Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Evidence - Tuesday 15th June 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:24 would you ask us ready to come back in

00:00:28 please

00:00:39 all right mrs ray ready to carry on yes thank you yes yes thank you mr chairman and would you agree with me that anyone reading carl stokes is fire risk assessments for grenfell tower after and including but after december

00:00:52 after and including but after december 2010

00:00:55 using the definition that you have used would think um that these were firefighting and evacuation lifts that could be used for the evacuation of disabled persons

00:01:06 for the evacuation of disabled persons yes you would and would you agree that that would meet that would be misleading absolutely yes and you would you agree that you should not have instructed him to use a definition that did not conform to industry standards yes but i would

00:01:19 to industry standards yes but i would but i didn't instruct him but i take your point yes or allow him then yes and i and i genuinely tried not to um and i would also just

00:01:27 also just add that i would never have let them be used as evacuation lifts yes now you say in your third statement uh and it's paragraph 91 we should go to it tmo double zero eight

00:01:38 we should go to it tmo double zero eight four seven three zero five page twenty six paragraph ninety one i think we've looked at this before you say um

00:01:47 say um i i was aware in the fourth line i was aware that the tmo lifts did not meet all of the requirements i brought this to the attention of carl stokes however my recollection is that he remained resolute in his belief that

00:01:58 remained resolute in his belief that they were firefighting lifts how and when did you bring that to carlstex's attention do you say um always verbally usually in person not on the phone on a number of

00:02:10 not on the phone on a number of occasions i won't remember the dates but um i would say i'm absolutely convinced that they're not far fighting lifts because

00:02:17 because remember the correspondence we had with salvas and robin and they don't have a hatch but also they only meet a limited number of the criteria

00:02:26 criteria and he would generally be focused on the fact that they he said they had dual power supplies and therefore they did and so we always got to an impasse where he didn't move from his position and i didn't move from mine

00:02:39 didn't move from mine which wasn't satisfactory was there a reason why at some point you didn't simply record formally the impasse that you say you'd arrived with him

00:02:49 him no there wasn't any reason rather than doing it as you call it verbally why not just write to him formally and say i insist that you are wrong and you need to record this fact in your fras

00:03:03 yeah perhaps i should have done that um i just thought that i would be able to get through to him better verbally that i would explain why i felt what my judgment was based on

00:03:16 i felt what my judgment was based on um and it was based on discussions with the senior lived engineer and that was his specialism and his view was that none of our lifts all of the stuff that we discussed this morning really right but i couldn't get past it let's see what he says can we go to his witness

00:03:28 what he says can we go to his witness statement please at page 44 that's cst 403063 for page 44. and let's look together at paragraph 124 he uh

00:03:40 at paragraph 124 he uh the foot of uh well i think we probably need

00:03:45 need the bottom of page 43 for the beginning of the parrot the passage there's a heading firefighter lifts the foot of page 43

00:03:59 uh and he says in the fras i note that the two lifts at the tower were quotes firefighting lifts on quotes this was based

00:04:06 was based on confirmation from the kctma that this was the case both when i was first involved with the tower

00:04:13 tower and he gives a document and subsequently when i was provided lists of the kctma buildings

00:04:18 buildings which had firefighting lifts he emailed 6th june 2012. a copy of which is also at the back of kcrtm's fire safety policy um

00:04:31 policy um now what do you say about that i think that's not an accurate reflection of the of the many discussions we had on the issue

00:04:38 the issue um over quite a long period it got raised periodically and i was very clear that i

00:04:45 that i i thought he was wrong right but that's not what it says here right but he's right isn't he that the so far as the documents documents are concerned grenfell tower was included on

00:04:56 concerned grenfell tower was included on the list of buildings with the firefighting lift in terms of the criteria that had been set out yes well you say that and you've said it a lot but nowhere did you say to carl stokes look if you're going to call it a

00:05:08 stokes look if you're going to call it a firefighting lift tell people that it is only a firefighting lift in accordance with the definition uh coined by the tmo in-house and not with british standards i would have said that but not in

00:05:19 i would have said that but not in writing right now

00:05:23 if we go to your third witness statement paragraph 91 we've just been on

00:05:29 tm00847305 um if we look at paragraphs 91-95 pages 26-27 you could just scroll down through those just

00:05:40 through those just just to identify them for people do you accept that um you were either copied into emails or sent direct correspondence by carl stokes over the years uh at least between 2011 and 2014 in

00:05:51 uh at least between 2011 and 2014 in particular when he referred to the lifts as far fighting lifts and in all of those instances we see no evidence at all that you corrected his impression that they were not

00:06:02 his impression that they were not firefighting lifts i accept that's the case yes did the fact that you had thought he was wrong over over not just weeks and months but years not give you

00:06:13 weeks and months but years not give you calls

00:06:15 calls to uh question his competency more generally

00:06:21 generally um no there weren't there was several things on which we didn't agree and this this was probably the main one um and but no i wouldn't say that it did

00:06:32 um and but no i wouldn't say that it did generally i think that i think with most people there are things you agree and things you you don't agree and overwhelmingly and that i didn't have an issue with it there were just a few specific things i mean

00:06:44 were just a few specific things i mean you did understand did you maybe you didn't that the fra although prepared by carl stokes as as a an independent person retained by you was your fra

00:06:56 was your fra it was the tmos fra yes so if that's the case why did you allow the tmo to publish perpetually uh a a statement that was erroneous

00:07:10 uh a a statement that was erroneous um i can only reiterate what i've said is that he he remained very firmly overview um and his his view wasn't shakeable um what we found from discussions with the

00:07:21 what we found from discussions with the fabricated actually what they needed to know was whether the lifts could be used as a fireman's lift so that they could take control over it um and in overwhelmingly that was the case and they were happy with those

00:07:32 case and they were happy with those arrangements i wasn't going to use them as evacuation lifts and i was not going to let them be used as evacuation lifts so i suppose i didn't put as much store by it as i should in retrospect obviously i didn't

00:07:43 should in retrospect obviously i didn't see do you understand that people reading the fras including the residents of grenfell tower who asked for and got the 2012 uh fra would be led to think that their lifts in their building were

00:07:55 that their lifts in their building were firefighting lifts and evacuation lifts yes

00:07:59 yes and therefore why did you allow that representation that false representation to be protect perpetuated over years i can't add anything to what i've already said i mean i really tried to address it

00:08:10 address it and i wasn't able to persuade carl and he

00:08:14 he firmly viewed his position to be right and and mine to be wrong and i should have thought of taking some independent view but i didn't yes that that's the question why didn't you go to

00:08:26 that's the question why didn't you go to a just take a second opinion or get a get a

00:08:28 get a a limited further fra report on the question of lifts and publish that at the same time i should have i should have done clearly and um

00:08:36 and um [Music]

00:08:37 [Music] i i mean i can only reiterate that the fire brigade's interest was largely confined to where the refinements left and making sure that when they turned up to take control that that all worked seamlessly so we concentrated on that and i knew i

00:08:49 so we concentrated on that and i knew i wasn't going to use them as an evacuation lift so i just just didn't focus on what i should have done well

00:08:55 done well all right but if you didn't think he was right about lyft and was dogged in sticking to his position and he'd reached an impasse as you call it why did you continue to use him at all as your fra well you asked me

00:09:06 him at all as your fra well you asked me if i was if that was a warning sign and it wasn't because we were happy with the quality of his work we just had a few things that we disagreed and as we we spoke already about um

00:09:16 about um the legal statement that he puts in all of his fras that i don't particularly want him to put that in but he felt really strongly that that was an accurate representation of not having to share rfras with anybody so he felt strongly

00:09:27 rfras with anybody so he felt strongly it should be in so in the end i just lived with it because i was happy with most of the quality of what he was producing hmm see being happy with most of the quality that what he's producing in the

00:09:38 quality that what he's producing in the context of health and safety isn't really

00:09:40 really it's not really good enough is it well i don't suppose you're ever going to be i doubt you'll find anyone who's 100 happy with with everything they get from anybody really um

00:09:52 really um i probably didn't phrase it very well but there were just a couple of things that i didn't agree with but overwhelmingly i did

00:10:04 but overwhelmingly i did now let's turn then to the fire safety strategy of november 2013 that we know from your earlier evidence you drafted um the final version is at tm00830598

00:10:16 is at tm00830598 we looked at it together last week if we go straight to page 12 let's look at section 18.2

00:10:27 let's look at section 18.2 under the heading fire safety and tmo lifts

00:10:32 lifts and 18.2 firefighting lifts you see that that's that that's actually the heading and you go it goes on to say as much of the housing stock is medium rise and high rise many of the blocks are served by one or

00:10:44 many of the blocks are served by one or more passenger lifts where appropriate quotes

00:10:46 quotes fire fighting lifts on quotes are provided within tma residential blocks this is to satisfy the requirements of the building regulations which consider the height of the building etc when lifts are installed

00:10:57 building etc when lifts are installed they comply with the relevant standards at that time and when they are subsequently replaced the replacement lift is compliant with the standards current at the time of replacement the criteria for a tmo firefighting lift

00:11:09 the criteria for a tmo firefighting lift is set out below now do you agree that that paragraph doesn't indicate to the reader that the lifts only possess certain features of a firefighting lift properly

00:11:20 features of a firefighting lift properly so called

00:11:21 so called it doesn't make it explicit now no and doesn't say that the tmo firefighting lift which you there have put in quotation marks uh is a self-defined criteria different from the industry standard firefighting

00:11:32 from the industry standard firefighting lift

00:11:33 lift does it no it doesn't and would you agree also that in using the term firefighting lift as the heading to the paragraph and then repeatedly through the paragraph that would give or tend to give the impression to the

00:11:45 or tend to give the impression to the reader that the lifts were in fact firefighting lifts according to the standard definition yes and that was misleading all round um potentially yes yes potentially and

00:11:58 um potentially yes yes potentially and certainly it could create the confusion about the status of the lift and the additional protection that it could provide yes potentially yes yes and you'd enshrine that into a foundational document namely the

00:12:09 into a foundational document namely the tmos fire

00:12:10 tmos fire safety strategy

00:12:13 yes now when it came to drafting the 2017 strategy uh the one that was adopted the day before the fun um this paragraph was not materially

00:12:26 um this paragraph was not materially amended was it um would you like to look at it no if you say not then that's fine i can't really recall but yeah well i don't want to put something to you that isn't right tmo double zero eight three two seven

00:12:39 tmo double zero eight three two seven two

00:12:39 two four page thirteen please

00:12:44 we could probably have them both outside side by side if it were possible to do

00:12:50 that

00:12:54 it's become 19. yeah so it's because and specifically 19 2 firefighting lifts if you just read the text there yeah no

00:13:05 if you just read the text there yeah no you agree with me yes so you accept that there was no material amendment come june 2017 when this um new strategy was adopted my question is why was that why was

00:13:16 my question is why was that why was there no amendment to that um i suppose well i should have been clearer um about what i was defining

00:13:27 i was defining because nothing else had changed um the the lifts we had were still not fire fighting lifts or evacuation lifts and they still largely in the higher rise buildings met the criteria that we'd identified so

00:13:40 met the criteria that we'd identified so i should have been explicit right um let's look and see how this was presented to the lfb can we go back to your third statement please now and pick it up at paragraph 96 on page 28.

00:13:54 at the top of the screen you say it's my belief that we informed the lfb that the lifts were not firefighting lifts as this is what the tmos lift engineer advised me i passed this information onto carl

00:14:05 i passed this information onto carl stokes uh with first question is was that robin callan's 28th of february 2011 email we saw

00:14:12 saw yes and obviously in other verbal conversations as well yeah and when you say you passed this information on to carl stokes is that uh the email 27 well the the

00:14:25 uh the email 27 well the the the third of march which we saw yes the third of march 2010. yes um now let's look on to 2012. if we go to

00:14:36 let's look on to 2012. if we go to cst402920

00:14:38 cst402920 you can see that you wrote to nicholas cummery

00:14:41 cummery at the nfb on the 29th of may 2012. okay

00:14:53 uh and it it's the second email down from you to nicholas cummery reed re-trellic tower and if you look at item three yeah you say this in discussions with your predecessors we clarified

00:15:05 predecessors we clarified that many of our lifts meet the majority but not all of the criteria for firefighting lifts for example we do not install a trapdoor stroke hatch in the roof of the car etc it was agreed that we would clarify the criteria that our fighting lifts quotes

00:15:17 criteria that our fighting lifts quotes on quotes do meet and i have attached an email to the then borough commander brian deans setting out these criteria additionally i attach a list of the blocks where these lifts are located and you will see this includes trellic tower

00:15:30 this includes trellic tower and you can also see that in fact that's sent on to carl stakes at the top of the top of the screen we just picked that up yep

00:15:39 yep so so would you just accept or perhaps agree with me looking at that that so far as you were concerned carl stokes would have read this and perhaps realized that the firefighting lifts

00:15:53 realized that the firefighting lifts as a phrase was a tmo coinage rather than meeting the i think he was aware that it was just limited criteria yes i'm absolutely convinced he was

00:16:04 absolutely convinced he was and this is an another example of something that it's not ambiguous it's clear um and i'm sure i would have copied other older correspondence as well as

00:16:15 correspondence as well as you refer to the email from directly from robin colon and so yeah i do think he was clear what i was saying so um then let's look

00:16:27 so um then let's look at an email earlier on

00:16:34 cst402922 this is historical you refer to brian dean's in the email we've just seen yes this is looking back at two years or so to the 8th of july 2010 when you write to john calvert and brian

00:16:46 when you write to john calvert and brian deans at the london fire brigade copy to robin callan uh and you say there in the second sentence

00:16:56 sentence um whilst it is acknowledged that our lifts

00:17:01 lifts do not fully satisfy all of the criteria for firefighting lists we can confirm that they meet the following and then you set out um what we've seen set out in your 27th to february 2011 email and later on and now on either of

00:17:14 email and later on and now on either of those occasions did you get a response from

00:17:16 from either john calvert or brian deans i honestly don't know sorry it's just right it's just so long ago i don't know but i i have had i did have dealings

00:17:27 but i i have had i did have dealings periodically with brian dean so it's possible

00:17:29 possible it's possible but i can't confirm sorry did you get a response to your 2012 email to nicholas cummery uh about um the limitations that you were attaching to firefighting lives as a definition

00:17:40 a definition i don't know that either sorry right did the nfb ever raise with you any concern that they had that the tmo lifts did not meet the full criteria in accordance with national standards which pertain to firefighting lifts or

00:17:52 which pertain to firefighting lifts or evacuation lifts not to my knowledge when nicolas conray retired

00:17:57 retired did you seek to inform his pr his successor

00:18:00 successor rebecca burton that the lifts were not fire fighting lifts but only so called firefighting that's in accordance with a tma definition i don't recall that conversation no

00:18:11 i don't recall that conversation no right is there a reason why you didn't tell her that or did you make assumptions that she would have read the correspondence going back five years um sorry i i absolutely no idea i don't know that we ever had a discussion if

00:18:23 know that we ever had a discussion if we'd had a discussion that i would have been clear but i'm not sure that we proactively raised it with her um and to be honest it was generally the operational crews who were most keen to be aware if if anyone right and i'd like to go to

00:18:35 if anyone right and i'd like to go to some

00:18:36 some specific issues about the lifts and start in april um 2010 we please go to iws401463 this is the uh report of attendance of a

00:18:49 this is the uh report of attendance of a primary incident we looked at this morning first thing this time let's look at lifts we looked at it in the context of the aov it's for grenfell as you know and it relates to the fire in grenfell tower on

00:19:00 relates to the fire in grenfell tower on the 30th of april 2010 and if you go to page two

00:19:06 you can see on that page firefighting uh firefighting action you see that

00:19:19 firefighting action you see that and then uh in the last part of that part

00:19:22 part we're building firefighting facilities used yes

00:19:26 used yes and then a reason facility did not work nothing and then type of facility firefighting lift facility used no was facility required true

00:19:36 true in other words yes reason facility did not work about people poor maintenance now i know you didn't see this report um as you told us this morning but did you otherwise know that poor

00:19:48 but did you otherwise know that poor maintenance was one of the causes of the failure by the firefighters to take control of the lifts at the 30th of april 2010 fire that's actually not the case

00:19:56 case um because we were we were told immediately after the fire that the lift hadn't worked so um we sent

00:20:04 sent the engineers i think it happened on a friday night so probably the next working day and to investigate and they there was no defect they couldn't replicate a defect so i advised the fire brigade and we met

00:20:18 so i advised the fire brigade and we met operational i think possibly the station manager with some of the local crews on site on the monday or tuesday of the following week um and we and we we went through with them how to take control of the lift

00:20:30 how to take control of the lift um and just to confirm the arrangements for that but also in the course of the conversation they felt

00:20:37 felt that they may have exceeded the safe working load because the number of firefighters who had gone in with their breathing apparatus almost definitely exceeded the safe working load so i think that the lift hadn't worked because of their

00:20:49 the lift hadn't worked because of their action and that was a discussion we had and they accepted that that was probably it so i think when this was written that may have been what um what they believed to be the case but subsequent investigation proved not to be so well this was written into the

00:21:01 be so well this was written into the december of well it was it was published in december but um well it's dated december well i'm i'm just telling you what did the um investigations that we undertook with the brigade yeah so you challenged the reason

00:21:13 yeah so you challenged the reason facility did not work for maintenance we investigated it because that's what we were required to do and on the basis of the investigation um we we couldn't replicate the defect so we knew that this didn't seem to make any sense so we

00:21:25 this didn't seem to make any sense so we asked the fire brigade if they'd be prepared to meet us on site at grandfather yes you you explained did you get a report from the lift engineers the tma lift engineer about the incident um i would have at least said a variable

00:21:36 um i would have at least said a variable report from the lift from the tmo lift engineer it was possibly still robin at that time i'm not

00:21:41 not sure is there a reason why you didn't ask for a written report from robin callon

00:21:46 callon um i didn't consider one to be necessary he attended the site meeting with me and with the brigade and we had a kind of robust conversation and tried to

00:21:57 robust conversation and tried to establish

00:21:58 establish the the root of the problem which seemed to be the sensible way to proceed do you remember where the checking of the fire control switch was part of the testing that was done the day after the fire

00:22:09 the fire um i'm sure it would have had to be because we we sent the engineers to do a thorough check on the lift because we've got a fire we're being told by the fire and rescue service that it wasn't

00:22:20 and rescue service that it wasn't it didn't operate the way that it should so they couldn't have confirmed to us um what they couldn't confirm to us that it was fully operational and they hadn't been able to identify a defect if they didn't investigate that

00:22:31 defect if they didn't investigate that that would have been a very obvious thing for them to do were any changes made following the fire in april 2010 in terms of the left maintenance yes in terms of the fast switch in terms of the lift operation no just

00:22:43 the lift operation no just um the only change was that um i believe that i think i put something in writing to the brigade just to confirm how they took control of the

00:22:54 confirm how they took control of the lift and how it worked locally and because i think they requested that but i don't think there were any other changes no and were there any changes in the maintenance regime of the lifts after

00:23:05 maintenance regime of the lifts after this fire

00:23:06 this fire um not that i'm aware of because as we say it

00:23:09 say it it seemed um not to have been a maintenance fault it seemed to have been a sort of problem with operation now um can we go to tma double zero eight five five

00:23:20 five five five two eight

00:23:27 this is 2013 now if we look at page one second email down on that page

00:23:40 tmo double zero eight five five five two

00:23:48 eight

00:23:56 if we look at the second email down on that page we can see that there's an email from um you uh to peter madison and others

00:24:07 and others in which you um discuss the lfb's fire safety exercise at grenfell tower on the previous uh friday you see that yes uh and that

00:24:20 yes uh and that was following the may 2013 power surges wasn't it

00:24:24 wasn't it um it may have been i was i had virtually no involvement in power surges it came from um we were always keen to promote familiarization and we've done

00:24:35 promote familiarization and we've done quite a successful exercise at trellick tower um and we proposed

00:24:40 proposed where we advised residents in advance and then the brigade also offered them a home for our safety visit as part of the exercise and we plan to roll it out across the stock but actually before we could do that council blakeman requested that we

00:24:52 that council blakeman requested that we do the same at grenfell tower and there had been a bit of a delay just because in terms of the resourcing available to the fire brigade so it was in relation to that if it coincided with the surges then i

00:25:04 the surges then i i'm not really aware of that it wasn't my radar the answer to my question i think is yes it was following it but not as a result of it yes sorry right long-winded but yes

00:25:12 yes then if we look at the bottom of the page um you say this was also helpful for the tmo is very two very minor issues were highlighted we are now able to address these specifically these were in relation to and if we turn to page two second item

00:25:25 and if we turn to page two second item clarification on the operation of the override switch which puts the lifts under firefighters control

00:25:31 control lift engineers have now been asked to provide a copy of the manufacturer's instructions

00:25:38 so that that was what you said and then can i just show you another document um tmo double zero eight five five six one one

00:25:51 this is another email from you 18 july 2013

00:25:55 2013 page we need page two of that

00:25:59 uh where you write to richard burke 18th of july reed grenfell tower lifts

00:26:08 page two and you say uh richard appreciate your comprehensive response grateful if you could advise in one simple point please how should the lfe operate this switch

00:26:19 lfe operate this switch i was on site recently with them and witnessed and turned the key in both directions panicking as they were unclear of what to do and further they were not sure when the lifts had transferred to their control

00:26:28 control and when they were still available to bastard passengers for normal use therefore if i could provide the lfp with very simple instructions on how they should proceed i think that would be helpful then and would reduce the likelihood of our lift becoming damaged etc

00:26:41 our lift becoming damaged etc now looking at that one but looking also at the previous email what was the problem

00:26:46 problem what was the problem with the with the switch i

00:26:51 switch i we have a variety of lifts and i think they're all slightly quirky and i think they just i'm i think they just weren't familiar it's possibly a crew who hadn't done familiarization before they weren't um

00:27:02 familiarization before they weren't um it was it was um very simple kind of drop switch it turned out to be you turn it in one direction to take control of the lift and you turn it in the other direction um to go back into normal service but

00:27:13 um to go back into normal service but you can't always immediately tell that you've now got control of the lift and so what this confirmed is if they step into the car and press a floor they can tell that they've then got they've got control of the left so they were just

00:27:23 just asking for um for clarity and which i believe we did provide did the nfb struggle to operate the fire control switch clearly it looks like um i think they must have on that day um

00:27:35 um i think they must have on that day um and

00:27:36 and the feedback i had from i think the station manager would be helpful if we could just clarify right did you organize any testing of the switch in order to make sure it was working

00:27:45 working i i can't recall i would have whatever i've done um i would have done in conjunction with the the lift engineer because i wouldn't normally go straight to um the contractor um so they would have

00:27:56 um the contractor um so they would have been aware sorry i can't recall right um were any faults in the fire control switch identified no no now let's look at richard burke's response page one

00:28:07 richard burke's response page one good morning janice 19th of july 2013. the file recall switch itself is marked with two opposing red arrows see below picture um now um

00:28:18 see below picture um now um did there's a detail here from richard burke uh who was managing director of independent lift services but raynham in essex was this response

00:28:29 but raynham in essex was this response sent on to the lfb so that they would know how to work the thing um either this was sent on or we did a bullet point summary i can't recall which um but we certainly would have provided

00:28:42 um but we certainly would have provided what they requested right i see how are matters left with the lfb after that so far as the the switch the firm and switch is concerned i i think they were they were clear about

00:28:55 i think they were they were clear about and confident about what they do in order to take control and had to reinstate it subsequently right now in respect of the replacement of the lifts at grenfell tower you were aware i think that the lifts were replaced in 2005 weren't they

00:29:07 lifts were replaced in 2005 weren't they yes yes and you deal with that uh in your third witness statement paragraph 88 at pages 25-26 and you said i'll summarize it for you without needing to go there you say

00:29:19 without needing to go there you say uh that you had no role in the replacement of the lifts at grenfell tower in 2005. you say this was a capital project managed by the tmo's asset and regeneration department not the health and safety team but do

00:29:31 not the health and safety team but do you recall yourself having some involvement in that project in the early stages i didn't recall but i can see that i attended i think a progress meeting or an initial feasibility or um yeah i think i

00:29:44 feasibility or um yeah i think i attended one or two meetings yes but i did we have some examples of that in july 2003 in march 2004 yes yes do you remember the budget no i think you were there for the

00:29:56 no i think you were there for the confirmation of the budget at 672 000 pounds do you remember that no okay there was a meeting in april 2004 and again in november 2004 both of which you were present for but let's

00:30:08 of which you were present for but let's go

00:30:08 go to the last of those apx four zeros eight two nine four

00:30:22 four zeros eight two nine four this is the minute of a pre-start meeting at grenfell tower estate office on thursday the tuesday the 30th november 2004 and we could see your present there

00:30:33 could see your present there yeah yes as as is uh robin collin

00:30:38 uh and if you go to page um one you can see the contact and you need to go lower down the screen item two contract particulars and scope of the works is discussed and in

00:30:50 of the works is discussed and in section or paragraph 2.2 it says this the selected towers scheme would provide a 45

00:30:56 a 45 to 50 increase in lift car size and 10 increase in entrance dimensions together with an increasing contract speed of 30 percent thus achieving an improvement in traffic handling of

00:31:08 improvement in traffic handling of around 30

00:31:09 around 30 to 35 just in general ms ray what was your role

00:31:13 your role in those meetings uh between july 2003 and

00:31:17 and november 2004 the last of which i'm showing you i think it was more to do with the fact that we were going to do tenant in place uh works on it on the

00:31:28 tenant in place uh works on it on the block

00:31:28 block um and to have kind of a watching brief and what we were putting in place to protect the tenants to advise them if there were going to be any other enhanced risks it was sort of it was a bit of an overview really to

00:31:41 it was a bit of an overview really to your knowledge did anyone consider whether the height of grenfell tower which was more than 18 meters affect the type of lists which ought to be installed sorry i can't i can't remember there's a

00:31:53 sorry i can't i can't remember there's a discussion about that remember again it's it's so long ago i really can't recall you don't remember that did anyone consider as part of that

00:32:04 did anyone consider as part of that project where the fire fighting lifts were required to be installed at grenfell tower in accordance with current standards again i i've got no recollection but any time

00:32:14 time after the upgrade project it finished in 2006

00:32:18 2006 until the night of the fire at grenfell tower on the 14th of june 2017. did you or or anybody else you know of at the tmo ever subsequently consider upgrading the

00:32:29 subsequently consider upgrading the lifts so that they met the full criteria for firefighting lifts properly so called

00:32:36 called um i'm not aware but again i would expect

00:32:40 expect that the contract management team would be the people who would have um put forward proposals for the works that they were doing or the works they're proposing to do um they would have known what their budgets were what the priorities were

00:32:51 budgets were what the priorities were and i wouldn't necessarily have been party to any of that um let's then turn to a new topic which is uh the

00:32:58 is uh the fire safety issues at grenfell tower after the refurbishment uh and i want to focus for the moment on external facades can we start with that please with um your first statement again please

00:33:09 um your first statement again please tm050890

00:33:11 tm050890 page 14 and let's look together in paragraph 65 and 66. under the heading modifications to the exterior of grenfell tower between 2012 and 2016 including cladding and insulation

00:33:22 insulation you say this i did not have anything to do with the selection provision or installation of cladding or insulation during the refurbishment and then at paragraph 66 you say i have no knowledge and would not have the

00:33:33 no knowledge and would not have the technical expertise to assess whether the exterior of grenfell tower was compliant with relevant building regulations fire regulations of the legislation british standards guidance and industry practice

00:33:43 practice nor do i have any knowledge of what advice or information was available and what assessments were made about the components that comprised the exterior of grenfell tower its fire safety fire resistance and compliance with safety standards

00:33:55 and compliance with safety standards including information or advice from manufacturers of relevant components now before grenfell before the grenfell tower fire in june 2017 were you aware that there

00:34:07 in june 2017 were you aware that there was clatting and insulation being applied to the exterior of that building um not initially because i wasn't part of the design team i knew

00:34:18 i wasn't part of the design team i knew the works

00:34:20 the works i didn't really know the scope of the works actually for quite some time so i i became aware of it um possibly whenever carl saw um a trial piece on the building that he he mentioned to me

00:34:31 he mentioned to me i i wouldn't have known the scope of the works necessarily so i don't know at one point i became aware of it but certainly well in advance of of 2017.

00:34:39 of 2017. say well in advance 2017. and you mention

00:34:43 mention a trial piece would that have been in the summer june july of 2014 that might have been um just to be clear was that at a time when the

00:34:53 when the the um rbkc's planning department was being

00:34:58 being asked to view the type of rain screen type color i should say and finish of rain screen i'm not sure why it was there i just recall that in discussion with carl he had said oh i

00:35:12 in discussion with carl he had said oh i wasn't aware or he rest he advised that he'd become aware of the fact that there was going to be cladding put on the building he'd seen a piece and he he was asking questions about the fixings and whether

00:35:23 questions about the fixings and whether they were metal and and so at that point it was sort of i was aware but not to any extent right having become aware from it it sounds at least roughly to be the

00:35:34 it it sounds at least roughly to be the middle of

00:35:35 middle of 2014 of the fact that a cladding system is going to be applied to the exterior of grenfell tower did you ever think that you would need to know about whether the cladding was compliant with building regulations from

00:35:46 compliant with building regulations from a health and safety perspective i um believed that the design team the project team had quite

00:35:57 design team the project team had quite significant level of competence in all sorts of specialist areas and that that anything would have had to have building regulations approval um and those people were all technical

00:36:09 um and those people were all technical experts in their field so i believed that we had the right people in place to advise us yes um leaving that on one side and i understand your answer did you ever think that cladding could

00:36:22 did you ever think that cladding could affect fire safety for the residents of the building or employees of the tma who might be working in it i i knew that there were instances of cladding

00:36:30 cladding being problematic um but i didn't throughout the world and i but i didn't necessarily know in detail um

00:36:38 um and i believe that everybody who was technically competent in working on the project

00:36:43 project probably knew an awful lot more about those issues and how to avoid them and how to be compliant

00:36:50 compliant now you gave considerable amounts of evidence last week about your familiarity with the lga guide did you know at the time that is from the summer of 2014 if that is the right time

00:37:01 right time the lga guide had guidance in it about external fire spread um yes a bit yeah yes well let's just look at it we don't need to spend too much time reading it all out but let's look at it

00:37:14 look at it hom3045964 at page 111. let's look at um page 111 paragraph 72

00:37:28 under the diagram external fire spread the external facades of blocks of flats should not provide potential for extensive fire spread and it continues and if you just read on and look into paragraph 72.2 as well

00:37:42 and look into paragraph 72.2 as well uh can we take it that you were aware of those principles at least in general terms yes yes and then if you go to page 129 paragraph 85 this governs

00:37:54 paragraph 85 this governs controlling alterations so they are not detrimental to fire safety uh and

00:38:02 again can we take it that you are aware of the principles set out in paragraphs 85.1

00:38:08 85.1 and 85.2 there yes yes yes uh and of course the grenfell tower refurbishment was a a large-scale refurbishment program wasn't it yes yes and

00:38:21 yes and did you understand as per 85.2 processes should be in place for landlords and other responsible persons to scrutinize alterations and building work

00:38:32 work within common parts that could have an effect on fire safety in the block yes yes and then it goes on as you might rightly point out it's important that building regulations approval is obtained where relevant so

00:38:43 approval is obtained where relevant so can we take it that you knew that the tmo as the responsible person in accordance with its obligations under the rro

00:38:51 the rro had to have a process in place for scrutinizing alterations so that you could understand whether they had an effect on fire safety

00:39:02 they had an effect on fire safety yes but we had employed a significant number of technical experts with an awful lot more knowledge and experience than me in order to advise us on the detail of

00:39:13 in order to advise us on the detail of the products and the processes and the systems that we were putting in place and if you turn to page 130 if you look at the box of examples it's a lengthy list of bullet points but

00:39:24 it's a lengthy list of bullet points but if you look at the third from the end it says this that a landlord undertaking a project to fit a rain screen cladding to an existing block of flats without considering the potential for a

00:39:35 without considering the potential for a fire from a flat to travel upwards through the cavity behind the cladding to spread into flats above did you consider that those paragraphs were relevant to your role

00:39:46 paragraphs were relevant to your role particularly as the competent person i considered that i did not personally have the skills to to do that justice and i was aware that the project team

00:39:57 the project team had specialist consultants and contractors and fire safety strategists and the whole range of experts with significantly more experience and awareness and knowledge

00:40:09 experience and awareness and knowledge than me and my expectation was that they were in a better position to provide us with with the advice that we required and ensure that we were compliant yes i'm not obviously that answers my

00:40:21 i'm not obviously that answers my my question and i'm not sure i'm asking you in a

00:40:25 you in a sharp enough way um did you did you satisfy yourself that claire williams as the project manager knew that the lga guidance contained these

00:40:36 that the lga guidance contained these obligations uh probably not no so who else other than you to your knowledge knew the lga as well as you i but

00:40:50 i didn't because i wasn't on the project team then i didn't know the specific um knowledge and experience of the individuals working on the project

00:41:01 individuals working on the project but i knew that we had specialists in all the relevant areas and i would assume that therefore meant people who understood fire safety in blocks or flats but i can't answer you specifically

00:41:12 but i can't answer you specifically because i wasn't dealing with those individuals i i understand that and that again doesn't quite meet my point the question is one of responsibility as as the responsible person for making

00:41:24 as the responsible person for making sure that this obligation was discharged as the responsible person so my question is

00:41:33 is other than you who was it with in the tmo who

00:41:36 tmo who knew that that there had to be uh um

00:41:44 that they landed undertaking a project to fit rain screen clouding to existing block of flats had to consider the potential for a fire from a flat travel upwards etc

00:41:56 who was it in the tmo other than you who knew

00:42:00 knew that this policy existed this guidance existed

00:42:05 existed um

00:42:08 i don't know i don't know whether peter madison you or claire knew but what i would say is this this is captured in the lga guide but this isn't the only place that this requirement

00:42:19 the only place that this requirement is known to people who are responsible for

00:42:23 for installing cladding to a compliance standard liaising with building control that this isn't the only place that this this obviously needs to happen no indeed

00:42:34 this obviously needs to happen no indeed but claire williams wasn't the competent person was she no no and claire williams uh as far as you know wasn't it wasn't instructed to go and read up on the lga

00:42:45 instructed to go and read up on the lga guide and make sure that the project complied not only with um

00:42:49 um the contractual obligations but also the statutory obligations under the rro or am i wrong about that i don't know because i wasn't part of

00:43:00 i don't know because i wasn't part of i'm sorry my frustration is i wasn't part of the project team so i don't know the specifics of all of the different experts and their areas of responsibility and the level of experience they had i'm

00:43:12 and the level of experience they had i'm confident that they would have had the skills and the knowledge and the understanding to be aware of this and to be aware of where it states something equivalent in building regulations and other standards but i

00:43:23 but i i wasn't part of that team so i can't directly answer your question so no but you i think maybe nearly had the only remaining question is who was the health and safety professional sitting within the project team

00:43:35 sitting within the project team who could have picked up the lga guide in the one hand known the tma's obligations under it and made sure they were discharged particularly by reference to cladding and i i don't know the answer to that because i wasn't part of the project

00:43:46 because i wasn't part of the project team or the recruitment of the project team or the drawing up of the tender or any of those things so i'm afraid i i'm not able to answer that now then moving to the october 2014

00:43:57 now then moving to the october 2014 grenfell

00:43:58 grenfell fra can we just go to that cst four zero three one seven seven

00:44:07 um go to page 10 in it we need to look at the first page we now know the date it's 17th of october 2014. page 10 this is the action plan for that fra and if you look at

00:44:21 that fra and if you look at item uh

00:44:25 item uh well it hasn't got an item sorry no item number but priority is high and the identified risk or hazard is external face of this building is to be overclad

00:44:34 overclad the piece of cladding fixed to the external wall at the moment is on timber battens

00:44:39 battens actions to be taken i would recommend that the contractor provides one the scope of works covering how this cladding question mark how will the cladding be fixed to the building what fixings will be used

00:44:51 building what fixings will be used to three the fire rating of the clouding and fixings for the building control office's acceptance of this fixing system and the cladding used

00:45:01 now that action as i've shown you had a red or high priority rating that meant didn't it that it was due to be actioned in accordance with your understanding uh within two to three weeks

00:45:12 within two to three weeks yes yes and do you remember seeing that action point yes yes and when you saw that action point about the cladding was it something that you were expecting carl stakes to opine on or was it was it something that you thought might have come from

00:45:24 thought might have come from um left field as it were no i i think it was valid for him to ask i'm confident it would have been allocated to claire williams because the information would have had to come from the project right now

00:45:37 to come from the project right now actioning uh the recommendation it means simply no more than asking the contractor to provide answers to the four questions yes yeah and and to get

00:45:49 yes yeah and and to get yeah building controlled input where they're at with it what their views are if they've approved it you are right answers to the three questions and to get building control acceptance

00:46:00 get building control acceptance yes yes did you pursue that with uh the contractor i wouldn't have claire would have right so did you hand that action to claire

00:46:11 so did you hand that action to claire and say you've got two to three weeks to get on with it yes you did did you yes it would be an allocated 3w2 system by then and she would have it's high so it had predetermined um priority and would she have understood

00:46:23 priority and would she have understood uh the action timing to be the same as you namely it had to be done within two to three weeks not just started within two to three weeks yeah it's allocated by the system right i see so we're not on the stakes

00:46:36 i see so we're not on the stakes understanding of actioning we're in the tmo understanding of actually yes now let's go to your first witness statement please um i want to ask you about

00:46:44 about um what you say there are pages at page 15 paragraph 68 to 69.

00:46:52 you say uh there at 68 the only time i recall having to consider the nature of the cladding on grenfell tower was following the fire that occurred on 19th of august 2016 at shepherd court eight months later

00:47:05 at shepherd court eight months later on that 6th of april 2017 the lfb sent a letter

00:47:08 letter to laura johnson highlighting that testing of the panels had found that the combustibility of the composition of the panels at shepherd's court did not meet the levels expected for conformity with the building regulations and you exhibit it

00:47:19 and you exhibit it laura johnson forward this letter to robert black and myself i then forwarded it to various tmos staff for their attention you exhibit that are you are you telling us here that

00:47:30 are you are you telling us here that this was the only time you were asked to consider the cladding on grenfell tower specifically other than the the instance that you just referred to which i was forgotten when i drafted this witness statement right um yes now um you

00:47:43 right um yes now um you um refer to the letter there in paragraph 69 6th of april 2017 letter let's look at that

00:47:51 that um that is at rbk3026888.

00:47:57 it's a letter we looked at closely with laura johnson which she gave evidence let's look at it again now it came in to the to the uh the tmo

00:48:11 to the to the uh the tmo to i'm sorry it came into rbkc uh from lfb

00:48:14 lfb on the 6th of april 2017 from hannah lauer or

00:48:18 lauer or lua of the lfb and then made its way up the chain on the 19th of april 2017 after a gap because i think

00:48:30 2017 after a gap because i think ms johnson was away on holiday and um it starts tall buildings external fire spread

00:48:40 and refers in the first paragraph to shepherd's court and in the third paragraph it says we've seen a number of cases where it appears on the basis of the information available to us that the level of fire protection to the

00:48:51 that the level of fire protection to the external face of the building did not comply with the requirements of part b of the building regulations insofar as they seek to limit the speed with which a fire can travel and spread over the external face of a building or

00:49:02 over the external face of a building or may contribute to a fire testing of panels has found that the combustibility of the composition of the panels of shepherd's court did not meet the levels expected for conformity with the building regulations

00:49:13 conformity with the building regulations on testing it was found the panel's made to formal delaminate exposing any combustible core or constituent material resulting in the panel becoming involved in the fire and allowing the fire to spread and enter flats other than the flat of

00:49:25 enter flats other than the flat of origin of the fire [Applause] and then uh if you look at the very foot of the page if we can scroll down to that in the penultimate line it says contracts for the provision

00:49:37 says contracts for the provision and installation of replacement elements of the building facades including insulation replacement double glazing and associated spandrel and infill panels must ensure compliance with all in bold and underlined parts of part

00:49:49 all in bold and underlined parts of part b if they are to secure public safety and minimize fire losses and then the last paragraph i would therefore strongly urge that you consider this issue as part of the risk assessment process

00:50:00 assessment process for premises under your control i suggest that you make sure all relevant information about any replacement window and facade schemes is fully available to fire risk assessors where no reliable information is

00:50:11 where no reliable information is available for a given property it is our general expectation that a strategy to assess the risk and by necessary implement short medium and long term actions to address the risk

00:50:21 risk this assessment will need to take account of other fire safety measures already in place in the building as well as potential mitigation measures to ensure that any potential fire spread does not pose a risk to health and safety now i've read that

00:50:34 to health and safety now i've read that that may to you almost in full uh we know you got it at the time did did first of all did the technical requirements in respect of facades insulation replacement double glazing

00:50:46 insulation replacement double glazing and spandrel and infill panels mean anything to you a bit a bit not much um i i the spandrel panels um

00:50:57 i i the spandrel panels um so my recollection is that shortly after this fire

00:51:00 this fire carl went to the building um and got as close to it as he could to do his own inspection so he so he mentioned to me this fact that it looked like these were spandrel panels and that tie

00:51:12 these were spandrel panels and that tie the fire had um propagated um so i wasn't surprised to receive something

00:51:18 something specifically in relation to shepard's court um

00:51:23 court um yes sorry but but not but as you say not much well let's look on tm01001660 which is your exhibit 19 we see how this came to you

00:51:33 you and what you did with it yeah um you get this from laura johnson as we can see on the 19th

00:51:38 the 19th bottom of your screen because it comes to robert black and you okay if f was simply fyi yes yes and then if we look up the screen we can see what you do you forward this on

00:51:50 can see what you do you forward this on to peter madison julie selhepp alex bosman

00:51:53 bosman anthony chaney and others uh hi all fyi please see the letter attached from the lfb regarding external cladding and glazing why did you forward this to other tma

00:52:05 why did you forward this to other tma staff in this chain and staff at repairsdirect did you think um

00:52:10 um i sent it to all of the technical the senior technical managers so peter madison was the the director for um asset and regeneration um alex bosman anthony cheney

00:52:23 um alex bosman anthony cheney um were his direct reports um graham webb was obviously he was in charge of all of the responsive repairs at that time derek singleton was the responsive repairs manager reported to

00:52:35 responsive repairs manager reported to graham webb samuel hart also um was a manager in repairs direct and shannon mckinnis was the health and safety manager in repairs direct

00:52:43 direct so i was trying to make sure all of the senior technical managers and health and safety colleague were aware i copied it to barbara so she was she was familiar and my colleague adrian bowman

00:52:55 bowman so that everybody could see it and everybody could see what the fire brigade were asking now if we go to your first witness statement of paragraph 70

00:53:06 uh you you say that this is page 15. following receipt of this letter i checked with carl stakes whether the new cladding panels fitted to grandfather complied with the requirements for the building regulations and if you

00:53:17 for the building regulations and if you go on to page 49 in the same uh statement paragraph 227

00:53:26 and you say there uh

00:53:32 to address our concerns about the contents of this letter i contacted our fire risk assessor carl stokes and sought confirmation that we did not have any blocks with cladding of the nature described in the nfb's letter in particular i was concerned about

00:53:43 in particular i was concerned about grenfell tower which had recently some external cladding panels fitted during the refurbishment carl advised me that he'd investigated thoroughly the details of the installation of grenfell tower with ryden on site and had been advised that

00:53:54 ryden on site and had been advised that these complied with the requirements of the building regulations robert then sent this information to laura johnson stating that it might be useful to upgrade

00:54:03 upgrade update the scrutiny committee

00:54:07 now you you say at the end of uh that the page before we just look at that go back that you were concerned about grenfell tower which had recently some external cladding panels fitted during

00:54:18 external cladding panels fitted during the refurbishment why were you concerned about the panels at grenfell tower particularly um i i wasn't particularly but the letter was was talking about external panels and

00:54:29 was talking about external panels and and

00:54:30 and flame spread so in the first instance i was concerned about whether we had any buildings with spandrel panels because that that was what had um caused the problem at shepherd's court so i was trying to identify any blocks

00:54:41 so i was trying to identify any blocks we had where we had spandrel panels but obviously

00:54:43 obviously grandfather was on my radar because we we don't have we've got virtually no blocks with cladding

00:54:49 cladding and it was kind of um it was obvious that we needed i just needed to what i thought was double check

00:54:57 check that everything had had gone through the um the required approvals process so the letter prompted you to think about grenfell even though it was related to spanish panels well

00:55:09 it was related to spanish panels well it's external external spread so it seems appropriate yes i'm not disagreeing with you at all but i'm okay i'm trying to understand your thinking now apart from carl stokes did you email anybody else to check whether the new

00:55:20 anybody else to check whether the new cladding panels installed at grenfell complied with the requirements of the building regulations um i as you saw i copied it to all of those people um

00:55:29 people um i didn't specifically i mean it was quite clear what the fire brigade were asking so i didn't think there was any value in me reiterating in in an email what the fire brigade were asking um and then i copied it to carl as well i

00:55:41 and then i copied it to carl as well i don't think any of my other colleagues responded no well were you expecting a response from them well i i thought they might have been slightly at least curious or how can we you know how can we move this forward how can we make sure that

00:55:52 how can we make sure that we get the right information and give it to the risk assessor i thought there was a conversation to be had about how we would move forward you wouldn't expect any of them to tell you whether or not they comply with the building regulations would you

00:56:03 building regulations would you no no that wasn't no what i meant there were sort of two aspects to it really i was i was thinking yes i mean to be clear you didn't email anybody else or contact anybody else to check

00:56:14 else or contact anybody else to check whether the new cladding panels about which you were particularly concerned as you say at granville tower complied with the building regulations no but i had written to um peter madison who was ultimately the

00:56:25 um peter madison who was ultimately the technical

00:56:25 technical director for the for the project um so i don't think it would be unreasonable to expect him to raise any concerns or issues or anything that right he hadn't met

00:56:36 right he hadn't met and why did you email carl stokes um well partly because he as you you know had been doing assessments on on our properties for a

00:56:47 assessments on on our properties for a period of years and knew the properties quite well and is no spandrel panels quite well hadn't identified any that i was aware of but i wondered if there were

00:56:58 wondered if there were um it was sort of a double check really just to get his view on was there anything that we hadn't previously identified and we should investigate further um and yeah that really um

00:57:11 um and yeah that really um what did you understand to be karl stokes's qualifications in respect of advising on external clouding panels in the context of this letter

00:57:22 of this letter um as i say he he went to shepherd's court so he was clear i mean he he

00:57:29 he he recognized bandra panels he he knew about those he he knew what they looked like he he knew what he was looking out for he'd been there shortly after the fire so he was he was very clear and he

00:57:40 so he was he was very clear and he was familiar with our property so he certainly would recognize any spandrel panels

00:57:45 panels and would have been able to um or if he had any that any doubts about he could have flagged them up and then we could have looked to find a consultant or a contractor to go and do further investigations so i was

00:57:56 do further investigations so i was looking for him to highlight anything that he thought would potentially require

00:58:01 require more investigation that's not quite what you say in your statement you say you check with him to see whether the new cladding panels fitted to grenfell complied with the requirements of the building regulations

00:58:12 requirements of the building regulations that's not the same thing as identifying any buildings in the tma stock that might happen to have spandrel panels is it well well it's both because the letter's kind of asking for both i probably haven't captured it very well

00:58:23 probably haven't captured it very well in my school but focusing on what you say you were after which was his advice as to whether the new cladding panels fitted to grenfell tower complied with the requirements of the building regulations what did you understand with cars texas qualifications in respect of

00:58:36 cars texas qualifications in respect of advising on that um it it was really to do with the discussions and the reassurance that he had had from ryden's

00:58:45 ryden's and as he put things into his action plan and significant findings as we were given documentation um to address these i've been forwarding them these items to carl and asking if

00:58:57 them these items to carl and asking if he was happy with what they were providing if he felt that that complied so he he done that sort of desktop exercise based on the documentation so i was looking for reassurance based on those the conversations and the site

00:59:09 on those the conversations and the site of the documentation provided by ryden's right so you were asking carl stakes really for what he'd been told by and given by wright rather than any professional opinion

00:59:20 rather than any professional opinion well yes because he wasn't part of the the um contracts team no you see i'm that's why i'm asking you see in your statement as i showed you at paragraph 70 you say i checked with carl whether the new cladding panels fitted

00:59:32 whether the new cladding panels fitted to grenfell tower complied with the requirements for the building regulations were used asking him simply for what he'd been told by ryden or were you asking him for his professional opinion about whether the cladding panels

00:59:43 cladding panels did comply i was asking him on the basis of the documentation that we had been provided with if it was his understanding that they complied with the building regulations

00:59:57 what was his what did you understand to be his qualification to make to express an opinion about that matter

01:00:07 my understanding was that if it had the appropriate building regulations approval

01:00:12 approval that's what we would be expecting and um he would have seen enough building regulations approvals in his time that hopefully he could have well that's something you could do isn't it i mean sorry

01:00:23 it i mean sorry i'm i'm muddled by that if you're asking him

01:00:28 him what was on the basis of the documents that he'd seen whether it was his understanding that the panels complied with the building regulations what qualifications do you think he had

01:00:39 what qualifications do you think he had to be able to offer that opinion to you um he's my first assessor so he's my kind of fire consultant and the only person

01:00:48 person i've got recourse to i haven't got recourse to anyone who was on the project team um so i'm asking him on the basis of the documentation that he's got and the discussions that he's had with the

01:01:00 discussions that he's had with the contractor and any other information that he may have

01:01:04 have um whether he considered it complied and he considered it complied well

01:01:14 i mean let me let me be clear you could do one or two things you could say carl will you go and collate all the information you've given me yes and summarize the views you've been given about compliance yes or you could say look at what you've

01:01:26 yes or you could say look at what you've been given and offer me your professional opinion which was it

01:01:32 um which was it sorry sorry when that one me again well you can either ask him for a summary of what he'd read

01:01:39 he'd read in the material he'd been given yeah which is what you could do but it would be more convenient for him to do it or you could ask him for his professional opinion about compliance which were you asking him for i was

01:01:50 which were you asking him for i was asking him based on the documentation that he had and the discussions that he'd had with people involved in the contract

01:01:56 contract and the building control uh people who you may or may not bumped into on site whether the building complied so you are asking him for his professional opinion based on that material about compliance well yes yes and what

01:02:09 about compliance well yes yes and what qualifications do you think he had to offer an opinion about the compliance with the building regulations

01:02:18 well i'm not really sure i had to answer that i mean he he

01:02:27 i'm sorry i'm not really sure how to answer that he would have been he we were basically i suppose i was basically asking if it complied with the building regulations and he had previously assessed i'm imagining a number of building

01:02:39 imagining a number of building regulations documentations and understood a lot more about the building regulations than i did

01:02:46 did so i believed he he was qualified to provide that

01:02:58 now we know that he included details about the cladding in his fra of the 20th of june 2016. let's look at that

01:03:06 cst403145 and we'll find that at page four

01:03:17 and we'll find that at page four uh and uh on page four you can see at the very top of the page it says this new external cladding has been fitted to this building as part of the project of refurbishment straight construction work being

01:03:28 straight construction work being undertaken on and within this building the original external face of this building has been over clad the new fire-rated cladding is fixed to the outer face of the building by metal fixings and the whole process has been overseen

01:03:39 overseen by the rbkc building control department and officers they've approved and accepted the bill the fixing system and cladding used did you read that passage yes did you pay attention to it

01:03:53 yes did you pay attention to it i believe i did yes yes what did you understand by it

01:03:59 i understood that he had been in discussions with ryden's and claire and the other professionals dealing with the project and he had

01:04:10 dealing with the project and he had sought

01:04:11 sought documentation including the building regulations approval but other documents and based on that

01:04:20 he'd interpreted that as

01:04:24 approval was given and therefore um it meant that the requirements at the time yes most of these are observations so to that extent i understand your answer let me just see if i can focus a

01:04:36 answer let me just see if i can focus a bit more when he says new fire rated cladding is fixed to the outer face of the building

01:04:43 what did you understand he meant by that

01:04:48 i understood that the cladding that had been fixed to the outer place of the building

01:04:53 building would have had the required certification to ensure that it was appropriate to that location and provided the degree of fire retardance was it your understanding that carl stokes had had himself assessed the external

01:05:06 had himself assessed the external cladding

01:05:08 cladding for whether it had complied with the building regulations and himself come to the view that it did or as he put it

01:05:15 put it it was fire rated um the latter i believe i don't i mean he will have assessed any documentation that was that was provided

01:05:27 documentation that was that was provided to him

01:05:28 to him um but that doesn't alter the fact that the the project team leading the project have that remit and and carl's continuing to do his fire risk assessment but the responsibility sat with

01:05:39 with the project team right i think it's the latter which i'm not quite sure i understand let me just see if i can understand it when he says here that the new fire-rated cladding

01:05:50 fire-rated cladding is fixed to the outer face of the building was it your understanding that carl stakes had himself assessed the external cladding and concluded that it complied with the building regulations

01:06:04 building regulations i'm not sure how much documentation he had so i'm not sure he'd been in a position to do his own independent assessment um but he certainly would have had copies of the building regulations approval which

01:06:15 building regulations approval which would have given him assurance yes what i'm really seeking to understand is whether when you read this you thought he was simply passing on something he'd been told without applying his mind to whether it was right or wrong

01:06:26 right or wrong or whether he was whether he was offering his own opinion on the basis of what he had been he'd been given what did you understand

01:06:37 i think i think possibly a mixture of both although i still maintain that the responsibility sat with the project team and all of their experts so he was um

01:06:48 so he was um raising raising an issue noting that that though that there was cladding on the outside of the building knowing that that can be problematic getting as much documentation as he can to confirm the details of the cladding and the

01:07:00 the details of the cladding and the approvals and then just passing that on to me

01:07:02 to me so he's not doing a thorough desktop of of all of the the cladding and the insulation and all of those things and i don't think that's his responsibility to either just tell

01:07:13 his responsibility to either just tell me this

01:07:14 me this did you understand that um carl stakes was providing you with some assurance over and above that which you would have got from the project team or the building control

01:07:26 project team or the building control officers um probably not over and above actually probably just confirming that the due process had been followed and the the building rigs had been complied with yeah all right

01:07:38 had been complied with yeah all right okay

01:07:40 okay but in order to conf in order you say you say probably just confirming but isn't it right that in order to offer that confirmation that the due

01:07:51 offer that confirmation that the due process

01:07:51 process has been followed and the building regulations have been complied with he had to satisfy himself that that was the case

01:07:59 the case independently

01:08:08 i don't think he would have had access to all of the documentation in order to make that judgment it did did you think that at the time i knew how difficult it was to get the

01:08:19 how difficult it was to get the documentation we were requesting um and that's why some of the fra actions took so long to close down so um i don't think it would have all been forthcoming

01:08:30 been forthcoming did it not occur to you at the time if that was your thinking that khalsak's had absolutely no business to be offering what looks like an opinion of his own on whether or not he built the cladding

01:08:39 cladding adhered to the building regulations

01:08:43 but if building control are saying it complies with the building regulations he's passing that information on isn't he

01:08:48 he well he could simply have said that the cladding has been passed by building control but what would be the point of that and indeed the question is i've got views what is the point what did you understand to be the point of any of this

01:09:05 i think he i think he thinks it's his responsibility to flag up anything um any material changes whether they be externally in the building or in the building and he was probably trying to offer some

01:09:17 he was probably trying to offer some reassurance that that the whole thing had gone through the building control department and approval seemed to be in place have you ever asked mr stokes for his advice on the compliance of the cladding panels at any time before 2017.

01:09:30 cladding panels at any time before 2017. no i don't but 2016 i'm sorry sorry i don't believe i did no

01:09:36 and that being said why did you think it appropriate to ask him for his view in april 2017 on receipt of the lfb letter of the 6th of april

01:09:46 um

01:09:51 i can't really answer that other than he's he's the assessor he knows our buildings better than most people um

01:09:58 people um and in retrospect i should have gone through

01:10:02 through claire and all the way back through the the

01:10:06 the the design team the project team but at the time

01:10:11 the time i i can't really tell you just um he seemed

01:10:14 seemed and you had some familiarity with it i knew that he would have read all the documentation that he'd been provided with he he i was confident would be clear that we're building regs requirements

01:10:25 we're building regs requirements were around that he he would have gone to the best of his knowledge to ensure that they'd been adhered to and complied with [Music]

01:10:33 [Music] now the letter from dan daly as we saw said in the second paragraph that you should make sure that all relevant information

01:10:44 relevant information about replacement window and facade schemes was fully available to fire risk assessors

01:10:48 assessors when you asked carl stakes for his advice on the letter did you make sure well let me ask you did you take steps to make sure that he had all the relevant information about the replacement windows and the facade scheme for grenfell

01:11:00 scheme for grenfell no not at that time well as i said previously that was part of the reason for passing on apart from just increasing the the awareness of the letter was also to get my colleagues in the technical teams to start thinking

01:11:11 the technical teams to start thinking about how that could practically be managed how would we be able to extract the documentation that we required and to pass it through to the assessor as he continues doing his assessments

01:11:22 as he continues doing his assessments did you take any steps to identify each piece of information document guidance certificates that carl stokes was given by ryden so that he could give you the opinion you were after

01:11:36 we had the significant findings we had what he was asking for we knew what we so i could have gone back to that and identified what had been passed to him he didn't ask me for anything additional

01:11:48 he didn't ask me for anything additional before he gave me his view um if he had i would have pursued that would you know what can you sit there today and tell me what he had no not without going back to significant findings no no but do you remember

01:12:01 findings no no but do you remember applying your mind to making sure that the carl stakes had in front of him all the documents that you might think might reasonably think he needed in order to be able to express the opinion you want you are asking him for

01:12:13 you want you are asking him for um i know that um i'm confident that when we got the significant findings in the june as and when the documentation came through from from ryden's

01:12:24 through from from ryden's particularly i would have sent each of them to him saying this is what i've been given to respond to 19d or whatever is this what you're asking for is this um good enough are there any

01:12:35 is this um good enough are there any issues

01:12:35 issues do i need to chase for a further version um so effectively is it okay to complete this action has this been complied with so i knew that as

01:12:44 as all of that had come through i would be passing it to him and i wouldn't have closed on the action unless he confirmed um as i sit here now without going through and doing that piece of leg work i can't tell you for sure what i am

01:12:55 i can't tell you for sure what i am you see we haven't seen any communication from you to anybody in the project team to or ryden for that matter to say please will you give mr stokes all the technical data that

01:13:07 mr stokes all the technical data that you've got on the rain screen materials the insulation the infill panels and the fixings so that he can make an assessment of his aim about whether they comply with the building recollections yeah and i i

01:13:18 building recollections yeah and i i didn't do that i didn't do that partly because they had their own um fire specialists and they had all of their experts and also because i almost only knew anecdotally

01:13:29 almost only knew anecdotally initially that there was cladding involved they had their specialist team that were getting on and doing rigorously and i'm sat somewhere else trying to keep other things going so no i didn't do that no but i thought

01:13:41 so no i didn't do that no but i thought it was being done and i thought we'd appointed people who had all of the right skills um in order to do it if you thought if you understood that the

01:13:52 thought if you understood that the project team had a specialist fire consultant did you think it might be worth

01:13:59 worth bringing this letter to the attention of the consultant and perhaps asking that consultant whether he had any comments about it i i could have done i mean by then the contracts

01:14:09 contracts over sort of nearly 12 months and um i just perhaps i just didn't think about it um yeah and that's a possibility um well and i

01:14:20 and that's a possibility um well and i raise it because it might have occurred to you that a proper fire consultant might have had rather more to offer than mr stokes in relation to those sort of technical questions yeah no you're right i suppose perhaps i

01:14:33 yeah no you're right i suppose perhaps i was

01:14:33 was a bit naive in that because there were all of those people involved in the project i thought that it would have stalled more than it did because if if the information and the

01:14:46 because if if the information and the approvals weren't coming then it would have had to be redesigned or reconfigured and i didn't i wanted to believe that none of those people would let it get to its conclusion unless it was all done entirely as it should have

01:14:58 entirely as it should have thank you okay now can we go to cst403112 please which is your email

01:15:08 uh of the 24th of april 2017 to carl stokes

01:15:22 cst403112

01:15:28 uh this is embarked on this document then spotted the time i'm in your hands as to whether we covered well how long do you expect to take with you on this on this topic

01:15:39 to take with you on this on this topic longer than it would take us to the use is this a start of a new topic well it's not no it's just it's it's the it isn't the end or the beginning of the end but it might be the end of the beginning so to speak uh

01:15:51 the end of the beginning so to speak uh it won't take us we t might be better taken now well that's much better way of putting it all right well we'll take tina then um these clocks are all showing something different i'm assuming mr millett's looking at the

01:16:03 i'm assuming mr millett's looking at the one on the far wall so we'll stop now and we'll have a break until 25 to 4 please we have an information asymmetry yeah all right 25 to 4 please and uh no

01:16:16 all right 25 to 4 please and uh no talking to anyone about your evidence over the break please thank you very much

01:16:27 um mr miller's i'd really quite like to finish the witness today if that's reasonably possible what do you think i don't think it's reasonably possible

01:16:36 possible it's not i don't think it is uh i will consult

01:16:40 consult i'll look at these questions over the break and see if we can uh see how we might be able to make a little bit more um pointed but there's quite there's a bit of material to cover

01:16:52 bit of material to cover but but if we go into tomorrow which i think we will because uh i know there are further questions coming in from beyond uh we will not be at all long

01:17:00 long i'm afraid we will have to detain the witness overnight it's inevitable all right thank you very much 25 to 4

01:17:14 please

01:36:34 yes yes was ready to come back in please

01:36:46 all right you okay right thank you thank you mr chairman ms ray can we please go to cst403112

01:37:00 now this is the email which uh you sent carl stokes on the 24th of april yes

01:37:09 if you go please to page one very bottom of the page

01:37:15 uh you say if i don't you can quite yes there it is and this is you to him 24th of april at 9 34. carl my understanding is that we do not have any blocks with external cladding

01:37:28 have any blocks with external cladding of this nature are you able to confirm please

01:37:30 please i need to write back to the director of housing and i think you are probably best placed to advise me on the construction of our blocks and you can see the subject matter there is the letter from the lfb and it's being forwarded on to him um now um

01:37:43 to him um now um you said before that you had no involvement or knowledge of the cladding used in the refurbishment of grenfell tower but here you say my understanding is

01:37:54 but here you say my understanding is that we do not have any blocks with external cladding of this nature

01:38:00 would that include the cladding on grenfell tower i was referring to the spandrel panels at this point i see um and it was my understanding that we didn't have any of those but

01:38:11 that we didn't have any of those but um i i i think as i said before um carl had visited shepard's court and i think we'd already had some discussions um shortly after the fire about

01:38:22 about what the impact potentially was on on our stock

01:38:25 our stock right so when you say of this nature do you mean with spandrel panels yes i do what made you think then of of of grenfell tower or was it the fact that grenfell tower also had spandrel

01:38:36 that grenfell tower also had spandrel panels on it um i think we might have i think that's what i was referring to i'm confident i was referring to spandrel panels but i can see that carl's response is grenfell was clad but the cladding so

01:38:48 grenfell was clad but the cladding so he's he's making it wider then at that point

01:38:51 point well what wait what made you think that the recently clad grenfell tower did not have relevant cladding on it

01:39:01 such as to make it um fall into the category of no of none and so again i my i was asking about

01:39:12 so again i my i was asking about spandrel panels do we my understanding is that we do not have any blocks with external cladding of this nature so external planning in terms of spandrel panels are you able to confirm please

01:39:23 please um and then he's he's come back and said grandfather was clad but cladding complied with the requirements building regulations lots of questions asked if ryden's answers received back um i probably in between that i may well

01:39:34 um i probably in between that i may well have also had um i may have had a verbal i might have had a phone call with him as well just to further clarify well i was going to ask you at what point in this email did you ask him the question you we saw

01:39:46 did you ask him the question you we saw you refer to in your statement about whether or not the cladding complied with the building regulations um i can't recall i mean he would often when i

01:39:56 when i forwarded emails to him he would often ring me if he was out on site in order to clarify or or just to speak more about it so it's it's likely that that happened but i i can't remember do you mind my asking

01:40:07 i can't remember do you mind my asking you to clarify do you recall now what you understood then

01:40:12 then by the term a spandrel panel um i wouldn't be able to define it but i would know visually what one looked like in that they they

01:40:23 what one looked like in that they they look like they're sort of a concrete surface but there's a a different um lining within because um shepherd's court is on shepherd's bush

01:40:34 shepherd's court is on shepherd's bush and i go to west westfield quite a lot so i had looked at the building and i think i had some photographs so i i knew what i was meaning by it but i wouldn't have been able to define the constituent parts did you understand

01:40:47 the constituent parts did you understand it to be

01:40:48 it to be to refer to a location or a material or what

01:40:52 what um a material um the the panels usually just

01:40:56 just sat below the windows um they almost looked not quite pebble dash they had a they had a kind of visual appearance and that i i was familiar with

01:41:05 with so i i knew what they're referring to um yep

01:41:11 um yep thank you very much yes thank you now we can as you mentioned uh carlos takes his response three hours or so later on the same day and you've just read it out i don't need

01:41:23 and you've just read it out i don't need to do it again um your reply was on this on the 26th of april

01:41:29 april at the top of page one thanks got it now it was in spam now when you received his email which you've referred to grenville was clapped with the cladding complied with the requirements of the building regulations did you know what questions he had asked

01:41:41 did you know what questions he had asked of ryden's

01:41:44 um i probably did at the time and i would have been able to refer back to the significant finders and action plans which would have had some of them um again i think that's probably

01:41:57 um again i think that's probably something we discussed on the phone but i

01:41:58 i didn't put in writing did you know whom he had asked

01:42:06 no i don't i mean when he went to site he would communicate with um i used to get the assignments mixed up with either simulator simon o'connor he would often report in to the site agent to let them know that he was

01:42:17 agent to let them know that he was he was in the vicinity um so he would ask questions whoever was sort of in charge locally at the time but then also via the significant findings um through

01:42:28 via the significant findings um through claire we

01:42:28 claire we we addressed those to whoever was appropriate did you know the extent of any investigations he had done to assess the compliance of the cladding with the bill building regulations as he says here

01:42:41 regulations as he says here no i i didn't know the extent no did you not think that this was such a sweeping and

01:42:47 and unspecific response that it deserved a follow-up from you asking the questions i've just asked you what did you ask who did you ask what answer did you get and what investigations did you yourself conduct yeah it did

01:43:01 conduct yeah it did and uh i don't know why i didn't spend more time doing that um i would say that because the project had its own specialist team

01:43:12 its own specialist team um with all sorts of consultants and engineers and fire safety people that you know i was i had always been led to

01:43:23 you know i was i had always been led to believe that all of that was being conducted within within the project team so it was almost looking for a kind of belt and braces approach um but i didn't follow up and i should have done

01:43:34 have done you said belt and braces approach what was the belt if this is the braces well who else were you up by which i mean who else were you asking well

01:43:45 who else were you asking well the information that we're getting from the project team via building control or or all of the information that we have requested and has been assessed by the project

01:43:57 and has been assessed by the project team

01:43:59 team so that when the project is concluded um i naturally assumed that everything was as it should be everything was complied with everything was specified appropriately because that's why we had the specialists that we had

01:44:11 the specialists that we had we had clerks of works we had all sorts of people then looking at the how it was put together and so there's there's the issue about what was specified the the issue about the construction and then there's the sign up for

01:44:22 and then there's the sign up for building control so all of those people were contributing to my overall picture of

01:44:27 of yes this is being done the way that it should well if it's a belt it's a very thin one

01:44:31 thin one because i mean this was as i say would you accept such a sweeping and unspecific response that it it it couldn't reasonably be relied on by you in order to go back to the director of housing and give her a fully informed

01:44:42 of housing and give her a fully informed answer

01:44:44 answer you're right it wasn't a fully informed answer so why were you content with this um it was an initial response i was expecting to go back to the technical managers and ask

01:44:57 technical managers and ask loads more questions particularly about how we were going to do the rest of it how we were going to extract the information in order for the assessor to do his ongoing assessments of blocks where we had other major works

01:45:08 of blocks where we had other major works which had either recently been completed or

01:45:11 or or were proposed but at this stage um i responded as i did you say you were expecting to go back to the technical managers and ask loads

01:45:22 the technical managers and ask loads more questions did you um we see no evidence of it

01:45:29 i think that i did start off the process by speaking to some of my colleagues um likely to being um in david gibson's team

01:45:37 team but i didn't put anything writing and um it was going to be um but also it would have involved speaking to john parsons

01:45:48 to john parsons who had information in keystone it was it was going it wasn't going to be a quick fix

01:45:51 quick fix and i knew that um so i've i had sort of started that process off at that stage you say this is the start of the process help me with this i'm not sure we've

01:46:02 help me with this i'm not sure we've seen any documents that show that the process went any further than this well not at this stage no it didn't because well at what stage did it

01:46:15 so we have our letter they're very clear what they want us to adopt going forward i am sent a copy to all the technical people with responsibility and access to the information

01:46:26 the information and then i was going to follow that up with discussions with each of those managers and then refine how we can put that together and no i didn't put it in writing because at that stage i was trying to

01:46:37 because at that stage i was trying to get their buy-in initially so that i could see what was going to be the most effective way of taking it forward you see your question to carl stokes

01:46:48 you see your question to carl stokes is about whether there are any blocks with

01:46:52 with spandrel panels in your stock yeah now well

01:46:55 well leave aside whether that's the right question or not his answer is about grenfell specific he says as far as i know that is correct he's answered your question then he's come

01:47:06 answered your question then he's come back with something else he says grenfell was clad with the cladding complied with the requirements of the building regulations lots of questions asked of writers and answers received back from them now carl stakes obviously saw grenfell

01:47:17 now carl stakes obviously saw grenfell is deserving of particular treatment my question is what what did you do

01:47:23 you do to investigate his investigation of that at any stage

01:47:30 i did not do anything to investigate his investigation of the work that the design team and the contract team were specialists were doing

01:47:43 and my question again why were you content with his bold assurance about grenfell

01:47:47 grenfell given that he'd come up with it rather than asking him for some specifics about how he had arrived

01:47:54 arrived at what he's telling you there

01:47:58 um well i think it's obvious that i could have spent more time on this but i didn't at the time um i understood

01:48:12 i understood i understood that the project team had all the specialists in place so i in good faith believed that they had everything that needed to be in place

01:48:24 needed to be in place to specify to construct to have sign off my understanding was building control had signed off the building so i thought what he was telling me seemed to accord with what my expectations would

01:48:36 accord with what my expectations would be

01:48:36 be for all of those specialists running a complicated project that so you that that was an assumption on your part wasn't it yes so you didn't take any steps just to be clear as a matter of fact you didn't

01:48:48 be clear as a matter of fact you didn't take any steps to make sure that the project team put this letter from the lafb into the hands

01:48:53 hands of the um specialist fire engineers no i didn't but i sent it to peter madison who was ultimately responsible for that project and he would have if he'd read it he may well have decided

01:49:04 if he'd read it he may well have decided to do that himself now um you've exhibited jw 20 which is your email to robert black and barbara matthews of uh the next day 27th of april tmo1001666

01:49:19 of april tmo1001666 page 2.

01:49:28 page 2. and you say there hi robert apologies for the delay but i wanted to check with our fire ask assessor before i responded to you i can confirm that it is our understanding that we do not have any

01:49:39 understanding that we do not have any blocks with clouding of the nature described

01:49:40 described in the lfb's letter which was present at the shepherd's bush tower block grenfell tower did have external clouding panels fitted as part of the recent refurbishment work however our assessor

01:49:51 refurbishment work however our assessor investigated thoroughly the details of the installation with the contractor rydens when the works were on site and he's able to confirm that this complies with the requirements of the current building regulations

01:50:03 building regulations now would you agree that you are here expressly providing reassurance to robert black and barbara matthews that the issues raised by dan daley in the external fire spread letter were

01:50:15 the external fire spread letter were not of a concern with regard to the grenfell tower refurbishment project i'm advising them that our assessor investigated thoroughly with ryden's the

01:50:27 investigated thoroughly with ryden's the details of the installation um and that it has building regulations approval so yes and you were advising them that this needed no further investigation in effect yes um

01:50:39 in effect yes um i don't think i'm explicitly stating that implicitly though

01:50:45 maybe implicitly now if you didn't know as i think you'd confirmed before the extent of karlstex's investigations to assess the cladding why did you tell robert black and

01:50:56 why did you tell robert black and barbara matthews that carl stokes had investigated thoroughly investigated thoroughly your words the details of the installation with ryden i knew that he had had extensive

01:51:07 i knew that he had had extensive conversations with ryden's because man who asked a lot of questions so when he was on site he would have he would have asked quite a lot not just about the fixings but about all sorts of aspects of the project

01:51:21 all sorts of aspects of the project and what he didn't find answers to he would put in their significant findings so my understanding was at that stage he had asked all of the questions that he felt were appropriate

01:51:32 were appropriate and he was um content with the responses and with the approvals but you didn't actually know what he'd actually done by way of actual investigation did you no we established that but i hadn't asked him specific

01:51:43 that but i hadn't asked him specific questions no so you had no basis did you on which to represent to robert black or barbara matthews that mr stokes had investigated thoroughly i didn't have the details but

01:51:54 thoroughly i didn't have the details but i was

01:51:55 i was absolutely confident that that degree of interrogation would have taken place you were confident that your assumption was justified

01:52:02 justified but you had no empirical basis on which to make that representation as a factual statement

01:52:10 yes um i i can only reiterate that i knew from having spoken to him that he would have thoroughly investigated with ryden's and asked them lots of questions which is what he said

01:52:21 lots of questions which is what he said i've asked them loads of questions what i don't know as we've established is what specific questions now can we just go back to the external fire spread letter please it's uh

01:52:33 rbk3026888 page two i just want to look with you if we can misread your at the final paragraph in that with you um it says that i would strongly def i would therefore strongly urge

01:52:44 would therefore strongly urge that you consider this issue as part of the risk assessment process for premises under your control i suggest that you make sure all relevant information about any replacement window and facade schemes is fully available to

01:52:55 and facade schemes is fully available to fire risk assessors did you instruct call stokes to consider that issue in the future as part of his fire risk assessment process um i believe i did and he certainly had

01:53:08 um i believe i did and he certainly had a copy of this letter so he knew perfectly well that that was our expectation i believe that i did right now can we then turn to the question of premises information boxes um

01:53:20 premises information boxes um can we go please to lfb 303235 this is the bi-monthly meeting minutes

01:53:32 this is the bi-monthly meeting minutes of a meeting on the 13th of july 2016 attended by rebecca burton for the lfb and you for the tmo and if we go down to page three in that document we can see the

01:53:44 document we can see the middle of the page paragraph uh

01:53:50 i'm so sorry paragraph seven there's a discussion about grenfell tower further to previous discussions on the lfb's requirement for a premises information box to be installed at grenfell tower arrangements are in place for the

01:54:01 arrangements are in place for the documentation required to be available in a secure box in the lobby the key to the box will be available from a key safe secured by an fb padlock in the bin room so is it right that you updated rebecca burton

01:54:13 updated rebecca burton that arrangements were in place but

01:54:18 for the information yes my recollection is that um the fire brigade had during when the construction was still ongoing had sort of indicated that they would

01:54:29 would it would be helpful to have premises information box um uh the works were still on site and as they were near in conclusion um claire came up with an alternative

01:54:41 um claire came up with an alternative because apparently there was already a secure box in the lobby and so i think they discussed she discussed that the opportunity to use that instead and the arrangement for keeping the key and

01:54:52 the arrangement for keeping the key and letting the fire brigade know with an fb padlock they could always access it so that's

01:54:57 that's how we ended up with that arrangement i believe what were those arrangements that you're referring to there um as it says here um what information was actually in the secure box in the lobby at this point

01:55:09 secure box in the lobby at this point i i don't actually know um because because it was put in place by the the project um the project team and claire took charge of it normally and previously when we'd had

01:55:22 normally and previously when we'd had a premises information box at trellic and in sheltered schemes um my team had been involved in procuring the boxes and getting it installed and making sure we agreed with the brigade what was in them but in this case

01:55:32 case because the project was in place and because the information they were requesting wasn't stuff i necessarily had access to for example alv information then claire led on this why wasn't there a

01:55:43 claire led on this why wasn't there a premises information box in the end put in the lobby at grenfell well i believe because they already had a secure what i'm being told was they already had a secure box which they felt fulfilled that purpose did you ever check for yourself that the

01:55:54 did you ever check for yourself that the secure information box had been installed

01:55:57 installed no i didn't did you ever ask anybody to do that for you uh i'm i'm not sure whether i did to be honest but i certainly would have asked claire for reassurance that it was in place and that the information that brigade had asked for was in there

01:56:09 brigade had asked for was in there did you what did she tell you well she must have confirmed that it was there or it was imminently about to be there do you actually remember her ask you were asking her and her telling you that yeah i'm sure we had that conversation

01:56:21 yeah i'm sure we had that conversation being confident that you did is not quite the same as actually remembering it i don't think we've seen anything in your statements or in hers about that um i believe that i did but i probably can't evidence it so

01:56:33 can't evidence it so what was the documentation provided in the secure box again that that will be um from what the fire brigade requested and what claire had provided i i don't know in this case because i

01:56:44 i don't know in this case because i didn't lead on this one otherwise i could tell you now we know that on the light of the fire and this has been the subject of evidence

01:56:50 evidence earlier on in this inquiry there were no plans of grenfell tower in um any in any box in in the lobby or anywhere else in the building that the lfb

01:57:01 building that the lfb could access you may remember that evidence given by assistant commissioner rowe can you explain why no that was the case i can't and i can only really refer you

01:57:13 i can't and i can only really refer you back to claire into the project team because

01:57:15 because i i wasn't involved in putting any in i can tell you all about trellic tower because i dealt with that but i didn't on on this issue it was it was led from the project

01:57:26 so you can't help me as to why there was no premises information box or any secure box at grenfell tower which contained even the plans of the building

01:57:34 building so that the fire brigade could access on the night of the grenfell tower fire itself

01:57:38 itself no because i would have happily installed the premises information box um but um i would i was advised by the project team that there was already a secure box available that they could that could store that information

01:57:52 that could store that information now i'd like to ask you about the lfb and some of their concerns about carl stokes can we start with your witness statement number one please at page 31

01:58:05 number one please at page 31 paragraph 139

01:58:10 you say uh in the middle of the page there

01:58:13 there 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 assured me that he did not feel he would

01:58:25 assured me that he did not feel he would gain anything from these memberships he nevertheless assured me that he proactively arranged his own continuing professional development i was aware that carl regularly attended seminars legal updates and briefings in fire safety

01:58:36 safety as he would often provide me with feedback and a summary of the information presented and outline any potential impact it may have on the tmo and then in paragraph 158 on the top of

01:58:47 and then in paragraph 158 on the top of page

01:58:47 page 36 you say

01:58:53 in the fourth line i do not recall the lfb ever making any comments of such significance that we had any reason to doubt

01:59:00 doubt the suitability and competency of carl stokes or the fras prepared by him yeah i'm confident that if any issues were raised about the fras we discussed these with carl stokes and the recommendations made

01:59:12 recommendations made were always taken on board i have a question

01:59:16 question okay do you remember concerns being raised to you with you about carl stokes's competence by members of the lfb yes by rebecca and i don't know why i didn't include that in my statement it blindsided me um rebecca barton

01:59:30 it blindsided me um rebecca barton had raised um concerns about the time of the

01:59:33 the um adair fire and i i recall uh there were i think a couple of specific points one was that carl referred to meetings he'd had with senior lfb

01:59:45 had with senior lfb officials but wasn't able to evidence them and therefore they shouldn't have been included um and i think the other was about um there was a sort of feeling that

01:59:56 um there was a sort of feeling that instead of just sticking to the most appropriate guide for a building that that maybe he referred to two when really the appropriate thing to do was to choose the most effective guide

02:00:07 the most effective guide guidance um and use that as your as your base right well just say just to start with you say it that this statement in here shouldn't have been made and it blindsided you

02:00:18 have been made and it blindsided you when did you first realize that this statement i think 158 was wrong

02:00:23 wrong apologies i think when i really read it recently i realized that i had um omitted to include the the um the issues that rebecca and i'm sorry i meant to say at the beginning

02:00:35 sorry i meant to say at the beginning and i must have gotten okay all right so um well that's i think we might be able to take it quite quickly in light of that

02:00:40 of that um first can we uh look at rebecca burton zane's second witness statement to the inquiry because it might

02:00:47 might shorten matters with her lfb 3084098 page 9 paragraph 16 bottom of the page if we can

02:00:55 if we can scroll down to that

02:00:58 she refers to the meeting of the 13th of november 2015 which was arranged to discuss the odetta deficiency notice and if you uh look uh at what she says in the fifth

02:01:09 look uh at what she says in the fifth line there she says this i was very frank and told her that i did not think he as carl stokes was providing a good service to the kctmo as illustrated by the quality of the fra for a dare tower which was mirrored in

02:01:20 for a dare tower which was mirrored in the fra for its sister tower hazelwood tower which i'd also reviewed following the adair tower fire uh do you remember that she raised that issue with you at the meeting

02:01:30 meeting yes i did yes and you understood it to relate to concerns about carl stokes yes i did do you remember any specific concerns that she raised um as i say though there was the the one

02:01:41 um as i say though there was the the one issue about reference to meetings with senior lfp officers

02:01:44 officers um that weren't evidenced and she felt couldn't be evidenced and there was the other one about whether he was always using the most appropriate guide or whether he was maybe potentially

02:01:55 whether he was maybe potentially cherry-picking um i think in relation to a dare and hazelwood

02:02:01 hazelwood there was also an issue about self-closures um yeah and there may be another those were the issues now in

02:02:12 issues now in let's go to lfb uh four zeros three four four five

02:02:20 this is an email from rebecca burton to spencer sutcliffe of the 5th of may 2016 where she summarizes to him the meeting of the 13th of november 2015 that we've

02:02:32 of the 13th of november 2015 that we've just been looking at in her statement you could see what she says she says hi spencer see below an update regarding relating to the action plan following the post-fire review on a dare tower

02:02:44 the post-fire review on a dare tower and then under action plan meeting arranged with tmo health and safety manager janice ray for 13th november to discuss items now that was in relation to the the meeting which had occurred the

02:02:55 the meeting which had occurred the previous november isn't it yes clearly and then if you look at the bullet points under that they're in a slightly different text they're in blue she says during the meeting

02:03:04 meeting with janice ray on 13th november 2015 i discussed the following areas of concern that had

02:03:09 that had arisen following the fair tower first bullet tmo's approach to reviewing risk assessments and acting on significant findings in a timely manner suitability of fire risk assessments particularly regarding approach to flat

02:03:20 particularly regarding approach to flat front doors and self-closures claim within the virus risk assessment the fire safety regulation had agreed self-closing flat front doors are not not required next bullet apparent lack of systems in

02:03:31 next bullet apparent lack of systems in place to prevent the hindrance of access to drm during maintenance works next bullet fire risk assessments not demonstrating an understanding of the strategy for the building and how persons will be kept safe

02:03:42 persons will be kept safe in the event of fire it was agreed at this meeting that janice ray would consider each of these points and discuss with their fire risk assessor improvements that could be made yes

02:03:53 improvements that could be made yes do you remember her raising those specific issues with you yes i do do you remember agreeing that you would speak to carl stokes about the improvements that could be made in each case yes and i did

02:04:05 made in each case yes and i did uh did you speak to carl stokes after the meeting of the 13th of november i did

02:04:08 did you did and was there a nate of that meeting no um i spoke to him i thought it was an important meeting to have face to face and um

02:04:15 and um and i should have kept to note the meeting but um yeah i erased all of the issues that rebecca had raised um and i think suffice to say that once

02:04:26 um and i think suffice to say that once we had completed the works for the enforcement notices it required the brigade's approval of the fire risk assessment the reviewed fire risk assessment for the works to be signed

02:04:37 assessment for the works to be signed off

02:04:38 off and that was reviewed so i i feel that reflects the fact that he had taken on board the concerns which were raised did you provide an update to rebecca burton she

02:04:49 provide an update to rebecca burton she she didn't ask for one um and she would have raised it again i mean we were on in pretty frequent dialogue about all sorts of things um

02:05:00 of things um and i i probably i'm sure i advised her as it says here that i would address it and i feel like i did address it

02:05:11 can we go to tma10011001

02:05:18 please

02:05:22 this is an email

02:05:28 that you sent to robert black and barbara matthews on the 13th of november 2015

02:05:33 2015 after your meeting with rebecca burton on the 13th of november 2015 at

02:05:41 2015 at 1752 and

02:05:46 it says robert barbara sasha as you know i met with rebecca burton this morning to seek clarification on the lfb's response to the fire she advised that there are certain

02:05:57 she advised that there are certain trigger events that caused the lfb to undertake a review following a fire in the case of a dare there were two trigger factors one fire survival calls two people rescued from balconies and then

02:06:06 then um halfway down the page if we scroll down a bit more please she goes on to say uh or rather you go on to say rebecca confirmed that the concerned straight questions he had were as follows

02:06:17 as follows and then one were the original windows on the means of a escape staircase openable etc two rising butt hinges etc three dry rising firefighting main

02:06:31 etc three dry rising firefighting main etc and if you look through what you say there we see nothing in there and indeed on page two either of

02:06:43 and indeed on page two either of the concerns that rebecca burton had raised about carl stokes with you earlier that morning yeah and you won't do because this was an update on the position specifically in relation to adair and

02:06:54 specifically in relation to adair and the brigade's position on adair i i spoke to barbara about them at length

02:07:00 at length which is my language that's what i would always do

02:07:05 do you mean and by that answer that you spoke to barbara matthews orally about the concerns that rebecca burton had raised with you about carl stokes

02:07:16 raised with you about carl stokes yes and what i was proposing to do about them right but you didn't make a record of it no why is that just time really i knew i was dealing with it and i knew barbara would hold me to account and ask me for

02:07:27 hold me to account and ask me for updates so it was just time unfortunately right can we then go to um

02:07:35 the bi-monthly meeting uh of the 6th 5th of january 2016. this is the day before the scrutiny meeting held by rbkc this is lfb3032330

02:07:51 just look at the first page but to begin with to identify the document

02:08:00 there it is okay we can see who's present uh you are president rebecca burton is present and claire williams also present on this occasion and it says on page three if you go to page three point eight

02:08:11 page three point eight bottom of the page risk assessments rebecca raised her concern that our fire risk assessor uh sometimes makes statements which are not justified or supported and the fra reports need to include justification

02:08:22 reports need to include justification for statements made in particular reference to discussion with senior lfb officers must provide names dates and confirmation of outcome or discussions of discussions etc also in relation to balfour

02:08:33 balfour the fra needs to be reviewed to clearly demonstrate that the impact of the missing doors in front of the hopper head in the area et cetera et cetera and then it goes on uh in the second line at the top of page

02:08:44 uh in the second line at the top of page four janus agreed to raise these issues uh with our with our assessor but did not i'm sorry but did comment that we have frequently provided copies of fras to the lfb in recent years and until now these have been well

02:08:55 and until now these have been well received considered to be comprehensive and no criticism had been fed back

02:09:02 do you remember these concerns being raised at this meeting yes i do did you agree with them um i think one of them i already mentioned to you in relation to um reference to meetings with lfp colleagues that um

02:09:14 with lfp colleagues that um there were no minutes for so that's probably a fair comment actually um yes uh uh uh what was done to res well did you raise these concerns with carl stokes again

02:09:25 these concerns with carl stokes again yes i did you did so this is the second time you've had to go back to him with complaints made by the lfb about his work yeah did that not concern you then now the second time that the lfb of picking

02:09:37 second time that the lfb of picking him up or picking you up on his quality it didn't

02:09:40 it didn't worry me excessively because as the point i was trying to make is is quite a lot of of disparate lfb officers over quite a long period have requested and had copies of the

02:09:52 have requested and had copies of the fire risk assessments um and in a number of cases they would come back and say this seems to be broadly compliant so i'm more than happy to address the concerns that have been

02:10:03 concerns that have been being flagged um and i'm sure that they're legitimate and i felt that that was

02:10:07 was it was something that we could deal with so i'm not sure i follow rebecca burton has now had two occasions in the previous 12 months to tell you that she didn't think that the work of your fire risk assessor was

02:10:18 the work of your fire risk assessor was satisfactory yes that's factually correct did the fact that this is now rearing its head for a second time not concern you um i think the points she was making were legitimate

02:10:29 were legitimate and i i was going to be able to address them and had already started to address them at that stage the point i'm making is that over a long period

02:10:39 period we've been regularly providing copies of the fire risk assessments to a range of her predecessors and her team and issues weren't being escalated um

02:10:54 what does that tell us well it what do you say he tells me he said sorry no go ahead it tells me that the fire brigade

02:11:05 it tells me that the fire brigade were receiving copies of our risk assessments for over a long period a whole range of inspecting officers and um in some cases they would come back and say broadly compliant they weren't coming back and raising

02:11:16 they weren't coming back and raising issues so clearly there's an issue now but my point is there wasn't a sustained history of um concerns being flagged yes and do i take from that that you are really

02:11:28 do i take from that that you are really telling us that you regarded rebecca burton as perhaps exceptional uh picking up issues that no one had previously picked up um no i'm just i'm just making the point

02:11:40 um no i'm just i'm just making the point that there isn't a whole history here of discontent and um um complaints that were

02:11:45 were were not dealt with that wasn't the case these are these are race now and i'm dealing with them now but they hadn't been raised previously when she raised it with you for the second time on the 5th of january 2016

02:11:56 second time on the 5th of january 2016 did you not wonder to yourself why it was uh that car stakes perhaps was still making or still producing material that was unsatisfactory you having already taken back to him

02:12:07 having already taken back to him the discussion that you've had with um rebecca burton at the 13th of november 2015 meeting okay um i i think that one of the

02:12:18 okay um i i think that one of the reasons that this was being raised at this meeting so that it would be minuted so that we would have a formal performant audit trial um and it was legitimate to read if she had concerns it was it was right and proper that she raised it so that we can

02:12:30 proper that she raised it so that we can we can deal with them did you tell barbara matthews or anybody else at the tmo

02:12:34 tmo or indeed the rb indeed rbkc that the lfb had raised these concerns about carl stokes

02:12:39 stokes indeed for the second time i certainly told barbara matthews i think she probably gets copies of the liaison meeting but i would have spoken to her about them as well i see now do you do you remember that a month

02:12:50 now do you do you remember that a month later on the 17th of february 2016 you were copied into an email by charlie saul about a complaint made by a gentleman called martin dunn yeah you do let's look at the document

02:13:03 yeah you do let's look at the document cst3027221

02:13:14 if we look at page two

02:13:34 uh see it right something's gone wrong cst

02:13:38 cst double cst zero zero zero two seven two two one

02:13:54 yes and if we go to page two

02:14:00 this is an email from martin dunn to benjamin

02:14:04 benjamin scantilbury and charlie saul 15 17th of february 2016 as you can see dear mr scantilbury thank you for the copy of the kctv fire risk assessment for the common parts of

02:14:15 risk assessment for the common parts of your residence now martin dunn was at fire care 999 yep what was that organization um so the gentleman who this is

02:14:28 so the gentleman who this is directed to um was a leaseholder who wanted to install a stairlift in the communal staircase of the building um and

02:14:39 of the building um and uh i think we had gone through the occupational therapists and the assessment by our property people was that because it was a communal staircase that led to two flats

02:14:50 led to two flats it would reduce the width and so we we weren't able to um agree that it could proceed um mr scansbury was obviously very keen to proceed with it so he engaged his own assessor to

02:15:02 so he engaged his own assessor to um review the assessment sorry so who was martin dunn of 4k 999 was here far as cassette yes he was and i think we may have interviewed him

02:15:13 i think we may have interviewed him whenever we were um when we were selecting right now i'm focusing on the second paragraph he says i've copied in your landlord as a matter of urgency as the fire risk assessment which was conducted by carl stokes on

02:15:24 which was conducted by carl stokes on 7th

02:15:25 7th january 2016 is unsuitable and insufficient as the elementary fire safety deficiencies have not been identified by the fire risk assessor now we can if we go up to page one of this email chain we can see from

02:15:36 this email chain we can see from the same chain that you was were chased on the first of july 2016 by raymond hilton for a response to this do you see that at the foot of the screen

02:15:45 screen are jealous we still have this matter outstanding it's now an open complaint yes yes yes um had you done anything about the complaint in the intervening six month period yes yes i would have done what

02:15:57 yes yes i would have done what uh i mean i would have sent a copy to carl and and got his comments

02:16:05 comments um and i would likely have fed them back to raymond but it seems that i didn't so i can't remember the detail i just i remember the case because it was it was difficult well let's look and see what you say uh look up the screen

02:16:17 what you say uh look up the screen please to

02:16:18 please to uh higher up page one you write carl stokes on the first of july 2016 and say see this has read its head again and it seems we need to respond i've added the comments you made initially on

02:16:29 added the comments you made initially on this below and some of my own but i'd be grateful if you could take a look and add any additional comments we can include to beef up our response and he comes back to you the same day and says jay see the attached i forwarded as a word

02:16:40 see the attached i forwarded as a word document so that you can use whatever you want

02:16:43 you want um now you say read its head again it looks from that that you'd had already discussed this with carl stokes previously yes and i would have thought i would

02:16:54 yes and i would have thought i would have responded previously because it it was a difficult situation to deal with it looks as if you didn't because it does look like i didn't yes were you not concerned by this complaint um yes i was concerned but there was

02:17:07 um yes i was concerned but there was there was a kind of bigger picture in terms of what the gentleman wanted to achieve and so he was he was trying to find he was going to go out of his way to find people who would disagree or or

02:17:18 people who would disagree or or hopefully achieve what he wanted right did you raise with barbara matthews or anybody else at the tma more senior to you that a complaint had been raised about carl stokes's fire risk assessment by a fellow professional i can't recall

02:17:32 by a fellow professional i can't recall if i did i may well have done but i can't recall right um can we look at uh cst four zeros nine five seven six

02:17:44 this is an email from carl stokes on the 25th of february 2016. so earlier in the year

02:17:54 and

02:18:01 carl stakes second email down carl stakes says to you 25th february 2016. jay did you mention to barbara what the ex nova woman said about the fra i am thinking after the 5k 999 blocks

02:18:12 i am thinking after the 5k 999 blocks comments just so she knows that they are okay

02:18:16 okay carl uh

02:18:20 carl uh was this in relation to the complaint from martin dunn or was this about something else oh i presume it was a complaint for martin dunn but i don't recollect and do you know who the ex-nova woman

02:18:31 and do you know who the ex-nova woman was

02:18:32 was um well i'm thinking it must be kate cooney because that would be at the time that we had um engaged ex over warrington fire to advise us on our

02:18:45 to advise us on our required approach to the ventilation changes required by the enforcement notice at darren hazelwood towers so

02:18:52 towers so i but i have no idea what he's referring to i'm assuming it's kate clooney right do you know what the ex-nova woman had said about the fra no sorry i really right we can see you

02:19:04 no sorry i really right we can see you respond the same day hi haven't spoken to her since xover visit we'll probably brief her early next week but intend to mention her comment who didn't worry she's quite a supporter of you and already thinks firecare999 is

02:19:15 of you and already thinks firecare999 is outrageous and needs to butt out jay so did you raise the complaint with barbara matthews following week or did you

02:19:21 you just regard it as a a nuisance no i would have braved her what did she say

02:19:29 say sorry at this stage i've i have no idea but i clearly would have braved her she was she was involved in quite a lot of things we were doing so i would have made sure she was aware was any action taken by the tmo in respect of carl stakes his contract at

02:19:41 respect of carl stakes his contract at that point no but it was we were barbara and i were talking about re-procuring and we were starting to have that debate with procurement people yes uh indeed i'm

02:19:52 procurement people yes uh indeed i'm going to come on to that right now actually can we then move to june 2016 and the annual health and safety report this is a tmo100 244

02:20:03 this is the annual report for the uh first of april 2015 to 31st of march 2016. as you can see and and this was uh

02:20:14 as you can see and and this was uh drafted by you wasn't it yes yes can we go to page seven please

02:20:21 look at paragraph 7.9 as you can see there fire risk assessments fras comprehensive fire risk assessment suitable and sufficient as required by the legislation are in place for all blocks which have

02:20:32 are in place for all blocks which have communal areas and our ongoing review program continues these fras are undertaken and recorded in line with best practice past 79 and low level reviews are undertaken between the comprehensive reviews

02:20:43 between the comprehensive reviews this is set out in our fire safety policy and strategy document as required by the program 299 comprehensive reviews were completed in this period and there's a box which

02:20:55 this period and there's a box which states the same thing now there's no mention here uh or as so far as we can see anywhere else in this report uh of the concerns raised by rebecca burton twice

02:21:06 burton twice in that year or martin dunn there isn't no he's not why is that um i can't give you an explanation it should have been shouldn't there uh

02:21:20 it should have been shouldn't there uh yes well i mean i've raced it with with my line manager who's the executive director with health and safety responsibility um and we've taken action um so i suppose i

02:21:31 we've taken action um so i suppose i thought

02:21:32 thought i've acted upon this and i think i've dealt with it so i didn't think to raise it it

02:21:37 it it must be an oversight on my part well it's quite a big oversight isn't it it's not just an accidental thing that's happened you've had three warnings two from the lfbe themselves and one from a fellow professional are you able to explain

02:21:48 to explain how that oversight came about well but i've taken action i haven't ignored them i've i've addressed them no sorry the oversight not in relation to you dealing with them but in in relation

02:21:59 you dealing with them but in in relation to you reporting them um no i can't give you any other explanation i'm sorry this document just just would you remind me please where this would have gone it would have gone

02:22:10 would have gone it would have gone presumably to the executive team yes and and the board i think it went aboard it may have gone to one of their other committees at board level but i thought it went to board yes um and it would have gone to the

02:22:21 yes um and it would have gone to the corporate health and safety manager at rbkc um indeed and anybody else indeed indeed so unless you had put into this document

02:22:32 unless you had put into this document the fact that two third parties had separately expressed concerns about the quality of your eff

02:22:39 your eff as far as cases work those third parties the board of tmo and rbkc would not have any idea that that had happened would they uh no barbara knew and she possibly

02:22:51 uh no barbara knew and she possibly discussed it with robert so the executive team would have um had some oversight but no now if we go on in the document to page

02:23:01 to page 18 you can see there halfway down the page there's a paragraph 15.2

02:23:10 fire safety kctmo gives fire safety a high level of priority and the commitment goes beyond the need to be compliant in particular kctmo has developed a good working relationship with the lfb which

02:23:22 working relationship with the lfb which is mutually beneficial et cetera et cetera and then at the in the middle of that section of text you say under the bullet points additionally we will be reprocuring fire consultancy and fire

02:23:33 and fire risk assessment services and did that mean that you would be reprocuring carl stokes's position that was that was the intention i believe at that point i had raised with barbara that we hadn't

02:23:44 i had raised with barbara that we hadn't done any procurement for for a while but we also needed to be mindful of the additional services um that he was undertaking for us um and so i think her i believe her view

02:23:56 and so i think her i believe her view was i should go ahead and start speaking to our procurement people um and i i've certainly seen some emails between myself and my colleague ernest raw

02:24:03 raw where we'd identify the the list of um services we were going to require so that sort of got kicked off but it stalled at some stage i think well you haven't done any procurement for a

02:24:15 you haven't done any procurement for a while

02:24:15 while in fact you've done no procurement since 2010 had you well that's the whole point of the discussion with barbara yes indeed so

02:24:26 indeed so in a nutshell is it the case that you were thinking of reprocuring carl takes his position because of the lapse of time since the last procurement exercise um it was appropriate when we probably should have visited it earlier but just

02:24:37 should have visited it earlier but just pressure of work meant that it hadn't come to the top of the agenda and now it had and we needed to we need to investigate properly what the next steps were so that's what i was doing with our procurement club yes are you

02:24:48 with our procurement club yes are you quite sure that this was nothing to do at all with the fact that rebecca burton of the lfb had raised concerns about his competence twice and a fellow professional uh had raised concerns about his competence on another occasion

02:24:58 occasion um no that wasn't that wasn't my um view um i believed as i've said already that

02:25:05 that we had taken action and and spoken to carl about those issues and he addressed them

02:25:10 them um so no but it was it was beyond timely to reprocure and so we were looking at it did you in fact undertake a re-procurement uh no i spoke to my colleague we

02:25:23 uh no i spoke to my colleague we got as far as setting out the activities that carl was undertaking for us and my recollection is my colleague went off to do some work on it and then and i had further

02:25:34 work on it and then and i had further conversations with barbara and um it didn't at that stage get taken forward and i i don't know what the plan was going to be it was sort of i was looking for a lead really we've seen no discussion about reprocurement uh at either the health

02:25:47 reprocurement uh at either the health and safety committee or the tmo executive team or the tmo board

02:25:52 board would that be right there there was no discussion so far as you knew of that topic within those groups to the best of my knowledge you may well be right

02:26:01 right um i i mean i report to barbara so we were having those discussions and she was giving miss dear about what action she wanted me to take and i was taking those actions and then going back to her

02:26:10 to her and waiting to be guided with with what was next

02:26:20 was next uh can i ask you to look please at paragraph 143 of your first statement page 32.

02:26:30 you say at paragraph 143 in the second sentence

02:26:33 sentence in the paragraph there was an assumption made by carl and myself that arrangements that our premises which were not negatively commented on by the lfb following audit were deemed by them to be satisfactory why did you

02:26:46 by them to be satisfactory why did you make that assumption um i think it was probably more cars assumption than mine i i think it's it's reasonable when they're doing um a visual inspection that anything

02:26:57 um a visual inspection that anything that's

02:26:57 that's obviously within the communal area that you know can be observed if there are any concerns then i think it's reasonable that if if they're not being um highlighted to kind of assume that they

02:27:11 highlighted to kind of assume that they weren't

02:27:12 weren't they weren't highlighted as a deficiency and they're not raised as a minor deficiency then i think that's reasonable i think cause assumption went beyond that um to kind of a wider range of of areas to be clear you'd not made

02:27:24 to be clear you'd not made a specific agreement with the lfb had you their silence signified their approval

02:27:28 approval no no nothing nothing like that and and to be honest there was often a different way that um the individual fire officers approached their their inspections and orders so it wouldn't be reasonable to to have that did you think after the

02:27:39 to have that did you think after the meeting with rebecca burton on the fifth of january 2016 that that approach was was still appropriate um to be honest i didn't pay a lot of mind to it it was for us to do our assessments and get our actions

02:27:50 actions um undertaken and and the whole purpose of the liaison meeting was to have regular dialogue and raise any points that need clarity with the brigade

02:28:07 and you quote extensively from carl stokes's

02:28:11 stokes's fra of the 20th of june within paragraph 143

02:28:19 and where he identifies no adverse comments and then says three lines up from the bottom of your page 32

02:28:25 page 32 therefore it has been assumed that the fire authority were completely satisfied with these arrangements at the time of the audit

02:28:30 the audit and there have been no changes to the residential part of this premises all the tma's management policies or procedures since the above fire safety audit

02:28:37 audit was undertaken now that was at the same that that was the same expression that carl stokes had included in all of his fire risk assessments since his october 2014

02:28:49 his october 2014 fire risk assessment for effort for grenfell tower isn't it as far as we've seen so is it right that nothing had changed after your meetings with rebecca burton in november 2015 and

02:29:01 in november 2015 and january 2016. um that wasn't the bit she was referring to it was it was about meetings with the fire brigade where he'd made comments that he'd met with the head of policy or somebody quite senior

02:29:12 head of policy or somebody quite senior in the fire brigade um and referenced conversations without being able to include any minutes and and then on further investigation there didn't appear to be any minutes or there may have been a miscommunication or a

02:29:23 have been a miscommunication or a difference of view so that that's what her issue was right i mean

02:29:28 i mean it's right isn't it that you never picked carl stakes up on this generic statement the effect of which was

02:29:35 was that he could tell from the lfb's non statement that they were satisfied you never picked him up on no i didn't and to be honest i didn't really think

02:29:46 and to be honest i didn't really think it was

02:29:46 it was it was a big issue if they have an issue they'll raise it whether it be in a deficiency notice enforcement notice whatever and that's completely legitimate um clearly i didn't think we could rely on on that version of events but i didn't

02:29:58 on that version of events but i didn't think it was a big deal to include it mr chairman is 4 30.

02:30:03 4 30. um yes i i haven't finished as you can probably tell um but i'm i'm very close to the end but i won't be able to finish my question within a reasonable time after 4 30 this

02:30:14 within a reasonable time after 4 30 this evening i'm afraid i apologize but we are actually a day ahead anyway in in relation to the time institute for this witness right by way of defence and

02:30:26 right by way of defence and just for miss ray's benefit and the benefit of the rest of us how long do you think you might require her here tomorrow i think my own questions

02:30:37 here tomorrow i think my own questions will not require more than an hour and i'm i'm confident that it'll be a good deal less than that so that is the outer estimate we don't need the normal break and the follow-up questions yeah but but i but i would i'd be confident

02:30:48 but but i but i would i'd be confident also in

02:30:49 also in uh assuming that that many of the follow-up questions certainly from today will arrive overnight um require a longish gap tomorrow all right well ms ray i'd hoped that we were going

02:31:00 well ms ray i'd hoped that we were going to finish your evidence today and perhaps you did as well but um i'm afraid it's not been possible we lost a bit of time this morning as you know and things don't always go precisely

02:31:11 things don't always go precisely according to plan so i'm going to have to ask you to come back again tomorrow but um as you've heard mr minister think uh we should be troubling you for too long

02:31:21 long so we'll break now we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and as usual please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right okay all right thank you very

02:31:40 much you very much mr millet 10 o'clock tomorrow then please mr chairman