Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Evidence - Tuesday 22nd June 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:34 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from barbara matthews of the tmo would you ask this message to come in please

00:00:57 ask this message to come in please morning morning thank you we're ready to continue yep good thank you very much well mr kenny when you're ready thanks sir good morning miss matthews um the first topic i'd like to discuss with you today

00:01:08 topic i'd like to discuss with you today is fire risk assessments and in particular fra actions in the backlog yes now for that purpose could i first ask you to turn to some notes you made in june 2015 presumably shortly after

00:01:20 in june 2015 presumably shortly after you joined the tmo and they can be found at tm008 eight zero three two five forward slash thirty seven

00:01:36 now looking at the top left hand corner of the name it is the page there's the name sasha and the date 17th of june 2015. presumably sasha is sasha jevons yes and

00:01:47 presumably sasha is sasha jevons yes and then if we look further down the page in the bottom third

00:01:52 third we see h s so health and safety

00:01:56 and then what appears to say operations should be doing actions jw badly managed health and safety internal audit limited assurance consultant report after 10 months

00:02:08 consultant report after 10 months question mark audit actions resolved out comes question mark fras and asbestos surveys jw holds contracts presumably janice ray

00:02:19 contracts presumably janice ray actions too detailed wrong level centified workflow to ops need to be clear on jw roll again presumably janice ray clarity on risk areas to be resolved now

00:02:30 clarity on risk areas to be resolved now first of all have i deciphered your handwriting correctly there yes i think i think you have sorry i was just reading the second part please do yeah yeah

00:02:41 please do yeah yeah now if we can go back to the first page and the first point that you'd noted there under the heading hns operations should be doing actions what did you mean by that

00:02:52 did you mean by that um it was clear to me there was two things

00:02:56 things one that it appeared that health and safety were being expected to do some of the actions when really they should have been within

00:03:08 when really they should have been within the operations area um and secondly that um there were a lot of actions still to be done

00:03:16 done thank you jw badly managed h s and tunnel audit what did sasha jeven say about that can you remember um that will have been how she said it

00:03:29 um that will have been how she said it to me

00:03:30 to me um in the um uh it refers to the original internal audit that had limited assurance which i think was 2013.

00:03:43 assurance which i think was 2013. yes um and in that it identified that health and safety uh i believe was was badly managed um and also sasha didn't feel that

00:03:56 um and also sasha didn't feel that janice had been well managed and did she give any particular instances of how she felt the health and safety role hadn't been fully or effectively performed

00:04:06 performed i don't remember if if she had i probably would have noted them down and with the same answer apply to the question what examples did she give of the extent to which janice ray had been badly managed

00:04:17 badly managed um she might well have said something about that because i was already aware from janice's

00:04:24 janice's i had a discussion with janice about her views of how she was managed how she was supported um so she may well have mentioned

00:04:35 um so she may well have mentioned something about that but again i she i probably would have written that down thank you as well um what's the executive team's view that the limited assurance audit ranking was due in part to janice

00:04:48 audit ranking was due in part to janice ray's

00:04:49 ray's failings i don't it wasn't about janice's failings it was about um the management of health and safety not

00:04:59 not janice herself um now looking at the next line consultant report after 10 months question mark what was that referring to now you've got me there um

00:05:14 i don't know she may have mentioned that there was a a consultant's report sorry i can't can't remember what my own notes meant if you can't remember miss matthews don't worry um could it have been matt

00:05:27 don't worry um could it have been matt hodgson do you think he'd report in 2013 may have been um but i again i probably would have if she'd mentioned the name i probably

00:05:38 mentioned the name i probably would have written that down but okay i'm sorry i can't remember looking slightly further down action's too detailed wrong level um what did that refer to

00:05:50 um what did that refer to uh so if we go over the page you see it second from the top there

00:05:56 actions too detailed wrong level sent via workflow to ops

00:06:05 that may have been what sasha said to me about the actions that were um sent through the w-2 system to the operations team okay

00:06:17 to the operations team okay now if we look at the penultimate note on that page need to be clear on jw roll clarity on risk areas to be reviewed now breaking that down was there a

00:06:28 now breaking that down was there a concern about the extent of janice ray's role

00:06:31 role uh i think the issue was about um janice's health and safety role um rather than janice being the person who did the actions

00:06:42 did the actions it had to be absolutely clear she was there to advise monitor progress things but not actually um

00:06:51 um do the work so the concern was regarding the breadth of her role uh or the other people's interpretation i think it was more the other people's interpretation

00:07:04 more the other people's interpretation you mentioned there clarity on risk areas um

00:07:07 areas um what risk areas needed clarity uh it was probably to look at all the risk areas all the health and safety risk areas um and that we needed to be

00:07:19 risk areas um and that we needed to be really clear what those risks were and what we were doing about it so and did had sasha jevons reported any concerns about a lack of clarity is that what prompted them it might

00:07:30 is that what prompted them it might might well have been yes can you remember any particular examples i can't again i think if there were examples she probably would i would have noted that down because it would give me a steer as to where to start now when you

00:07:42 as to where to start now when you started at the tmo in june 2015 there was a health and safety committee and there was also an operational health and safety committee is that right that was correct and we can see that you merged the two committees into one is that right

00:07:53 committees into one is that right yes and we can see that at paragraph 2.1 of minutes of the health and safety committee of july 2015 and if we could go to that document it's tmo one double zero

00:08:04 tmo one double zero one double zero three nine forward slash two

00:08:11 and we see their item 2.1 barbara informed the committee that she was hopeful that this would become the tmo's only health and safety committee it was clear that currently many issues

00:08:22 it was clear that currently many issues were discussed at the operations health and safety meeting and also by this committee which was clearly a duplication of effort further a number of officers attended both meetings so it'd be sensible to work towards merging the two health and

00:08:34 work towards merging the two health and safety meetings barbara advised that sasha was in agreement with this approach now following the merger of the two were you responsible for all oversight of tmo's health and safety including the fra process

00:08:46 including the fra process yes and the new merge committee required regular attendance from sasha jevons so that she can make contributions from ops yes

00:08:55 ops yes now in addition to tmo staff the health and safety committee also had representatives from repairs direct is that correct yes and uh graham webb would attend yes and he was the md of repairs yes he was

00:09:07 he was the md of repairs yes he was now if we can go back to these minutes and go to page 3 and item 4.1 and we see there at the top of the page heading w-2 workflow and it says this the statistics were

00:09:20 and it says this the statistics were discussed and barbara highlighted the level of outstanding actions particularly for contract management and the

00:09:25 the also the responsive repairs janus advised that rd repairs direct had now analyzed these actions

00:09:32 actions batched them together by address and submitted a proposal for progressing these asap alex has now agreed how this work would be taken forward and had requested a program from repairs direct

00:09:43 program from repairs direct so that we can start to raise the orders for the initial blocks so that we see about a month after you joined the tmo uh there are a number of issues arising relation to fra actions and if we could

00:09:54 relation to fra actions and if we could just

00:09:55 just crystallize those matters first of all there was a noteworthy and notable level of outstanding actions which there was yes and particularly in respect of contract management is that right

00:10:06 right correct and responsive repairs correct and responsive repairs were managed by repairs direct is that right and so proposals were put forward by janice ray and alex bosman to resolve

00:10:17 janice ray and alex bosman to resolve the outstanding backlog is that right now if we can stay within um item 4.1 on these minutes and go to the last paragraph which says this barbara advised that more information on

00:10:29 barbara advised that more information on the outstanding fra actions need to be provided to the committee although the total provide an indication they do not provide the full picture janus was requested to investigate providing a more meaningful breakdown

00:10:41 providing a more meaningful breakdown of outstanding actions so that the committee are better able to see the detail

00:10:45 detail and what work program will be required to clear them did janice ray begin to provide a more meaningful breakdown for you and the committee

00:10:54 committee we did start to look at a better way a simpler way of providing more information so that we could understand what the actions were

00:11:05 understand what the actions were because to start with all i had was numbers i had no idea what sort of actions they were how long they'd been sitting there or the even the level of risk that they were

00:11:16 were now if we look at some of the work that was done

00:11:19 was done in order to meet your goal of a more meaningful breakdown janice ray produced the statistics paper which we can see it tiemo one treble zero nine double six

00:11:30 one treble zero nine double six two

00:11:37 it's short and sweet on that page and we can see that the numbers are fully completed uh actions are at 941 partially completed 95 and outstanding 814.

00:11:48 814. was it that figure of a 814 that you considered to be too high plus the 95 partially completed because obviously they weren't completed but yes i thought it was far too high

00:12:00 i thought it was far too high that observation raises the question what would you consider to be an acceptable level of fra outstanding actions

00:12:07 actions um that's that's a difficult one to answer because obviously fra programs um uh uh assessments were continuing all the time

00:12:17 the time and uh with each assessment actions were being raised um so i was really at this stage trying to drive that down and drive

00:12:29 trying to drive that down and drive drive

00:12:29 drive out the the older um uh outstanding actions that seem to have been sitting around uh for a long time so that what we could be looking at was

00:12:40 so that what we could be looking at was much more of the current things things that have come up from more recent fras say in the last um two to three months or

00:12:49 or since that last committee meeting so the number i wasn't sure of it would be lovely to get down to zero but i know that's not possible so you know i'd be expecting to maybe see

00:13:01 know i'd be expecting to maybe see i don't know 10 or 20 maybe maybe 30 i don't know depends it depends how many are being raised with each um fra but this was clearly

00:13:12 with each um fra but this was clearly much too high now in relation to your answer there you referred to age was your concern age of outstanding actions plus the level of risk they presented

00:13:22 presented or both both absolutely both now could we look at the tmo corporate health and safety minutes from the 29th of september 2015 so you've been there three months these

00:13:33 so you've been there three months these can be found at tmo one double zero double one three five nine

00:13:39 nine and page two and point three and point three as you see is at the very bottom of the page and it's concerned with fras and 3.1 says this

00:13:50 fras and 3.1 says this there have been an additional 200 completed actions since july pms that's peter madison added that the age profile needs to be monitored carefully going forward a b presumably alex bosman has been

00:14:03 a b presumably alex bosman has been going through the list of actions and allocating them to the appropriate contractor pm confirmed that the data will be cleansed in a meeting tomorrow pm also met with jw so janice ray

00:14:15 pm also met with jw so janice ray to discuss streamlining the process jw anxious to get as many of the actions completed as possible in advance of the imminent

00:14:22 imminent health and safety audit pm confirmed all actions be completed by the end of november now what did you understand to be meant by the phrase the data will

00:14:33 to be meant by the phrase the data will be cleansed um i think the issue about the outstanding actions is we need to be absolutely clear that they were outstanding and that they hadn't not been cleared

00:14:44 and that they hadn't not been cleared down from the system so we we needed to make sure we knew that the data that we were working from was the correct data so um what he was going to be looking at is to

00:14:56 what he was going to be looking at is to confirm whether or not actions had been completed but they hadn't been completed on the w-2 system from where we got the statistics and so in looking at the final sentence

00:15:08 and so in looking at the final sentence of item at 3.2 he says pm confirmed all actions be completed by end of november that's november 2015. yes and so he's anticipating uh

00:15:19 yes and so he's anticipating uh resolving

00:15:20 resolving all actions in the next two months it would appear that's what he he was saying yes were there any doubts about the achievability of that goal i was being advised that he was able to

00:15:33 i was being advised that he was able to complete it there were a number of things going on in the contracts management team where they were putting in place uh facilities management contract

00:15:44 facilities management contract so my understanding was that uh between that and this piece of work peter was saying he'd be able to complete them by then thank you can we look at tmo one double zero one

00:15:56 can we look at tmo one double zero one double zero double six

00:16:04 now that appears to be a breakdown of fra action submitted by janet ray for this meeting on the 29th or 28th of september

00:16:13 september is that a fair assumption for me to make uh yes

00:16:17 uh yes now can we turn to page three of this breakdown

00:16:23 and we see it's a breakdown of neighborhood management fra actions is that right yes and if we go to page four

00:16:32 we see in the bottom third of the page colored priorities red for high yellow for medium green for low was that the risk profile of the outstanding actions that was of the

00:16:45 outstanding actions that was of the outstanding actions allocated to the contract management team because we were focusing

00:16:50 focusing there on the the volume of actions outstanding and is it a statement of the obvious that it was critical for the tmo to know

00:17:01 that it was critical for the tmo to know the number of outstanding high risk actions it was yes

00:17:09 and it was therefore presumably critical for the

00:17:13 for the uh tip for the health and safety committee meetings to monitor the extent to which high-risk old outstanding actions were being driven down yes

00:17:22 down yes thank you now can we look at the statistics breakdown for the november 2015 health and safety committee meeting so two months after this one and they can be found at tm0100

00:17:34 can be found at tm0100 treble one nine one

00:17:40 there you go there's the broad outline and if we can go to page four

00:17:48 and again we can see the breakdown prior priority is that right yes so at this stage we have 258 outstanding high priority actions to be complete within the next 21 days

00:17:59 within the next 21 days within the contract management actions thank you now bearing that in mind can we go now to the january 2016 statistics

00:18:10 statistics at double tm01001 nine one zero

00:18:22 now we have there the uh now familiar overview

00:18:26 overview can we turn over the page

00:18:30 and we see there the age profile of the outstanding actions but would you agree the priority ranking has not been included there you're right i think it was

00:18:41 i think it was missed off um by by mistake there's a lot of work goes into producing this information and and janice who um

00:18:52 and janice who um creates this from the system it's not easy to get off well it wasn't easy to get off the w-2 system which was quite an aged system so i suspect it fell off by mistake

00:19:05 suspect it fell off by mistake given the information regarding priority was

00:19:08 was critical yes you were missing some vital information at the january meeting would you agree we were yes now

00:19:19 we were yes now information regarding priority rankings is not provided on any future breakdown didn't that impede the committee's capacity to monitor the effectiveness of the arrangements to

00:19:32 the effectiveness of the arrangements to drive down the number of outstanding actions well you're right in terms of

00:19:37 terms of knowing whether we were driving down high risk or medium risk or low risk but what we also needed to do was actually complete the actions

00:19:49 was actually complete the actions and not have them slipping from one month to two months to six months to 12 months because that was also a concern so don't slip backwards but but you're right we should have been

00:20:01 but but you're right we should have been also having the inflammation on the high medium and low and is it fair to say therefore that from january 2016 onwards your focus was on driving down the overall number

00:20:13 the overall number rather than taking a more calibrated approach by focusing on risk profile of those outstanding actions you're right i was because there was still so many that

00:20:24 because there was still so many that were

00:20:24 were over over six months old um you can just see from

00:20:28 see from from there how many are sitting there in the over six months and even in the over 12 months which i really couldn't understand now just following on from that when

00:20:39 now just following on from that when janice ray was asked in evidence whether she needed help in providing

00:20:43 providing these breakdowns and doing the analysis to assist you and your committee um she said this and i paraphrase only slightly

00:20:52 slightly i could have always used more resource it was pretty obvious that i could have always used more resource but that wasn't going to be made available that wasn't available so i had to work within the constraints of what i had and i re-prioritized and

00:21:04 of what i had and i re-prioritized and always tried to make sure that i identified the highest priority things

00:21:09 things it may be that when it came to producing this report the one we're looking at something else on that day was of significant importance and therefore i didn't have the time

00:21:19 the time to provide that level of detail but i can't tell you because i wouldn't have kept the detailed record mr millet then asked miss ray did anthony parks ever say to you or did barbara matthews ever say to you

00:21:30 barbara matthews ever say to you you can't have any more help tough luck you'll just have to manage as best you can

00:21:34 can but by the way we need all this granular detail

00:21:37 detail answer no they wouldn't have said that and reference for those viewing can be found at day 141 pages 174

00:21:45 174 through 276. now my question for you uh ms matthews is this did you ever consider whether janice ray might need more help in first of all analyzing the volume and

00:21:57 in first of all analyzing the volume and priority of the outstanding fra actions we we might well have discussed it but i can't remember thinking we need to have additional

00:22:09 additional resource to do the statistics um

00:22:14 now i i can't i can't remember having that

00:22:17 that conversation with janice i was aware that it was a lot of work but she didn't make it clear that she needed the help to do the statistics and

00:22:28 needed the help to do the statistics and i'm not sure where i would have got that resource we're just we're here sorry can i just interrupt me um as you've said in response to an earlier question and as we can see

00:22:40 earlier question and as we can see from this document the document doesn't show breakdown by priorities and i think you agree that none of these documents

00:22:52 you agree that none of these documents of this kind show breakdown priorities did you never raise with um janice ray the question well did you not ask her whether she could provide

00:23:03 could provide information about priorities in these documents

00:23:07 documents uh we did talk about it um because this information comes from the more detailed documents which i believe you've

00:23:15 you've actually looked at so um the information was there and janice and i would look at that document with those high medium priorities in the detail

00:23:28 high medium priorities in the detail what we didn't discuss is is how what what resource we needed and the fact that we needed to provide that high medium and low

00:23:39 high medium and low information to all the committee meetings

00:23:43 meetings well all right i understand that but i mean um

00:23:46 mean um it looks to me at the moment as though there's an organizational shortcoming here in the sense that none of these documents contains information about the priorities

00:23:58 information about the priorities so it's not just a case of not doing it on one occasion there's a systematic failure to provide it which

00:24:05 it which is what led me to ask the question whether you had instructed janus if you like to include in these documents

00:24:16 to include in these documents information about the priorities which might have led to her saying i haven't got time to do it no yes yes i uh

00:24:27 yes yes i uh we would have had that conversation about

00:24:30 about providing it because we had provided it previously but i can't say whether i said we need to have it now at every meeting

00:24:42 we need to have it now at every meeting as i say because one of the things i was concentrating on was clearing the backlog and and actually anything that that's getting old

00:24:53 getting old must be becoming a higher risk anyway because

00:24:57 because because it's been sitting there for a while um and probably some of the more newer ones are repeating some of the ones that have been sitting there for a number of months so if you like i was actually

00:25:11 months so if you like i was actually saying we must clear these because they must have become higher priorities now than perhaps when they were originally stated right yes all right thank you very much following on from that

00:25:23 following on from that um we're six months into your tenure or thereabouts at this stage in january 2016. there is still a continuing issue regarding outstanding actions arising out of fras

00:25:35 outstanding actions arising out of fras at this stage why didn't you take the step back and ask the question do i have the right person in charge of organizing the analysis and getting the work done

00:25:46 work done or and or do i have the right systems in place

00:25:49 place to drive down old high-risk outstanding fra actions i think i think there are a couple of things there the thing about monitoring and the

00:26:00 the thing about monitoring and the system

00:26:01 system um and the information that would have been within the health and safety area actually completing the actions was outside health and safety so as we

00:26:13 was outside health and safety so as we noted

00:26:13 noted you noted earlier uh the majority of outstanding actions were with contract management and responsive repairs and they knew what those were because

00:26:24 and they knew what those were because you could also see from the minutes they'd been through them they discussed packages of work they knew what they had to do genesis role

00:26:32 role was to manage the the the system and the statistics now w-2 which all this information was held on was coming to the end of its life we had no available resource to

00:26:47 we had no available resource to put into programming extra reports or workflows that we didn't we didn't have all that expertise in the it team and we were implementing a crm system

00:27:00 and we were implementing a crm system which would have a new uh workflow there'd be a number of workflows and we were going to start with the fra workflow but there would be a number of health and safety workflows

00:27:11 workflows in the crm system which would give better information and we'd be able to get better statistics out of it this was really clumsy to get information out i think

00:27:22 information out i think i think from what janice had said you saw from the the reports how how cumbersome they were and

00:27:29 and they weren't flexible so it was really quite difficult to to get the statistics we wanted from that system so what i'm saying is we didn't put

00:27:40 so what i'm saying is we didn't put all that resource into w-2 to get that information out so if the issue wasn't for example repairs direct not doing what they were meant to do given

00:27:51 doing what they were meant to do given that you held ultimate responsibility ultimate executive responsibility for fray significant actions didn't the owners lie on you to crack the whip more vigorously

00:28:02 the whip more vigorously because the problem was still not been resolved six months into your tenure um i i i did through um repairs direct repairs direct had more than fra actions outstanding they had repairs

00:28:16 fra actions outstanding they had repairs outstanding and and they too had um an initial problem with the system in that with new people coming in using the repair system

00:28:27 the repair system it looked like there were lots of outstanding jobs which in fact weren't outstanding people hadn't closed them off properly so there was a a number of system issues that repairs direct were resolving and i was working on

00:28:40 were resolving and i was working on those

00:28:42 those directly with my finance team because it affected the cost cost of jobs but also uh at an executive level

00:28:50 level with sasha through the um meetings that we had with graham webb thank you now can we go back to the minutes of the november 2015 executive committee meeting and they are

00:29:01 executive committee meeting and they are at tmo double zero eight four three five nine three and if we can turn to page two and item three

00:29:13 and item three now november 2015 um it is in broad terms um 11 days after the dare tower fire and we have here an item entitled the dare tower responses

00:29:24 dare tower responses now we'll come back to that incident in due course but if we can look at the penultimate paragraph of page two of these minutes which starts sasha noted

00:29:33 noted there we go sasha noted that she had asked jillian kennedy to put together a spreadsheet detailing all outstanding fra actions there is a health and safety audit in early december

00:29:44 audit in early december and sasha and barbara are working together to clear the backlog of actions so that we can be compliant so it's starting with basics it's clear that there is still an outstanding problem with fra actions at this point

00:29:55 problem with fra actions at this point yes and that the executive team were concerned that the backlog might be identified and the subject of criticism in an upcoming audit is that right

00:30:04 right um yes

00:30:07 um yes the impression and please shout if this is unfair

00:30:11 is unfair is that action was only taken relation to the fra significant backlog because there was an upcoming audit

00:30:19 audit um no that's that that's not the case action was being taken all the time um and uh what sasha is is doing here she was

00:30:31 sasha is is doing here she was almost as frustrated that she wasn't able to see these things completed as i was even though they were within her own area um and jillian

00:30:42 within her own area um and jillian kennedy i

00:30:43 kennedy i seem to remember was a an interim um who was able um to spend more time probably looking at the data

00:30:54 data on all the fra actions to see whether we could whether we had cleared any and again they hadn't been cleared down correctly

00:31:03 correctly or whether there were things that could be put in place to make that happen obviously with a health and safety audit coming up it's a bit of a sort of kick up the back side that says

00:31:14 up the back side that says we need to just get on and do it i mean as i've said all along i felt we needed to get on and do it regardless of an audit and that's what i was trying to stress at every single health and safety

00:31:25 at every single health and safety committee meeting thank you if we go to the minutes of the health and safety committee on the safety committee meeting on the 24th of november 2015 at tm010011821

00:31:40 and if we look at item 2.3 it's at the bottom part of that first page

00:31:46 page and we can see that peter madison amended the previous minutes to say that all backlog actions would be completed by the end of november 2015. would you agree yes and if we turn to page four in these minutes to item

00:31:58 to page four in these minutes to item 4.1

00:32:02 we can see an update has been provided which states that progress has been made with reducing the volume of outstanding fra actions repairs direct and contract management are confident

00:32:12 confident that significant further progress will be made in advance of the auditor's imminent visit again just a it backs up your point that um

00:32:21 um the audit had provided a focus i think it had yes now if we can turn to item 4.3 bm that's you

00:32:29 you advise that going forward it may be useful for the committee to review significant findings and action plans for fras received since the previous meeting

00:32:36 meeting these could be circulated in advance of meeting the fra action plans are not circulated at present and are specifically requested but it would be useful for all members to be aware of the issues being raised

00:32:47 aware of the issues being raised jw advised that currently there are approximately 15 to 20 fras completed each

00:32:51 each month and if we could look at 4.4 sj that's sasha jevons suggested reviewing key themes in the action plans and bringing those issues to the committee as opposed to all the action plans jw

00:33:03 as opposed to all the action plans jw noted this suggestion and will do so for the next meeting now flowing really from the answer you uh previously given the strong impression that arises is that you were concerned to ensure the

00:33:14 is that you were concerned to ensure the committee had a constant and informed awareness of the scale and nature of the fra significant outstanding action problem absolutely yes

00:33:24 yes and had you felt that was missing hitherto

00:33:28 hitherto um yes i did i i did feel it was sort of hidden a bit in the statistics as as we've said um and as i mentioned i think it

00:33:36 think it needed to be clear to the committee how many fras we were actually doing on a regular basis and also what actions were coming out of it

00:33:45 it now can we turn to the minutes of the next meeting which can be found on the 19th which was held rather on the 19th of january 2016 the minutes are at one double zero one

00:33:56 the minutes are at one double zero one two one seven four

00:34:05 there we go health and safety committee 19th of january if we could go forward to page four and items 3.1 of 3.2 w2

00:34:15 of 3.2 w2 workflow fra actions there set up at the top of the page and item 3.1 says jw and bm so janice and yourself respectively highlighted the main points of the fra summaries

00:34:26 summaries in particular it was emphasized that significant progress had to be made with completing the backlog of outstanding actions

00:34:31 actions by contract management and by repairs direct

00:34:34 direct pm peter madison asked for a copy of the detail behind this report pm noted that the system should be more robust to ensure actions are escalated if they are out of time or allocated to staff who are no

00:34:46 time or allocated to staff who are no longer with the organization gw graham webb advised the process will be reviewed to avoid outstanding historic

00:34:54 historic actions now the report had been prepared for

00:34:58 for this particular meeting was that a report of the key summaries from the fra as had been recommended by sasha jevons yes

00:35:06 yes um peter madison suggested a quote more robust close quote system of escalation including where actions are allocated to a member of staff who had left the tmo was that a particular problem allocation

00:35:19 was that a particular problem allocation of

00:35:19 of tasks to staff who had in fact left um i think

00:35:23 think what we found when we went through the summary

00:35:26 summary is that there were initials of people who were

00:35:30 who were no longer with the organization um and um janice um needed to go through and reallocate those um

00:35:41 through and reallocate those um those actions were already within or should have been within a work program um somewhere along the process depending on what it was i might might have been

00:35:53 what it was i might might have been actually a repair that had the person who raised the actual repair was no longer with us but the repair would be in the system um but it was quite right that we needed

00:36:05 um but it was quite right that we needed to

00:36:06 to tidy tidy it up and make sure it had the correctly allocated staff member thank you now can we go to the next executive team minutes from the 27th of january 2016 meeting they

00:36:18 the 27th of january 2016 meeting they can be found at tm0085276 and if we go to item 3 which is halfway down the first page which considers the enforcement notice

00:36:29 which considers the enforcement notice which had been served the previous december in relation to a dare tower

00:36:36 could we look at the final paragraph under item three on the second page

00:36:43 and you say there and i quote barbara advised that we are now getting up to date on

00:36:48 date on fra outstanding actions now can you remember whether anyone and i'm thinking particularly mr black asked for more detail on the outstanding fra actions at that point uh

00:37:00 fra actions at that point uh i don't remember him asking um but obviously you know i mean that that

00:37:07 that minute is just one line we we would have had a

00:37:11 had a discussion about why i was feeling that we were getting up to date um because what we were doing was clearing some of the actions but we

00:37:22 clearing some of the actions but we weren't

00:37:22 weren't up to date but we were the point being is we were getting there people were taking the responsibility now or i felt to do the actions and get on

00:37:33 or i felt to do the actions and get on and do it so there was more focus on it now um and and that was the discussion that we would have had and was there any discussion that you can remember or were you questioned

00:37:45 can remember or were you questioned on how much progress had been made reducing

00:37:49 reducing the number of high priority old outstanding actions i i don't remember how much detail we went into at that meeting

00:37:59 now can we turn bearing in mind that last

00:38:02 last observation can now go to the next health and safety committee meeting on the 12th of april 2016 so roughly three months after this one the minutes are at tmo one double zero one three zero six

00:38:16 one double zero one three zero six zero

00:38:19 zero and can we turn to paragraph 4.1 which can be found at page three

00:38:28 and we see that under the heading w2 workflow fra actions the following is minuted jw welcomed the significant drop in the number of outstanding actions for both fras and

00:38:39 outstanding actions for both fras and health and safety actions bm acknowledged the progress made and advised the chief executive remained anxious

00:38:45 anxious that all actions older than six months should be completed as a matter of urgency

00:38:50 urgency abe also alex bosman presumably added that his team currently has a further 50 plus actions which have been confirmed as complete and will be fully completed on w-2 asap now we see minuted here progress

00:39:03 asap now we see minuted here progress with the number of outstanding actions but concern from mr black that the number of

00:39:09 number of six-month actions that were sorry the actions that were six months or older remained outstanding now how was mr black kept informed about the level of

00:39:20 black kept informed about the level of outstanding actions and that question is directed at number

00:39:24 number not just priority rating um mr black would have been kept advised through having the minutes of the health and safety

00:39:35 minutes of the health and safety committee

00:39:36 committee and i believe i can't remember whether we sent

00:39:41 we sent all the papers to him as well so that he was aware of the actual numbers but certainly in my discussions with him um one to ones and also after a health

00:39:53 um one to ones and also after a health and safety committee he would always ask me

00:39:56 me um about in what you know what went on and

00:40:01 and and how how it progressed so and he was aware that i was concerned as well so we would discuss things i would if he didn't get the actual reports i would share the information

00:40:12 reports i would share the information with him and would you discuss matters informally as well we'd definitely yes and were fra outstanding actions some a point he returned to frequently or was it only rare that he raised it no

00:40:24 or was it only rare that he raised it no he would have raised it probably every time we met um thank you now if we can go to the executive team minutes for a meeting on the 7th of july 2016 so three months after

00:40:36 2016 so three months after this health and safety committee meeting those minutes are at tm01015934

00:40:49 and if we can also look at the 13th of july executive team minutes which are at

00:40:55 tm0089434

00:41:04 thank you now you can take it from me that a neither set of minutes is there any mention of fra actions can you explain why fra actions fell off the agenda

00:41:17 fra actions fell off the agenda at this point um i don't know i'm surprised because um is the battle's ongoing it has not

00:41:30 um is the battle's ongoing it has not been won

00:41:31 been won [Music]

00:41:32 [Music] although there were confident sounds being made by you at the uh april meeting can you remember now why it did drop off the radar uh in july 2016.

00:41:43 off the radar uh in july 2016. i i can't can we next go to the minutes therefore on the 19th of january 2017 which can be found at tm01016020

00:41:58 so that's the health and safety committee meeting and if we can go to page 2

00:42:02 page 2 and item 4.1 which concerns fra actions

00:42:10 and so we see in broad terms six months after fra actions appears to have dropped off minutes it comes up again and what you what is minuted as

00:42:21 minuted as being said by you here is this bm raised concern

00:42:25 concern that there were a very large number of actions outstanding that are over 12 months at the next meeting each of the teams with outstanding actions will need to explain their action plan

00:42:36 will need to explain their action plan to clear

00:42:36 to clear these down now this point you've been imposed for 18 months the problem regarding fra significant actions being outstanding is now chronic

00:42:49 outstanding is now chronic and apparently systemic was this another opportunity for you to take the step back

00:42:54 back and ask yourself the blunt question should we be doing something differently here to crack the problem

00:43:03 um i'm not sure that i stood back from it because i was very much focused on

00:43:14 i was very much focused on trying to get these actions cleared trying to understand why they're still sitting there and as i said earlier you're right now i'm 18 months in and a number of

00:43:25 now i'm 18 months in and a number of those that are over 12 months would have say been some of them would have been um you know few months old or or six months old when

00:43:34 old when when i joined and they've done exactly what i was trying for them not to do which is literally

00:43:41 literally slip into the next 12 months um and so i suppose my focus was on saying we have to clear these because the longer they sit there the higher the

00:43:52 the longer they sit there the higher the risk they are anyway now fra actions stay and are constant in the health and safety committee minutes

00:44:03 safety committee minutes i mean the fact that you're now

00:44:07 drawing attention to the fact that a large number of actions are outstanding for over 12 months suggests that there may have been a systemic problem in that you were never keeping up to

00:44:19 in that you were never keeping up to speed

00:44:20 speed with the fra actions required is that how it struck you i i think you're absolutely right and um it's a bit like i see it in

00:44:31 and um it's a bit like i see it in finance terms like age debt if you don't cha

00:44:34 cha you can chase the old debt you have to chase the current debt as well otherwise it just slips into old debt and i think that was what was happening here that things were just coming up and then

00:44:46 that things were just coming up and then slipping

00:44:48 slipping all the time and and therefore they were becoming

00:44:52 becoming over six months over 12 months well did you think it was necessary to ask the question

00:44:57 question why were they slipping well that was that was exactly what i was trying to get to the bottom of by asking them you know what what they are and what they're doing about it because you

00:45:10 what they're doing about it because you know

00:45:10 know they're on a big list i could go through the big list but as you saw it's still quite a high number trying to identify and and actually trying to quantify if any of those could be grouped together because

00:45:22 be grouped together because some of them were repetitive i think somewhere else in something i've read there were a number that related for instance to fire extinguishers it happens to be the one i remember

00:45:32 remember and that was waiting for the new contract

00:45:35 contract to come in place and then to get into a position

00:45:39 position where they knew where all the extinguishers were and go round and service them or or remove them or whatever it was they needed to do rather than every time carl went round and he found a fire extinguisher that

00:45:51 and he found a fire extinguisher that was out of date and it went on an fra and there were i don't know a couple of hundred of those and i didn't know whether they were repetitive because i wasn't going and checking oh yes that's the same one as that all i

00:46:03 yes that's the same one as that all i knew is there's another fire extinguisher that the list was huge and in detail quite difficult to manage but what this suggests is that

00:46:14 suggests is that someone perhaps you should have been asking the question every time something slipped from three months to the six-month group why had it not been completed within the three months and was that something that you did i i

00:46:26 was that something that you did i i probably

00:46:27 probably should have been um and i would have been raising the fact that we are seeing them slip because as you notice in each of the reports the figures

00:46:38 in each of the reports the figures show the current month and in brackets the the previous reporting so that you could see how things had moved and some things would move positively so you'd actually clear it and that was fine

00:46:49 and that was fine and then you'd see other areas where it had moved negatively and yes we did we did talk about that this is the action that i asked eventually to to say look you're quite right i've

00:47:02 to to say look you're quite right i've now been here 18 months and i'm still seeing this we i need to know what you're doing about it because at the meetings trying to get people to say we're doing this that and the other and

00:47:13 we're doing this that and the other and then to see it happen get them to write it down saying i am going to do this by this date it was a bit like pm saying you get them all cleared by november um

00:47:24 november um the which would have been great but of course as you saw that didn't happen mr matthews if we could sorry sorry thank you very much yes danger of open questions sorry but the um looking at this minute

00:47:38 sorry but the um looking at this minute uh here in item 4.1 um you raise the concern the large number of actions outstanding there are over 12 months so it appears that the six month plus time bracket had been extended to 12 months is that right

00:47:50 extended to 12 months is that right uh well only be only because it wasn't only because the age of outstanding action yeah yeah now was that delay if i can phrase it that way was that delay reported back to robert black

00:48:03 reported back to robert black certainly i would have spoken to robert black about my frustrations you can probably hear my frustration about about not getting them done

00:48:11 them done and the fact that we had a significant number still quite old actions to be cleared the now your frustrations are stark and obvious to us here today

00:48:24 to us here today which sort of begs the question again why had fra actions dropped off the radar of the executive team agenda i think that the other thing i would say is the minutes of the

00:48:35 is the minutes of the um of the health and safety committee went to the executive with janice's key highlights on on the front it's not quite the same though as for a significant actions being an

00:48:48 as for a significant actions being an item agenda for the executive team you're right it isn't quite the same now can we look at the next meeting minutes on the 16th of march 2017 uh which can be found at tmo one double zero one six

00:48:59 zero one six seven four one forward slash four and i'm concerned with item three

00:49:07 and we see there under the heading fras 3.1 jw noted that simon heffernan contract manager had been really helpful in terms of closing down both historical

00:49:18 in terms of closing down both historical and current fra actions there's been increased focus on clearing the backlog as well as keeping current records up to date and this was reflected in the statistics 3.2

00:49:28 3.2 bm thank teams for the explanation of their outstanding actions and emphasize the need for all to continue prioritizing completing these and to prevent further actions falling into the 12 plus months category

00:49:39 into the 12 plus months category now it seems there that be you'd your cracking of the whip had had some success

00:49:44 success is that a fair summary it was starting to have some success the fact that you know we were clearing that clog now mindful of your evidence there that you were starting to

00:49:55 evidence there that you were starting to clear in your first witness statement at paragraph 35 you described it as a mass clearing of actions now yeah that seems a bit of an exaggeration looking at what had been recorded contemporaneously miss matthews yes

00:50:07 contemporaneously miss matthews yes okay maybe maybe that's it but bearing in mind

00:50:10 in mind where we had come from it did feel like um a mass were now being cleared the fact that um janice and simon had gone through together

00:50:21 gone through together um and actually were able to clear a significant amount of of actions now can we go to a paper that was prepared by janice ray for a health and safety meeting that

00:50:33 for a health and safety meeting that took place on the 13th of june 2017. that can be found at eight tm0084 double two one eight

00:50:43 and it gave an update as to current progress with completion of actions

00:50:51 now there we go if we can look at page one and the very bottom row which deals with

00:50:55 with totals we see the total of outstanding actions there is 142. yes reading across the right partially complete was 165. yes

00:51:09 complete was 165. yes and so uh the combined total of incomplete actions was 307 that's to say 142 plus 165 yes now if we can look over at the second

00:51:20 now if we can look over at the second page we have the dates of the outstanding actions and again can we look at the bottom row there and that we see that total outstanding actions that are four months or older is 250

00:51:30 250 that say 50 plus 72 plus 128 equals 250. yeah now we're two years on in your tenure

00:51:43 there appears to be a chronic and systemic problem still afflicting resolution of these outstanding actions would you agree with that proposition uh i i do think there was still

00:51:55 uh i i do think there was still a problem um

00:52:00 chronic and systemic um well it being certainly going on you inherited a position i did and so it's two years old by this stage yeah no i

00:52:11 yeah no i but i know it was i would say it was systemic uh and chronic and what i was doing was um working a way through it um

00:52:24 working a way through it um so that we wouldn't be in that position going forward because if you if you look at um say the the one month old and the and

00:52:35 say the the one month old and the and the

00:52:36 the two to three month old compared to the previous month um i i know some of them will have slipped then into the four to six but i think the the point being is that we were

00:52:47 point being is that we were trying to keep on top of things a bit better and this was a backlog that we were still clearing

00:52:54 clearing mindful though and put it bluntly that i think you referred to 10 or 20 being your

00:53:01 your maybe that's ambitious because i said it should be zero but it a lot depends on how many fras you're doing but you're well off that mark here on oh gosh yes i don't deny that now can we go to the

00:53:13 don't deny that now can we go to the minutes of the health and safety committee that was held on the 13th of june 2017 so the day before the fire which can be found at tm01021548 forward slash 3 and item 3.1

00:53:30 and we see there under the having f heading fra actions bm expressed concern at the volume of actions which remain outstanding she emphasized the importance of completing these in the timely manner not least because they will continue to

00:53:42 not least because they will continue to be raised particularly as the fra reviews become more frequent now given that closing fractions was a problem when you joined again i put it to you that this was an

00:53:53 again i put it to you that this was an unresolved problem by the time of the day before the fight it was an unresolved problem yes now in the run-up you'd asked for

00:54:01 asked for information before meetings sometime previously had you before this meeting raised your concerns with mr black as to the continuing nature of the fra

00:54:12 as to the continuing nature of the fra significant actions problem i'm sure i would have done um in our one-to-one meetings you're sure you would have done did you

00:54:22 okay i i

00:54:28 i'm sure i did i mean i'm sorry i i i can't

00:54:31 can't say anymore did i yeah maybe i i don't know whether i i can't say for sure put differently

00:54:43 i can't say for sure put differently by june 2017 was the long-standing nature and the number of outstanding fre actions did that remain a subject for discussion at the weekly executive team meetings it

00:54:56 at the weekly executive team meetings it it may not have been on the agenda uh in as a specific item um sasha avon

00:55:07 um sasha avon and i used to have um discussions about a number of operational things um sort of outside the executive committee

00:55:19 committee and that that was definitely one on the agenda with sasha and myself thank you now can i turn to a separate topic was the rbkc audit in 2015 2016 now you mentioned this in your

00:55:32 2016 now you mentioned this in your second witness statement and the reference is paragraph 79 tmo double 0-873-380-22 we don't need to go to it but the tmo

00:55:43 we don't need to go to it but the tmo received a substantial assurance rating yes the highest available under the rbkc audit ranks now can we look at the audit which was dated march

00:55:54 which was dated march 2016 and what it says about the fra system

00:55:57 system now that can be found at tmo one double zero two double four zero four forward slash six and if we can look at the last bullet point in particular

00:56:11 and it says there at the very bottom of the page

00:56:14 the page the fire risk assessments are carried out by a third party specialist consultant and the fra reviews are undertaken by the tmo assistant safety advisor during routine inspections of properties

00:56:26 inspections of properties to ensure that any insignificant actions and action plan items identified by the fra

00:56:31 fra are progressed in a timely manner as per their stated priority checks on keystone for ten estates confirmed these were up to date and all fire equipment had been inspected within the past 12 month period

00:56:43 the past 12 month period who was primarily responsible for providing the auditor with information regarding health and safety and fire safety performance in particular

00:56:52 in relation to this particular audit and what he's referencing here what he's referencing here is the inspection of equipment at various estates and that

00:57:03 equipment at various estates and that information would have been held on our keystone asset management system and so i believe john borra would have been the gentleman responsible for providing

00:57:15 responsible for providing the confirmation that those inspections had taken place now it's asserted there that any significant findings and action plans identified by the fra are progressed in a timely manner as per their stated

00:57:27 a timely manner as per their stated priority

00:57:28 priority do you agree that's what said that's what it says from where would the auditor have obtained the information to make that statement i think you'll see it says uh the inspections of

00:57:41 you'll see it says uh the inspections of properties to ensure that any significant findings identified by the progress in a timely manner

00:57:47 manner he's he's saying the the inspections that we we do not identified by sorry can i go back to the beginning of the sentence please do

00:57:59 beginning of the sentence please do you refresh your memory and think about what i've asked and then answer

00:58:06 well you'd like to see the bottom little pretty the bottom of the previous page that it's the the the um beginning of the sentence sorry just to

00:58:17 beginning of the sentence sorry just to remind myself

00:58:35 during routine inspections

00:58:40 i'm not sure what properties

00:58:48 right can you ask question again of course of course now it's set out there that quotes any significant findings and action plan items identified by the fra so the fire risk assessment are

00:59:01 so the fire risk assessment are progressed in a timely manner as per their stated priority now i don't want to be too loyally about that but that uh element of the sentence appears to be different to the routine inspections

00:59:13 different to the routine inspections point now is that how you read it it it does because he's he's actually talking about the inspections of properties because i the reason that i understand what the

00:59:26 i understand what the checks that he did were and he was checking that um

00:59:34 that fire equipment or fire systems had been inspected which is what he's saying how he's saying he checked that the the item that he said happens

00:59:48 that the the item that he said happens is true but i'm not sure he's written properly what he

00:59:55 he actually meant um now that i come i must have read it i'm sure i know i read it at the time um miss matthews it may be that it doesn't bear too close textual analysis

01:00:07 bear too close textual analysis um but what my question was do you know where he would have got the information that to quote significant findings and action plan items identified

01:00:18 items identified by the fra are progressed in a timely manner but the only place he would have got

01:00:23 got that stated the way you've stated it would have been from the information held in w-2 and to follow through um the original

01:00:34 to follow through um the original finding as it's been put on and and to see the actions that are cleared but i'm not sure whether he's referring to that there sorry don't worry it might i think that might

01:00:45 don't worry it might i think that might be a limit how far we can uh take that particular matter um can we now turn to separate distinct topic which is lfb enforcement notices and first of all the tmo's policy as to how to deal

01:00:57 the tmo's policy as to how to deal with notices such as that now can we look um at um first of all the procedural arrangements in place at the tmo

01:01:07 the tmo were the number and the substance of lfb enforcement notices monitored by the health and safety committee they were were lfb enforcement notices the fact of

01:01:18 were lfb enforcement notices the fact of the number and the substance monitored yes

01:01:21 yes by the health and safety yes word deficiency and enforcement notices recorded

01:01:26 recorded anywhere to enable you personally or the health and safety committee to monitor the number themes arising and crucially closing out

01:01:37 and crucially closing out actions necessary to make good the deficiencies those those um we didn't get many deficiency notices and we only had two enforcement notices as far as i'm

01:01:50 two enforcement notices as far as i'm aware

01:01:51 aware um in the year 1415 we had zero deficiency notices so i sorry to interrupt is the answer to my question they weren't recorded anywhere they they weren't record what i was about to say is there was not a work

01:02:04 about to say is there was not a work flow through w-2 so there wasn't a formal system placed to record them and therefore they were

01:02:12 were recorded as a spreadsheet now were enforcement notices enforcement notices

01:02:19 notices reported to the executive team within a certain time yes they were they were sent immediately to the executive team and when we received them also to the board and

01:02:29 board and were the notices reported for example to rbkc as well rbkc had a copy at the same time always we only had two enforcement notices so i'm assuming that

01:02:41 notices so i'm assuming that that was the case were copies sent to the tmo board yes i just mentioned that um but is it right to say and on your evidence simply because there's an insufficient number

01:02:52 there's an insufficient number there was no formal process for the management of and responding no there was no formal process um now can we look at what the 2013 fire

01:03:03 now can we look at what the 2013 fire safety strategy says about lfb notices and if we can turn to tmo double zero eight three zero five nine eight forward slash two and in particular paragraph three point three

01:03:20 now i'll just let you read that to yourself rather than inflicting my voice on anyone

01:03:25 on anyone any further

01:03:42 thank you have you read it yeah thank you now the strategy doesn't set out a way of addressing uh the substance of deficiency and enforcement notices um whether by monitoring by the health and safety

01:03:53 monitoring by the health and safety committee or anything else is that a fair observation now can we look at the draft proposed strategy which was due to be signed off in or was signed off just before the fire and go to

01:04:05 just before the fire and go to [Music]

01:04:10 tm00842210

01:04:16 now uh you can take it from me that this document

01:04:20 document contains no provision for arrangements for addressing the contents of deficiency or enforcement notices either can you help us as to why there's no substantive

01:04:31 no substantive update following the tmo's recent experience with lfb regulatory action no i can't i can't explain why we didn't put a process in there

01:04:42 put a process in there and it wasn't a topic of discussion at the time when you were reviewing the the new strategy i don't remember so no can i now turn on to

01:04:53 no can i now turn on to the letter from the london foreign emergency planning authority regarding the shepherd's court fire now a letter was sent from el fipa

01:05:04 a letter was sent from el fipa in respect of building work issues that had been highlighted by the fire at shepherd's court in the in the neighboring borough of hammersmith and fulham now can you remember was there a formal process for consideration

01:05:15 process for consideration of such correspondence from elfipa a formal process there was no formal process

01:05:24 can we look at the letter in particular that we're concerned with here which can be found at tm00861973

01:05:35 sorry this is the email correspondence by which uh mr black forwarded uh the covering email received from laura johnson and um if we can go to the it's

01:05:48 and um if we can go to the it's forwarded by laura johnson if you can go to the bottom of the first page

01:06:04 bottom of the first page so just whilst waiting what uh mr black had said i will review with janice and come back to you so we can clarify the position janice ray is then copied and sends the letter from

01:06:16 is then copied and sends the letter from the lfb to you and others now you respond in a separate email at page two and if we go to that

01:06:28 and we see your email there on the 20th of april sent at 1009 and it's solely sent to janus janice thanks for sending this on do you know which of our buildings has the type of infill panels etc that are

01:06:40 the type of infill panels etc that are referred to in the letter i also assume the cladding recently installed at grenville would be compliant now if we can go to rbk quadruple zero one seven two six

01:07:01 rbk quadruple zero one seven two six and you see jan's ray's response on the 27th of april at 1446 it's the third email in the chain

01:07:07 chain there we go apologies for the delay but i wanted to check with our fire risk assessor before i responded to you i can confirm that it is our understanding that we do not have any blocks with cladding of the nature

01:07:18 blocks with cladding of the nature described in the lfb's letter which was present at the shepherd's bush tower block grenfell tower did have external cladding panels fitted as part of the recent refurbishment work however our assessor investigated

01:07:29 however our assessor investigated thoroughly the details of the installation with the contractor rydens when the work works were on site and he's able to confirm that this complies with the requirements of the current building regulations

01:07:40 current building regulations did you seek any assurance from janice ray about how she'd been able to provide such confirmation

01:07:47 only that i was aware she spoke to carl stokes

01:07:51 stokes about it i didn't seek any additional confirmation thank you can we now turn to a separate topic which is a dare

01:08:02 to a separate topic which is a dare tower

01:08:03 tower now on the 12th of october 2015 the lfb issued a deficiency notice and served it on the tmo in respect of a dare tower and just so that you can familiarize

01:08:14 and just so that you can familiarize yourself with it could we go to that notice which is at tm00842271

01:08:29 address the janus at the tmo just wrote the tmo and if we go on to the third page

01:08:36 [Applause] we can see

01:08:41 first of two sheets which set out the deficiencies and areas of concern which the lfe had identified and we just go on to the next page after that

01:08:53 to the next page after that and the final page

01:08:57 now can you remember when you first saw that notice um i i don't know the exact date but janice would have sent it to me when we had it given their relative

01:09:09 when we had it given their relative rarity

01:09:10 rarity for the tmo's purposes uh is it a fair assumption that the notice and its contents caused you some consider serious concern it would have um raised some concerns i think on the

01:09:23 um raised some concerns i think on the previous page it it it talks about protected roots if we can go back yes it might be useful to go back to the third page

01:09:31 page because there were some technical issues in in that so what we've got on the um the first identified deficiency is in relation to

01:09:42 identified deficiency is in relation to article 11 of the order and that preventative and protective measures have not been planned organized or controlled monitored or reviewed it was found that the significant findings had not been monitored and

01:09:53 findings had not been monitored and reviewed to ensure works have been completed

01:09:56 completed if we turn over the page

01:10:00 identified breach of article 17 1 which as you identified concerned protected roots looking further down the page article 8 the general fire precautions identified

01:10:12 the general fire precautions identified as significant findings in the fire risk assessment had not been implemented

01:10:19 would you agree that even on a cursory read

01:10:22 read of this schedule that it highlighted significant failings uh with carrying out works identified in fire risk assessments

01:10:32 who did you inform that the notice had been received and its substance i'm thinking of the board

01:10:40 board rbkc or anyone else um i i don't think i informed anybody specifically would you have assumed that janice would have

01:10:51 have assumed that janice would have informed the people who needed to be aware of this

01:10:56 i would have assumed janice would have advised um the executive team um at this stage we wouldn't

01:11:04 wouldn't necessarily have uh sent all deficiency notices to the board or rbkc or rbkc um i'm i'm not sure whether they

01:11:15 um i'm i'm not sure whether they received i know this one was addressed to janice

01:11:17 to janice and i can't remember whether they received a copy as well anyway well can we turn to your notebooks please in this regard tmo double zero double eight zero three

01:11:29 double zero double eight zero three two nine forward slash eighty five

01:11:38 now these are your handwritten notes of a team meeting on the 13th of october 2015. so the day after the notice of deficiency was issued and we can say from the very top left-hand corner that

01:11:50 from the very top left-hand corner that the end the attendees included rb robert black

01:11:53 black no that's not robert black who is that that's rupa bola rupert bola and we see there jw yes that's presumably janice ray yes

01:12:04 and your notes regarding this meeting go stay on this page and then go over to page 86

01:12:10 page 86 can we look at item six which is the managers

01:12:13 managers update which is on this page

01:12:23 maybe scroll over to the next page there we go managers are updates and we see the second broad heading is hns so presumably health and safety

01:12:34 hns so presumably health and safety and then the second bullet point is deficiency notice from the lfb now can you remember now what discussion if any there was about the

01:12:44 the substance of the deficiencies identified by the lfb um there wouldn't have been at this particular meeting a detailed discussion because as you saw at the top this was my team meeting

01:12:56 at the top this was my team meeting and my team consisted of somebody from finance i.t home ownership and janice we were they were all my direct reports

01:13:07 direct reports um and this uh update was really for um their colleagues to advise each other on the things that were occurring in their areas so there wouldn't have been

01:13:19 their areas so there wouldn't have been a detailed discussion janice would have advised we'd had a deficiency notice because i know that various of the team members particularly dan wood who was in

01:13:30 members particularly dan wood who was in charge of

01:13:31 charge of home ownership he would have been interested to understand uh what was in there but we wouldn't have had a discussion about thank you the detail thank you can we now turn to tim

01:13:44 tm0086480 and this is an email chain in which robert black emails board members about their dare tower fire

01:13:57 and we can see his email there just below the top of the page second november 2015 an email sent at 1558 to board members do you remember seeing that email or indeed

01:14:09 email or indeed helping with its preparation yes i probably would have helped with the preparation before i ask you the next question might i ask you to skim read the email and if necessary

01:14:22 skim read the email and if necessary please shout to the documentary if you need to turn the p over the page

01:14:37 next next page please

01:14:44 yeah would you agree that there is no mention there in the update given to the board of the fact

01:14:51 fact or the substance of the deficiency notice there is no do mention know why that wasn't mentioned uh i think this was a report about the fire and i think it just was missed off this

01:15:04 and i think it just was missed off this report the fact and the substance of deficiency notice was relevant wasn't it not least as an aspect of corporate risk

01:15:15 corporate risk bearing in mind the corporate risk map that we discussed yesterday um correct [Music]

01:15:22 [Music] and it ought to have been mentioned in this email to the board it should have been

01:15:27 been can you therefore help us as to when the board were first informed about the fact and substance of the adata deficiency notice

01:15:36 um i don't know whether it came up in a a board meeting or i ca i can't i actually can't remember

01:15:49 i ca i can't i actually can't remember can we then turn back to your notebooks please tiemo

01:15:55 double080329 forward slash 101.

01:16:03 now if we look at the top left-hand corner it appears to say fire meeting is that

01:16:08 that that was the dare fire and third of november

01:16:12 november 2015 it says people in temporary accommodation want to get as many back as possible we go down a few lines fire brigade have visited assessed as

01:16:23 fire brigade have visited assessed as structurally safe and if we go down

01:16:28 to the penultimate entry on this page which says discussion about fire brigade need to have doors having self-closers fire consultant to make assessment and take photos is that a fair translation

01:16:40 take photos is that a fair translation of your handwriting yes

01:16:44 so it would appear on the face of those contemporaneous handwritten notes that the tmo and indeed yourself were aware of the importance of self-closers as an

01:16:55 of the importance of self-closers as an issue

01:16:56 issue yes now who was at this meeting on the 3rd of november 2015 uh i don't know i hadn't written that at

01:17:07 uh i don't know i hadn't written that at the top i'm i think probably the executive team so would mr black have attended uh yes [Applause]

01:17:18 [Applause] can we now turn to a separate and distinct chain of email correspondence which can be found at tmo double zero eight six nine one eight four forward slash

01:17:28 slash six mr are we going to a new topic we probably are sir so this may be the the appropriate time all right well i think we are going to a new topic it is an appropriate time i think it's time we had a little break

01:17:39 i think it's time we had a little break this is

01:17:41 this is we're going to take a break now we'll come back at 25 to 12 please and again don't speak to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're away all right thank you very much

01:17:58 all right thank you very much all right 95 to 12 please

01:36:50 would you ask the species to come back in please

01:37:03 i am this message ready to keep going yes thank you very much yes mr kennedy thanks sir we were discussing a dead tower the fire and its aftermath now can you look next please at a chain

01:37:14 now can you look next please at a chain of email correspondence tm0086918 forward slash 6. thank you and this is an email from

01:37:25 thank you and this is an email from janice ray to rebecca burton the local lfb fire safety team leader sent on the 22nd of october 2015 now in respect of further potential

01:37:37 respect of further potential deficiency notices for fire rated flat doors missing self-closers the chain continues on the 4th of november 2015 which can be found at page three

01:37:50 where rebecca burton we can see there an email sent at 12 12. asked janice ray for some detail on the dare tower janice ray forwards that email on for

01:38:01 janice ray forwards that email on for assistance with a response to miss burton

01:38:03 burton and you're copied in to that email and we can see that at the bottom of page two

01:38:11 do you remember reading that chain of emails i do was that the first time that you become aware that there may be five more deficiency notices in the part in the pipeline partly to do with

01:38:23 in the pipeline partly to do with self-closing devices

01:38:26 uh five five more i mean uh it would have been the first time i was aware thank you now given your executive responsibility for health and safety

01:38:38 responsibility for health and safety what measures did you take or what advice did you give first of all to the board regarding these the prospect of further deficiency notices

01:38:49 um i don't remember did you give advice or take any measures or commend any measures to the board

01:39:00 about deficiency notices

01:39:06 i don't actually remember what what went to the board about deficiency notices

01:39:13 notices at this time so i'm sorry i can't remember that did you have any discussion with janice ray about how best to respond to the prospect of further regulatory

01:39:24 to the prospect of further regulatory action from the lfb we obviously talked about the possibility of getting further um action um and and obviously we would need to wait

01:39:37 and and obviously we would need to wait to see what that action was before we could to see what that notice said uh before we could take any action now staying on this page you'll see immediately above janice ray's email to

01:39:48 immediately above janice ray's email to you all

01:39:49 you all there's a response from peter madison and you'll see in the second paragraph he says on the scaffold we need to remind the brigade that they carried out an

01:40:00 brigade that they carried out an inspection of the block recently and did not pick this up as an issue now did that particular comment strike q is seeking to put blame or

01:40:12 strike q is seeking to put blame or responsibility on the lfb for not picking up that issue rather than focusing on the tmo not having addressed that particular scaffold-related issue um the way that is worded

01:40:25 um the way that is worded it's it's the former that you said that it's identifying that the lfb had done an inspection and this hadn't come up

01:40:36 hadn't come up um he's not in this particular case addressing the issue of scaffold in front of the dry riser as far as i could remember but does mr madison's email reflect a

01:40:47 but does mr madison's email reflect a broader attitude that so long as the lfb didn't comment on something or didn't comment on something

01:40:53 something adversely then the situation was okay i i don't i don't think that was the the the

01:41:00 the general um i don't think that's what that is aimed at there

01:41:07 at there um i think it's a specific comment about this particular issue can we turn on to the fire risk assessment and action plan that carl

01:41:18 assessment and action plan that carl stokes was then instructed to prepare following the fire and if we go to the record of significant findings and action plan dated the 11th of november 2015

01:41:29 dated the 11th of november 2015 which can be found at tm0084

01:41:43 first of all did you see that document at the time i did yes now if we can turn to page five

01:41:54 and we see the bottom entry 12 i provides quotes any flat entrance doors in this building that do not have self-closing devices fitted them have self-closing devices fitted and

01:42:06 have self-closing devices fitted and that we see in the next column tiemoue accepts this recommendation and is committed to progressing the installation of self-closing devices as a matter of urgency now did the fact

01:42:17 as a matter of urgency now did the fact and substance of the deficiency notice followed shortly thereafter by the fire in which those deficiencies were illustrated caused you to think there was a problem with the adequacy

01:42:29 there was a problem with the adequacy of carl stokes's fras no i i did not um consider that now you received a lengthy email from janice ray on the

01:42:40 lengthy email from janice ray on the 13th of november which can be found at tm00840415 and that followed a meeting that she had had with rebecca burton and if that could come up on the screen

01:42:54 thank you now the email indicates that following the fire the lfb audit assessed the darren hazelwood towers which were sister buildings identical design as being level

01:43:05 being level five and you'll see that in the substantive paragraph under item 2 which would generally result in enforcement action or indeed prosecution now if we can go

01:43:17 or indeed prosecution now if we can go to the bottom of the email which is at page 2 and halfway down that page we see a paragraph which starts with the word however and if that could be amplified please

01:43:31 it's uh miss ray says and i quote however it seems that specifically they the lfb

01:43:36 the lfb are focusing on self-closures on flat entrance doors and ventilation her stated preference would be to have both staircases closed as opposed to one unenclosed however she is keen to see the reviewed risk assessment

01:43:48 the reviewed risk assessment i asked if she needed to see action on both of these points if we fit itself closes

01:43:52 closes could she accept the ventilation and she reiterated that she needed to see the revised fra i had the impression that if the fra recognized the need to fit self-closers and this was programmed swiftly for both

01:44:03 and this was programmed swiftly for both blocks this might be acceptable now bearing in mind that observation can you help us as to why the

01:44:13 why the fra that carl stokes had prepared was not sent to the lfb until the 8th of december 2015. uh i i don't know why it wasn't sent

01:44:27 can you confirm that no instruction was given to hold back service of the fra no there was no reason to hold it back can we now look at another email chain which can be found at tm0086489

01:44:50 and if we go to the second and final page of that chain

01:45:00 this is an email from carl stokes i'm afraid

01:45:03 afraid his name is redacted to janice ray that was revision four or five of the fra um for a dare tower now if we go back to page one she sent it on to you robert

01:45:14 page one she sent it on to you robert black and sasha jevons later that day

01:45:19 and we can see the next days on the 19th of november 2015 peter madison responds via sasha jevons for some reason i might invite you to read that email to

01:45:31 i might invite you to read that email to yourself and indicate when you've done

01:45:47 oh yeah i've read it thank you now it looks like carl stokes's original view was that self-closers should have a high priority

01:45:54 priority action would you agree with that it does yes now peter madison equally obviously uh does not agree and thinks that the action should either be low

01:46:03 low or advice is that a fair summary from that

01:46:07 that email yes i would agree so carl stokes gave his advice to the tmo the tmo appears to have rejected that advice and revised the fra to reflect mr madison's view is that a fair summary

01:46:20 carl agreed to amend it following the reasoning behind why we felt it wasn't appropriate to bear high priority action

01:46:30 action now if we can just look at that would you accept that mr madison had no qualifications whatsoever in relation to fire risk assessment and their conduct

01:46:44 correct and would it be fair to observe that mr madison's contribution had nothing to do with fire safety what he's concerned with there is the

01:46:55 what he's concerned with there is the tmo's ability to fit self-closers

01:47:01 when you say ability he's referring there mainly to the statutory requirement and and therefore that being the ability

01:47:12 and and therefore that being the ability or inability to be able to do it

01:47:16 but he's not obviously or primarily concerned with fire safety is he from the way it's worded there no

01:47:27 from the way it's worded there no now you responded to mr madison's email at 9 20 on the 20th of november 2015 and we can find that at tm0086493

01:47:42 at tm0086493 forward slash 2 and the very bottom of page 2.

01:47:50 page 2. and we see there at the very bottom dear all and if we can go over the page to page three you say this i agree with peter's view that this finding should be low rather than high

01:48:00 than high as there is no regulation requiring the retrofit of self-closers and we could not enforce this for leaseholders i have asked janice to raise this with carl to amend the level of this finding the action currently reads as a

01:48:11 the action currently reads as a recommendation which we should annotate reflect that we will initiate a program to complete the work promptly with the exception of leaseholders where we can only recommend that they be fitted

01:48:23 fitted now you agreed with mr madison and it would appear on the basis that you considered there to be no regulatory requirement in relation to retrofitting of self-closers is that

01:48:34 retrofitting of self-closers is that again a fair summary yes now on what basis did you reach that view for example did you consult any external fire consultant for example no i would have asked janice and she was

01:48:47 no i would have asked janice and she was your sole

01:48:47 your sole source of advice yes and so you yourself didn't consult the lga guide for any not guys no no did you consult rbkc's health and safety advisor

01:48:58 health and safety advisor no

01:49:01 did you consult the provisions of the fire safety order no and when reaching this view what regard did you have to the indication and notice deficiencies the

01:49:13 indication and notice deficiencies the lfb

01:49:14 lfb considered the tmo were in breach of their obligations in respect of self-closers in the deficiency notice yes i

01:49:26 yes i i was aware that um we should have doors with self-closers um and therefore if they weren't we were in breach

01:49:38 in breach but i think the issue here was about being able to carry out an action uh that we wouldn't be able to carry out this particular action were

01:49:51 carry out this particular action were you concerned more with retro element the retrofitting rod and fitment

01:49:56 fitment looking at the top the second line of this email this this was this was about retrofitting going back and inspecting and um and actually fitting self-closers

01:50:08 and um and actually fitting self-closers to doors that didn't have them or were broken or whatever

01:50:17 well i can see there was a problem with leaseholder doors because of the terms of the lease may or may not have given you power to enter to do work or require the work to be done

01:50:28 work to be done but that wouldn't be a problem for tenants doors would it well you haven't got a right to enter a tenant's property to to do to do things and therefore

01:50:39 to to do to do things and therefore we would need to find a

01:50:44 a way to enable that to happen and if a tenant refused to allow us to come in to check their door closer there was nothing that we could enforce

01:50:56 nothing that we could enforce a gas safety check you could but for a door

01:51:00 door inspecting a door we had no legal recourse

01:51:06 recourse all right thank you just following on from the chairman's question did you consult the provisions of the tenancy agreements to determine what rights of access you had to carry out repairs

01:51:19 if i might say carrying out a repair um you have um a right to carry out a repair

01:51:28 repair i'm sorry in answer to your question no i didn't go through the tenancy agreement apologies thank you can we look at the a parallel chain of email correspondence can be found at cst

01:51:39 email correspondence can be found at cst trouble zero two five two nine one

01:51:44 and the first one or the first email is sent by carl stokes to janice ray at 9 48

01:51:53 on the 20th of november 2015 [Applause]

01:52:08 just checking it's the right one 948 if we can go

01:52:11 we can go there we go janice my advice is that the item ray refitting self-closing devices stays as a high but as there is a policy in place regarding advice on fitting door

01:52:23 regarding advice on fitting door self-closing devices i do not have a problem with the priority being stated as strong advice this is partly to appease the lfb but the fitting of the door self-closing devices

01:52:33 devices must be given a high priority by the tmo and repairs direct

01:52:41 then can we see your email to carl stokes at 10 27

01:52:49 thank you [Applause] i'll read this out yesterday when we met we agreed that high priority items are stated as such due to the legal or

01:53:00 stated as such due to the legal or regulatory requirement to undertake the action

01:53:02 action as this is not the case with the retrofitting self-closers i'm not sure why you would be stating it as a high priority we have agreed internally that we will arrange for a program of fitting

01:53:14 arrange for a program of fitting self-closers on existing doors to be undertaken quickly however as we are unable to enforce this for leaseholders we would be unable to action them as currently described our program will concentrate on tenant

01:53:26 our program will concentrate on tenant stores and will strongly advise leaseholders to follow suit we do not want to be a position with the lfb that they can issue a deficiency notice for all doors as we would be unable to fully

01:53:37 all doors as we would be unable to fully action this we would be giving the fitting of self-closers where we can a high priority and to note that all new doors fitted would have self closes fitted

01:53:46 fitted anyway hopefully you can now at least downgrade this priority to a medium it's not low i think you mean if not yes i do yeah now first you state that

01:53:57 yes i do yeah now first you state that high priority means legal or regulatory requirement to undertake action is that right

01:54:02 right um that's what you say there yeah that's what that says there yes that means if the tmo do not take action they would be in breach of a regulatory requirement isn't it

01:54:13 isn't it why do you say that retrofitting self-closers isn't closes is not a legal requirement because my understanding was it wasn't a

01:54:25 because my understanding was it wasn't a a legal requirement to to retrofit self-closers on flat entrance doors and that was on the basis of what janice ray advised you is that right yes

01:54:38 when you say unable to fully action this were you referring to leaseholders doors there we we are referring to leaseholders doors say yes now in the final sentence

01:54:50 doors say yes now in the final sentence when you say hopefully you can now at least downgrade this priority to a medium

01:54:54 medium if not low what you're effectively asking mr stokes to do there is to change his independent assessment of the risk would you agree

01:55:04 you agree i am that's how it appears

01:55:08 again you have no as you accepted yesterday you have no technical background in health and safety or fire safety in particular you're right and yet notwithstanding the

01:55:20 you're right and yet notwithstanding the absence of that background you had no hesitation in asking mr stokes to change his independent assessment i was asking him to to change it

01:55:31 i was asking him to to change it can we turn now to the top let's help you with this sorry if you could i'm just not quite clear in my mind why if the

01:55:39 if the lfb had said that there was a deficiency in relation to self-closers you were of the view that there was no legal obligation to fit self-closers but because the

01:55:51 self-closers but because the deficiency isn't a a regulatory legal document well it's worth to advise you is

01:56:04 reformed fire safety order you're right that is advising us of such but it isn't it isn't um a regulatory document that

01:56:15 it isn't um a regulatory document that that that an or legal requirement that we have to go back and

01:56:21 back and and retrofit self-closers now i understand it may not have immediate legal implications but it's an expression of

01:56:32 implications but it's an expression of opinion by the fire brigade that you're not to that extent in compliance with the

01:56:41 your duties under the uh ff rro order you're right yes so i'm just curious to know on what basis you thought they were wrong

01:56:52 wrong um i i didn't think they were wrong i mean you're talking about carl stokes expressing it as a high priority item or yes the deficiency notice

01:57:06 or yes the deficiency notice well the one follows from the other doesn't it well the high priority item gives us a time scale in which we're required to complete this action

01:57:19 required to complete this action and we were aware that that would not be possible to complete this action firstly because we wouldn't be able to complete it for leaseholders

01:57:31 complete it for leaseholders and secondly with the issue of tenants we have no right to go into tenants properties and without prior arrangement

01:57:43 properties and without prior arrangement and agreement and you cannot necessarily enforce that so it would be an action we would not be able to complete which is the emphasis on why we were

01:57:55 which is the emphasis on why we were looking at not having it being as a high priority i don't think the issue was we were saying we didn't want to do this and we were putting in a program of work as you can see

01:58:07 as you can see to complete this piece of work but to have it as a high priority we'd just fail at completing it because we couldn't all right thank you very much thanks um

01:58:19 all right thank you very much thanks um if i could ask you to go to the top of page one of this particular email chain

01:58:27 col stokes uh has sent you the revised fra and you respond to him here at this email at 13 25 and you say this um carl you have added a new sentence in the actions to

01:58:39 added a new sentence in the actions to be taken under this item which states this is as to the agreed policy this applies to item 12c not 12i we have not agreed a policy otherwise this implies retrofitting door

01:58:51 otherwise this implies retrofitting door closes on all doors for all properties we have agreed a plan for adair tower and hazelwood but not for any other properties the policy to fit new fire-rated doors with self-closures applies when any door needs to be

01:59:03 applies when any door needs to be replaced due to damage etc please agree that i can remove this sentence in 12ri now you seek as agreement that you can further alter the fra by removing the sentence about an agreed policy from

01:59:15 the sentence about an agreed policy from 12i

01:59:16 12i would you accept that's a further attempt put bluntly to manipulate the content of the fra i think we were trying to make it clear what the action related to

01:59:29 what the action related to and the fra related to a darren hazelwood

01:59:33 hazelwood and not to all properties and that's what we were trying to make clear but isn't the difficulty here one that the chairman has touched on and that's the policy of retrofitting all door closes was exactly what the lfb

01:59:46 all door closes was exactly what the lfb were asking you to do and yet you were declining to do it

01:59:51 my understanding was that was on adair and hazelwood rather than on all doors across all properties maybe maybe i've got a misunderstanding

02:00:02 maybe maybe i've got a misunderstanding of what

02:00:03 of what what the lfb were trying to identify in that deficiency notice now mr stokes was asked about this email correspondence and his oral evidence the inquiry

02:00:13 inquiry and mr millet asked him this question uh for reference it's day 138 page 201 leave aside who filled in that box under tmo acting we can see that you downgraded this so i downgraded this to

02:00:25 downgraded this so i downgraded this to strong advice did you do that because you were under pressure to do so from the tmo and mr stokes answered that's what it looks like yes do you agree with mr stokes that the

02:00:37 yes do you agree with mr stokes that the tmo pressured him into downgrading his advice i don't think we

02:00:42 think we pressured him we we discussed with him the practicality of being able to complete the action as he had stated um and and after all

02:00:53 as he had stated um and and after all yes he

02:00:53 yes he is our fire consultant and he is doing a fire risk assessment but the action that he identifies needs to be something that we can actually do because if you try and recommend

02:01:05 because if you try and recommend something that you can't do then we can't do it and we'll never be able to do it now following on that can we look at your notebooks again please and an entry from the 30th of november 2015 which is

02:01:18 from the 30th of november 2015 which is at tm0080 three two four four slash thirty one

02:01:42 thank you and we see in the top left hand corner telecon rebecca 30th of november 2015. am i right and assuming the rebecca is rebecca burton

02:01:53 and you note there drafting two enforcement notices a darren hazelwood finalized end of this week to get early next week go further down ventilation systems are there review

02:02:04 there review fra but it is not suitable and sufficient not risk assessed ventilation should be giving us ideas on solutions now just pausing there for the moment rebecca burton

02:02:15 rebecca burton appears to be criticizing the fra in respect of a dead tower is that a fair general observation that's that's a general observation and if we go slightly further down your

02:02:27 and if we go slightly further down your handwritten notes you then say when fire occurred and if we just read down and please shout if i've not translated your handwriting correctly

02:02:36 correctly accommodation staircase smoke to travel to each landing flat front doors not working rising butt hinges

02:02:44 hinges risk assessor not including risk fully await schools no audit scores audit scores thank you have come out as highest level five leaseholders

02:02:55 leaseholders self-closers are required and take action six months for all self-closers

02:03:02 looking at each of those particulars it appears to amount to further criticism of the adequacy of the fras is that something you'd accept

02:03:14 accept uh i'm i'm not sure that it was um she certainly said that that fra was not

02:03:25 that that fra was not um as she put it um was it suitable and sufficient and then she gave me i've written what she said

02:03:36 i've written what she said um and she's identifying each of the areas or within the um fra

02:03:49 yes but following on from that you see the bullet point roughly halfway down that page which says risk assessor not including risk fully the risk of facetiousness that seems a

02:04:01 the risk of facetiousness that seems a fairly fundamental criticism of an f of a fire risk assessor doesn't it miss matthews that's what she's identifying from this risk assessment and she being the

02:04:12 risk assessment and she being the safety team yes leader yes of the lfb yeah responsible for enforcing the order yes

02:04:20 yes did those criticisms coming from the fire safety team leader um cause you to consider whether you should review the work or indeed the competence of mr stokes um i i i don't think

02:04:32 um i i i don't think it was um specifically about looking at his performance i think there were clearly some issues about

02:04:43 there were clearly some issues about this particular fra i didn't get the impression that that she was actually uh criticizing her his overall performance

02:04:56 his overall performance she's she's looking at one fra here and commenting on his performance on that one fra which in her view wasn't sufficient or fully

02:05:06 fully risk assessed

02:05:10 did you consider trying out if you want to paraphrase a new fire risk assessor um i don't think i did at this point

02:05:21 don't think i did at this point can we look at another email on the issue of the competence of mr stokes and could we look at cst trouble zero two seven double two one and this is an email chain in relation

02:05:32 and this is an email chain in relation to a fire safety issue at another tmo property

02:05:35 property i'll just let it come up on the screen thank you

02:05:38 thank you and if we could look at the second page and an email from martin dunn an independent fire risk assessor who'd been engaged by a resident and the email was sent at 11 54 on the

02:05:49 and the email was sent at 11 54 on the 17th of february 2016. and if we could look at the second paragraph which says this i've copied in your landlord as a match of urgency it's the fire risk assessment which was conducted by carl stokes on

02:06:00 which was conducted by carl stokes on the 7th of january 2016 is unsuitable and insufficient as the elementary fire safety deficiencies have not been identified by the fire risk assessor

02:06:11 the fire risk assessor now first of all were you made aware by janice ray of the email from mr dunn of firecare999 i don't i'm not sure that i was um

02:06:22 i don't i'm not sure that i was um unless you tell me otherwise that i had an email i i only remember it because i've seen it through evidence let's see if if anything further um prompts your memory could we go to cst

02:06:34 prompts your memory could we go to cst quadruple zero nine five seven six

02:06:39 which is again it's an email exchange as between

02:06:43 between um janice ray and carl stokes on the 25th of february

02:06:49 and you'll see just above the halfway point and neymar from carl stokes to janice ray did you mention to barbara what the

02:06:58 what the ex-nova woman said about the fra i'm thinking after the fire care 999 block comments so the 5k 999 blocks comments is martin dunn presumably

02:07:09 comments is martin dunn presumably janice ray then responds i haven't spoken to her since xover visit will probably brief her early next week but intend to mention her comment you needn't worry she is quite a supporter of you

02:07:21 supporter of you and already thinks firecare999 is outrageous and needs to butt out

02:07:29 having seen that email had you had a conversation with janice ray about the contents of mr dunn zemer i i honestly don't remember that

02:07:40 honestly don't remember that do you have i just don't and you have no recollection of forming the view that mr dunn's uh comments were quotes outrageous close quotes it's um saying outrageous and needs to butt

02:07:52 um saying outrageous and needs to butt out is not my language so um i'm sorry i don't know where that's come from uh looking

02:08:00 looking at other elements of that sentence were you quotes quite a supporter close quotes of carl stokes well i wouldn't say i was quite a supporter i mean he was our fire risk assessor at the time

02:08:11 assessor at the time um and um i found that uh the if we needed advice on individual areas i felt it was

02:08:21 it was appropriate advice as far as i could assess

02:08:25 assess his fire risk assessments to me appeared to be sufficient as far as i was aware

02:08:33 was aware so i'm not saying quite put it like that but

02:08:36 but um so is she is january guilding the lily or putting words here i i don't know i'm sorry i i i honestly can't comment on that at all

02:08:48 i honestly can't comment on that at all i'm not sure i know about it now can we turn to the tmo's annual health and safety report for 2015 2016 which can be found at tm01024405 and if

02:09:00 which can be found at tm01024405 and if we go to page22

02:09:07 we see it's written by both you and janice ray and is dated june 2016. is that correct now if we can stay in this document but go to page 18

02:09:19 stay in this document but go to page 18 and paragraph 15.2 in particular and under the heading fire safety it says

02:09:29 in the fourth paragraph down additionally we will be reprocuring fire consultancy and fire risk assessment services my first question is this were those two

02:09:40 my first question is this were those two separate intended procurements i.e fire consultancy and fire risk assessments um it might well have been uh as two different uh services um

02:09:53 as two different uh services um at the time it was just one service provided by carl stokes um but it we might well have decided that it would be appropriate to have

02:10:04 that it would be appropriate to have um two different services can you remember now what had prompted uh the decision to reprocure apparently different services well one of the reasons was that i did

02:10:17 well one of the reasons was that i did ask janice about how long we'd actually had carl um because for good good procurement reasons

02:10:25 reasons we should consider whether we should re reprocure services generally

02:10:32 generally and he had been with the organization i can't remember how many years but quite a

02:10:36 a quite a long time and i felt nothing to do with performance that it was appropriate to look at re-tendering those services so the decision was in no way prompted by concerns expressed by the lfb

02:10:48 by concerns expressed by the lfb to various individuals including yourself regarding the competence or the of mr stokes or the adequacy of his fras not as far as i remember did you reprocure the services we

02:10:59 did you reprocure the services we started a

02:11:01 started a procurement process and there were a number of other procurement activities going on at the time and our procurement for these services

02:11:12 procurement for these services was a bit further down the procurement list and prior to the fire that didn't come up to the top of the list but we did start

02:11:24 to the top of the list but we did start the process

02:11:27 um could we just go back to your notebook um just for the sake of completeness which is at tm0080324 forward slash 31.

02:11:38 forward slash 31. [Music]

02:11:43 and if we go to the bottom third of that page and its audit schools have come out as highest level 5

02:11:51 level 5 presumably are you referring there to the information that being communicated by

02:11:55 by rebecca burton there as to yes all of these

02:11:59 these notes in the in the um

02:12:03 you know down here are what rebecca said the bits on the side that you see scribbled around are my notes in reference to that okay now can we move on to the next page in

02:12:15 now can we move on to the next page in your notebook

02:12:18 and it says at the top enforcement notices will be served on chief exec rb to email copy to bm so i'll be there presumably robert black yes to email copy to you

02:12:32 now you provide an email update to the board on the 4th of december 2015 and i'm mindful here that you weren't too sure of timing and what was provided to the board

02:12:41 the board yeah now we can go to that email at

02:12:47 9 2 tm00902920

02:12:52 and if we look at the second paragraph of your email i'll let you read it first

02:13:12 yes now would you agree that there is no mention

02:13:15 mention there of the deficiency notice served in relation to a dare tower on the 12th of october 2015. no that's correct can you help us as to why that relevant factor had not been brought to the board's attention

02:13:26 brought to the board's attention i can't so it's another time where the board were informed but there was no reference to the deficiency i think it just dropped off because we were focusing on the now uh impending enforcement notice

02:13:42 uh you haven't set out there either the detail or indeed the gist of the criticisms that had been made of the fra in relation to odetta as communicated by rebecca burton would you accept that

02:13:54 rebecca burton would you accept that yes again can you help us understand why that detail was not provided to the board

02:13:58 board uh i think no i i can't sorry would you accept that it should have been notified to the board i'm not sure that

02:14:11 notified to the board i'm not sure that i'd necessarily say it should have been we'd we didn't always provide all the detail of fras to

02:14:23 of fras to the board that's too much detail for a board to do sorry to cut across that's not what i was asking what you'd received was on the telephone conference with rebecca burton on the 30th of november

02:14:35 30th of november were criticisms of the adequacy of the fra for a dare tower yes which had raised specifically self-closing devices and the lfb's concern that the fire risk

02:14:49 the lfb's concern that the fire risk assessor

02:14:49 assessor had not fully appreciated the risk yes now would you accept first of all those are relevant matters that ought to be communicated to the board when being told of the fact and

02:15:01 when being told of the fact and background of the fire that actually broke out in the in the dare tower on the at the end of october uh in hindsight yes you're you're right now

02:15:12 in hindsight yes you're you're right now in due course an enforcement notice was issued by the lfb in respect of a dare tower and that was issued on the 23rd of december 2015. would you like to see it just refresh your memory or you i think i know it

02:15:23 your memory or you i think i know it quite well now that was sent to you by rebecca burton on the 3rd of january 2016.

02:15:30 2016. um presumably you were not surprised to receive that is that a fair assumption no we as you can see here we were expecting it long before

02:15:39 before actually i think it arrived by hand delivery as well and you were fully aware that the tmo was given a six month period in which to comply with the requirements yes now following receipt of that

02:15:51 yes now following receipt of that notice janice ray had a meeting with rebecca burton on the 5th of january 2016. so two days after you received it from miss burton and we can see the minutes of that meeting at

02:16:02 can see the minutes of that meeting at tmo tm00

02:16:04 tmo tm00 841 891

02:16:12 now do you recall ever being provided with those minutes i think i think i probably would have been

02:16:22 been did janice ray also give you a briefing following the meeting with the lfb uh i think she nearly always did yes could i ask you to turn to page three in

02:16:33 could i ask you to turn to page three in item eight in particular

02:16:40 you see the bottom of the page under the heading risk assessments it said this rebecca raised her concern that our fire risk assessor sometimes makes statements which are not justified or supported and that the fr and that

02:16:52 or supported and that the fr and that fra reports need to include justification for statements made now did janice ray raise that particular issue

02:16:59 issue with you regarding the lfb's concerns regarding cardstocks well it's it's in these minutes so we would have gone through the items now janice ray sent an email summary of

02:17:11 now janice ray sent an email summary of this meeting later the same day and we can find that email summary at tm00840451 and i think it may be useful to look at

02:17:22 and i think it may be useful to look at certain excerpts from that email now first of all can we turn to the third and fourth points i asked for confirmation this notice related exclusively to this block and i

02:17:33 related exclusively to this block and i was advised that although this was technically technically the case the lfb view is the standards we are applying to one block should generally be applied across all blocks

02:17:44 blocks now given the proximity of the deficiency notice to the fire and the issues encountered during that fire

02:17:51 fire the need to fit self-closers was self-evidently urgent across all the tiermo stock wasn't it i just did that

02:17:59 did that i think that's what's coming out of this yes and it's clear what's coming out of this isn't it

02:18:06 i mean it's it you can see it says she was advised although it was technically the case they were expecting to us to apply it generally across all

02:18:18 to us to apply it generally across all the blocks it's a bit in my view a bit vague i don't think it actually says that's what we expect it it's sorry i i i the risk of being loyally

02:18:30 sorry i i i the risk of being loyally about this what it says is the standards we are applying to one block should generally be applied across all blocks generally not it's not actually saying it should

02:18:43 not it's not actually saying it should be

02:18:43 be if it's applying to one block it should be applied to all blocks it just says generally so sometimes it's not sometimes it is it's for the panel to decide yes rather

02:18:55 it's for the panel to decide yes rather arid exchange here but if we can go stay down further down the same email if we go to the penultimate paragraph which is at page two and it starts with the words rebecca

02:19:06 and it starts with the words rebecca rebecca had asked for an agenda item on flat entrance doors and at that point she stressed that the lfb required that all flat entrance doors throughout our stock are required to be self-closing

02:19:18 i reiterated that our policy is to replace doors to current standard as and when required and to retrofit self-closers when required by the assessor

02:19:26 assessor when properties of void etc however she did not accept that this went far enough i asked what the lfb's position was in relation to residents who remove disengage these self-closers once we

02:19:37 disengage these self-closers once we have installed them and rebecca advised that we need to have a procedure in place for regular checking

02:19:43 checking of these and this would need to be documented as would all attempt to access

02:19:47 access i explained this would be virtually impossible to achieve and could she confirm if this was what other landlords are doing

02:19:52 are doing at which point she admitted this is what the lfb require i specifically asked if h f so that's hammersmith and fulham were achieving this as this is also her area of responsibility but she did not confirm i also asked

02:20:05 but she did not confirm i also asked about lessee flat doors and her view was that

02:20:08 that as these form part of the means of escape we have ongoing responsibility for ensuring that they are self-closing again more regular checking and record keeping

02:20:21 now first of all would you agree with me that the first sentence is crystal clear in that the lfb are stressing

02:20:29 stressing that lfb require all flat entrance doors throughout our stock to be self-closing that is very specific yes now was that the first time you were aware of that particular lfb requirement

02:20:42 aware of that particular lfb requirement that regular self checking of self closes post insulation as well yes now janice ray notes that she told rebecca burton that this would be virtually impossible did you agree with that assessment i i

02:20:54 did you agree with that assessment i i think i would agree yes now can we look at your response to janice ray's email which is at tm00902946 which was sent on the 5th of january

02:21:05 which was sent on the 5th of january 2016 at 1444.

02:21:10 and you say in the second paragraph is it possible to get some information on what hammersmith and fulham have been asked to do and are doing as well as any rps that we could contact in rbkc and hnf rp's were whom for these

02:21:23 rbkc and hnf rp's were whom for these purposes

02:21:25 purposes um registered providers housing housing yes even if we all agree to retrofit self-closers checking and enforcing will be a nightmare i would like to understand from any landlord how they are or might tackle

02:21:37 landlord how they are or might tackle this impossible task now you describe checking and enforcing self-closers as quotes a nightmare and an impossible task

02:21:47 why was it impossible bearing in mind what the lfb had clearly expected of you um i think i think the issue about checking and enforcing is is the

02:21:58 about checking and enforcing is is the bit that i'm referring to first of all um being able to do the annual inspection or twice annually or whatever was expected of us

02:22:09 expected of us was a huge task in itself just having to go

02:22:13 go and get access to every single flat front door to check that there's a self-closer and to do that on whether it's annually or twice annually

02:22:24 whether it's annually or twice annually is a very

02:22:26 is a very a very excuse me do take some water i think it is a very large task in itself secondly if any tenants do not want to allow you

02:22:38 if any tenants do not want to allow you in to do it then the whole access process is is quite complex and there's nothing enforceable like a gas safety check to make sure that you

02:22:49 gas safety check to make sure that you can get access to do it and thirdly i think sort of more importantly and janice refers to it is we can we can check we can repair that self-closer

02:23:00 that self-closer and the minute you shut the door they've they've disengaged it or damaged it in some way um miss matthews i'm sorry to interrupt what the tmo has been asked to do

02:23:13 what the tmo has been asked to do was to implement a procedure a procedure for checking and enforcing now looking at that

02:23:21 at that why was that impossible to use your word it wasn't was it well the enforcing bit is the

02:23:29 is the a procedure to to do it yes of course we could put a procedure in place but to enact that procedure is the bit that i'm

02:23:40 enact that procedure is the bit that i'm referring to which would be a nightmare now let us test that and look at what the surrounding advice was that was provided to

02:23:49 to housing providers in your position and can we look at first of all the lga guide and particular paragraph 62.19 and 62.20 they can be found at h o

02:24:00 and 62.20 they can be found at h o m 0 4 5 9

02:24:03 m 0 4 5 9 6 4 forward slash 99.

02:24:14 6 4 forward slash 99. now could i ask you to read to yourself point 19 and point 20.

02:24:37 yes now were you aware of those two particular provisions at the time i was now both the lfb and the lga guide

02:24:48 both the lfb and the lga guide are emphasizing the essential nature of self-closing devices would you agree with that proposition i would now can we look at the maintenance requirements for fire resisting doors

02:25:00 requirements for fire resisting doors as set out in the lga guide and if i could ask us to go to page 125 could i ask you to read to yourself

02:25:11 ask you to read to yourself paragraphs 82.1 82.3 and 82.4

02:25:20 for some reason 0.2 is missing though

02:25:42 yeah would you agree that what the lfb was asking you to do was what was advised by the lga guide uh yes

02:25:55 so the practical effect was that you were resisting both lfb advice and the lga advice um resisting i think we were suggesting that

02:26:08 i think we were suggesting that it it would be very difficult to do um to do that that maintenance uh you know this is you're quite right

02:26:19 uh you know this is you're quite right this is in the guide there's there's no uh legal requirement to do this at this stage or so i was advised

02:26:29 advised would you accept at least this that there is a weight of advice coming from the lfb the enforcing authority for the order and the lga guide which was specifically written to assist

02:26:41 written to assist discharge of fire safety obligations in relation to residential buildings as a weight of advice as to what maintenance required to be done in response to self-closing devices

02:26:52 devices and the practical result of your position was you were resisting following the advice which is clearly set out here in the lga guide and which was stressed by the lfb that's as it appears from the emails yes

02:27:03 that's as it appears from the emails yes thank you

02:27:05 thank you now in her evidence janice ray said the resources

02:27:09 resources were preventing uh exceeding preventing the tmo exceeding to the lfb's

02:27:15 lfb's emphatic requirements here and her evidence can be found at day 143 page 92. would you agree with that general point that resources was the impediment to complying with the

02:27:26 was the impediment to complying with the lfb's requirements the the resources the cost and the manpower to do it yes i would no if that's so was a request ever made for additional resources from rbkc for this purpose

02:27:38 resources from rbkc for this purpose it was we i went to rbkc with a proposal to do annual inspections um and gave an indication of what that might cost

02:27:49 might cost and we'd done a rough and ready costing with repairs direct doing that and um laura johnson didn't did not want

02:28:00 and um laura johnson didn't did not want to do that at the time and was she emphatic in her view uh yeah and was she aware of the lfb's views on this topic she was we kept her informed of all the

02:28:12 she was we kept her informed of all the information we had received uh was her attention drawn to the provisions of the lga guide which we've just considered i don't know that i drew her attentions

02:28:23 i don't know that i drew her attentions to the guide i'm sorry i i don't remember

02:28:27 remember would you have done do you think i don't i don't know i don't honestly don't know probably not did janice ray ever discuss the issue of resources with you directly and how much more would be required

02:28:38 more would be required to meet the lfb's requirements um because

02:28:41 because the inspecting regime and repair regime here would have been a repairs or um like a contract

02:28:52 um like a contract it was it wouldn't have been something that janice would have raised but she was

02:28:56 was aware if not part of the discussions about

02:29:00 about how we might go about this thank you can we next look at an email you sent on the 12th of january 2016 to the members of the tmo board in relation to the adair tower enforcement notice and that can be found

02:29:11 enforcement notice and that can be found at tm00840461

02:29:24 now it's a fairly long email might ask you to read it to yourself and tell us when you've done it

02:29:56 yeah now would you accept that you do not set out in that email the fact that the lfb require all flat entrance doors across the tmo stock to be fitted with self-closing devices

02:30:08 self-closing devices no why not i believe what i was setting out was the work required in the

02:30:19 setting out was the work required in the enforcement notice which

02:30:25 referred to adair and hazelwood and that was how we were taking it at that time would you also accept that you do not say that the lfb required a program of

02:30:36 that the lfb required a program of checks to make sure that self-closers are in place and are being maintained no i don't know why i didn't put that in there you can't assist at all on that no because i thought i'd pick this up from

02:30:47 because i thought i'd pick this up from the notice so i i may have missed that off i don't know why so you did miss it off though i did miss it off because it was in the notice and it's a significant omission would you accept it was a significant omission

02:31:01 you accept it was a significant omission thank you um could we look um staying with your email at the second paragraph below your numbered list which is on page two and it starts with the words it should

02:31:13 and it starts with the words it should be noted

02:31:14 be noted it should be noted that points one to four are a change in policy by the london fire brigade as a direct result of the fire and none of these points have been noted in any previous audits undertaken

02:31:27 in any previous audits undertaken can you help us as to what was the particular change in policy that you relied upon for communicating this to the board

02:31:40 um

02:31:44 i actually think that was what we were advised when we ques i i can't remember where this came up but i remember a discussion about

02:31:55 remember a discussion about uh why these items came up now and not previously and we were advised um by the lfb and i really sorry can't

02:32:06 by the lfb and i really sorry can't remember

02:32:07 remember that it was as a result of the fire that there was this change in in policy maybe i've used the wrong word policy uh maybe it should be changing

02:32:18 policy uh maybe it should be changing view by the london fire brigade but it was certainly something that they were going to use going forward

02:32:27 now are you clear in your recollection that you were lying there on what you had been told by the lfb as opposed to janice reyes gloss on the

02:32:38 as opposed to janice reyes gloss on the lfb's

02:32:39 lfb's actions um

02:32:44 i don't i don't i don't actually remember because i do remember hearing directly and i say i honestly can't remember

02:32:55 and i say i honestly can't remember where from or who from that this had come about from the fact that we'd had a fire because we questioned why these were now being picked up when

02:33:06 why these were now being picked up when they hadn't before in previous audits and it was because we were told sort of quite bluntly it's because you've had a fire now you say none of the points had been

02:33:17 now you say none of the points had been noted in any previous audits yet the lfb had issued a deficiency notice on the 12th of october 2015 in respect of some of the same points

02:33:28 in respect of some of the same points covered in this email and yet that deficiency notice is not mentioned

02:33:32 mentioned would you accept that yes i would now again

02:33:35 again that's another relevant time at which the board could be notified about the notice of deficiency can you help the panel as to why you didn't inform the board of that fact i i don't know i i think the partly

02:33:49 i i don't know i i think the partly because

02:33:49 because we were focused on now we had two enforcement notices which we needed to deal with and you are correct in in the fact we'd had

02:34:00 you are correct in in the fact we'd had a deficiency notice and i should have raised that to highlight the fact that it had been commented before the fire um but i i don't know why i think the focus was on the enforcement notices

02:34:13 focus was on the enforcement notices but if as you say you considered there to have been or relied upon what you were told by the lfb that had been a change in policy the deficiency notice would have been a useful example to illustrate

02:34:24 useful example to illustrate that reported change in policy wouldn't it

02:34:28 it it would have been

02:34:34 did mr black pick you up on the fact that the notice of deficiencies had not been reported to the board i i don't i don't remember if he had done so would he have done it

02:34:46 if he had done so would he have done it by email

02:34:48 by email it's possible he would have just come across to my office and identified that now on the 29th of january 2016 you emailed laura johnson with a youtube clip of the adair tower fire now we can

02:35:00 clip of the adair tower fire now we can see the relevant chain rbk quadruple zero one eight five two and if we can go to the

02:35:09 uh your email at page two

02:35:14 and we see the last two paragraphs there that's one of which starts with words our fire assessor's view our fire assessor's view is the ventilation system the building does work and does not require changing the method

02:35:26 and does not require changing the method used by the brigade would always compromise the ability to ensure the stairwells remain smoke-free as the water jets on the fire would cause the smoke to be directed into the stairwells our assessor's view is also that we

02:35:37 our assessor's view is also that we should challenge the enforcement notices but can only do so with the hazelwood notice as we are still within the 21 day appeal period which ends on monday the 8th of february the challenge would only be in relation

02:35:49 the challenge would only be in relation to the ventilation issue and protection of the stairwells i would appreciate your view on whether you would like us to pursue this appeal if you would like to meet with our fire assessor to investigate the possible challenge further

02:36:00 challenge further i'm happy to arrange this in addition please call me if you'd like to discuss this further now we can see from the emails on page one that laura johnson was indeed interested

02:36:11 was indeed interested in exploring an appeal and we can see that in her email the 1st of february 2016 at 11 44. she suggested a meeting with you

02:36:20 with you and the fire assessor presumably carl stokes yes did that meeting ever take place

02:36:25 place we did have a meeting i can't remember whether

02:36:29 whether uh carl stokes was part of that i mean you'll tell me otherwise i i can't remember can you remember the outcome of any meeting that happened um did you decide to appeal or not

02:36:41 um did you decide to appeal or not i think we decided not to appeal but i can't remember why was that view taken was it informed by legal advice either from rbkc in-house solicitors or external counsel

02:36:53 in-house solicitors or external counsel i don't know if laura took that advice

02:36:58 but you don't remember her relying on that as a reason for the decision not to appeal

02:37:03 appeal i i i can't remember and without reading the rest of the email chains at the time to trigger my memory of what i'm sorry i i just remember the discussion and it was really up to

02:37:14 discussion and it was really up to laura to make that decision about the appeal

02:37:17 appeal as the owner of the building and you felt the final say lay with her there i i did actually i did now let's see if we can look at some of the relevant surrounding documents and

02:37:28 the relevant surrounding documents and if we go to the tmo executive team meeting on the 11th of february 2016 which is a tmo 840502

02:37:41 and if we go to the second page item 3 and the second paragraph under that item

02:37:49 follows saying that the board will want reassurance from our bkc seen by laura nicholas whole gate and the fire brigade happy with everything protected roof is the smoke test robert and barbara want clarity

02:38:00 and barbara want clarity from the strategic part of the fire brigade rbkc don't want to do this work if not required fuller reputation of rbkc and tmo everything to be addressed board may say

02:38:12 everything to be addressed board may say a lot in the press about fires our fire risk assessments are all okay are bkc a key partner and we do what they want

02:38:21 they want paper of the next board meeting will be in the open section now looking at the sentence robert and barbara want clarity from the strategic part of the fire brigade rbkc don't want to do this work if not

02:38:34 rbkc don't want to do this work if not required

02:38:35 required on what particular point were you seeking clarity from the strategic part of the lfb uh let me have a look

02:38:52 i can't remember if this was about the doors or the ventilation um

02:39:02 bob will want reassurance from rbkc

02:39:08 i don't suppose you've got my notebook i don't think it i stand to be corrected um but i don't think anything different was it it's helpful or clarifies matters i should say

02:39:20 or clarifies matters i should say in um in the notebook i i can't remember whether it was the ventilation or the doors it appears to be about inspecting the the doors so it's the

02:39:31 inspecting the the doors so it's the maintenance regime i think it is

02:39:35 presumably you haven't consulted the lga guide then for well not at this stage we were talking to rbkc about the issue why

02:39:46 talking to rbkc about the issue why didn't rbkc want to do this work i think it was partly there were two issues one was the cost and the resource required and the second

02:39:58 and the resource required and the second issue was

02:39:59 issue was about the um ability the enforceability of it

02:40:07 of it the sentence that says our fire risk assessments are all okay and what basis did the meeting form that view

02:40:19 i can't answer that now i can't remember i can't remember the rest of the discussion did that statement reflect your view at the time

02:40:31 um well there's there's no doubt that my view would have been part of that but it wouldn't just be myself obviously sasha is another key person in this

02:40:43 sasha is another key person in this um but am i right in thinking that at this stage no external independent third party had been asked to review the adequacy of the fire risk assessments that mr stokes

02:40:54 the fire risk assessments that mr stokes carried out correct the sentence that says

02:40:58 says are bkc a key partner and we do what they want

02:41:02 they want would you accept that the latter part of that sentence is a somewhat servile statement

02:41:07 statement well it it is because we were their managing agent so as the the freeholder and um and land landlord we were managing the properties on their behalf

02:41:19 managing the properties on their behalf if they

02:41:19 if they chose to tell us to do a particular thing

02:41:24 thing we had to follow that if they didn't provide the funding to do something then we couldn't do it did it occur to you or was it a point that was mentioned at all during this meeting that the tmo was a separate corporate

02:41:37 that the tmo was a separate corporate entity to rbkc and the tmo had its own health and safety and fire safety obligations to discharge

02:41:45 discharge not not in that particular way no not at that

02:41:48 that point you say not in that particular way and not at that point well i mean we were obviously aware we were separate entity with health and safety responsibility but as we said before we shared that

02:42:00 but as we said before we shared that responsible person because rbkc owned the building and the budget

02:42:06 budget basically but you shared the responsibility but you did what they wanted

02:42:11 wanted well yeah now can we look at what happened at the board meeting in march 2016

02:42:17 2016 and the minutes can be found at

02:42:21 tm01013646 and could i ask us to go to page two and item

02:42:27 item nine and it's the chief executives report

02:42:34 and could i ask you rather than everyone having to listen to me again to read 9.1 and 9.2 to yourself and if you could tell me when you've done so and then i can ask you some more questions

02:42:47 could you turn it down thank you

02:43:12 yeah would you accept that again there's no mention here of the fact that a deficiency notice had been issued before their death how far yes can you help us as to why

02:43:23 yes can you help us as to why this further opportunity had not been taken i don't know the board questions the fra programme some members do and the competency or qualifications and experience of carl stokes would you

02:43:34 experience of carl stokes would you agree

02:43:35 agree that's yes what views did you express regarding first of all the fra program and its adequacy

02:43:44 um the fra program itself i i would have commented that it is appropriate and um that it would have followed

02:43:55 um that it would have followed the requirements of of high risk buildings medium risk buildings and low risk

02:44:01 risk what views did you express regarding the competency of mr stokes to the board i don't i don't know i probably would have advised that we felt he was um uh um

02:44:14 felt he was um uh um an experienced consultant i i i can't remember

02:44:18 remember do you remember uh mr zitron pressing his point or indeed mr brissenden pressing their points regarding reservations about carl stokes's competency

02:44:29 competency i don't remember sorry did you take the opportunity to inform the board about the reservations that rebecca burton had communicated to you about cast existence no i didn't do that

02:44:41 about cast existence no i didn't do that would you accept that that too was a relevant consideration which ought to be put before them yes can you help us to why that wasn't put before them um no i can't explain

02:44:55 did mr black express any views regarding the adequacy of the fra program i i don't know it would have been noted in here

02:45:04 in here i don't know i don't think so can you remember if you express any views regarding the competency of car stokes no can we now turn to the 2015-16 annual

02:45:15 no can we now turn to the 2015-16 annual health and safety report which dealt with tmo performance the year ending the 31st of march 2016. that can be found at tm008403

02:45:31 if we can go to page 22.

02:45:37 we've taken you to this earlier on your name again yes dated june 2016. um who was the effective author of this document well janice would have done the um

02:45:49 well janice would have done the um initial work um and i would review it and make any comments

02:45:56 comments but crudely did she do the heavy lifting yes she did would your contribution be limited to tinkerings or was it something beyond that um

02:46:07 that um sometimes it would be um a bit more context or or elaboration um but i suppose in in that sense

02:46:19 um but i suppose in in that sense most that you'd say was tinkering i can't remember all the changes that i mean there were a number of changes in this document some of which that i'd initiated

02:46:30 some of which that i'd initiated through discussions elsewhere now can we turn to page six and paragraph seven point eight this is a section

02:46:42 this is a section entitled engagement with the lfb and if we look at the start of that in the second paragraph it says two lfb enforcement notices were received this year these followed a fire at a dare tower in

02:46:53 these followed a fire at a dare tower in october and these will be discussed in detail later in the report at 0.9 fire safety six notices of safety deficiencies were received five of these were issued on the same

02:47:04 five of these were issued on the same block and related to small quantities of stored items within five of the communal staircases so the sixth notice was that concerning a dare is that right that was yes

02:47:17 and that's not expressly mentioned here no it isn't um i don't know why can we turn to page 11.

02:47:29 and here we have specific consideration of the fire at adair tower i'll let you skim read what is set out there

02:47:38 there but again there is no mention of deficiency notice being issued before the fire would you agree with that no no it isn't there can you help us to why it wasn't mentioned i think that that was

02:47:49 mentioned i think that that was reporting

02:47:50 reporting the the actual fire okay now just to um for context and to assist you here can we go to page 21 and paragraph

02:48:00 paragraph 16.2

02:48:03 and you say that whilst we received our first ever enforcement notices from the lfb in this period it should be noted these were in relation to a non-accidental fire further this building had been audited

02:48:15 further this building had been audited by the lfb inspecting officer the month before the fire and while several recommendations were received no comments were made about the ventilation arrangements the significant factor in the notices

02:48:26 the significant factor in the notices however we are committed to meeting the lfb requirements within time scales agreed with them and this work is on track and progressing well when you refer to recommendations from

02:48:37 when you refer to recommendations from the lfb inspection officer that's euphemistic isn't it that's you meant you're substantively referring to the notice of deficiencies yes why didn't you say that i don't know

02:48:49 yes why didn't you say that i don't know isn't the reason because you're seeking to downplay what you call the significant factor in the notices the lack of self-closers and the absence of what the lack of self closes

02:49:01 closes i i i didn't think that was what we were doing um i'm not sure why it was written like this and it wasn't made clearer

02:49:13 like this and it wasn't made clearer is this one of the paragraphs that you tinkered with i i doubt that i would have gone in and said no no we're not going to mention the deficiency notice that

02:49:24 the deficiency notice that that isn't my style well would it be your style to prefer to gloss particulars in a notice deficiency and call them recommendations no that isn't my style either but it's

02:49:35 no that isn't my style either but it's what's happened here isn't it it is how it's been expressed here and i'm not

02:49:40 i'm not i'm not sure why

02:49:46 isn't it relevant to note that both the deficiency notice and the enforcement notice

02:49:51 notice would have alerted the readership of this report to pre-existing issues regarding fire safety adair

02:50:00 the the deficiency notice would the enforcement notice identified the issues um following the fire but yes

02:50:12 following the fire but yes now a tmo executive team meeting took place on the 5th of october 2016. we can find that at tm00843 861 and if we turn to page 2 and item

02:50:24 861 and if we turn to page 2 and item 3.2

02:50:32 and it sets out there the minutes record lfb are putting pressure on us to fit door closers on all our stock across the business so no lack of doubt there as to what the

02:50:43 so no lack of doubt there as to what the lfp want laura johnson has said no to this but sasha feels that there should be a discussion at et so executive team the fire strategy has been updated with the recommendation this work is done

02:50:54 the recommendation this work is done over a five-year period although it is likely that the lfb will expect a shorter period sasha will speak to her team about doing some profiling on this as with 9 000 properties we would need

02:51:05 as with 9 000 properties we would need to know the estimated cost for this and also what others are doing rbkc would need to be spoken to about this and given options now why was there a longer five-time

02:51:16 longer five-time five-year time frame when you thought the lfb

02:51:19 the lfb would require a shorter period um i believe that i don't i can't remember of this stage i'd already had a discussion with laura

02:51:30 i'd already had a discussion with laura laura johnson about the programme of work but initially i'd suggested we should do it over a three year period

02:51:44 now a deficiency notice was served by the lfb in relation to grenfell tower on the 17th of november 2016 following an lfb inspection now can we go to that notice which is at

02:51:58 tmo10017254

02:52:05 now what is called the schedule of observations can be found at page five and if we can go to that

02:52:12 briefly and over the next two pages if if you take it from me the lfb required action on the following points in respect of article 11

02:52:23 points in respect of article 11 the multiple items in the common parts several fire doors did not fit fully into their frames and was a breach and services duct secondly

02:52:31 secondly article 17 failed to ensure a suitable system of maintenance was in place in that several fire doors didn't fit fully into their frames thirdly article 17 again failure to maintain the protected route in an

02:52:43 maintain the protected route in an efficient state an efficient working order and good repair in that the protected route had been compromised by the fitting of doors that didn't close flats 44 and 153 were checked and did not self-close

02:52:54 not self-close article 14 fourthly emergency routes or exits were inadequate and that there were various items stored in the common parts fifthly article 14 again emergency routes were inadequate in the two doors

02:53:06 routes were inadequate in the two doors did not self-close sixthly article eight smoke spread precautions were inadequate due to a breach and a services duct on the eighth floor and finally article 15 fire action notices hadn't been

02:53:18 fire action notices hadn't been displayed would you accept now that it was

02:53:21 was absolutely clear that the lfb were concerned at the self-closer issue in numerous blocks across the tmo state yes and that the lfb were particularly concerned with the failure to maintain

02:53:34 concerned with the failure to maintain self-closing devices across the tmo stock

02:53:37 stock yes did you consider checking the maintenance regime in place for self-closers at this point and whether it was in fact sufficient for the purposes of the order we didn't have a checking process for

02:53:51 we didn't have a checking process for self-closers was service of this notice following a dare tower as well the necessary prompt for such creation of such a regime

02:54:03 for such creation of such a regime it it appears so yes from this it should have been should have been

02:54:09 can you help the panel as to why that wasn't put in place um i think because we were um advised by laura to hold off on an

02:54:20 um advised by laura to hold off on an inspection program and you did her bidding in that regard sorry and you did her bidding in that regard yes now can we look at the next uh email sent on the first of december 2016

02:54:32 sent on the first of december 2016 from janice ray to celia chaliscan regarding

02:54:35 regarding funding of self-closures to all doors so it follows on from the point you've just made

02:54:40 made we find that at rbk quadruple zero two one double six forward slash two

02:54:51 and if we can look at the last paragraph of that email which says i believe that barbara has discussed this with laura recently and repairs director provided an indicative costing for a three-year

02:55:02 indicative costing for a three-year program of installation of self-closers do you need this figure so repairs direct had proposed three years no no no no i proposed the three years

02:55:14 no no no no i proposed the three years and asked

02:55:14 and asked repairs direct to provide some costing on how much it would cost to do it over three years thank you and the reason it jumped was laura johnson to five years was laura

02:55:25 laura johnson to five years was laura johnson's decision yes now can we look at the costs involved and they're set out on page one

02:55:35 and we see they're roughly halfway down the page 620 k for three year program of door inspections and retrofitting of self-closers again putting the point directly you've

02:55:47 again putting the point directly you've adverted to it in earlier answers wars cost at least one of the reasons for prolonging the period to five years i believe so now can we look at the minutes of the health and safety committee meeting that was held on the 19th of january

02:55:59 that was held on the 19th of january 2017

02:56:00 2017 tmo one double zero one six zero two zero

02:56:08 and if we go to the bottom of page two and item four point five

02:56:13 now this meeting deficiency notices are the subject of a separate distinct item and it starts at the bottom of the page the following have been received if we go over

02:56:29 lonsdale house requirement for a maintenance regime for self-closers nine colville square acquiring emergency lighting where the compartmentation allows stay put barrendon walk reference mater doors

02:56:41 barrendon walk reference mater doors which are potentially non-compliant trellic tower we've received several emails from the lfb about defective commonal doors and rubbish grenfell tower not all doors were self-closing an ability scooter was

02:56:52 self-closing an ability scooter was found to be parked in a communal era and was being charged via lead pass through a letterbox into a flat now by this stage so january 2017 if there were any doubt previously again

02:57:05 if there were any doubt previously again it is even clearer that there are a number of issues with doors in particular self-closers especially so lonsdale and grenfell would you agree yes

02:57:14 would you accept that there was no mention here is what has been done in relation to fire action notices um oh what the action is for fire action

02:57:26 um oh what the action is for fire action notices

02:57:27 notices yes uh would you like to no you you're right no if it isn't noted here which should be

02:57:38 if it isn't noted here which should be or to the deficiency notices

02:57:41 uh isn't this this is the the note of the deficiency notices is the detail of each of the deficiency notes

02:57:50 notes oh no the detail hasn't been included in the minutes was that because everyone would have been aware of it because the notices would have been circulated the notices should have been circulated to everybody

02:58:05 to everybody so i'm going to have a rush to see whether i can finish this next point before

02:58:08 before the clock strikes um there's a joint management meeting on the 1st of march with 2017 with rbkc now janice ray prepared a paper for that

02:58:19 now janice ray prepared a paper for that meeting which we can find at rbk um quadruple zero zero nine eight eight if we could look at that

02:58:30 briefly can you remember whether you checked that paper or reviewed it in any way before it was sent on to rbkc i would have done um did you present

02:58:41 i would have done um did you present that paper can you remember at the joint meeting i probably did now if we look could we look at item two

02:58:57 and where it says i'm just looking for a particular place however in discussions with the lfb

02:59:05 i'm just trying to find that provision on the page if you turn over so i'll check a reference i will not hit one o'clock i need to check the reference

02:59:17 o'clock i need to check the reference for that

02:59:17 for that so that was my fault that's all right would you rather have time to check i better have in case i sort of launch um for on miss matthews onto a false premise and ask her let's look at the right document

02:59:28 let's look at the right document wouldn't it it helps right i think that's a good point of which to break mr matthews we'll stop now uh we'll resume at two o'clock please and again please don't talk to anyone

02:59:39 and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break thank you all right thank you very much

02:59:46 [Applause] good try mr can hear but never mind i failed um

02:59:51 failed um thanks sir two o'clock please all right thank you

03:00:04 you