enforced at any given time and then if we go to page 191 sorry paragraph 191 of your statement page 42 it says at the time of

00:43:11 statement page 42 it says at the time of the fire

00:43:13 the fire in june 2017 the updated tmo fire safety strategy was in its final draft stage and i recall that we had a final review meeting the day before the fire the updated strategy took longer to

00:43:24 the updated strategy took longer to implement than expected due to lengthy discussions that took place between barbara matthews and the rbkc

00:43:30 rbkc in respect of the process and program for retrofitting self-closing devices to every flat entrance door in the stock i was not involved in these discussions however my understanding is that the tmo recommended completing the retrofitting

00:43:42 recommended completing the retrofitting program within three years whereas the rbkc required the program to be completed

00:43:46 completed over five years now um is it right therefore that the 2017 fire safety strategy was still under review at the time of the grenfell tower fire it was agreed on the 13th it was a

00:43:58 it was agreed on the 13th it was a degrade at the meeting right it was agreed i see yeah so it was in place at the time of the fire in that sense yeah right now given that the process of revision

00:44:10 now given that the process of revision had started in april 2017 would you know why the updated version of the fire safety strategy only reached the tmo health and safety committee in june of that year

00:44:22 in june of that year i think without going back in the minutes and the minutes will be clear i think it had been to the committee on at least one or two occasions before but there was quite a lot that we were tweaking and we were looking to review

00:44:33 tweaking and we were looking to review um and there were things like in terms of the self-closure program um we were asked to obtain prices and there were various things that were outside of my control

00:44:44 things that were outside of my control that i

00:44:44 that i needed to to get responses to um i just unfortunately these things take longer than you would ever wish them to yes i want to go back

00:44:57 yes i want to go back to the fra program and what happened with that

00:45:02 with that now it's right isn't it that the high risk program of fras had been undertaken by salvas

00:45:08 by salvas yes and the the that program came to an end in march 2010 yes uh and uh if we go to your first witness statement at page 30 please paragraph 135

00:45:21 at page 30 please paragraph 135 we can see what you say there you say at the commencement of the high-risk fra program one of the commitments we gave to the lfb was that we would evaluate the performance of our fire risk consultant

00:45:33 performance of our fire risk consultant this was jointly undertaken by the tmo and rbkc at the conclusion of the program in february 2010 and it was decided that we would undertake a procurement exercise to appoint the fire risk assessor for

00:45:44 to appoint the fire risk assessor for the medium and low risk phases of the program

00:45:47 program now why was that commitment given to the lfb do you know um well i think they wanted to be assured that even though we were doing all sorts of checks and

00:45:59 checks and including them in vetting pro formas and attending progress meetings that if we had any concerns or issues that we would address them we wouldn't we wouldn't let uh problems continue i'm not suggesting

00:46:10 uh problems continue i'm not suggesting there were any but i think it seemed reasonable to be reviewing um progress

00:46:15 progress and and was the evaluation of salvage carried out yes i believe it was and and what was the upshot i think i think we agreed with rbkc that we would reprocure

00:46:26 we would reprocure we were quite happy for salvas to um to be one of the people on the on the the list i think we felt that we'd learned quite a lot from the program um and we would we were in a better we

00:46:37 um and we would we were in a better we were kind of a bit more informed about doing the procurement on this occasion so that was the decision right do you know who carried out that evaluation uh it would probably have been um

00:46:51 uh it would probably have been um the people who were involved in the procurement initially so it may have been valerie sharples um i would imagine it was anne much more i think it was the people who were involved in the original um procurement of something and what did

00:47:04 um procurement of something and what did they

00:47:05 they use as their benchmarks or objective criteria against which to evaluate salvas's performance well um we looked at what we'd originally asked them to to

00:47:16 at what we'd originally asked them to to achieve and you know had they met their programs

00:47:19 programs were we happy with the quality of their documentation was the fire brigade happy with the quality of their documentation where we had specific areas um where we were seeking their advice did we find that helpful were they

00:47:30 did we find that helpful were they responsive all the things you would expect really right why was it decided that the tmo and rbkc would re-tender for the medium risk and low-risk programs when you weren't unhappy with salvas

00:47:41 weren't unhappy with salvas we weren't unhappy with salvas we just we just felt that we understood more clearly what what we needed

00:47:48 needed um and i mean as i say they were always going to be on the tender list so we weren't

00:47:53 weren't um not giving them an opportunity to compete

00:47:58 compete so you weren't unhappy with salvas i mean there were things that they were i was frustrated with but i wasn't unhappy with them that i mean the quality of their work was good

00:48:09 quality of their work was good let's go to rbk305358 please and go in that email run to page three

00:48:21 three this is an email from you to and much more of the rbkc on the 11th of february 2010

00:48:28 2010 copies of lornette pemberton and others including robert black and further to our brief discussion following the last progress meeting with salvas

00:48:37 salvas as the high risk program is on schedule to complete his agreed by late march stroke early april it is now timely to consider how the medium risk and low risk programs will be funded resourced and progressed

00:48:48 be funded resourced and progressed i anticipate that we have a few options and then the under the third paragraph uh you say this um look to find an alternative method i can confirm you say that salvas are

00:49:00 i can confirm you say that salvas are currently on schedule to complete the high risk program within the agreed uh six-month time span in addition sorry additionally it is fair to say that the program has progressed relatively smoothly

00:49:12 progressed relatively smoothly and generally with the approval of the lfb however i have some concerns that salvas are very rule-bound and despite what they say about being prepared to challenge the lfb and acting on our behalf as we are their client

00:49:23 on our behalf as we are their client i believe that they have shown some reluctance to challenge the lfb on thorny issues for example i haven't found them to be hugely helpful or proactive on our behalf on the issue of whether or not we need to do as the lfb insist

00:49:35 need to do as the lfb insist and install dry risers at gilray house etc

00:49:42 and then you go on uh to say uh at the very end of that paragraph therefore personally i'd be keen to tender the medium risk program in the same way as we did with the high-rise

00:49:53 same way as we did with the high-rise now would you say that albus was very rule-bound and reluctant to challenge the lfb on thorny issues what did you mean the example that i'm quoting there is um

00:50:05 the example that i'm quoting there is um it relates to four identical blocks which were i think about seven story just a shade over 18 meters tall so you would therefore expect them to be built with a dry rising firefighting main

00:50:16 main for reasons none of us understood they weren't

00:50:19 weren't and the fire brigade were saying that we needed to retrospectively fit dry rising mains on each of the four buildings

00:50:27 buildings and then this goes back to what i did say this morning building controls view was that that retrospective fitting wasn't required i needed to be absolutely clear that there wasn't another option for how we could mitigate any

00:50:39 option for how we could mitigate any potential risks before i went back and said to people i need this amount of budget to do this amount of work

00:50:45 work and it was quite frustrating that i couldn't get anyone to give me a straight answer and um and selva's kind of slightly sat on the fence on it

00:50:56 the fence on it i didn't feel that they when i needed them to give me a clear steer i didn't feel that they did um and you know their work was really good all the stuff that i've said here is absolutely true but when we really

00:51:08 absolutely true but when we really needed to be clear about how we jumped in a difficult situation that was going to impact on on budgets because fine we couldn't find the budget but it would have meant that something else didn't happen so i needed to be absolutely sure that

00:51:20 so i needed to be absolutely sure that when i went back to say we need to do this if this is what it costs and this is how long it will take and we need to do it because it's an absolute requirement that i was right but i didn't have the confidence to do that because there was

00:51:31 confidence to do that because there was a lot of of towing and throwing and nobody giving me a definitive steer so that's the kind of and that's the kind of issue i had when we appointed salvas in the beginning i said these these are a few issues like

00:51:43 i said these these are a few issues like this that come up that we've been unable to to really bottom out right and they so they were aware that um and to be to be fair um they had consistently tried to get a

00:51:54 um they had consistently tried to get a meeting with i think it was steve turreck

00:51:56 turreck um because andy ferness sat on i think an iosh committee with fire safety um a fire safety remit and so he met with quite a lot of kind of high-ranking lfb

00:52:07 of high-ranking lfb people so i think he thought that was the way that we would get the definitive answer that we needed about standards and in the end after much tuning and throwing um we were told that he declined all meetings with us so

00:52:18 meetings with us so so on the one hand i've got the fire successor telling me that we need to do something but not being able to really back it up so i'm not confidently in a position to go back and tell people that we need to

00:52:29 tell people that we need to find budget to do this and i'm sort of left where i was at the start of the program so so that's my sorry you're probably getting all of my frustrations and what was it that you wanted from a

00:52:40 and what was it that you wanted from a new independent fire risk assessor that salvage weren't giving you i just i just wanted them to be able to give me a clear

00:52:48 clear um a clear view of what i needed to do and what i uh what i didn't and if if there was another way of mitigating risk could they tell me what that was

00:52:59 could they tell me what that was but i wasn't getting another way of mitigating risk i was sort of just getting a problem that i couldn't find a solution for yes oh it doesn't really say that does it what it says is you have some concerns that salvages are very rule-bound

00:53:11 very rule-bound what was the problem with that well i can then really reiterate that they weren't giving me an answer to the problem that i had and they were kind of

00:53:22 they were kind of pudding it's not quite the same thing is it what did you mean by salvas are very rule-bound probably meant that they're inclined to say well if the fireworks are asking for it you probably need to do it

00:53:33 it you probably need to do it but but not that you definitely need to do it

00:53:36 do it right um and you say despite what they say about being prepared to challenge the lfb

00:53:42 the lfb uh you say i believe they've shown some reluctance to challenge the lfb you're not really saying that they're they're giving you muddy advice or they're being equivocal what you're saying is they're taking the lfb's side

00:53:54 saying is they're taking the lfb's side as opposed to taking your side that's that's how i read that is that an unfair reading miss ray that might be what it says but that wasn't what i meant to say having lived it

00:54:04 it um i my view was i just needed to be absolutely sure for example in the case of of the flat entrance doors once we knew we needed to do it

00:54:13 do it we find the budget to do it and we did do it it was just that this and this didn't this issue didn't just relate to these four blocks we had i think a couple of other blogs so it's quite a big commitment so i need to be absolutely clear

00:54:25 to be absolutely clear that we can't mitigate the risk in other ways and

00:54:30 ways and they weren't giving me that they weren't so they're my kind of fire safety specialist advice and i'm still caught between the fire brigade and building control without a clear steer you see the nfb was the enforcing

00:54:42 you see the nfb was the enforcing authority under the rra wasn't it absolutely so why not just do as they asked

00:54:46 asked or required rather than setting out to test what they're saying or challenge challenge actually it's the word you use why are you wanting to challenge the enforcing authority i'm

00:54:57 enforcing authority i'm i'm only wanted i'm wanting to do what the enforcing authority need me to do but what i'm saying is that in some circumstances that isn't the only way to mitigate the risk so i'm trying to be clear that if there's an alternative

00:55:08 there's an alternative which may be less invasive for residents um

00:55:12 um you know may be just as effective hopefully as just as effective could we find out what that is because the impact of everything that we agreed to do means that somebody else won't get heating or hot water or

00:55:24 else won't get heating or hot water or that's just the world that we lived in so you needed to be absolutely sure that what what you've been asked to do um

00:55:31 um is what you need to do in that way and if i'd been assured of that i'd have gone back and fought with everybody to get that to happen but i wasn't yet in a position to confirm that that's what we absolutely had to do so i

00:55:42 that's what we absolutely had to do so i wonder whether this evidence you're giving is just a bit of a gloss now on the historical words that you used which i've shown you uh and if you really did want to take an approach which was cooperative with the

00:55:53 approach which was cooperative with the lfb to see if there was a more cost effective and practical way of going about satisfying their requirements you might have said so but instead you you you're you want to go into a tender because uh salvas are reluctant

00:56:05 salvas are reluctant to challenge the lfb on thorny issues that's a different approach isn't it it's more hostile except

00:56:12 except do you accept that um well it wasn't meant to be i'm generally not a hostile person so

00:56:17 person so that wasn't my intention probably my frustration is coming out here because this is exactly the kind of issue that led to the the threat of enforcement action because because we got into this um does this

00:56:28 because we got into this um does this need to happen building control's saying no no it doesn't fire brigade and we caught going well what is it you want me to do it's really important do we need to know what is the standard here and in the meantime

00:56:38 meantime we've got the fire brigade then saying well no at high level we're refusing to meet with you and actually to be fair i think self has had their own frustrations because they had started off the program with us

00:56:50 they had started off the program with us saying we need to be sure that we're meeting the fire brigades requirements in terms of the standard setting so they wanted this meeting as much as i did not just in relation to this issue but other

00:57:01 issue but other other issues that they felt um weren't being addressed now can we then move further into 2010 uh tmo one double zero three seven four one

00:57:12 three seven four one page 8.

00:57:20 this is part of your report to the operations committee in may 2010 and at page eight uh under paragraph 12.2 you asked them to note

00:57:30 note our proposed approach to progressing the medium risk blocks you see that yeah did you have to get approval or sign off from the operations committee in order to progress uh the tender

00:57:42 progress uh the tender i can't remember actually i would have um

00:57:45 um procurement's not something i know much about so i would have always gone to procurement colleagues to ask them what i needed to do i think that the borough also funded the medium risk program so i would have had to get their assigned offers

00:57:56 to get their assigned offers okay um you could see under the top of that page under legal issues in the last sentence of paragraph 9.1 the responsible persons of the tmo and rbkc see there

00:58:08 rbkc see there do you know what made you say that in this document um i think there was a standard sorry to speak of you i think there was a standard format that we had to follow we had to have legal issues we had to have communication

00:58:19 issues we had to have communication resident engagement i think there was a template that we were required to use for for committees um reports and so i right that was just my standard and then we can see the meeting

00:58:30 we can see the meeting uh tmo uh one double zero three seven four seven page 88

00:58:47 this is tma100 37437 yes thank you this is the minute of the meeting of the 25th of may 2010

00:58:58 meeting of the 25th of may 2010 okay operations committee you see that yeah

00:59:04 yeah you're in attendance after the and can you see that yes yes uh if we go to page 89 agenda item 5 was fire risk assessments you could see that there

00:59:15 you could see that there and the committee received a report on progress

00:59:19 progress there's no miniature discussion in this document about the fire risk assessor himself

00:59:23 himself do you remember whether any questions were asked about the fire risk assessor and competence sorry i wouldn't remember right once the high risk program had ended did you consider whether there'd be a need for

00:59:36 there'd be a need for regular fire risk assessments of the high-risk properties

00:59:40 i think we should have um i think at that stage we were gearing up to to get the medium risk on the ground as soon as possible because as you know we had our three year deadline of getting through the whole

00:59:51 through the whole process so i'm not sure it was on our radar at that point in time right but it came quite quickly right did you do you remember discussing with rbkc the subject of putting a program and funding in place

01:00:03 funding in place for having regular fras for your high risk properties in your portfolio not specifically but we had made a commitment and we would find the money somehow or

01:00:14 and we would find the money somehow or other

01:00:15 other right now at this stage may 2010 who did you envisage would carry out the continuing uh fras for the high risk blocks in the tma

01:00:26 for the high risk blocks in the tma stock

01:00:27 stock i was probably quite short-sighted and didn't give it as much consideration as i should have done

01:00:33 done so is the answer that you didn't have you didn't envisage anybody at that stage

01:00:38 stage it was just off my radar we'd only just completed them and the oldest one was six months old and there were no material alterations happening on any of the blocks so i thought i had a little bit of time and at the moment medium and moving on

01:00:50 and at the moment medium and moving on to low will get the whole stock assessed so that's probably my priority well let's then talk about medium and the appointment of carl stokes can we look at your second statement please tmo double zero

01:01:02 second statement please tmo double zero eight four two three four one page three paragraph eleven

01:01:09 you set out there the documents that you sent to carl stokes uh on the 6th of august 2010 inviting it or him to tender for the medium risk fra program you see that yes and one of the

01:01:20 you see that yes and one of the documents you exhibit there is the consultant's brief of july 2010 can i take you to that it's at tm00842371

01:01:41 uh did you draft that document um no i doubt it it was probably drafted by my colleague in the procurement the professional services officer

01:01:52 professional services officer i don't think it would be me right who is that please uh janet rhymes the ladies janet rhymes yes yes i i i see referred to her earlier on did you have any uh

01:02:03 any uh input into the contents of this document i'm sure that i did but

01:02:13 we do take time to have a look at it if we just scroll down to page three for example which is the general information and requirements it might refresh your memory

01:02:24 um

01:02:28 i'm sure that i did but i you can't recall which parts no sorry um so janet rhymes possibly you anybody else do you think um i'm sure we would have shared it with with our bkc colleagues

01:02:40 with our bkc colleagues they may or may not have had something they wanted to add um i'm not sure if valerie was also still involved as a project manager i'm doing i'm speculating sorry whilst we're on page three can we look at paragraph

01:02:51 on page three can we look at paragraph 1.5

01:02:52 1.5 it says there it is a requirement of the client that the consultant holds a current fire risk assessment qualification eg from iosh nebosh the northern ireland first safety panel

01:03:03 safety panel or similar to be submitted for approval by the tma before the consultant's tender is accepted see part four quotation instructions um just pausing there can we go to page

01:03:15 um just pausing there can we go to page 25

01:03:16 25 which sets out the information that the consultant tendering for the project was required to supply

01:03:24 um you can see their quotation submissions and in the list at the very foot of the page 7.1 d is additional information and under little roman

01:03:35 little roman 3 it says details of professional qualifications in particular fire risk assessment qualifications and experience of the project leader and proposed team members who will carry out the assessments

01:03:47 out the assessments do you remember whether that was something in respect of which you had input

01:03:54 input i don't the um the preceding thing that you just showed me setting out the possible qualifications i think came from rbkc i think

01:04:04 think i think this was left from the initial procurement and i believe that alexis correa put that bit in himself when we did the original time i see the high risk i see thank you

01:04:16 high risk i see thank you do you remember what carl stakes gave you

01:04:19 you to support by way of evidence his fire risk assessment qualifications and experience i don't as we sit here now but probably quite a lot

01:04:30 quite a lot well we understand that mr stakes gave you a loose set of documents together with his public liability insurance and certificates

01:04:41 i can show you that it's a tmo double zero eight eight zero five eight one

01:04:59 uh uh that that's his in his his insurance certificate um but do you remember whether he provided you with any

01:05:07 with any information about his experience as a fire risk assessor

01:05:13 um i can't recall

01:05:18 i understood what his his work experience was i knew that he'd been um in the fire and rescue services fire safety officer um and by then obviously we knew that

01:05:29 um and by then obviously we knew that he'd undertaken quite a few of um the high-risk assessments on our high-risk blogs so we'd had first-hand experience um his work obviously was quality checked by salvas because that's how they operated

01:05:42 salvas because that's how they operated but

01:05:43 but we'd been sharing the fras with the fire brigade and i recall at the end of the high-risk programme we had a hard copy of all 110 and the brigade asked for that so i dropped it off at the fire station so

01:05:54 off at the fire station so we had sort of quite a lot of um belief that he you know that he had good experience right directly on our blogs did you ever receive a cv from carl stokes can't remember

01:06:08 from carl stokes can't remember do you remember if it was received as part of the tender submission it's possible sorry i can't remember right

01:06:15 right did it ever come from salvas did salvas to provide you with a cv uh for carl stokes when he was part of the high risk program i i do recall asking for the details of all of their assessors but i

01:06:26 all of their assessors but i i can't recall what documentation i did get

01:06:30 get in fact a couple of them never worked on the project so some of the names didn't materialize sorry can we go to tm00842-327

01:06:45 this is this is the tender evaluation report

01:06:51 report that you produced on the 27th of september 2010 at the very end of the tender process which you refer to in paragraph 12 of your second witness statement there's no need to go to that um do you remember um who was part of

01:07:04 um do you remember um who was part of this

01:07:04 this the panel who conducted this tender evaluation report um i'm assuming that it was and much more

01:07:12 more and janet rhymes or valerie sharples i see it's a combination of rbkc and the tma

01:07:18 tma if you look at paragraph 1.2 it says there

01:07:21 there in the second line additionally all consultants attended a formal interview with a panel consisting of two tmo and one rbkc officer so that further checks on the quality of the consultants could be undertaken and

01:07:32 the consultants could be undertaken and any queries on this submission could be clarified

01:07:34 clarified do you remember who it was as part of that panel particularly was it the individuals who just referred to and much more janet rhymes and valerie samples i believe so yes and do you know what checks on the quality

01:07:46 do you know what checks on the quality of the consultants were undertaken

01:07:49 uh no as we sit here now i'm sorry do you recall how that panel went about assessing the requisite experience and qualifications for those tendering for that program no

01:08:02 uh in your first witness statement page 31

01:08:06 31 paragraph 137 let's have a look at that you say

01:08:13 uh in the middle it was agreed that carl had the right knowledge competence experience and enthusiasm to be a good partner for the tmo

01:08:22 that's what you say there and if we go back to the tender evaluation report uh which we've just been looking at page two

01:08:32 two uh page if we go to page two uh under paragraph 2.4 at the top of the page you say

01:08:36 say the same consultant cs stokes was rated first for quality and also submitted the lowest price for the six month programme do you remember how you and the panel were assured of carl stakes's qualifications competence and experience

01:08:48 qualifications competence and experience for the purposes of carrying out the medium risk fra program

01:08:54 um well we would have we must have had a cv we must have had details

01:09:01 details of his work experience we knew what he'd been doing for salvas on our high-risk properties um we would have known what cpd had been doing

01:09:11 doing um and we must have used that to make a judgment

01:09:16 judgment we i mean we we had set questions as you would expect and we scored them according to a sort of an agreed approach but we did it individually and then we compared

01:09:27 it individually and then we compared notes as you would expect again well you referred to his cv a minute ago let's look at it it's cst401895

01:09:42 now just to be clear is this the document that you receive from carl stokes as part of his tender it could have been right i mean i mean i don't know whether he's changed it's inside i see what you mean

01:09:54 changed it's inside i see what you mean uh

01:09:55 uh looking at his qualifications there under the heading qualifications was there any particular qualification that that

01:10:06 that that told you that carl stokes had the relevant knowledge and competence um so i think

01:10:19 um so i think so he's got the european diploma in fire safety which i would have been aware of um i i mean he i think he had a range of

01:10:31 i mean he i think he had a range of experience he clearly had done quite a lot of continuing professional development um i would have questioned him on the knee bosch because it's a little bit vague and i i know that

01:10:43 know that you're looking at diplomas and certificates really to use nebosh unless you've just done a managing safely qualification um but he he seemed to it seemed to be a balance of technical

01:10:55 balance of technical technical issues um fire safety and kind of

01:10:59 of i think obviously we then talked to him about fire risk assessment specifically so it um that plus the fact that he had eight years as a fire safety officer i think we were

01:11:11 think we were we um thought was good right is there any particular qualification that stands out in that list that you thought particularly marked him out as having first rate quality

01:11:26 as having first rate quality um i think i would have asked him about the national occupational standards um i mean there are some that i wouldn't know a lot about so i would have asked him questions and then i would have gone away and done my own research okay

01:11:37 away and done my own research okay now um do you remember that carl stokes also sent you a sample fire risk assessment as part of his tender yeah um yes tmo double zero eight eight zero five eight four

01:11:54 eight zero five eight four do you remember whether that was well whether you got this document before the interview

01:11:58 interview or afterwards i have no idea sorry did you get it before he appoint you appointed him or afterwards i would have assumed that i got all of the documentation from all of the

01:12:10 the documentation from all of the um tenderers before yes do you remember whether you and the panel looked at this document uh we would have done yes yeah if we go to page five we can see

01:12:22 page five we can see what he says uh in a paragraph under the heading assessment completed by and then there's a there's a chunk of text six lines in all

01:12:33 there's a chunk of text six lines in all in bold you see that yes start mr c stakes a c i arb etc

01:12:42 now you will know i think that this statement was repeated almost identically across all of his fire risk assessments he ever did for the tmo updating it only by a number of years uh as an independent fire risk assessor

01:12:55 as an independent fire risk assessor that's correct isn't it oh yeah yes do you recall whether you and the panel consider the list of qualifications he set out here in this document

01:13:06 in this document um

01:13:12 don't think we did you don't you did no so do we take it from that that it didn't assist you in making the decision that coal stocks had the right qualifications competence and experience to carry out the fras

01:13:24 to carry out the fras as part of the medium term program sorry i i just

01:13:27 i i just i really can't recall whether we looked at both or whether we looked at just one right um sorry mr chairman it may be a convenient

01:13:38 sorry mr chairman it may be a convenient moment

01:13:38 moment to take the break now in the light of that i can perhaps shorten the next run of questions yes well if that's convenient to you i'm sure it'd be convenient to miss ray as well

01:13:47 well so mr if we're going to take the afternoon break now we'll come back please of course three and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right thank you very much

01:14:05 thank you hover three

01:31:14 right would you ask mrs ray to come back in please

01:31:28 all right this you're ready to carry on yes now before you do i'm going to take it upon myself to ask you perhaps just to slow down a little bit sorry and i'm going to ask mr millett

01:31:39 sorry and i'm going to ask mr millett perhaps to pause a little more between the

01:31:41 the witnesses answer and the question yes mr next question next question yes mr chairman right when you're ready you think i am miss ray yes you said in an answer

01:31:53 miss ray yes you said in an answer just before the break that after the interview you went away and did your own research um can you remember what research you did on mr stakes's qualifications

01:32:06 it probably would have been more about researching the qualifications that he'd identified that i was perhaps not familiar with um to learn the extent of what that

01:32:17 um to learn the extent of what that meant

01:32:17 meant so that i had a full picture of what his experience and his training was now dr lane and colin todd both agree that some of the qualifications identified by

01:32:30 the qualifications identified by mr stokes in the list that was on the screen in front of us did not exist was that something you discovered from your independent researchers do you think not

01:32:42 independent researchers do you think not the ones i looked at no right would you would you be surprised or are you surprised when i tell you that some of the qualifications for which mr stakes made claim did not exist

01:32:55 mr stakes made claim did not exist i'd be surprised i i know he sort of portrayed them as if they were post nominals and i knew that they weren't post nominals i always treated them as if they were a cpd um that you couldn't necessarily use in

01:33:07 um that you couldn't necessarily use in that way

01:33:08 that way can we go to your first witness statement please at page 31 paragraph 139

01:33:26 uh and you say that throughout the entirety of our working relationship i never had any concerns regarding carl stakes his competence i was aware that he elected not to be on many of the professional registers however when i raised this with him he

01:33:37 however when i raised this with him he assured me that he did not feel it would gain anything he would gain anything from these memberships when did you become aware that he had not elected to be on many of the professional registers

01:33:48 be on many of the professional registers um i think that as years went by there was there were a number of um accreditations which started to come on on stream meaningful accreditations for

01:33:59 on stream meaningful accreditations for fire risk assessors whereas prior to that i'm not sure that there was much store by some of the things that existed um and so i um as i became

01:34:08 became there are those i would have probably i would have spoken to him about them had he ever considered being iafy or whatever and what does he say as i said here he he was i think he was

01:34:19 as i said here he he was i think he was a bit cynical and and sometimes thought that um actually what would he get back you you pay an amount but actually what what do you get

01:34:28 you get would you get back um but by then we've obviously been using him for some considerable time and and we were generally happy with with his work

01:34:38 work now you say here that you were aware that he elected not beyond many of the professional registers that tends to suggest that you thought he was at least on some professional registers is that right no

01:34:50 professional registers is that right no i i that's probably uh an error on my part right did you know that he was on no professional registers yes i must have knew that yes

01:35:01 were you ever aware of a guidance document

01:35:06 document published by the fire risk assessment competency council called a guide to choosing a competent fire risk assessor yes can i ask you to look at it please it's at hom3025548

01:35:23 this is the first version of this document published on the 1st of february 2013.

01:35:31 were you aware that the guidance which starts

01:35:35 starts on page 3 we look at that said in the second paragraph no matter who

01:35:46 in the second paragraph no matter who carries out the fire risk assessment the duty holder retains the responsibility for ensuring the adequacy of that assessment were you aware of that yes yes discontinuing with the text if

01:35:57 yes yes discontinuing with the text if employing

01:35:57 employing a specialist to undertake your fire risk assessment whilst you're not expected to be an expert in fire safety you should make reasonable checks to ensure that they are competent to do the

01:36:08 ensure that they are competent to do the job properly there are some simple steps and precautions you can take to help verify the competence and suitability of a prospective fire risk assessor and then it goes on the first is be

01:36:20 and then it goes on the first is be satisfied that the fire risk assessor providing this service is competent to do so

01:36:24 do so we recommend that you check those providing this service have independent registration with or certification from a professional or certification body and that they meet the competency criteria

01:36:35 that they meet the competency criteria established by the fire risk assessment competency council see list below now when you were reading with it well did you look at this document at the time

01:36:44 time do you think early 2013 possibly right when you did or if you possibly did were you concerned that karstex might not hold independent registration with or certification from

01:36:56 certification from a professional or certification body i think it's too strong to say concerned i i was aware i discussed it with him um but i i'm if i'm honest i'm not sure i

01:37:08 i i'm if i'm honest i'm not sure i encouraged him i would have preferred him

01:37:09 him to to register but i felt it was his personal choice would you say it was his personal choice here is a a guidance recommendation for you to check that he is uh

01:37:21 for you to check that he is uh independently registered with or certified by a professional or certification body and if we've been sorry i'm not sure i'm cutting across you no well having my sh my having shown you

01:37:34 well having my sh my having shown you that text

01:37:35 that text my question is really why you say it was his personal choice it was your choice wasn't it

01:37:39 wasn't it whether or not you had a fire risk assessor who met those uh qualifications if we'd been um procuring a fire risk assessor from that point onwards

01:37:47 onwards then completely take on board that's what we would have required because he was someone we had already engaged who demonstrated his competence um i didn't interpret this as meaning

01:37:58 um i didn't interpret this as meaning that he therefore had to go and get it i interpreted this as meaning when i'm acquiring a fire risk assessor this is what i need to do going forward i see so does it come to this uh that had you

01:38:09 had you had this document been in circulation in 2010

01:38:13 2010 uh you would have looked a lot more closely at the fact that mr stakes did not have registration with or certification from a professional or certification body but given that he'd already been in harness as it were for two and a half

01:38:25 in harness as it were for two and a half years by

01:38:26 years by this time you didn't yeah that's basically it as i said the the accreditations improved as the years went by and were kind of much more reputable and reliable i think some of the early fire risk assessment

01:38:37 the early fire risk assessment accreditations weren't really i didn't hold a lot of water now were you aware that while he was at salvas

01:38:44 salvas his work was peer reviewed yes often quite

01:38:48 quite a number of times we have a version eight i think of one of his documents um from october 2010 when you took him on as your medium risk

01:39:01 when you took him on as your medium risk program fire risk assessor uh he had only been an independent fire risk assessor for a year hadn't he um yes yes and at that and at that time he had been

01:39:14 and at that and at that time he had been under

01:39:14 under the supervision of senior experienced people at salvas yes yes yes as a result of that when he came

01:39:22 came to you as a as an independent sole practitioner were you concerned that his work for the tma would be unsupervised um i i wasn't um

01:39:36 i i think it's fair to say that the fact that he'd been um recruited what whatever his capacity was whether he's employed or self-consulted being recruited by salvas he had been one of the principal people

01:39:48 he had been one of the principal people they had used on our contract it was high potentially high risk residential accommodation so very important the first time that salvas had been our client so i think it gave me faith

01:40:01 so i think it gave me faith that he had been used by that company in that way and that they would have mutually both learned quite a lot from each other and if salvas were unhappy with him they wouldn't have let him continue to carry out the assessments on our high-risk properties yes but do

01:40:14 on our high-risk properties yes but do you understand that there's all the difference between letting him carry out assessments on your high-risk properties under supervision and peer review on the one hand

01:40:24 one hand and him performing the same function for the tmo without anybody in a position to supervise him or peer review his work i do understand that um

01:40:37 understand that um i mean selves were were very exacting and i i do think that if they had been unhappy with his performance regardless of how many revisions they would not have let him continue on the contract so i

01:40:48 the contract so i um so i i did get faith in the fact that he had continued i thought that was an important factor he was now familiar with quite a lot of our buildings and he and and everything that he had

01:41:01 and he and and everything that he had done

01:41:01 done appeared to meet the requirements of the fire brigade as well why did you take on carl stokes a fire risk assessor who would have no peer review and no supervision by anybody senior to him of all those

01:41:14 by anybody senior to him of all those who were applying for the post um i i think he just he seemed very he's he seemed to have

01:41:25 he seemed very he's he seemed to have good experience he seemed to be extremely knowledgeable he understood the fire and rescue service their procedures um what they had to do how they did their auditing all of all of that

01:41:36 their auditing all of all of that knowledge that we didn't have that would be really helpful um he had already familiarity with the overwhelming majority of our high-rise blocks

01:41:44 blocks um we were moving down to medium risk um where there would be a lot less maintenance lost less uh aovs and such like kit so it felt like

01:41:55 like less of a risk but but also i just he he did do the best interview he he did um we were all with the three of us unanimously felt that he was the best

01:42:06 unanimously felt that he was the best candidate on the day did you ask him the question who will be peer reviewing your work no i'm i can't have done no was it not a consideration when you were making the selection that there would be nobody

01:42:18 selection that there would be nobody there to supervise or peer review his work

01:42:23 at that time the brigade was still very heavily involved in scrutinizing what we were doing so i i didn't feel it was a risk because i felt that any potential issue would be

01:42:34 felt that any potential issue would be flagged up very definitely and very loudly and quite quickly and we continued to share his assessments with the brigade on a regular basis and you know in truth

01:42:47 on a regular basis and you know in truth i didn't always agree with some of the things that he said um and i told him when i didn't agree so we had a fairly robust relationship but no at the time

01:42:58 relationship but no at the time we we felt he was the right appointment you see there's a difference isn't there between relying on the the lfb to pick you up robustly on the one hand and mr stakes carrying

01:43:11 on the one hand and mr stakes carrying out his responsibilities for you as fra on the other of course yes i mean on the one hand mr stokes is in is ensuring that you the tmo and you particularly as the competent person within the tma comply

01:43:23 competent person within the tma comply with their strategy obligations under the rro

01:43:26 the rro whereas the lfb is the enforcing authority indeed i'm well aware of that i was merely saying that that was an additional factor that we thought was was actually a positive thing that the level of scrutiny wasn't was an

01:43:37 the level of scrutiny wasn't was an advantage that any any deviation from the suitable insufficiency was likely to be flagged up quite loudly and quite quickly yes but that's not a very

01:43:47 very reasonable and sensible approach is it to rely on the enforcing authority to pick you up where you go wrong in breach of the statute no and the point i'm making is i wasn't relying on it i was just saying that it was an additional thing that we we knew was in place now it's right to

01:44:00 we knew was in place now it's right to think that mr stakes signed an acceptance of a fee tender on the 21st of october that's the day we have in your second witness statement paragraph 13. yes yeah i'm sorry i don't have all the

01:44:11 yes yeah i'm sorry i don't have all the data i can show you that if you want to but no

01:44:13 but no that was for the medium risk program wasn't it yes and so he started work for you on the media risk program at that time yes yes yes now once he was appointed did you again give a commitment to the

01:44:24 did you again give a commitment to the lfb that you would evaluate his performance as as you had given the lfb in relation to salvus when they came on board to do the high risk program in september 2009. yes i believe that we

01:44:35 september 2009. yes i believe that we did we did and sorry could i just intervene before we move away from the point did you ask mr stokes about other fire risk

01:44:44 risk other clients for whom he done fire risk assessments we know he'd work to solve us as a subcontractor or at least an employee or a subcontractor um but did you ask him

01:44:55 did you ask him who else he'd worked for and on what sort of buildings i did and my impression was always that he had

01:45:02 he had um a range of residential housing experience which is what we were always looking for um i can't recall the detail of his of his clients and i know that at some

01:45:13 his clients and i know that at some stage although i don't know if it was that far back or subsequently he had a range of insurers who he was he was um he worked for so that was

01:45:21 was all over the place and all sorts of different kinds of properties were the insurers clients or were they people who were ensuring his no no those science that was kind he he was um

01:45:31 was um having to go off all over the country to i recall him being in shetland once when i needed him that was that's why it sticks in my mind um but yeah i mean we we definitely would have asked about his range of experience because we had

01:45:42 experience because we had specialized housing we had temporary accommodation and you know we had low risk and and we wanted to be assured that he had the full range and i certainly had the impression that he had right thank you very much i'm sorry did

01:45:55 right thank you very much i'm sorry did you ask for or take up a client reference from mr stokes no i don't believe i did um on the question of evaluation uh did you evaluate his performance

01:46:06 uh did you evaluate his performance after he had taken on the role of the fire risk assessor for the medium risk program yes i'm sure i would have done um i mean we had our progress meeting we

01:46:17 i mean we had our progress meeting we still had rbc involved we had i believe we still had periodic meetings with

01:46:23 with um the lfb attending um and i was the one setting him the program and i was the one who received all of his fire risk assessments so yes this would have been and against what

01:46:35 this would have been and against what criteria or objective yard sticks did you measure his performance as a fire risk assessor from that time

01:46:43 um obviously we were always looking at his program to see whether he was doing what he said he was going to do in the in the required time frame um i to be honest i'm probably going to be really vague about it now i was

01:46:54 be really vague about it now i was scrutinizing i was scrutinizing for consistency if there were differences in properties that i thought were similar then i would i would challenge him or ask for explanations um i can't really give you any more

01:47:06 um i can't really give you any more detail at this stage i'm sorry

01:47:10 during the currency of the medium risk programming at least in its early years how many uh fire risk assessments did mr stakes provide to you a week

01:47:23 stakes provide to you a week i don't know um i don't even know so there are 110 in the high rise high risk sorry yes high risk apologies

01:47:35 high risk sorry yes high risk apologies um i don't know whether i think we had in total about 650 blogs so that still left over 500 i don't know if they were split evenly whether it was 200 250 and

01:47:46 200 250 and i'm not sure um i could probably find out if i waded back through but i don't know but but often

01:47:53 often often quite a volume and then other periods less so depending on the on the program and and his other activities and what fitted with what we needed did you read each and every one

01:48:04 and every one i read every action plan and i read i endeavored to read every fire risk assessment depending on the volume i was receiving depended on how much attention i was paying

01:48:15 paying and if i'm honest if we had four identical blocks i would read one rigorously and then i would i would depending on on how many i was getting through um i would not pay the same level of detail to the others but i would try to

01:48:27 detail to the others but i would try to get through all of them did you have a helper to read them no it was all you it was me yes okay um now um

01:48:38 can we go to your second witness statement please tm00842341 page four paragraph fifteen

01:48:51 uh you say there following the completion of the low risk program cal state's associates was retained by the tmos as far as safety consultant on a rolling basis until june 2017.

01:49:03 on a rolling basis until june 2017. now the fra program for high risk medium risk

01:49:07 risk and low risk blocks uh ended in may 2012 didn't it

01:49:11 didn't it uh yes i believe so the actual program yes um can we then go to the tmo10031056

01:49:24 and look at page one of that document this is your report to the operations committee

01:49:33 committee dated the second of may 2013. and you could see in the gray box the purpose of the report yes which is to appraise the operations

01:49:44 yes which is to appraise the operations committee of the tma's current position in relation to fire risk assessments and there are a number of things under paragraph 1.2 that you're asking the operations committee to note and i'll i'll just identify those few

01:49:56 and i'll i'll just identify those few there

01:49:58 there and uh in particular the last one is the recommendations made by the coroners following inquest on the lachnal house fire and the southampton fire and response from the communities and

01:50:09 and response from the communities and local government to date now if you go to page two you can see under paragraph 3.2 on that page under the heading progress with fra program you say

01:50:21 program you say all three assessment programs were completed in may 2012 a few months in advance of the lfb's july time scale and such comprehensive fras are now available for every block comprehensive quote suitable and

01:50:33 comprehensive quote suitable and sufficient unquote fras have now been completed for each block and then you see underneath that paragraph four point naught approach to reviewing fras and you say

01:50:44 approach to reviewing fras and you say this fraser living documents which cannot remain valid for an unlimited length of time therefore to ensure ongoing compliance with the legislation assessments need to be reviewed and or reassessed periodically with

01:50:56 and or reassessed periodically with regard to how frequently fraser reviewed the tmo have adopted the criteria set out in the current best practice guidance on fire safety and residential accommodation fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats produced

01:51:07 purpose-built blocks of flats produced by the local government group published july 2011. specifically fra reviews will be undertaken in the following circumstances regularly following material alterations that

01:51:19 following material alterations that block and then when there is a significant change in the matters that were taken into account as the risk assessment was carried out such as a widespread change in the type of residents occupying the block

01:51:30 of residents occupying the block when there is a reason to suspect that the original fra is no longer valid for example after a fire that occurred within all spread to the common parts and in in caps following completion

01:51:41 and in in caps following completion of significant works instigated to address shortcomings identified by the fra

01:51:47 fra and then you go on to say depending on their complexity these fra reviews are being carried by either the tmo health and safety team or the fire consultant fr is being progressed according to the criteria above and the program

01:51:58 criteria above and the program progresses on schedule after the fra program was completed it is right isn't it that in and after 2013 you implemented a a

01:52:09 and after 2013 you implemented a a program of fra reviews yeah is that right i can't remember when we implemented them before then but yeah we

01:52:16 we were doing low-level reviews in-house which was

01:52:19 which was really just in between the um adjacent comprehensive reviews it was a sort of spot check in between where there would be no material alterations

01:52:30 be no material alterations it was a way of checking that the actions which had been identified were being progressed yes um and my colleague was doing that as part of his regular visits to blocks if he identified that there were works

01:52:41 if he identified that there were works going on at the block that we hadn't been made aware of that changed the priority and that changed the nature of the fra and then that would go up into the program and be were these reviews you refer to in paragraph 4.4 here being

01:52:53 you refer to in paragraph 4.4 here being carried up before the 2nd of may 2013 yeah i believe so yes and now you say that they

01:52:59 that they are being uh conducted either by the tmo health and safety team or the fire consultant who was carl stokes did the tmo health and safety team carry out any reviews or was that all left to carl stakes in all

01:53:11 was that all left to carl stakes in all cases no

01:53:12 cases no actually uh we mostly did the the low level reviews ourselves because we could readily access um the ordering system to see where repairs had been ordered and and it was easier for us to chase up

01:53:24 and it was easier for us to chase up would you say we who well actually adrian my colleague was doing adrian bowman yes i see and and in the case of those reviews how did you decide which reviews were as you call it low

01:53:36 which reviews were as you call it low level

01:53:38 um what do you mean by low level do you mean low risk no i think what i mean what i mean by a low level review is you've got your comprehensive group your comprehensive assessment

01:53:49 your comprehensive assessment usually depending on the risk rating of the block either 12 months or 18 months later

01:53:54 later you would want to do a low level review so you would want to go visually assess the block check that the items that have been identified have been completed if they haven't chase them up and give somebody a load of grief for where

01:54:05 somebody a load of grief for where they've not been and um yeah so that's what we mean by low level

01:54:11 low level is it's it's done in-house really about checking that that nothing has changed which has changed the priority of when the next assessment will be undertaken um and that the things that have been identified are being progressed right i

01:54:23 identified are being progressed right i see

01:54:23 see say the review it was not a review of the quality of mr stakes's work it was a review of the progress in closing out fra actions yes i see and um you mentioned adrian

01:54:35 yes i see and um you mentioned adrian bowman

01:54:36 bowman what training did adrian bowman have in respect of first safety matters he he's got an iosh certificate he does he did a fair bit of cpd it was

01:54:48 he does he did a fair bit of cpd it was the same thing we would we would check what was the most appropriate fire safety training for him to be doing um i i can't tell you off the top of my head but he would have um brushed up on quite a lot of his

01:54:59 um brushed up on quite a lot of his skills he would have sometimes done some joint stuff with carl if he wanted to

01:55:03 wanted to if they wanted to have a discussion about specific aspects of fire safety and sometimes it was a better practical he also organized the fire safety training that the estate staff and fire washing

01:55:15 that the estate staff and fire washing marshals etc um attended so he was often in dialogue with that person about tweaking that course and making it more appropriate did mr bowman have any

01:55:27 appropriate did mr bowman have any familiarity with or training on the lga guide

01:55:30 guide or past 79 which is by now enforce yes yes almost definitely the lga guide i i can't recall whether he has passed 79. now we know that carl stokes carried out

01:55:42 now we know that carl stokes carried out his first

01:55:43 his first independent fire risk assessment on grenfell tower on the 29th of december 2010. yes uh we have that just for reference purposes at cst403181

01:55:55 at cst403181 um had you begun this program of reviews of fras after the conclusion of the high risk program in may 2010 or did that all wait until may 13 or

01:56:06 or did that all wait until may 13 or thereabouts okay so what i recall is we took on carl to do the medium risk fras

01:56:14 fras and then i probably naively realized that the high-risk fras had all stated that they should be reviewed within 12 months and at that time

01:56:25 within 12 months and at that time my colleague hadn't had sufficient appropriate training so at that time i am confident i would have checked with my line manager and possibly with rbkc to say can we ask carl to review the high-risk

01:56:38 can we ask carl to review the high-risk fras which are now coming up for review i see to review to check whether the action

01:56:46 action items had been carried out no in in this case it would have wouldn't have been as low level of review because the assessor was doing it he would um right he would do it to a high standard and was was it for carl stokes to carry

01:56:58 and was was it for carl stokes to carry out those reviews even though he had not done the original fra because they were on the high risk program

01:57:08 um in this case it was for him to do with we subsequently introduced um the situation that i've explained to you about my colleague but in this case um we asked him to do

01:57:20 but in this case um we asked him to do them

01:57:22 them right so carl stokes carried out reviews in relation to high risk where he hadn't done the the f at that point in time yes yes i see was that ever explained to the operations committee

01:57:35 operations committee um i don't think the operations committee was in existence at that time oh sorry i mean the high level on a par

01:57:41 par actually i'm sorry i can't recall right uh you didn't return to the high risk fra contract did you no we didn't um and i wouldn't have just instructed him to

01:57:52 i wouldn't have just instructed him to do high-risk fras when he'd been appointed for medium without taking advice from procurement colleagues and and my line manager and possibly also rbkc but i don't seem to be able to evidence

01:58:03 but i don't seem to be able to evidence that which is a bit frustrating well maybe but could do your best with your recollection why didn't you re-tend to the high-risk fra contract it's just time really um so we're

01:58:15 it's just time really um so we're gearing up for the medium risk the meeting risk starts and then i kind of realized that actually because the high risk started september the previous year some of those now had a 12 month review

01:58:26 some of those now had a 12 month review period so we needed to to very quickly get on and do the high risk and that just procurement is slow and arduous and it seemed that if

01:58:37 arduous and it seemed that if my procurement colleagues were happy for us to proceed by instructing call to do them that's what we would do i see so you said before that it wasn't on your radar was it as a result of it not being on your radar you ran out of time

01:58:49 your radar you ran out of time and then found yourself in a pickle pretty much unfortunately yeah and that explains does it why there was no recruitment or selection process for who was going to do high-risk reviews after the first

01:59:01 do high-risk reviews after the first program

01:59:02 program it does but again i would reiterate i wouldn't have made those decisions without getting procurement colleagues to be

01:59:08 to be very clear um yes did you discuss uh the non-procurement of carl stokes as it were for the high risk program

01:59:19 as it were for the high risk program with any anybody at the tmo um yes sorry when i said procurement colleagues procurement colleagues internally in the tmo lornette pemberton my line manager right and let pemberton

01:59:31 my line manager right and let pemberton there yes

01:59:31 there yes and what about anybody at rbkc um i'm sure although i can't specifically remember

01:59:39 remember i'm sure i would have contacted and much more because she was my link person at the time

01:59:44 the time and if necessary i i would have escalated it within the housing team if that was her advice and who would that have been too um then i think i don't know if it was still pam

01:59:55 i think i don't know if it was still pam sedgwick or amanda or perhaps to laura i think at this stage at that stage it was probably pam cedric okay well whatever she advised i would have i would have um

02:00:07 have i would have um is it right that carl stakes simply took over responsibility for that contract it was just it renewed to him essentially well that wasn't that wasn't the intention ultimately that's what it ended up

02:00:18 ultimately that's what it ended up becoming but that wasn't the original intention did you get approval for that approach from either the tmo executive board or rbkc

02:00:30 i can't i can't recall a connection i discussed it with lynette and and

02:00:37 and and colleagues in the tml procurement team and colleagues at rbkc and i will have done whatever they required me to do but i i don't remember

02:00:45 remember whether that was requested do you know how

02:00:48 how the funding for carl stuxx's work on the high risk

02:00:51 high risk uh properties was going it was approved i don't right now it's right i think that you didn't enter a written contract with carl stokes for him to carry out high-risk fras did you no why's that again i can only

02:01:05 did you no why's that again i can only say that if i'd been instructed to do it i would have done it because we had a history of doing what procurement advised um right it's also right isn't it that after the medium risk and low risk fra programs

02:01:17 medium risk and low risk fra programs came to an end you didn't enter into a fresh contract with him for those programs no we didn't again um i would have taken advice

02:01:27 advice but again i don't know where i've put it or what i've done with it i wouldn't make those decisions and i don't usually have much budgetary control so i'm i'm always really careful about

02:01:38 about making sure that i follow the rules no but but

02:01:42 the factual position it seems to be that there was a a formal contract for the high risk program with salvos that came to an end and a formal contract through a tender with the for the medium program with carl stokes and and then it

02:01:55 program with carl stokes and and then it just all rolled into one ongoing understanding after that undocumented and

02:02:00 and and non-contractual well he was still operating to the contract right the terms of the contract the low risk um i did take advice and

02:02:11 the low risk um i did take advice and there is a document which i was told um sasha needed to sign and carl needed to sign and that that's that's what i was required to do um which which is just one sheet of paper but that's the advice that i received and we

02:02:23 that's the advice that i received and we did have that in place um but yeah he he was always whatever he was doing he always was operating according to the original contract that was always his understanding when i say non-contractual

02:02:34 understanding when i say non-contractual i mean no fresh formal contract signed no you're right to govern specifically that role

02:02:40 that role but your understanding and indeed his was that he was you you were always operating together on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the july 2010

02:02:47 july 2010 consultants report for all properties yes

02:02:50 yes yes and was his continued instruction on that basis ever approved by anybody at the tma

02:02:58 the tma no i've discussed it with barbara um

02:03:04 probably within maybe the first six months or a year of her joining um and i said you know this is the situation i think this needs to be looked at and i think perhaps we're in a position where we now need to

02:03:16 we're in a position where we now need to reprocure and we were both mindful of the fact that um cole just he didn't just undertake risk assessments that he was able to offer us

02:03:24 offer us um kind of advice and assistance he'd assessed leaseholder doors there was a range of of other activities um that he was had undertaken on our instruction so we

02:03:35 had undertaken on our instruction so we had

02:03:36 had done some work to identify get together a sort of comprehensive list of those so you know in some cases he would assist with training there were a variety of things

02:03:44 things um and i had spoken to and i did find some documentation um ernest raw was one of my procurement colleagues and i started to have discussions with him and and set out the extent of of the

02:03:55 and and set out the extent of of the work but

02:03:56 work but um i don't know where that had got to to be honest

02:04:00 be honest um but but we certainly had kicked it off and barbara was aware that we needed to

02:04:04 to to get on and do some reprocurement yeah i mean you were able to explain how it comes about that there was no formal uh contract with carl stokes uh for the uh for any of these programs

02:04:16 uh for the uh for any of these programs after 2012 uh in in circumstances where the tmo was was a pretty document heavy organization which like to write everything down so it seems

02:04:27 it seems i can't i can i can only reiterate that i would have taken advice with no way we would have let that continue unless i'd been advised that that that that was okay right how was his how is his

02:04:37 is his funding uh arranged let me put it a slightly different way did anybody approve the uh the funding for carl stakes his work

02:04:49 work i don't actually know i mean his invoices came in i i was the one who checked that what he said he'd done was what he'd actually done

02:04:57 done um and i signed them off and gave them to finance and i truthfully don't know how it was budgeted you don't know how it was budgeted no right okay now can we go to your first witness statement please page 31 paragraph 140.

02:05:13 uh you say that in the third line um after having referred to the initial position with mr stakes you say however his role changed over time and the default position became that if

02:05:24 and the default position became that if we had an issue that might be classified as a fire safety risk more often than not we consulted csas carl stakes associates um now when you say that you would consult with csa for any issue that quotes might be classified as a fire

02:05:37 quotes might be classified as a fire safety risk what did you mean by that um i mean that um for example he got involved in assessing potentially

02:05:49 he got involved in assessing potentially non-compliant leaseholder doors um we'd originally i know it's quite a big area but we had originally endeavoured to explain to leaseholders that the door was demised and was there a

02:06:00 was demised and was there a responsibility um

02:06:04 you may have misunderstood my question how would you how would you create a class uh which would contain things like fire safety risks

02:06:14 risks what was the classification you used

02:06:18 when things were referred to me um it was a range of things it could be people with hoarding tendencies where there is an elevated potential degree of risk it could be things to do

02:06:30 risk it could be things to do with mobility scooters that it could be very vulnerable residents there were a variety of things anything that was referred to me

02:06:42 that was referred to me that i felt i wanted to get a second opinion on from a specialist fire consultant i would consider referring to cars and was this approach or process

02:06:53 and was this approach or process approved

02:06:54 approved by the tmo board at any time

02:06:58 certainly in relation to the leaseholder doors

02:07:01 doors that was approved by the health and safety committee and i think also the scrutiny committee

02:07:10 but this ad hoc approach in general of going to carl's stokes whenever a so-called or potential fire safety risk arrays was that ever the subject of approval by the tmo

02:07:21 ever the subject of approval by the tmo board no

02:07:23 board no not explicitly um i think there was always an expectation that there would be things

02:07:27 be things and and the same with salvas there would be things that came along that we would seek his advice on because we didn't have sufficient detailed in-house for our safety advice and that was part of part of the contract really um

02:07:40 part of the contract really um i mean given that the tmo board was the the board of the responsible person was it not essential for the tmo board to know of and approve of those ad hoc arrangements um possibly

02:07:53 of those ad hoc arrangements um possibly well i mean all i can say is my land managers always knew the range of activities we and sometimes it would be them who suggested that we we get him involved in assessing or doing a um an

02:08:04 involved in assessing or doing a um an activity specific report um and that there was nothing coming back from executive team to say actually we should we should set out the terms of this

02:08:15 we should set out the terms of this did it ever occur to you to tell your line manager that the ad hoc arrangements that you had with carl stokes or ought to be formally brought to the attention of the tmo board

02:08:25 board as the board of the responsible person and signed off i don't believe it did why is that i i can't give you an explanation it

02:08:36 i can't give you an explanation it should have done um i'd i think i think the problem is sometimes whenever you have a really busy day job you don't stand back and do the kind of thinking about well actually that's

02:08:48 about well actually that's that's the structure that you need to have in place i can't give you an explanation uh now i want to turn to uh well sorry last question what about rbkc to your knowledge

02:08:59 knowledge did our bkc ever sign off uh on carl stakes's ad hoc approach i don't believe they signed off on it no

02:09:07 on it no but but i think um they certainly were aware of his involvement significant involvement in terms of leaseholder doors because we also had some

02:09:16 some joint meetings with quite senior people at the fire brigade and carl and colleagues from robbie casey were in attendance so they were aware now i want to turn to the instructions given to carl stokes for completing the fras

02:09:28 completing the fras am i right in thinking that those were always

02:09:32 always contained in or could be found in the july 2010 consultants brief that you'd send him as part of the fender for the you can for the medium risk program yes yes

02:09:43 and once mr stakes had been taken on by the tmo for the low risk fra program were those instructions ever supplemented by any other written instructions um i don't recall them being no and what

02:09:55 um i don't recall them being no and what about when he was instructed on a rolling basis at the end of the low-risk program was he ever given any supplemental instructions or you just carried on

02:10:05 not that i recall right sorry so what were his instructions once he was

02:10:13 was carrying all three programs on a rolling basis

02:10:16 basis um i would give him a program um with time scales for when things were due to be reviewed he would come back and confirm that he he could

02:10:28 and confirm that he he could he could meet that um i would start he he you know he knew he knew the properties quite well by then he knew the local caretakers he could often he had drop keys so he could sometimes

02:10:40 he had drop keys so he could sometimes get his own access he had their contact details

02:10:42 details so those are the kinds of additional things that we were providing with him and updating him on a regular basis but i don't really think about those as formal instructions but we would be providing

02:10:51 providing regular information um he would undertake i believe what um so when he first came to work for us i in uh

02:11:02 in uh introduced him to colleagues in what was then i think building services but became contract management um

02:11:11 um he would often go straight to them to ask them for documentation and certification in relation to plan maintenance um because he knew if he came through me that was just an added tier of people it

02:11:22 that was just an added tier of people it made more sense to go straight to them he would often pop in and collect the documentation if providing he had the documentation before he went to site then that would all be referred to in his assessment and he had a set of

02:11:35 in his assessment and he had a set of girder keys so he could get into all generally all the areas of the building if there are areas that he couldn't access he would initially try and contact the caretaker the esa to provide

02:11:46 contact the caretaker the esa to provide access

02:11:47 access or he would make sure they were outlined in his report at the conclusion of of that when his report was finalized i would receive it as a pdf document and then i would

02:11:58 as a pdf document and then i would receive a word document with the action plan and significant findings right now when the lga guidance was published in

02:12:06 in 2011 and when the past 79 guidance document was revised and published in august 2012 at either of those points or after either of those points um did you ever send any instructions to

02:12:17 um did you ever send any instructions to carl stokes just to bring him up to date with the new publications and ensure by way of instruction that he complied with those um we would have discussed them at length particularly the lga guide

02:12:30 length particularly the lga guide right because because we had both been involved in the consultation that led up to it being finalized he he had his own input and i think he also input some responses

02:12:41 input some responses on our behalf so we were both mindful that it was coming and we were quite looking forward to it because we hoped it would be the most appropriate documentation for the majority of our our blogs

02:12:52 our blogs so we would have talked at length about the lga guide but whether that translated into written instructions for him i'm not sure now what about past 79 august uh

02:13:05 what about past 79 august uh 2012 edition did you ever have a conversation about that document probably but i can't specifically remember apologies i want to ask you some questions about the process and frequency of

02:13:16 the process and frequency of the production of fras can we go to the consultant's brief please at tm00842371

02:13:28 page six part two paragraph 1.1 scope and it says fire risk assessments will be undertaken and reviewed regularly at a frequency

02:13:40 and reviewed regularly at a frequency dictated by the degree of risk the fra and fra reviews will include an individual examination of each communal fire door

02:13:47 fire door including whether it operates correctly and the findings will be clearly documented in each report do you recall how often high-risk buildings were reviewed once the initial program with selvus was

02:13:58 once the initial program with selvus was completed in april 2010 um they would they would have been done by carl uh as you know grandfather was

02:14:09 by carl uh as you know grandfather was done at

02:14:10 done at i think december 2010 so the um i think the plan was that they would be done

02:14:18 be done comprehensively every three years unless there were material alterations or the the other factors and there would be a low level review happening in between those periods in reality um because we had mans master

02:14:31 in reality um because we had mans master door replacing doors and we had some major works in various locations

02:14:37 locations there were other factors which meant that reviews were um were undertaken at uh shorter intervals more frequently yes i mean you mentioned um grenfell tower december 2010 that's

02:14:50 um grenfell tower december 2010 that's quite right 29th december 2010. do you know why carl stokes produced an fra in december 2010 for grenfell tower when he had produced one at when at salvas on the

02:15:02 produced one at when at salvas on the 30th of september 20 to 2009. um i think that's what we referred to that

02:15:08 that that sort of snuck up on me really that um

02:15:12 um we'd appointed him to do medium risk he's getting on with a medium risk and then i have a kind of crisis moment and go away and say to my colleagues in procurement and to my line manager i'm in this position

02:15:23 in this position i want us to do another comprehensive review by the consultant is this something that we can get on and do and then he is in a position where he has to program that in along with all of his other work right and what mr stakes says in his

02:15:35 right and what mr stakes says in his statement and this is paragraph 52 on page 17 we don't need to go to it is that if he had done an fra in a given year for a particular high-risk building then it was intended that the fra would

02:15:47 then it was intended that the fra would be reviewed in-house by tmo the next year and then he would undertake a fresh fra the year after that

02:15:54 that um do you agree with that um it's right that we would we would get to the stage where we would review the fra in-house the following year but i believe at that stage for high risk we were looking to

02:16:07 stage for high risk we were looking to make sure they were done every three years because the proposal in the redrafted fire strategy that that didn't quite make it to be signed off was that we would review comprehensively

02:16:18 was that we would review comprehensively every two years so that was a change so i think our original position was once every three years right so can you account for why grenfell tower which was a high-risk building i think

02:16:29 building i think was redone with a fresh fra only in december 2010 because that's what salva specified whenever they did their review right i see yes now the concept of in-house reviews

02:16:40 yes now the concept of in-house reviews is repeated i think in your november 2013 fire safety strategy isn't it yes let's go to that tm00830598 page 10 paragraph 14.3.3

02:16:59 and it says there it is anticipated uh that that this is halfway through the paragraph

02:17:06 paragraph it is anticipated that the shorter more regular reviews which will tend to concentrate primarily on progress with previous action plan and identification of any changes will be carried out in-house by the tmo health and safety

02:17:17 in-house by the tmo health and safety team however where completely new fras are required either because of some criteria

02:17:22 criteria two to four apply or on a recurring basis the services of a specialist virus assessor will be used

02:17:29 used so just to be clear that the regular reviews were not intended to be like fire risk assessments completed by carl stokes

02:17:36 stokes to class 79 standards no no they weren't they're just yeah they're just monitoring to see that the actions are closed out

02:17:47 to see that the actions are closed out yes and there are no obvious changes to the building there's no evidence of arson or anti-social behavior or any other areas which would lead you to think there's an elevated degree of risk or any any works on site where there

02:17:58 or any any works on site where there might be hot works that we're unaware of those those kinds of issues i see now carl stokes said in his evidence

02:18:05 evidence and just for our purposes it's day one three six page one four 12 to 16. we can see it if you like but he said that he would receive copies of a

02:18:14 a something he called a health and safety tick sheet do you know can you help me with that no what was that you don't know i really don't know sorry because my colleague when he was doing his reviews

02:18:25 colleague when he was doing his reviews would take out carl's action plan um and we would add another column to i just to confirm that what we thought had been completed was completed so that we had a record so and carl wouldn't necessarily have that

02:18:37 and carl wouldn't necessarily have that and and after that was done and we moved on to the next fra i'm not sure we would have necessarily kept it so i don't think we'd have shared that with him

02:18:43 with him well that leads to the next question did you send him the uh fra action plans with that fourth column completed in them for his next fra i i don't recall that

02:18:55 for his next fra i i don't recall that we did

02:18:56 we did um we could have done but i don't recall that we we did or that he he requested them um because i think he was

02:19:03 he was going to refer back to his original comprehensive assessment now going back to the question of scope can we go back to the consultant's brief please

02:19:14 to the consultant's brief please uh tmo double zero eight four two three seven

02:19:18 seven one page six paragraph 1.1

02:19:26 and i've read you this before the reference to communal fair doors can you explain what you expected to be documented in the report was it detail of each

02:19:39 in the report was it detail of each communal fire door or just the fire doors that weren't operating correctly

02:19:45 i expected the action plan and significant findings to identify anything that we need to action so where he assured me that he did a visual check

02:19:57 visual check of all of the the doors in the block obviously in terms of flat entrance doors

02:20:02 doors generally that would be from the outside unless he managed to get access but communal doors he would um inspect from both sides inspect the closer any strips or seals or any door furniture any glazing all of that

02:20:13 furniture any glazing all of that and he would identify anything that was defective or potentially non-compliant and that would be documented in the action plan and that would allow us to to raise the appropriate order for the works to be

02:20:24 appropriate order for the works to be undertaken now this is this document is july 2010. can you just help me why were communal fardoos in particular singled out for special treatment in paragraph 1.1 of this document

02:20:36 in paragraph 1.1 of this document i suppose because they protect the means of escape um if especially if there's a dedicated means of escape often communal fire doors are are there to protect that i i can't say you don't know no i don't

02:20:49 i can't say you don't know no i don't know i mean the difficulty with this document as i said before is that um it was put together involving other colleagues from the council and i look at it now and i don't know which brits were put in by him but certainly alexis

02:21:00 alexis did quite a lot of it and it may have been from him for me i mean do you remember any particular problem or um concern arising at the time about communal

02:21:10 communal fire doors which would have meant that it should um obtain such a special place in this specification of services no no not especially obviously they were always crucial to maintain the means of escape the

02:21:21 maintain the means of escape the caretakers were doing regular inspections and we thought it was a very important and and of the communal areas so they're an important part of the communal area so it's important that they're they're

02:21:32 so it's important that they're they're looked at

02:21:33 looked at um and in some blocks they were subject to quite a lot of use and so potentially they could have failed more often so we wanted to be assured that they were being given the level of scrutiny that they they should have had

02:21:46 scrutiny that they they should have had now can we just go back to your first witness statement then please uh still on the question of scope and look at paragraph 140 at page 31. you say there are three lines up from the bottom

02:21:57 from the bottom carl's remit was the common areas of properties only however he had a helpful nature and would often make comments on other matters on matters outside of this remit

02:22:08 matters on matters outside of this remit what did you understand by the phrase common areas um i suppose well i suppose i understood it to me in the communal areas

02:22:19 the communal areas the areas which were sort of authorized access only so the plant areas and obviously the um specification that his documentation

02:22:31 specification that his documentation requires him to do a percentage of inspections of flat entrance doors so he'll do all of the doors from the outside of the property but he needed to try and gain access to

02:22:42 but he needed to try and gain access to a number of flat entrance doors so that we we knew what they were like from the inside and he could make a better judgment about whether they were compliant or not right um sorry the other thing about

02:22:53 right um sorry the other thing about communal areas is i um knew that he would indicate if there was

02:22:59 was any issues in terms of access to the block i don't think that's technically included

02:23:03 included in the fire risk assessment but i know that it's something that he would have identified i'm just focusing on that a little bit more can we get back to the july 2010 consultants brief please at

02:23:16 tm00842371

02:23:28 and a paragraph one page six if we can go to page six you'll see a paragraph 1.3

02:23:37 uh it says fras and reviews will focus on and then there's a list of eight items and i'll show them to you there

02:23:44 there in detail one the compartmentation of the building and any possible shortcomings with it two the operation and adequacy of fire doors including their fire resistance rating and smoke stroke fire seals three adequacy of firefighting equipment

02:23:56 three adequacy of firefighting equipment four adequacy of automatic detection system extraction systems sprinklers dry risers wet risers etc five assessments of the means of escape to include final exit doors and assessment of secondary means of

02:24:08 and assessment of secondary means of escape where present and it's appropriate as strict viability emergency lighting signage etc six fitness for purpose of the building in relation to fire safety seven fire safety management systems and

02:24:19 seven fire safety management systems and their recording procedures eight marking of fire detection and firefighting equipment fire doors including their fire resistance rating and smoke straight fast seals and compartmentation on floor plans

02:24:30 and compartmentation on floor plans provided by the client where possible and in all other cases to be produced by the consultant symbols and other information marked up on the drawings will be the same as nhm government guides fire safety risk assessment now was it your understanding

02:24:45 assessment now was it your understanding that each of those instructions all those instructions generally included checking a sample of flat entrance doors yes do you know why the brief didn't say that specifically

02:24:56 that specifically i don't but it but it was always very clear from the outset of both contracts so that was our expectation and um that's what was being done do you know where this list came from

02:25:07 know where this list came from again it was this was put together

02:25:12 from a variety of people right um so i'm i'm not clear as i say i'm not clear looking back which bits for me which bits were alexis but it was a combination do you have did you have an idea of what kind of percentage

02:25:23 percentage of flat front doors should be sampled in a high-risk high-rise block such as grenfell tower i actually couldn't find anywhere an indication of

02:25:34 indication of of what was what would be good practice i i think i'm confident that i raised it with my peers in the london southeast fire safety group um and i think they were commonly doing

02:25:46 and i think they were commonly doing five to ten percent so i think five to ten percent was was pretty standard in the sector although some people perhaps doing significantly more um i think what what i always wanted to

02:25:57 um i think what what i always wanted to be assured of is that where possible all different door types were sampled and ideally there were several samples of each so we had a better indication of of the condition of each

02:26:11 of of the condition of each did the checks include checking both the inside and the outside of the door in other words to include the checking of self-closing devices smoke seals door furniture that was like that that

02:26:22 door furniture that was like that that was my

02:26:23 was my expectation that where possible access should be gained did you discuss with carl stokes once he won the medium term program under these terms and thereafter because these terms continue to govern

02:26:35 because these terms continue to govern how carl stakes would choose which flat entrance door to assess um i i did and it was along the lines of what i've just stated actually that would want where

02:26:46 stated actually that would want where possible where you can get access i want you to get possible access to each door type so so that you can review it from inside and out look at the closer look at the door furniture

02:26:57 furniture and then you might have access to a symbol on the door which gives you better clarification about what standard it meant as well um and anything that was potentially

02:27:08 um and anything that was potentially non-compliant definitely trying to access that um but ideally

02:27:12 ideally multiple versions of each different style of door right did you ever tell him that he needed to sample five to ten percent

02:27:20 percent in order for it to be a representative sample i i think i did i mean it's difficult because access as we know

02:27:27 we know is is an issue and and i suppose the smaller the block um the less doors you've you've got as your as your sample and inevitably people are out during the day at work at school whatever and so yes i think i

02:27:39 at school whatever and so yes i think i thought it was commonly sort of agreed between us that that was that was what we were working towards right how would he gain access to tenants flats um he he had um an id and

02:27:51 um he he had um an id and initially in the contract we had written and written articles in the link magazine to advise that we were undertaking these and to encourage people to

02:27:59 people to provide access and explain why the access was required obviously um and he would engage with people when he was in the block

02:28:09 block explain what he was doing and if they were happy to give him access they would he would door knock if the caretaker bsa was around they might be able to suggest that this person is normally in through the day

02:28:20 person is normally in through the day or they might be able to attend with him so that anybody who was concerned about security or whatever would um would be assured did you ever

02:28:31 would um would be assured did you ever consider pre-arranging access for him to particular flats we did access is a perennial problem for housing providers um and we did consider it but to be honest

02:28:42 it but to be honest we didn't go down that track we we obviously we've got very exacting requirements in terms of servicing gas appliances and we've really struggled with that

02:28:53 really struggled with that you know our compliance has been very good for many years but it is a relentless process and we've got a number of dedicated people who work exclusively on on the access so it we didn't

02:29:05 on the access so it we didn't it is to cut a long story short did you ever agree with him how his inspections of flat front doors would be documented in his fras i mean for example would he document every door that he inspected or only the

02:29:17 every door that he inspected or only the ones

02:29:17 ones where he found problems um certainly everywhere where there's a problem would need to be documented on the significant findings

02:29:25 findings and action plan i would expect that in the body of his report where possible he would say he would at least say

02:29:33 least say i've been able to access eight dwellings um

02:29:36 um and ideally i would want him to put the flat numbers but in truth i can't recall if he

02:29:41 if he he did well i don't think he did i mean not in very many instances my question then is if he didn't document which doors he'd inspected how would you or your team know in the following year with your fra review either in-house or

02:29:53 review either in-house or or or later which doors had been looked at

02:29:56 at we would know the doors which had been defective yes but what about those who where no defects have been identified we wouldn't know that if you didn't um

02:30:07 we wouldn't know that if you didn't um mr chairman i'm i'm really in the middle of

02:30:10 of the topic of scope but i'm certainly not going to finish it by half past four because it is half past four so

02:30:17 four so um yeah this is a natural moment to break it doesn't lock standards otherwise we shall be here for indeed a long time so i'm going to ask you to draw a line for the day yes well it is our first four

02:30:29 yes well it is our first four uh miss ray and uh i think it's time we all stop for the day so we're going to stop there we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow

02:30:37 tomorrow and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it overnight all right

02:30:44 right thank you very much

02:30:56 thank you thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow then please

02:31:20 you