Peter Madison of the TMO questioned about resident consultation during the Grenfell refurbishment, including refusal to recognize resident groups
00:00:23 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr madison of the tmo so would you ask mr madison to come back in please thank you
00:00:46 good morning mr madison how are you that's it get organized and then
00:00:54 thank you alright good yes when you're ready mr mills mr chairman good morning good morning members of the panel good morning mr madison morning um i'm going to ask you some questions now about the topic of consultation
00:01:05 now about the topic of consultation can i please take you uh to tmo uh your statement tmo50892 at page twenty two
00:01:16 uh and uh look at paragraph 115 you said this in terms of general interaction and concerns there is a recognized local authority process whereby representative
00:01:28 authority process whereby representative groups may voice opinions here the recognized residents associations had been the lancaster west residents association and lancaster west management board but these were in existence before i joined tmo and i had no interaction with them
00:01:41 tmo and i had no interaction with them my perception is that historically there had been issues with both organizations now lancaster west estate management board
00:01:51 board had ceased to exist but by the time you join the tmo is that right i think so yes what historical you use the word historical what historical issues or problems had there been with the
00:02:03 or problems had there been with the lancaster west residents association i don't know that i don't know the detail because i wasn't really involved with either organization but i think it was about
00:02:11 was about um having having meetings that were quarret and holding agms so there was a clear
00:02:19 clear agenda really does that mean that when uh you joined the tmo in january 2013 there was no representative residence association for grenfell tower
00:02:30 association for grenfell tower not for it not for grenfell tower on its own no what about the lancaster west state more generally i don't know then there was a there was a residence association but i don't know the status of that residence
00:02:41 don't know the status of that residence association at that time it did become it did refocus itself um later on um but i did attend at least one meeting of those but i think i was the only one in about 2017.
00:02:54 think i was the only one in about 2017. were you aware of an organization called the grenfell tower leaseholders association or gtla um i i would get emails from members of that i didn't know that it was a
00:03:08 constituted organization itself but i did receive correspondence from that group right did you consult with gtla about the refurbishment or any other management problems
00:03:18 problems or issues at grenfell tower um not specifically with them but the residents or the leaseholders of on in that group would be involved in any um block-wide consultation did you ever
00:03:30 um block-wide consultation did you ever check whether gtla was a registered association registered i had conversations with the um the head of the homeownership team who was
00:03:41 the homeownership team who was responsible for the leasehold leaseholders and also the head of resident engagement so i had had briefings from people who knew those organizations now
00:03:52 people who knew those organizations now can we go please to rbk 50860
00:04:03 this is the grenfell tower regeneration communication plan draft version one and you can see that it's created in august 2013 by reynolds as the author
00:04:16 by reynolds as the author it shows the project manager is claire williams
00:04:19 williams are you familiar with this document um i haven't seen it probably since that date right did you see it back then i don't recall and i'll it'll be right do you know who asked for
00:04:31 it'll be right do you know who asked for it to be produced um i don't
00:04:39 can you go to page three please we can see
00:04:42 see in the left-hand column there under 1.5 communications objectives a number of objectives in the column and objective one is residents of grenfell tower understand goals of the
00:04:53 grenfell tower understand goals of the project and projected timelines and the plan would be a responsive two-way communication with residents responding to their concerns and questions in a
00:05:04 to their concerns and questions in a timely manner level of engagement consult an objective two
00:05:09 two residents of grenfell tower have confidence in the project and tmo's ability to deliver plan responsive two-way communication with residents facilitates a positive ongoing
00:05:20 facilitates a positive ongoing relationship level of engagement consult and it continues uh down the series of objectives turning from consult to inform uh uh in places
00:05:32 inform uh uh in places um
00:05:36 the plan clearly sets out the communication with residents should be two-way as i've shown you
00:05:42 shown you um did you agree with this idea at the time do you think yes i think this is a
00:05:49 this is a um this document is trying to lay out the ways in which we would communicate engage consult or involve residents at various stages
00:06:00 various stages do you remember having any input into this plan um i don't specifically remember it but it's it's something that we would have discussed within the project team yes right and and who is
00:06:13 right and and who is thea mcnaught reynolds she was in she was a communications officer and what was her role in relation to the refurbishment general term she would give advice on communications issues
00:06:24 communications issues and she clearly produced this document do you know who she produced it for um i don't remember this document being produced it was a very long time ago right
00:06:37 do you remember any discussion of this document
00:06:41 document not specifically the document there was discussion about how to consult residents and how that engagement would work in practice right you can see in the right hand
00:06:52 right you can see in the right hand column that as i said there's a a plan to consult under objectives one and two and a plan under objective three to inform
00:07:00 to inform the same again under objective four and uh five in the in the second bullet point different levels of engagement you see what was the difference between consult level of engagement and
00:07:11 level of engagement and inform level of engagement i think it's it's
00:07:15 it's at different stages of the project there'll be um different types of engagement with residents potentially so i mean i think the consultation is about a two-way communication
00:07:26 communication where we're asking for feedback on a proposal for example in form is maybe sometimes when things are more definite it's informing somebody that something is going to happen on a particular day right and there was also a further level
00:07:39 right and there was also a further level of detail which is about involving residents and so for example we would involve residents in the selection process of contractors for example and involve them in evaluating uh contracted bids so they're
00:07:51 evaluating uh contracted bids so they're the three
00:07:54 dimensions of a consultation plan now the the objectives as you can see in the left hand column uh were clearly objectives relating to
00:08:05 uh were clearly objectives relating to the refurbishment do you know who perceived these objectives to be of necessary objectives put that put another way whose idea was it
00:08:16 another way whose idea was it the these objectives were aimed at problems to be solved um i don't necessarily think that problems to be solved i think this was probably a discussion document that thea has put together to
00:08:27 document that thea has put together to try and
00:08:29 try and provoke a conversation within the project team about how we can consult involve inform residents
00:08:36 residents i mean do you know the basis for example on which theme reynolds thought it was necessary to have a specific objective
00:08:44 objective that whereby residents of grenfell tower have confidence in the project and tmos did a ability to deliver so could you ask that question yes what was the basis of
00:08:55 was the basis of the author's decision to have a specific objective too as you can read it there that residents of grenfell tower have confidence in the project and tmo's
00:09:06 confidence in the project and tmo's ability to deliver i don't know right i mean did somebody tell her that that was an objective that was necessary i think she must have come to an opinion that that was a
00:09:18 that that was a reasonable objective and put it to the team as a proposal yes my question to you is
00:09:23 you is do you know why she formed that opinion i
00:09:26 i i don't right um can we turn to page six please where we'll see
00:09:35 uh a a situation analysis and uh
00:09:42 and uh in on the screen about halfway down uh two thirds of the way down it says in general a lack of trust do you see that no uh well it's about two-thirds of the
00:09:54 no uh well it's about two-thirds of the way down the screen with a little where the arrow is yes in general a lack of trust and a perception by residents that tmo doesn't respect them are clear barriers to the project
00:10:05 are clear barriers to the project inadequate and intermittent communication has also given residents calls for distrust and they have resorted to making foi requests to obtain the information they believe has been denied them
00:10:19 they believe has been denied them and then there are some entries under that
00:10:23 that resident consultation on certain aspects of design etc but not overall regular newsletter light on information letters to residents ad hoc and not providing the information they wish to see face-to-face meetings
00:10:36 they wish to see face-to-face meetings have been acrimonious and unproductive now those four matters there do you uh agree that each of those four statements
00:10:47 statements are ju were justified at the time
00:10:51 um
00:10:56 yeah i think i think that that's a reasonable assessment yes and um
00:11:05 again do you know what the source of these descriptions of the relationship between the tmo and the residents of the lancaster west estate were um
00:11:18 i think at this time so from memory the first meeting i had with the
00:11:24 the so the way that we consulted residents to this point had been a had been a different team so my predecessor had had a particular approach to communicating with residents and this
00:11:36 communicating with residents and this was a review because there'd been a the project would had stalled at this stage but
00:11:42 stage but there were some planning issues the project had stalled a lot of the conversation from residents at this stage was about
00:11:50 distrust about the project being delivered because of delays a lot of the complaints were about delays and um that came across quite strongly at the first meeting that i went to with
00:12:01 first meeting that i went to with residents in i think the june of 2013. and i think fear thea was at that meeting
00:12:10 meeting and um and i think she's taken this document
00:12:14 document to pull together her assessment of some of the issues that um that she felt the residents were saying from that meeting right and in in trying to pull together a proposal
00:12:27 in in trying to pull together a proposal as to how we can engage residents more effectively going forwards now the sentence that i read to you two thirds of the way down in general a lack of trust and a perception by
00:12:38 a lack of trust and a perception by residents
00:12:39 residents etc
00:12:42 it's clear from this isn't it that the lack of trust and perception described there was not limited to a number of particular individuals certainly the
00:12:53 particular individuals certainly the author of this paper regarded it as a general problem i don't know i think this is probably there i
00:13:00 there i assume at this stage had probably only been to one meeting so i think she was taking a
00:13:06 taking a an assessment based on a quite limited [Music]
00:13:10 [Music] amount of evidence but i think it was i could understand why she came to that conclusion can we go to page 10 please and here we see a communications
00:13:22 and here we see a communications activity schedule towards the foot of the page
00:13:25 the page and it says these these this communications activity schedule is a live document which will be regularly reviewed and updated to make sure that agreed communications activities are being carried out and communications objectives are being
00:13:37 and communications objectives are being met communicators will be responsible for updating this schedule as and when changes or new opportunities occur and then you can see the columns across the bottom of the page date activity channel and actions bind and
00:13:48 activity channel and actions bind and involvement and then if you turn uh to the next page please page 11 we've got the activities for the for the year 2013 starting in july
00:14:00 2013 starting in july perhaps because this document is dated august and then you could see those in july and august on that page and if one scrolls down there's no need to do this but one can scroll over the following pages
00:14:11 one can scroll over the following pages it runs into september and october and november
00:14:15 november to the end of the year
00:14:18 particularly look at the item at the bottom
00:14:21 bottom of page 11 thursday 15th of august proposed grenfell tower regeneration residence group to residents and then at the thursday meeting see that
00:14:33 the thursday meeting see that was a grenfell tower regeneration residence group actually proposed to residents at that meeting do you remember
00:14:40 remember um i don't remember i went to a series of meetings following the the
00:14:47 the the the initial meeting in june that year and um
00:14:51 and um the meetings were very poorly attended and um
00:14:55 and um and i think what we were discussing here was how we could put together a more effective way of communicating with residents so i don't remember whether there was
00:15:06 don't remember whether there was specifically that was discussed at that meeting or not but i do know that shortly after that we did a consultation process with residents to consult them on the way that they wanted to be consulted
00:15:17 that they wanted to be consulted which was uh really the the next step from this yes we have we do have the minutes of that meeting and i'll read that they are at uh tmo one double zero four nine nine one zero but i i won't
00:15:29 one zero but i i won't take them to you take it from me that there's no reference to a a group being proposed my question is why was a residence group not actually created at that time um
00:15:40 actually created at that time um i don't know about at that time and that that was the august i do remember um we consulted residents more broadly on the
00:15:48 on the various ways in which they could or wanted to be consulted and that's what that was where the focus was um was was given from this point right let's see
00:15:58 see um now can we go to your statement please where we were before page 22 this time and look at paragraph 116
00:16:06 116 just below where we were we held public meetings and drop-in sessions for residents
00:16:10 residents we then consulted residents on their preferred method of consultation only one resident favored public meetings the majority asked for newsletters plus informal drop-ins
00:16:23 plus informal drop-ins uh now can i show you first please tmo103
00:16:27 tmo103 one double zero three one one seven four tmo one double zero three one one seven four
00:16:38 that is a document entitled uh grenfell tower review consultation section five conf consultation surveys uh these the consultation surveys you were referring to just there in your
00:16:49 were referring to just there in your statement
00:16:51 statement i've never seen this document i see uh i don't think so um no you know you've never seen this document before no this
00:17:02 document before no this this looks like it's this is a tmo ryden issue so i assume these survey forms are about the detailed surveys of residents home
00:17:13 the detailed surveys of residents home about where central heating layouts will be and um so you know i think that's a document that rydens would produce with the tmo when we're consulting about the specifics of works in their homes
00:17:26 the specifics of works in their homes the consultation document that i was talking about was so each time we had a public meeting we would also have drop-in sessions so they would have you'd have a formal meeting and we also
00:17:37 you'd have a formal meeting and we also have an opportunity for people to come and talk to us individually and um and that was a process that seemed to work because it was it was easier for people to talk about their specific needs or concerns
00:17:48 their specific needs or concerns to people and at one of those meetings in the december and january that year we carried out resident survey asking about the way the methods the appropriate
00:18:00 the way the methods the appropriate methods that they would prefer to be consulted and the strong preference was for residents to be to continue to drop in sessions but to be informed through newsletters some progress
00:18:11 newsletters some progress but very few people i think only one person
00:18:15 person actually said that they wanted larger public meetings right um well let's stick with this document and see how far you can help us can we please go to page three where we can see a blank form okay uh how do you want us to consult
00:18:28 okay uh how do you want us to consult with you
00:18:29 with you please rank options with one being top and six being least preferred and you can see the six options there and the option uh for a formal meeting you can see is item five formal meeting held between
00:18:40 item five formal meeting held between six and seven pm is that right that that the only option for a formal meeting was that one hour in the evening that was being proposed as a as a proposal yeah but do you know
00:18:52 proposal yeah but do you know any other proposal for any other kinds of meetings other than the one hour in the
00:18:56 the early evening well drop-in sessions would always be run during the day and in the evening so there'd be informal opportunities for people to come and
00:19:07 people to come and discuss with us and you can see that residents were asked to rate their preference from one to six if we go to the if we go to page nine of this document we can see the
00:19:18 this document we can see the results of that survey
00:19:23 uh and uh there you can see 65 households attended this session i.e over 50
00:19:27 over 50 of block 55 forms were returned and the top preference as you can see there was for individual letters posted or put through the door that's right is it that that's what
00:19:38 that's right is it that that's what that's what they wanted that's my understanding right so not newsletters yes well newsletters with a second preference yeah exactly was that was there any attempt to consult further residents after this
00:19:49 consult further residents after this survey or did you leave it at that so from this survey we went through a process
00:19:55 process of doing all
00:19:59 all of these items one two three and four
00:20:03 but we didn't hold formal meetings and also put notices on the nurse so we actually
00:20:08 actually actually did all of these things but didn't have formal meetings because those meetings had been poorly attended and um and people didn't appear to find them a useful way of communicating
00:20:19 find them a useful way of communicating so our focus was really trying to be more bespoke to individual needs talking to residents on a one-to-one basis
00:20:27 basis or in smaller groups at a drop-in session
00:20:30 session and so we give a broad range of opportunities for people to engage with us
00:20:35 us if we go back to page one of this document
00:20:40 we can see on the first page there in the first box it says that the consultation survey central heating survey and information on central heating was sent by tmo and ryden to residents attending the drop-in
00:20:52 to residents attending the drop-in session on 12 december 2013. is that is that right is that what happened as a matter of fact i don't know i didn't attend those meetings no but
00:21:03 meetings no but even if you didn't attend those meetings did you did you know that that's what had happened to the results of the survey i'd understood that all of the people who attended
00:21:11 attended those drop-in sessions in december and january
00:21:16 january were asked to fill in the form that you showed me
00:21:19 showed me before to give us their preferences about how to become how they wanted to be consulted i mean this suggests that the survey was taken at a drop in session on the
00:21:30 was taken at a drop in session on the 12th of december 2013. is that correct my understanding is that it took place to drop in sessions i think it was more than one session
00:21:39 session on in december 13 and in january 14 that's my understanding right
00:21:50 so you say there were two occasions two dropping sessions one on the 12th of december 2013 and another in january 2014 is that yours is it right i see um
00:22:01 yours is it right i see um can we then go to the um kc tmo program board meeting minutes of the 21st of november 2013. and we'll find those at tm0100
00:22:13 find those at tm0100 28444
00:22:16 page seven
00:22:22 and you we can see that
00:22:28 you can see who is present and we can see that you attended the meeting for the first item assets and regeneration together with david burns
00:22:37 burns and if we look at the last line of the first paragraph it says it has been agreed to hold no more public meetings because of the stand being made by the grenfell tower leaseholder group
00:22:50 now i'm showing you that now let me show you your first witness statement please uh at page 34.
00:23:00 and let's go on that page please depend paragraph 179 you deal with this meeting there you say i attended the next program board on 21st november 2013 reporting that formal planning
00:23:13 2013 reporting that formal planning approval was still awaited but we were ready to go out to tender and would be on site next spring it is inaccurately recorded that i reported that it had been agreed to hold no more public meetings because of the stand being made
00:23:24 stand being made by the grenfell tower leaseholders leaseholder group the reality was that residents meetings were poorly attended and nobody wanted them and we moved to drop-in sessions and newsletters
00:23:36 newsletters now is it right that you received the minutes
00:23:39 minutes that i've just shown you after the meeting i don't remember why did you not correct the minutes if you did receive them uh when you did i don't know that i just
00:23:50 uh when you did i don't know that i just picked up that nuance right so is this another example of minutes of meetings which you would you disagree with um
00:24:00 i think it's not precisely what i what i was reporting and in reality what we did
00:24:07 we did from that point from from the point of that meeting uh was to consult residents on how they wanted to be consulted um that would have been a
00:24:18 um that would have been a more accurate way of reporting what was being agreed at this time
00:24:25 can we go to ryd409237
00:24:41 this is a note dated the 14th of november 2013 on the grenfell tower regeneration note paper with some topics set out
00:24:53 note paper with some topics set out and it's the notes from the grenfell evening meeting and under the header issues raised if you look
00:25:00 you look three quarters of the way down the screen procedures we have a apologies and then b notice of events
00:25:09 events it says comment was made that six days notice was not enough in future the tmo will give seven days notice of future consultation events is it do you recall that there was concern among the residents of grenfell
00:25:22 concern among the residents of grenfell tower that there was not enough notice to them
00:25:24 to them about when consultation events would take place i don't remember that was the number of residents who participated in such events affected do you remember by the late notification of the
00:25:36 the late notification of the uh of the events or meetings um i don't think it was a significant factor because all of none of the meetings were very well well there was one meeting that was well attended but that was really because
00:25:47 attended but that was really because there was a an appetite to talk about the power surges that were irrelevant at that they were happening at that time that was earlier that was in june yes but the subsequent meetings were very poorly attended there'd be a
00:25:58 very poorly attended there'd be a handful of people and i didn't think it was
00:26:01 was i didn't think it was late notification that was
00:26:05 that was leading to um to that right and um rbk403386 please
00:26:16 this is an email exchange
00:26:20 between councillor blakeman
00:26:25 fielding melon uh copied laura johnson on the 11th of december 2013 and if we look at the last paragraph on page one
00:26:37 uh it it says uh at the moment mr defan and the next few words are redacted uh
00:26:48 and the next few words are redacted uh something but he has been so disruptive during the grenfell tower consultations that peter madison has suggested that i have agreed that we do not hold any more open meetings
00:27:01 any more open meetings now do you recall i'll show you that do you recall discussing the consultation meetings with councillor blakeman yes do you recall suggesting to her as she records here
00:27:13 to her as she records here that you do not hold any more open meetings
00:27:17 meetings i discuss the fact that the meetings that we had were poorly attended and would could be disrupted and that we should consult residents on how we should consult them going forward and
00:27:29 we should consult them going forward and so we could be more effective in our consultation because the process we were going through with these meetings wasn't working
00:27:36 working you see she says at the time uh that that he has he mr defan has been so disruptive during the grenfell tower consultations
00:27:47 consultations that peter madison has suggested that she has agreed that we do not hold any more
00:27:52 more open meetings at the time she was attributing to the cessation of open meetings
00:27:58 meetings to mr defan's disruptive conduct during those consultation meetings
00:28:06 attributed that to you as the suggestion i would put it a different way which would be that the meetings that we were holding weren't effective they weren't well attended
00:28:17 attended and that we we should look at a better way of engaging with residents well she hasn't said mr peter madison has suggested that we don't hold any more open meetings because they're not well attended she's saying that you suggested it
00:28:28 she's saying that you suggested it because of mr defan's conduct do you agree they're miss councillor blackman's words not mine they are do you agree i don't agree i don't well like
00:28:39 don't well like i can i don't disagree with the fact that the meetings were disrupted but i felt the
00:28:44 felt the the key issue from my personal perspective was that i felt that the the consultation meetings weren't effective and that we should do something different and that was to really focus on what
00:28:55 and that was to really focus on what residents wanted and how they wanted to be engaged with and make sure that we were listening to their issues and responding to them on a more one-to-one basis than is a collective
00:29:09 do you agree that the reason or one of the reasons that you suggested that you stopped holding open meetings was because of mr defan's disruptive conduct one of the reasons was that some of the meetings were there was disruptive
00:29:20 meetings were there was disruptive meeting
00:29:21 meeting there was disruptive behavior at some of those meetings yes but there were other factors too i see
00:29:29 were you seeking to prevent mr dufan from participating fully in the consultation process not at all there were 120 households in in the block and it was important that we listened to
00:29:40 and it was important that we listened to all of them including mr defan now can we uh turn to the grenfell compact next now if we look at your first statement
00:29:51 if we look at your first statement please at page 22 next paragraph down paragraph 117 you say a formal focus group recognized by local authorities and known as a
00:30:02 by local authorities and known as a compact
00:30:03 compact was set up specifically in response to issues raised by and on behalf of residents regarding the location of the hius within some flats this was set up and various individuals were involved
00:30:15 were involved now it's right isn't it and correct me if i'm wrong about this but the tmo agreed to recognize the grenfell compact at a meeting on the 17th of july 2015 attended by victoria borick the mp
00:30:30 i don't know if that's correct there'd been pre there's been previous contact with the compact residents before that i mean the compact residents had contacted cancer
00:30:42 compact residents had contacted cancer blakeman
00:30:43 blakeman and councillor blake attended cancer blackman surgery in june and i'd met with the group in june in the show flat bef so that was that predated the meeting with councillor borac
00:30:53 borac yes my question was about recognition rather than contact do you agree that the tmo agreed to recognize the grenfell compact on the 17th of july 2015.
00:31:05 on the 17th of july 2015. i don't know i don't recall exactly the details of when it was recognized but we had engaged with the residents in the compact
00:31:13 compact prior to that meeting well let me put something to you can we please go to
00:31:19 iws402110 please i'll show you the first page this is a witness statement to the inquiry given by mr william or willie thompson who was a resident of
00:31:30 or willie thompson who was a resident of grenfell tower this is the first page of his second statement to the inquiry can we go to page 21 in that document please
00:31:38 please i want to show you paragraph 75 on page 21.
00:31:45 uh i'm sorry sorry page 21 was right paris 73 i think we want sorry 75 page 22. i'm sorry 22.
00:31:57 sorry 75 page 22. i'm sorry 22. um i'm sorry to jump back and forth formation of the compact it was only after victoria borack mp attended the 17th july residence meeting with ryden and with peter madison that the tmo allowed us to be recognized
00:32:09 allowed us to be recognized david collins applied for us to be recognized as a compact and we were do you agree or did you agree to recognize the grenfell compact because of victoria boric mp's
00:32:21 because of victoria boric mp's intervention on that date now as i explained we'd met with the group previously with councillor blakeman in the show flat to discuss the issue
00:32:32 in the show flat to discuss the issue around the hiu so that was that was a that was an ongoing discussion and that was as a result of councillor blakeman talking to that group and saying to me that she felt that they had
00:32:43 saying to me that she felt that they had some issues that we needed to communicate with them about the formal recognition of the compact would have been
00:32:50 been put in place by the community engagement team
00:32:53 team and i had no part in the detail of signing up for that agreement from what i remember right now can we go then please to tmo double zero eight three
00:33:04 double zero eight three two two eight zero
00:33:16 this is an email from edward the farm to janet edwards of the tmo dated 24th of january 2014.
00:33:31 and uh
00:33:34 if we go to page two in that document we can see that that is at the end of an email chain uh which
00:33:47 uh which has uh on it at the very top of page two an email the 24th of january to mr defan from janet edwards of the tmo
00:33:57 and she says i write further declare william's email to you below dated 23rd of january i would like to reiterate as we've done previously that the tma are unable to recognize grenfell tower residents group
00:34:08 recognize grenfell tower residents group as there is in existence an ra covering the lancaster west estate area i will again by separate email forward the responses you receive from yvonne burch and myself on this matter in 2012 stroke 13.
00:34:21 in 2012 stroke 13. do you remember that you remember do you remember this exchange you weren't copied in on it it is fair to say but do you remember the subject coming up
00:34:29 coming up i wasn't copied into it but i was aware through from talking to janet edwards who was the head of the resident engagement team that there had been a previous conversations um from mr defan trying to set up a
00:34:42 from mr defan trying to set up a specific resident group for grenfell her view was that there was already a resident association set up for
00:34:50 for lanc west well ancaster west right and so i had no part in that but i was aware of that being the position now going back to the email i started
00:35:01 now going back to the email i started this with which was the email from mr defaun to janet edwards in response on page one
00:35:11 you're not copied in on this claire williams is do you think you saw this at the time nonetheless i don't think so no you don't think so do you remember nonetheless that janet edwards's
00:35:22 nonetheless that janet edwards's refusal of mr defan's request to recognize
00:35:25 recognize a grenfell tower residents group provoked bitter complaint from him i don't recall summarizing i don't think i was i don't think i would have been involved in that right i see
00:35:36 in that right i see can we then move on further into the year then 2014 tmo
00:35:42 h
00:35:53 it's a strange reference but there it is uh and this is an email of the 17th of september 2014 from janet edwards to edward defan
00:36:04 janet edwards to edward defan where she says in the second paragraph i would confirm that the tmo has no objection to the tenants and leaseholders of grenfell tower forming a grenfell tower improvement works resident group
00:36:16 tower improvement works resident group and i would advise that this group would will be consulted by the tmo on matters relating to the grenfell tower building works
00:36:22 works indeed the tmo has no objection to any residents wishing to form a resident group for the purposes of consultation i would also confirm that we are still working with the lancaster west ra which represents all residents on the
00:36:33 represents all residents on the lancaster west estate um now you weren't copied in on this but it did go to the complaints team and philip aphidia were you aware that
00:36:44 and philip aphidia were you aware that janet edwards had changed her position in 2014 september 2014 from the position that had previously been taken by her in the january of that year i don't know that she's changed her
00:36:55 i don't know that she's changed her position i think she's making the distinction between a residence association and a group that's put together for the purposes of consultation on a particular project i i suspect that's what she's really
00:37:07 suspect that's what she's really highlighting here do you know why ms edwards didn't make this suggestion when uh
00:37:13 when uh when asked originally in january 2014 i don't know right
00:37:28 can we please go to tmo double zero eight four six one two four
00:37:40 this is an email
00:37:48 if we go to page two in that email run please
00:37:51 please uh this is an email from claire williams to david collins copy to edward the farm and in the middle of page two the fourth paragraph done
00:38:02 paragraph done you can see what she says there she says in your email you ask whether the tma would acknowledge the grenfell community unite group as a representative voice of leaseholders and tenants
00:38:13 leaseholders and tenants i'm advised that this group will not be recognized by the tmo as there is a residence association already in existence the tmo are currently working with the existing lancaster west residents
00:38:24 existing lancaster west residents association and are currently making arrangements with them to hold an agm there was communication with mr dufan in early 2014 to forming an alternative residence group uh now i should have told you the date
00:38:35 uh now i should have told you the date of this 17th of april 2015 now
00:38:39 2015 now [Applause] but before i ask you about what i just read out to you in in that email i want you to have that in mind i just want to look at two earlier emails the first one is at tm00845965
00:38:59 this is an email from you on the first of april 2015 to follow kafidia
00:39:06 kafidia copied to a number of people at the tma including janet edwards you'll see as as well as claire williams and janice edwards again she appears
00:39:17 and janice edwards again she appears twice
00:39:17 twice uh and you say mr default is continuing to agitate in grenfell tower
00:39:25 tower attached to the latest posts on his website he's clearly distributing misleading information i've highlighted the most serious allegations further i wonder if you could advise on the point at which his comments become libelous most of the comments relate to works
00:39:37 most of the comments relate to works that are not yet finished furthermore there has been no direct contact to contact from this group to formally raise these issues we will continue to communicate with residents through our regular newsletters our continued approach
00:39:48 continued approach is to focus on one-to-one consultation to agree the detail of the scope of works within residence homes mr defan continues to press for a recognized resident group and you attached as we can see
00:40:00 group and you attached as we can see certain blog posts to your email those are at tm00845967
00:40:18 and there are a number of these in this in this
00:40:21 in this document reference but i'll just show you this first one it's entitled a collective voice for residents as grenfell community unite is formed exclamation mark posted on the
00:40:32 formed exclamation mark posted on the 31st of
00:40:33 31st of march 2015. so the day before your email mr madison uh uh what did you think mr mr defan was doing in grenfell tower by
00:40:44 mr defan was doing in grenfell tower by way of
00:40:44 way of as you put it agitation um could we go back to that you know yes can we go to the previous document please tm00845 965.
00:40:57 document please tm00845 965. so i think there were a number of issues going on here that um so one was um mr rafan wanted a collective group for
00:41:10 mr rafan wanted a collective group for grenfell tower to represent them and there was so there's a there's been an ongoing dialogue between the resident engagement team and himself about that then there's a discussion
00:41:22 about that then there's a discussion about how to consult residents on the works so it's a discrete issue relating to the works and that was where we had consulted
00:41:34 and that was where we had consulted residents on how they want to be consulted
00:41:36 consulted and come to a particular view as to how we how we're going to um to take that forward given the feedback that had been received to date this um next piece of communication
00:41:50 this um next piece of communication seemed to be at odds with what we consulted with the broader community about and um and that felt like um
00:42:01 and that felt like um an area that needed to be resolved some of the issues that were being raised through mr defan's blog were being communicated inaccurately for example he was saying that giving photographs of work
00:42:13 saying that giving photographs of work that were in progress saying look at these terrible exposed pipeworks where in fact the pipework hadn't yet been
00:42:19 been enclosed and so it was passing misinformation um through the the blog and that was where i felt that we needed to be very clear
00:42:28 clear on how we communicate it to all the residents and engage with all the residents in the block not just a small number
00:42:39 what do you mean by agitation um i think that um
00:42:48 i i felt i felt he was passing it misleading information through his blog and using that to to cause confusion among the
00:42:59 to to cause confusion among the residents so we were trying to consult residents and engage with residents and the blog was giving misleading information now you say in the second paragraph as
00:43:10 now you say in the second paragraph as i've read to you that you've highlighted the most serious allegations can we go back to the the document i was on which was the blog post tm00845 967.
00:43:21 tm00845 967. the yellow there is your highlighting is it i don't remember right um
00:43:29 right um you don't remember we've proceeded all the basis that they are your highlights if they're not then
00:43:37 then please do tell me um can we go to page one please first of all and we can see there that um you've got a
00:43:45 a you're pursuing as he sees it a tmo ryden hated policy of divide and rule and then in the last sentence um that you've you've treated the residents
00:43:56 that you've you've treated the residents with complete contempt [Applause] return to page two
00:44:04 tmo ryden using threatening and intimidatory tactics to scare residents into allowing them
00:44:11 them access into our homes we despise these underhanded bullying tactics from the tmo
00:44:17 tmo ryden who've been telling residents that if they do not cooperate they will have no heating for some time around may 2015 they will lose their tenancies unless access is granted so that ryden can come in and simply butcher our homes it's ridiculous that
00:44:29 butcher our homes it's ridiculous that the tmo
00:44:30 the tmo can even be thinking of threatening us with legal action when all we've requested is they don't enter our properties without first giving us a guarantee that the work will be undertaken in a professional manner and to a high standard that's another one you've
00:44:41 standard that's another one you've highlighted then if we go to page four
00:44:46 um the second paragraph mr edward de fund then informed the meeting about past attempts by residents to gain a united voice for the grenfell tower community and how the rbkc council and the tmo have worked to prevent
00:44:57 and the tmo have worked to prevent tenants and leaseholders from forming any
00:44:59 any form of collective resident representation
00:45:04 i've shown you three of those you've highlighted or it appears that you've highlighted what was it about those particular passages that you objected to um could we go to the second
00:45:17 um could we go to the second one yes go to page two please with threatening and intimidatory tactics so it's saying that we were threatening and intimidating residents which i didn't think was accurate true right
00:45:29 i didn't think was accurate true right um
00:45:30 um threatening residents that they didn't cooperate we'd had they'd have no heating that wasn't true and they would lose their tendencies unless access is granted none of these things were true so i felt that you know you know
00:45:44 it was important that residents were clear on on how we were consulting them and what the issues were and we certainly weren't threatening people in the way that it suggested here yeah i felt that was quite serious
00:45:56 felt that was quite serious yes if you you say none of these things in this passage were true
00:46:03 were true you say that now did you at the time carry out any investigation into these allegations before writing to phala cafidio the next
00:46:14 before writing to phala cafidio the next day
00:46:15 day um
00:46:22 so the the the sort of this sort of language was used quite commonly at a lot of the compact meetings and in the meetings with mr defan that they would say he would say that
00:46:34 that they would say he would say that residents had been bullied and harassed and without giving any specifics of what that meant what that was and there were there were
00:46:45 what that was and there were there were no specifics given about quite how that was to be the that has to be the case and i said i would investigate any specific issues but these were very broad issue they were very broad statements
00:46:58 issue they were very broad statements which didn't have any truth in them as far as i could tell in terms of you know um you know we weren't we didn't say that people would have no heating
00:47:05 heating um and we knew that that wouldn't be appropriate thing to do and i wouldn't we wouldn't wouldn't allow that to happen and we wouldn't tell people that they would risk losing their tenancies unless they gave access
00:47:17 their tenancies unless they gave access that just wasn't actually true well mr madison i understand that i'm asking a slightly more specific question
00:47:26 question this blog post is posted on the 31st of march
00:47:30 march stripping away the language in this passage for the moment at the allegation that tmo just take away the language and just look at the
00:47:41 away the language and just look at the the bear allegation which is that tmo ryden have told residents that if they do not cooperate they will have no heating from around may 2015 and will lose their tenancies
00:47:52 may 2015 and will lose their tenancies now my question is not whether that's true or not but whether you personally investigated whether it was true at the time
00:48:04 whether i investigated um i mean yes
00:48:15 well yes i i would have had conversations with the project team and with ryden's about what was being alleged here right right let's break that up when did
00:48:26 right right let's break that up when did you have
00:48:27 you have a conversation with the project team about that allegation at various stages throughout when this i mean at this stage um i'm referring
00:48:38 i mean at this stage um i'm referring and you know my understanding was that these allegations weren't true and i'd spoken to ryden's and the project team about it i don't remember specifically when but there was no truth in those
00:48:50 but there was no truth in those allegations yeah so you keep saying what i'm after is your investigations your personal investigations in an even-handed manner into whether they were true so discussions let's
00:49:02 they were true so discussions let's start with tmo who did you speak to at tmo about whether this allegation that i've just read to you in the bear terms was made
00:49:11 made in the tmr i would have spoken to claire williams and to david gibson do you remember
00:49:15 remember actually having a conversation and asking them and putting to them the allegation in this blog and saying is there any truth in this
00:49:23 in this yeah i'm sure i would have had that well you say you're sure do you remember yeah i don't remember a specific conversation with this next one ryden do you remember speaking yourself to ryden and asking them
00:49:33 them whether they've been going around telling residents that if they don't cooperate they won't have any heating or will lose their tendencies yes i have spoken to simon lawrence about about these issues in simon lawrence from ryden's
00:49:44 lawrence from ryden's came to the meetings with me and and the residents from the compact did you actually go to him with this blog and say simon is any of this true i don't remember if i specifically did a
00:49:56 remember if i specifically did a relation to this blog but i certainly had conversations with him about the these um these allegations not necessarily in relation to this blog so sorry
00:50:09 not necessarily in relation to this blog so you say that these allegations had been made very specifically before the 31st of march and you'd investigated them already
00:50:20 investigated them already no afterwards also so subsequent to subsequently myself and simon lawrence met with councillor blakeman and residents of grenfell in
00:50:34 and residents of grenfell in grenfell tower to discuss the issues relating to the hiu and that was where some of the issues these issues were raised and i discussed them with simon so is
00:50:45 and i discussed them with simon so is your evidence that you investigated the truth or falsehood of this allegation after you wrote your email the next day first of all i'm not tying those two things together you're asking me about when i
00:50:55 when i was when i spoke to ryden's i don't specifically remember when i spoke to ryden's about that but i'd but my understanding from you know the conversations that i've had with ryden's and with the project team
00:51:06 with ryden's and with the project team that
00:51:07 that the issues that were being raised weren't accurate you see in in the email i read to you you are saying and you highlighted the most serious allegations which you say are misleading
00:51:18 allegations which you say are misleading and my question is what i'm trying to understand is what investigations you yourself carried out into the truth or falsehood
00:51:24 falsehood of the factual allegations before writing the email on the 1st of april my response is that i would have spoken to my project team and the head of service
00:51:33 service and the contractor but i don't specifically remember when this was a long time ago now now let's uh
00:51:40 uh look uh at
00:51:43 the fourth page of this blog which we looked at where in the second paragraph it says edward defon then informed the meeting
00:51:55 edward defon then informed the meeting i've read it out already i'm not going to read it out again uh it it it was true though wasn't it that uh
00:52:08 that grenfell tower community unite had been refused recognition until july 2015.
00:52:24 so in other words at the time of this uh blog which was 31st of march 2015 the grenfell community unite had been
00:52:35 the grenfell community unite had been refused recognition i don't know that anybody had been in contact with community unites well we've seen the january correspondence with janet edwards with community united or with edward
00:52:46 with community united or with edward tufan with mr defan so so that that's that's with an individual mr defan so community united was a group that wasn't recognized i take your point and i think that
00:52:59 i take your point and i think that and i think that there are two quite discreet issues here one is about the block consultation in about setting up a separate tensor
00:53:10 in about setting up a separate tensor association for grenfell tower which i understood was the the objective here
00:53:16 here and the second issue was about having a group
00:53:19 group or a structure for engaging with all residents in grenfell tower about the works to their block yes i take your point now not grenfell community unite but it was certainly true wasn't it that
00:53:30 certainly true wasn't it that there had been past attempts by residents to gain a united voice for the grenfell tower community which had been refused by the tma that's the case isn't it i don't know when i showed you the emails earlier in 25th
00:53:43 emails earlier in 25th 2015 january 2015. well when you said residents
00:53:46 residents i saw an email from from um the community engagement team and mr defan
00:53:53 defan one resident i wasn't sure what whether there were more residents yeah but it's true isn't it that the tmo had actually as a fact refused to recognize a
00:54:04 as a fact refused to recognize a grenfell community group in respect of the refurbishment as at the 31st of march 2015. no that's not accurate so what what is so when you're you're seeing a group so i think the group that
00:54:15 seeing a group so i think the group that janet edwards was talking to edward dufan about was about
00:54:20 about um a tennis association in the block the the conversation with residents about
00:54:28 about a consultation group we had had a group we've had public meetings from in the building that had been poorly attended we consulted residents on how they wanted to be attended
00:54:39 on how they wanted to be attended and there was no appetite at all from that consultation for public meetings so we listened to what residents were saying and we consulted that we we consulted them
00:54:49 them through informal drop-in sessions and newsletters those informal drop-in sessions could be groups of people that wasn't didn't have to be individual one-to-ones there could have been groups of people coming together
00:55:00 coming together at those meetings too so we were responding to what what what feedback we'd received from residents at that stage
00:55:19 now the second email is from claire that i wanted to show you before we get to your later one is uh at tm00846102
00:55:32 and that's dated the 13th of april 2015
00:55:37 there it is on the page and you can see that uh it's it's to you copy to david gibson
00:55:42 gibson and claire williams forwards you the email that she's received from grenfell community unite
00:55:49 just below that and it says in the third line robert black walked by on friday we discussed the fact that the preference was not to meet up with the grenfell community unite group which could be a showcase
00:56:00 could be a showcase for mr dufan and that she asked for comments on her response who was it who maintained a preference not to meet with grenfell community unite
00:56:08 unite as a group
00:56:13 i don't know did you share the preference not to meet with the group at this time i was working on the basis of the consultation that we'd carried out very recently with residents about
00:56:24 out very recently with residents about how they wanted to be consulted and from that consultation there was a clear message to me anyway at that stage that there wasn't an appetite from residents for um for large public meetings it's
00:56:37 for um for large public meetings it's the type that were being suggested here so i was i was dubious as to whether this was
00:56:42 this was the right approach um however in due course we did listen and we did we did
00:56:48 we did meet this group but at that at that stage so soon after carrying out a consultation and having quite we
00:56:55 quite we had feedback from more than half of the residents in the block i didn't think that there was an appetite for this type of meeting well it's not talking about a meeting
00:57:06 well it's not talking about a meeting it's talking about a a meeting with a group so are you saying that that would be a what kind of meeting would that be a public meeting or just just a meeting between
00:57:17 between mr black and perhaps you with members of the grenfell community unite group um i don't know i think that there was the there had been
00:57:31 there was the there had been there had been a series of public meetings with grenfell on consultation and consulting residents about the proposed works and those meetings were poorly attended
00:57:42 and those meetings were poorly attended when we carried out a consultation it was well responded to residents that showed no appetite for those sort of meetings however we did have drop-in sessions that people could come to
00:57:53 come to as individuals or as groups so there was an opportunity there for people to come and engage and we you know so there was and so i think that's really what this is flagging up
00:58:04 that's really what this is flagging up well mr madison with respect we're in danger of sliding away into a slightly different subject which is public meetings i'm not asking you about public meetings i'm simply asking you i'll put the question one more time
00:58:17 i'll put the question one more time whether
00:58:18 whether you shared the preference not yourself to meet with members of the grenfell
00:58:25 grenfell community unite group um i was
00:58:39 i i had questions about whether this this meeting was going what this the purpose of this meeting was really i thought there might have been a different agenda in terms of the residence
00:58:51 residence association for the block and i was really working on the basis of trying to consult residents on the basis that we'd agreed with them through the consultation that
00:59:02 with them through the consultation that we took that took place at the turn of the year and that we've communicated to all residents through the newsletter so i was just trying to work on the basis of this is what we've consulted this is the feedback we've got from you this is what we're doing and i was just
00:59:13 this is what we're doing and i was just trying to stick to that and i felt this might have been a complicating factor in that right so i think the answer is yes you did not prefer you did share the
00:59:25 you did not prefer you did share the preference not to meet with members of the group
00:59:27 the group because is this right or is this fair it would cut across the way you perceived the consultation should go which is um consultation resident by resident which
00:59:38 which which is what we agreed with the residents yes what did you understand that claire williams meant by the words which could be a showcase for mr defan
00:59:49 a showcase for mr defan um i'm assuming that she's referring to the fact that mr tufan could dominate public meetings right was that the real reason that recognition of the group was refused
00:59:58 refused at least at this time um
01:00:03 i don't think the group recognitions group wasn't refused well it was until the 17th of july but we met earlier in the 17th of july it was in june right
01:00:14 it was in june right let's see uh is it right that before the recognition of the grenfell compact on the 17th of july 2015 tenants could only raise issues or concerns on an individual basis and not
01:00:27 concerns on an individual basis and not collectively there were drop-in sessions so each so um we would carry out regular drop-in sessions sorry but a drop-in session is where a resident talks to a member of the tma
01:00:38 talks to a member of the tma or many residents right now drop-in sessions were held in the block in a uh
01:00:45 in a uh in the show flat which we used to demonstrate the works that would be going to be carried out we would communicate to residents through newsletter saying these are the issues that we're going to be discussing at the next uh the next drop in session
01:00:57 at the next uh the next drop in session and people would come either as individuals or in households or as in groups of households as they wished
01:01:03 wished yes i understand about groups really what i'm after something slightly different which is a collective voice is it right that before the recognition
01:01:14 is it right that before the recognition of the grenfell compact on in july 2015 tenants could only raise issues or concerns on an individual basis
01:01:22 basis as opposed to a collective basis um
01:01:31 well they could raise issues on a collective basis at the drop in sessions if they wished there wasn't a there wasn't a bar on people being able to come together as a group and talk to us but if mr dufan had
01:01:42 and talk to us but if mr dufan had turned up at a drop in session and said i
01:01:44 i represent 46 residents in the building under the banner of grenfell unite you wouldn't have recognized him doing that you would have only said to him well i can entertain
01:01:55 only said to him well i can entertain your personal complaints but not your collective complaints and that is the approach that we took in the collect
01:02:01 collect and the compact too so i mean even within the compact we wouldn't deal with specific issues to an individual yes but am i right that before the compact was formed
01:02:13 formed even had mr dufan purported to voice concerns
01:02:17 concerns for a wider group they wouldn't have been recognized only his personal individual issues and concerns would have been recognized that's what i'm i'm getting it but if an individual
01:02:28 i'm getting it but if an individual raised concerns about the wider group we would investigate that those concerns with the wider group now we can see the response that you give to claire williams at tmas
01:02:40 that you give to claire williams at tmas in a different email string tmo double zero
01:02:43 zero eight four six one zero six page one
01:02:50 and you're i think commenting here uh on a draft that she's presented and you say thanks for this i think it's very good and a couple of main comments
01:03:02 very good and a couple of main comments and then
01:03:07 in the second paragraph excuse me second paragraph you say summary drafting of the following para is needed see highlighted section in your email you asked whether the tma would acknowledge the grandfather community
01:03:19 acknowledge the grandfather community unite group as a representative voice of leaseholders and tenants i'm advised that this group will not be recognized by the tmo as there is a residence association already in existence the tmo are currently working with the existing
01:03:30 currently working with the existing lancaster west residents association and are currently making arrangements with them to hold an agm mr farm will have historic communication from the tma dating back to early 2014 relating to forming an alternative
01:03:41 relating to forming an alternative residence group now it's right isn't it that lwra the lancaster west residents association was not actually functioning before the the agm was it
01:03:52 before the the agm was it i don't know do you know what arrangements the tmo was in fact making for the lwra to hold an agm no i wasn't involved you know whether one was held i wasn't involved
01:04:04 one was held i wasn't involved do you know what steps that you took to allow collective consultation at this point instead of an agm for the lwra
01:04:14 um
01:04:17 we've consulted residents on how they want to be consulted and there wasn't an appetite for that sort of collective engagement let's go then to december
01:04:28 engagement let's go then to december 2015.
01:04:32 uh tmo1001151 sorry 119. tmo1001
01:04:43 page two please
01:05:02 i'm sorry i was going to get back to something actually that i should have done before before i come to that can i go back please to claire williams's email at tm00846124
01:05:17 this is
01:05:21 her response which she sends to mr collins and mr defarm we've seen the background to it now if you go to page two please
01:05:34 and look at paragraph four i read that to you
01:05:37 to you [Applause] uh that was in fact it's right isn't it how
01:05:44 how matters were left in the in relation to recognition of a collective group for a collective voice as of the 17th of april 2015.
01:05:55 as of the 17th of april 2015. yes yes can i then go to where i've gone which is uh december 2015.
01:06:02 2015. tmo one double zero one one five nine one please page two this is the minute of an rbkc tmo joint management meeting 2nd of december
01:06:14 joint management meeting 2nd of december 2015
01:06:15 2015 and if we just skip back to page one we can see that you were there there you are uh identified as the third from bottom and if we go back to page two we can see
01:06:26 and if we go back to page two we can see that there were just there was discussion about governance issues on estate management boards uh and that's the title there and we can see in the second paragraph that you say
01:06:39 uh well first paragraph we'll start with the new ra lancaster west are doing very well
01:06:43 well and don't appear to be entertaining eddie dufan and his followers it has been noted that eddie defined is trying to put forward a motion of no confidence in the tmo and wants to start a new emb
01:06:53 a new emb the emb predated the tmo and their agreement was signed without legal advice
01:06:57 advice this along with the fact that they were not transparent in their accounts could work to our advantage as they have six thousand pounds of debt outstanding just pausing there um did does that reflect
01:07:08 um did does that reflect the view at the time that an emv was undesirable for the lancaster west estate
01:07:16 estate so far as the tmo was concerned i had no involvement with the emb and just kind of didn't have a view really i knew those there were historic issues and the emb was being disbanded but other than that i know no detail
01:07:28 other than that i know no detail very well now looking at the next paragraph it says peter madison noted that the grenfell compact is not set up as an ra
01:07:34 as an ra councillor blakeman and eddie dufan are a negative force at grenfell at president and residents are going to them with problems and not us
01:07:45 now just on that what was the significance of grenfell of the grenfell compact not being a residents association strictly so called it's the point i've been making about
01:07:57 it's the point i've been making about the distinction between a residence association so an ongoing organization is part of the resident engagement structure for grenfell tower which i understand
01:08:08 for grenfell tower which i understand that mr defan has been campaigning for for some time as opposed to being part of the lancaster west resin association what did you mean by saying that councillor blakeman and
01:08:20 saying that councillor blakeman and eddie defon did i just can i just finish that point before we go into that one because the the compact itself was a compact related to the works it was this discrete consultation vehicle for the work so it
01:08:33 consultation vehicle for the work so it what didn't have a broader remit uh in terms of the resident engagement strategy
01:08:38 strategy what did you mean by saying that councillor blakeman and eddie dufan were a negative force at grenfell at present so residents were going to them with problems not us so
01:08:50 problems not us so what councilor blakeman had a very complicated um role here and um you know i think found it difficult at times because she was a
01:09:00 was a um she was a member of the housing the council's housing property scrutiny committee which gave scrutiny to um to
01:09:09 to um to issues that were related to housing she was also a member of the tmo board and what i felt was that
01:09:20 and what i felt was that instead of ensuring that scrutiny of our services to make sure that they were working effectively she was telling residents that they weren't work our systems weren't working
01:09:32 weren't work our systems weren't working effectively and so as a result the residents were more reluctant to use those systems than they should have been and i think that caused a bit of poor communication so some residents
01:09:43 poor communication so some residents would go to councillor blakeman rather than
01:09:45 than reporting a repair or an issue directly to either ryden's or to the call center and that caused a bit of a short circling of all of our systems which meant that we couldn't sometimes resolve these things as quickly as we
01:09:57 resolve these things as quickly as we would like i could see that that might be procedurally inefficient but why was it negative
01:10:05 negative would use the word that's well i think it damaged the relationship between the residents and the tmo and it made our systems
01:10:10 systems more effective and it increased the risk of things going wrong but it also broke down the confidence that you know things going wrong can sometimes be great opportunities to put things right and build confidence with people
01:10:22 and build confidence with people i mean councillor blakeman was actually a tmo board member wasn't wasn't she yes so why was it a problem that she was trusted by the residents and not quotes us on quotes such that the
01:10:33 quotes us on quotes such that the residents went to her with their problems it wasn't the problem that she was trusted by the residents the problem that she her her role as a member of the board should have been to
01:10:44 board should have been to and to give scrutiny to the processes of the tmo and make sure that we were held accountable if things weren't um working effectively and i felt that
01:10:55 working effectively and i felt that that wasn't done in this instance why why did you think that residents were going to councillor blakeman with their uh with their problems rather than going to the tma
01:11:06 to the tma because because some residents it's a small number of you know although this did happen and it was it was still a small number of residents most people would go to the established communications um
01:11:19 to the established communications um so but um but i think that at some of the meetings and some of the communications councilor blakeman would say that
01:11:29 say that these systems don't work and that would discourage people from using them yeah was there any truth in that certainly they wouldn't work if we didn't if they weren't used effectively that's that's a self-fulfilling prophecy
01:11:40 that's that's a self-fulfilling prophecy no well that that's because the answer to my question is circular um it was there any truth in councillor blakeman's statement that the systems don't work and it was
01:11:51 and it was for that reason that residents were going to her um there may have been instances where things that things went wrong and but the system
01:12:03 things went wrong and but the system but the focus on fixing those issues needs to be through making sure the system works effectively yes and that's really as a as a board member that's really where council
01:12:14 board member that's really where council blakeman had the opportunity very good opportunity through the operations committee and through the board meetings to hold officers accountable and i give monthly meetings to each of those committees
01:12:25 committees and council blake has an ideal opportunity to raise those concerns coming back to my question why did you think at the time if you did think at the time
01:12:36 the time about this that the residents were going to councillor blakeman and eddie dufan with their problems rather than the tmo i didn't think they were going to educate their problems i thought it was councillor blackman
01:12:47 councillor blackman well it says here it says that but i don't think all right that's true okay well
01:12:51 well rephrasing my question uh why did you think at the time that residents were going to
01:12:56 going to councillor blakeman with their problems rather than the tma i think quantifying this is important i think this we're talking here about maybe a
01:13:04 maybe a a handful of people in a block of 120 homes and um so there were a small number of residents who would go directly to council blakeman and that
01:13:16 directly to council blakeman and that would
01:13:16 would make the process because bearing in mind we had
01:13:20 we had on-site ryden's had two resident lays and officers on site all the time for any issues that people could con residents could contact
01:13:32 people could con residents could contact those resident ears and officers and issues could be resolved so almost immediately and then so um there were and that's what most people did in a small number
01:13:44 what most people did in a small number of cases so we're probably talking six to eight people have uh had contacted councillor blakeman and she took on that his case work but instead of taking on his case where
01:13:55 on his case where my preference would have been for her to have asked whether she those people have reported their issue through the appropriate channels first before taking on and that would have
01:14:06 before taking on and that would have been the quickest way of making sure that we got a repair carried out or got ridens to attend site and address the issue so i think it was it was more about a
01:14:17 so i think it was it was more about a process issue here
01:14:23 there's no indication in this record that the the number of people going to councillor blatant with their problems rather than the tmo
01:14:34 rather than the tmo is only a handful on the contrary the impression one gets reading this minute is that it was a problem negative force at grenfell at present residents are going to them with problems or not us
01:14:46 problems or not us do you think that that's an accurate and reliable
01:14:49 reliable minute or do you say that it overstates the problem materially i think it simplifies the problem and i think that the the detail of this can be seen in the review
01:15:00 review of the project that was carried out by the board where it actually broke down the number of issues that were actually reported to councillor blakeman and how many of those issues were
01:15:12 those issues were would you know dealt with through that process wasn't there a system in place in the tmo and correct me if i'm wrong about this whereby residents could actually raise uh concerns
01:15:23 concerns with their counselors directly
01:15:27 yeah known as a member's inquiry yeah yeah
01:15:30 yeah so the fact that some people were doing that with councillor blakeman why would that be a problem if it was in fact part of the procedures which residents could use normally though i
01:15:42 residents could use normally though i would expect that residents would report an issue to come to a council through a member's inquiry if something's gone wrong if if it's the first point of contact so something's broken and needs to be fixed
01:15:54 something's broken and needs to be fixed it will be better and simpler to report it direct to the call center or to ryden's
01:15:59 ryden's to carry out the repair rather than raising it as a mems inquiry which is more akin to dealing with it as a complaint whereas actually
01:16:06 actually that so that's the distinctions i would make so in fact it's right there there were actually two available routes for complaint for a resident one is the complaints procedure where it's a complaint properly so called as opposed to an inquiry
01:16:18 called as opposed to an inquiry and the other was directly to the uh the councillor yes i see um looking at the next paragraph in this minute it says councillor blakeman has also presented
01:16:29 also presented a petition with 60 signatures about our management at grenfell and compensation for residents amanda johnson feels that it is a conflict of interest for councillor blakeman
01:16:39 blakeman as she is a council appointed tmo board member fellow cofidia okay suggested that amanda johnson speaks to laverne about this as it needs to be urgently addressed
01:16:50 as it needs to be urgently addressed why were there concerns about councillor blakeman presenting a petition on behalf of residents um i don't remember the petition you don't remember the petition specifically
01:17:01 don't remember the petition specifically from this from this i don't remember right um we're looking then at the question of the conflict of interest if we go back to the previous page please page two
01:17:14 amanda johnson is recorded as saying that she felt that there was a conflict of interest do you know what the conflict of interest identified by amanda johnson was
01:17:24 was i don't remember right was there an expectation that tma board members would not question tmo employees do you think no no i mean the whole
01:17:35 whole the whole structure of the tmo board and the committees was to be accountable to be held accountable by board members so i think that probably what amanda is well i don't know i can't guess i can't
01:17:46 well i don't know i can't guess i can't speculate on what amanda was thinking right this may be a question for for ms johnson but can you explain how they could possibly have been a conflict of interest for councillor blakeman to represent the
01:17:57 for councillor blakeman to represent the interests of residents if it was the case that the tmo existed to serve the residents sorry how could there be a conflict of interest
01:18:07 interest for councillor blakeman to seek to represent the interests of residents if the tmo existed to serve them um i think this is a question for amanda
01:18:18 um i think this is a question for amanda to follow you were at the meeting were you positive by what this topic was about
01:18:23 about no i don't remember let's see thinking about it very deeply i'm afraid
01:18:31 oh do you accept that that the residents were
01:18:35 were and i used the word inverted commas customers
01:18:39 customers of the tmo sorry do you accept that the residents were quotes customers on quotes yes of the tmo
01:18:50 tmo and do you accept that it was the tmo's role to provide your customers with the best
01:18:54 best service and satisfaction you could acknowledge your errors and try and find solutions
01:18:58 solutions yes
01:19:02 did it occur to you at the time maybe you can't remember but that amanda johnson's very suggestion of a conflict of interest on the part of councillor blakeman revealed an us and them culture at the tma
01:19:16 i think there was some complications in the way that councillor blakeman interacted in because she had three she she was a local ward councillor she was a member of the tmo board
01:19:27 of the tmo board and she was a she sat on the council's property and scrutiny committee and i think that there are um there are subtleties around
01:19:38 there are um there are subtleties around the
01:19:39 the the relationship which i think council blackman struggled with
01:19:45 do you remember discussing those at the time with anybody i've raised them a number
01:19:49 number those sort of issues a number of times with the company secretary because i felt that
01:19:53 felt that there were times where councillor blakeman
01:19:56 blakeman could have been helping bring about a resolution rather than whereas i felt at a time she created the divide
01:20:03 divide right what were the subtleties around the relationship as you put it that she struggled with well i think i think that um
01:20:23 so i think her role as a board member and as a member of the prop the member of the operations committee too uh she was in a position to be able to hold
01:20:34 hold tmo officers to account and ensure that our services were working as effectively for residents as possible and i felt that sometimes her actions meant that residents residents were less
01:20:45 meant that residents residents were less inclined
01:20:46 inclined to have confidence in our services because
01:20:50 because of the negative portrayal of councillor blakeman of those services and i don't think that those that betrayal was accurate
01:21:03 i had a number of bits of correspondence with council blackmail directly about these sort of issues and you know sometimes she would produce minutes of meetings without any agreement
01:21:12 agreement that would be in be inaccurate they would be
01:21:16 would be saying that i'd agreed things that i hadn't agreed and i had com dialogues with councillor blakeman and these sort of things so it was about
01:21:23 was about sending out clear messages really because
01:21:26 because she had more than one hat as a counselor and as a
01:21:30 and as a member of the of the tmo board i thought that
01:21:34 that it's very difficult if you've got a board member and a ward councillor who is
01:21:38 is saying this is what's been agreed when it actually was wasn't being agreed with me at all
01:21:42 me at all so those they're the sort of things that i think were very difficult and they were called and there was it was causing distrust but do you accept that there could only be a conflict of interest as between the tmo
01:21:55 interest as between the tmo and the council representing the interests of the residents if there was in fact
01:21:58 in fact a conflict between those divergent interests
01:22:02 interests i'm sorry i don't know that i can comment on that right mr chairman is that an appropriate moment for a break yes mr relig i think it is um we'll have a break now mr madison
01:22:12 madison we'll come back please at 20 to 12 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it whether out of the room thank you
01:22:30 thank you 20 to 12. please
01:41:08 do ask mr madison to come back in please
01:41:22 all right mr madison ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mr millet yes mr madison um can i ask you please now to go to rbk three zeros two
01:41:35 this is a minute of a meeting of the housing and property scrutiny committee on the 6th of january 2016.
01:41:46 2016. as you can see from the top right hand corner of the document and we can see that you were in attendance uh five names up from the bottom of the others in attendance list
01:41:57 others in attendance list do you do you have an independent recollection of this meeting just to jog your memory it was a meeting at which mr defan addressed the committee yes you do
01:42:08 addressed the committee yes you do now if we go please to page four we can see that you yourself made a presentation to the committee on the subject of the grenfell tower refurbishment project
01:42:20 refurbishment project and uh if you um look at page five you can see the outcome of the discussion
01:42:30 right at the foot of the section just before a5
01:42:35 before a5 you see that it says in conclusion the chairman agreed that a working group would be commissioned at some point in the future but that this was dependent on a number of factors including the conclusion of existing working groups
01:42:47 existing working groups and the review work conducted by the tmo
01:42:53 and if you go back up the page a little bit further you'll see the previous paragraph uh says uh councillor blakeman said to
01:43:04 uh says uh councillor blakeman said to the committee that a number of people did not understand the complaints procedure and often things have been implemented before the complaint had been addressed she explained that there was no mechanism for collective complaints for example when a lift wasn't operational
01:43:16 example when a lift wasn't operational or lack of cctv the chairman asked if there was a procedure for collective complaints or if each individual had to log a complaint separately he suggested there may be a gap in governance in this
01:43:27 there may be a gap in governance in this respect
01:43:28 respect as there should be a process to allow a group to complain and permit the aggregation of a complaint he recommended this he recommended that the tmo look at their procedures in this regard mr black agreed to do this
01:43:41 agreed to do this now can we take it from the minutes that the main issue there identified was the lack of
01:43:45 lack of a process for collective complaints yes yes
01:43:49 yes and but but also that any review uh would um depend on the outcome of a review by mr black and by the by the the tmo board itself yes yes now moving on from this
01:44:02 yes yes now moving on from this then uh can we go to tmo double zero eight five two eight six five this is an email to you from sasha jevons of the third of
01:44:13 to you from sasha jevons of the third of march 2016. there it is uh
01:44:24 there it is uh copied to uh
01:44:28 uh others uh and uh including yvonne burch subject grenfell board review
01:44:38 and she says hi i summarize the outcome of the scoping meeting and clarify what information is required in the pack and what information should be covered in the presentation i've split it into the sections from
01:44:50 i've split it into the sections from eddie's speech paperwork for the pack uh colon and then a list now just placing this in its chronological context is it right that
01:45:02 context is it right that this is now early march there had been a scoping meeting to scope out the in loose terms terms of reference for the tmo board review of the
01:45:13 for the tmo board review of the complaints made by mr dufan is that right i don't remember you don't remember
01:45:20 remember right uh so you don't remember what she means by
01:45:24 means by the scoping meeting there no okay uh
01:45:30 okay uh right um in the first block under one she says resident engagement and she wants uh among other things first bullet or asterisk
01:45:40 asterisk timeline of all the resident consultation meetings that took place and then six down you can see she wants minutes of any consultation or compact meeting
01:45:50 meeting do you see that yeah now let's just see how this proceeds can we go please to tmo one double zero four four eight one seven page two
01:46:06 this is a
01:46:10 a an email uh from you to jillian kennedy which if you go over to page three you can see you're forwarding
01:46:21 forwarding david collins's email to claire asking for a meeting to discuss the construction works that's his 6th of april
01:46:30 april email but just if we so that's the context
01:46:34 context if we go to page 1 of this email run you say to her second email down on page one
01:46:44 one fourth of march 2016. hi jillian on reflection i'm not sure that i want to go into so much detail on the compact strand i think i will produce a summary report with a timeline schedule of meetings
01:46:56 with a timeline schedule of meetings and brief summary of the issues so uh this has come in on an email chain from the year before but
01:47:07 an email chain from the year before but is the day after sasha jevon's email to you with her shopping list of things from the scoping meeting that's the chronology now what i want to ask you about is the text of your email to jillian kennedy
01:47:19 to jillian kennedy is it right julian kennedy was uh was coordinating the tmo board's review do you remember that i don't know if she was or not or whether she was
01:47:32 was or not or whether she was just pulling together some of the the pieces from my team or from sasha's team right all right
01:47:39 right now let's go to the text on page one i want to ask you about on the screen
01:47:48 what was the problem with giving the board the detailed records such as they were of the meetings rather than your own brief summary as you were suggesting here
01:48:03 um i'm not sure i don't i don't have any recollection of this right were you looking to omit things yes certainly not were you looking to
01:48:15 certainly not were you looking to present them in a particular way no i mean is there a previous email to this
01:48:21 this give me a bit of context because i can't really remember what we were talking about right um yes there is and i've shown it to you it's the email of the third of march the day before from sasha gevins to you asking you for the minutes of any
01:48:32 asking you for the minutes of any consultation or compact meetings and you seem to be sending this back to jillian
01:48:38 jillian kennedy saying and as i've shown you the text i'm not sure i want to go into so much detail on the compact strand i think i'll produce a summary report with the timeline schedule of meetings in a brief summary of the issues discussed
01:48:49 brief summary of the issues discussed and i just wanted to know why that was i have no idea right we do see that uh that is something to which
01:48:57 which she agrees if you go to the top of page one
01:49:03 she just says hi peter will do i'm just updating the summary of issues then we'll send over i mean the only thing i can think of and is that some of the some of the
01:49:15 is that some of the some of the minutes we want for a better word of the compact meetings might be a set of exchanges of emails so it might be easier rather than giving people a whole set of email interchanges to summarize the
01:49:27 email interchanges to summarize the points
01:49:28 points that's all i can imagine you you're imagining you don't remember i don't remember right um [Music]
01:49:37 [Music] let's look then at tm00829803
01:49:49 this is the final pack on the consultation subject uh presented to the tmo board as part of the review
01:50:00 part of the review uh and if we look at the mini chronology on that page we can see that what is sent is meeting notes in action 16th july 2016
01:50:11 2016 so that's the first date on which these documents begin and runs down to february 2016. [Music]
01:50:20 [Music] uh is it right that you decided not to include david collins's emails of the 17th of march and 25th of march 2015
01:50:31 the 17th of march and 25th of march 2015 and the 6th of april email that i've shown you just now in relation to the matters he was raising
01:50:41 raising um i don't think i made a conscious decision not to i mean i think these are strictly speaking the notes of the
01:50:49 the compact meetings right and they weren't compact meetings that was a dialogue with
01:50:53 with an individual do you remember receiving emails in march from david collins uh or seeing them at the time sent to claire williams requesting recognition
01:51:04 claire williams requesting recognition of grenfell community unite yes i do remember
01:51:07 remember do you know why you didn't put those into the pack sent to the tmo board to review
01:51:13 review um i don't right
01:51:20 do you remember making a conscious decision to leave them out no
01:51:24 nor did you include the minutes of the residence meetings which were enclosed in those emails did you i don't think we i wasn't aware we had records of resident meetings
01:51:36 records of resident meetings other than these right well let's just look at a reference chase this down tmo one double zero four four eight two one
01:51:46 please uh this is an email in fact which you sent to yourself in march 2016 uh just a day or two in fact the next
01:51:57 uh just a day or two in fact the next day actually after you had decided not to send the minutes of the meeting but to do a summary instead you see this is the chronology and
01:52:09 you see this is the chronology and you send it to yourself below it we can see march 2015 and if you scroll down you can see the bottom of page one you've got claire williams's email to you of the 26th of
01:52:20 williams's email to you of the 26th of march
01:52:22 march uh over the page to page two she tells you you had minutes of the meeting and then you can see perhaps if we scroll
01:52:32 scroll uh
01:52:37 uh down to page it's quite a long email but we can look at it starting at page two you can see this is david collins's email on the 25th of
01:52:48 email on the 25th of march to claire williams hi claire ed's provided the minutes of the residence meeting see below can you respond on all points raised et cetera it's a long email and then the minutes appear
01:52:59 a long email and then the minutes appear at page two and go on uh over through to page five actually bottom of page to top of page six
01:53:10 so you you had in front of you this document it appears at the time when you were considering putting together
01:53:18 together or assisting on the putting together of the pack for the tmo boards review just showing you that again do you remember making a conscious decision revisiting that document of the year
01:53:29 revisiting that document of the year before to leave it out of the pack no can you explain why you left it out of the pack i wasn't pulled putting the pack together but i don't have any recollection could you just show me the my first email the
01:53:43 show me the my first email the yes one where i sent it to myself yes it's page one very top fifth of march 2016. so the chronology is that saturday evans writes to you on the third
01:53:52 the third march can i just see a bit below that uh of course
01:53:58 just ask if you ask for the could i see a bit sorry where claire says peter yes bottom of page one over the top of page two i think we
01:54:09 two i think we i think that's where we want to go and then the third paragraph is where the minutes start on page two this is the email from david collins is that what you want to look at no no i was trying to i've got no
01:54:22 no no i was trying to i've got no recollection of this i'm afraid i mean take your time and look at it if it helps i don't think it's going to remind me
01:54:28 remind me okay all right
01:54:33 so do you agree though that the net effect of leaving out this document from the package was to emit residents concerns about the refusal to meet with residents between march 2015
01:54:45 meet with residents between march 2015 and july 2015. i don't know whether that was included in the pack or not i have no idea now let's go then different document met double met triple zero four five seven
01:54:58 double met triple zero four five seven six two please this is the matrix of complaints or issues
01:55:09 issues uh the first of two this one's dated august
01:55:13 august 2015 there was a later one in may 2016 into which councillor blakeman had had input this document was also not provided to the tma board
01:55:26 provided to the tma board do you know why that was no did you know that the tmo board had concluded that there were only seven complaints about the refurbishment but but that's but this document
01:55:39 but that's but this document do you agree would suggest that there were rather more
01:55:44 um well not necessarily um so i think there was i think the seven formal complaints were complaints
01:55:55 complaints under the definition of the policy were issues that need that weren't resolved whereas this was a dialogue between myself
01:56:06 this was a dialogue between myself and the mate and the the compact regarding issues that they'd raised and so
01:56:13 so this i would hope that some of these some of these things were agreed so it wasn't a complaint it was something that was agreed and some stuff that we'd already done so this was part of a dialogue between myself and
01:56:25 myself and the residents of the compact yes was it not important for the tmo board when conducting their review to have seen this document i think it would have been useful yes
01:56:36 i think it would have been useful yes it would be useful it would have been essential now i think it would have helped right
01:56:47 tmo double zero eight three zero seven five nine
01:56:50 five nine please
01:56:54 this is uh the minute of a review meeting on the 12th of march 2016.
01:57:06 uh now uh do you remember attending this you're not listed there um no i i i
01:57:16 i attended because we did a tour of the building
01:57:21 building and so i was there to do a tour of the building before but i didn't sit in the panel itself
01:57:34 i see so you were there to tell them about the tour to conduct the tour yes i see so forgive me um you said to conduct the tour tell me how the day went there was
01:57:45 tour tell me how the day went there was a review meeting it looks as if it was held in the boardroom but did you leave the boardroom and go to the tower yes how long did you spend at the tower a couple of hours i'd authority did you speak to anybody
01:57:56 speak to anybody anybody at the tower i can't remember to be honest did you speak to any residents i don't remember was there any system set up whereby you could meet the residents and get their views face to face
01:58:06 face during this review tour i don't remember what the format of the meeting was at all
01:58:11 all okay did you have or had you had any discussion with sasha jevons about which event if any residents the tmo board should meet
01:58:24 board should meet no i don't remember do you know why the board didn't meet with grenfell compact or any member of grenfell compact when conducting the review i don't
01:58:37 let's see if we can look look at your look at another document and prompt your recollection of this can we please look at judith blakeman's police statement met three zeroes four five seven five
01:58:48 met three zeroes four five seven five one please i'll show you the first page and then go to page nine
01:58:56 that's the first page of her statement dated 28th of june 2019. can we go to page nine in that please and look down at the second paragraph uh she says there uh
01:59:10 uh she says there uh in the second line i understand that this review was carried out on a saturday
01:59:15 saturday starting with a desktop review of some of the associated paperwork after the desktop review the subcommittee visited granville tower although i believe that they did not speak to any of the residents who had complained about the works to their flats
01:59:26 their flats further i believe they only looked at the new flats that had been created on the new lower floors and not the original flats including those of which complaints had been made they did look at the other new additions to the tower the nursery and the boxing
01:59:37 to the tower the nursery and the boxing club
01:59:38 club the report also said that only seven complaints had been made during the refurbishment is it right that the review group didn't in fact speak to any residents as part
01:59:49 in fact speak to any residents as part of its investigation i don't remember i have got recollection of going into residence homes with with other parties and i just can't remember whether we did it's part of this or not
02:00:05 right you can't recall
02:00:10 do you was there a decision
02:00:13 beforehand about which flats you should and which flats you shouldn't or wouldn't or weren't going to visit i'd i thought whatever the itinerary would have had to have been set in
02:00:24 would have had to have been set in advance and agreed exactly would you remember that i wouldn't have been organizing it so i i was literally just there to right help with the orientation around the building
02:00:35 the building her recollection as i've read to you is that the group only looked at the new flats on the lower floors and not the original ones in respect to which complaints have been made as i say i wasn't do you say she's wrong
02:00:46 as i say i wasn't do you say she's wrong about it
02:00:46 about it my question is do you say she's wrong about that i don't know council blackman wasn't there so so now it's right that isn't it that residents had no other input into the
02:00:57 residents had no other input into the tmo board internal review before it was submitted to the board as i say i wasn't involved in it i don't know
02:01:08 know right but from what you could see and did know about which as you've told us seems to have been quite limited from that perspective is it right that residents had no
02:01:20 residents had no other input into the tmo board internal review
02:01:23 review i can only say i don't know right
02:01:30 now can i ask you a slightly slightly different topic
02:01:37 tm0085292 please
02:01:49 uh this is a brief self-contained topic about this meeting this is a meeting of the tmo uh joint et smt meeting on the 14th of
02:02:00 joint et smt meeting on the 14th of april 2016 at which you're present you can see your name in the list on page one there and if we go to page six please there's an agenda item item number seven
02:02:11 which is aob and it says there are b elections coming up janet and foley to do feedback on the resident capacity training
02:02:20 training fay restarting and cush not said brendan knott
02:02:24 knott deborah notwell tony retiring peter chapman retiring maria has showed us the problem of not getting good quality candidates is eddie to whanau member what if he put himself forward do you
02:02:36 what if he put himself forward do you know of any good person please put their names forward [Applause] do you remember what the the problem was concerning identifying good quality
02:02:47 concerning identifying good quality candidates i don't what would be a good quality candidate you know i'm sure there was a specification for for
02:02:56 for the role um but that was something that um the executive team and the company secretary will be involved in can you explain why it was that the question was asked is daddy eddie dufan
02:03:07 question was asked is daddy eddie dufan a member what if he put himself forward i don't was there a plan to prevent him from becoming a candidate for the tmo board
02:03:14 board i've got no idea is there a risk or a view that he might no idea
02:03:27 can we just look very briefly at the next document tm00852958 please
02:03:34 i should before you leave that you'll note it's a draft i'll show you the final version or further draft um here's the next document also a draft if we go to page four
02:03:48 we can see under aob that the reference to eddie define has been removed well it isn't there can you explain why that that is so no
02:04:05 we then turn to a different topic please which is the complaints process itself can i take you to tm00831399
02:04:22 this is the
02:04:25 complaints policy which we looked at i think
02:04:29 think last week
02:04:32 and the policy itself starts on page two and if you look at paragraph 1.1 i showed you that last
02:04:44 paragraph 1.1 i showed you that last week
02:04:46 week if we then scroll down to page five you can see that there is the complaints procedure itself and you identify the three stages or
02:04:57 and you identify the three stages or you don't but this document does identify the three stages to the complaints procedure stage one stage two stage three and then after that and then on page
02:05:09 and then after that and then on page eight there's a diagram completes procedure diagram with the three steps in it and then at page nine you've got the complaints guidance
02:05:22 nine you've got the complaints guidance for staff
02:05:25 were you familiar with the complaints guidance for staff as a document no you weren't did you ever look at it i don't recall did you recall ever looking at it
02:05:36 looking at it no i'd have spoken i'd have been briefed by the complaints team about right the policy in the approach but i don't necessarily have read this right looking at paragraph 1.1 it says
02:05:47 right looking at paragraph 1.1 it says we expect all managers to be familiar with the complaints policy and associated procedures and as appropriate ensure that their staff understand the procedure and their role in applying it effectively and in line with the organization's values
02:05:58 line with the organization's values and behaviors you may not have been familiar with the text but were you familiar with the principle yes encapsulated in paragraph 1.1 you were
02:06:12 how would you describe well how do you describe your role in responding to residents complaints um my role was about ensuring that
02:06:23 um my role was about ensuring that complaints were resolved as quickly and effectively as possible to and so i had an overview of the complaints that came into my team right and i had a role in it it would
02:06:34 right and i had a role in it it would vary depending on various circumstances but um i would have a role of generally um overview overview and ensuring that complaints
02:06:46 overview and ensuring that complaints were dealt with uh promptly and efficiently let me just understand that evidence a bit more closely you say your role was about ensuring the complaints were resolved
02:06:56 resolved so you had an overview of the complaints that came into your team that's the assets and regeneration team yes did you have a wider role in overseeing the complete the operation
02:07:08 in overseeing the complete the operation of the complaints procedures and policies generally no that was
02:07:13 that was so the there was an independent complaint team yes so the team of three people as i remember who who managed the process and they reported into the director of
02:07:25 and they reported into the director of property and sorry the director of people um
02:07:32 director of people sorry yeah so yvonne birch check out exactly here did yvonne burch or her team ever
02:07:43 did yvonne burch or her team ever challenge you on you or your team's decisions about complaints yes they would have scrutiny an overview of all of the process and would would comment right um
02:07:56 and would would comment right um sometimes some complaints would go across departments so there needs to be a bit of coordination at times as well so when a formal complaint was raised about your group your department
02:08:08 about your group your department were you the one responsible ultimately for responding to that complaint or was that investigated independently um
02:08:17 um sorry could you ask questions yes when a formal complaint was raised about your group or your department were you the one ultimately responsible for responding to the complaint or was it investigated
02:08:28 investigated independently it depends on the nature of the complaint to some extent but generally if a complaint came in about a piece of work that was being carried out the head of service responsible for that
02:08:40 the head of service responsible for that area would generally deal with that complaint
02:08:43 complaint and um i would have an overview from in i wouldn't necessarily see all complaints but i would have an overview of how many complaints there were and how quickly
02:08:54 complaints there were and how quickly they were responded to and if they were escalated to the process i would generally deal with stage two complaints um
02:09:05 stage two complaints um but sometimes there's a bit of fluidity around that right so is it right that the head of service would
02:09:11 would respond to complaints about the service for which they were responsible yes i see
02:09:23 so on what occasions would there ever be independent investigation of the complaint well it was independent scrutiny throughout through the complaints team so they would they would review
02:09:34 would they would review all complaints so there was there was always some some scrutiny but but to get the mata resolved as quickly as possible the head of service would be the person who would enable that whatever issue was
02:09:47 who would enable that whatever issue was being
02:09:47 being raised to be addressed as effectively and as quickly as exactly as possible now looking at paragraph 2-1 on this page under roles and responsibilities we can see the role of the complaints team their
02:10:00 the role of the complaints team their responsibilities and the paragraph 2.2 managers responsibilities and that includes uh if you look at it investigating complaints uh if we turn
02:10:11 investigating complaints uh if we turn to page
02:10:12 to page 10 third bullet point down now the top of your screen investigating complaints and identifying appropriate actions to remedy any service failure
02:10:23 how are you expected to investigate any complaint
02:10:29 complaint um it depends on the nature of the complaint really but normally it would be about gathering information and understanding what the issue is and
02:10:40 understanding what the issue is and coming to a resolution as to how it best could be resolved did that include meeting with the complainant in order to find out more details about the subject matter sometimes or commonly
02:10:52 subject matter sometimes or commonly speaking to the complainant looking at paragraph 3.1 resolving complaints kctml expects that when we have got something wrong that we acknowledge this and we
02:11:02 and we and promptly rectify the problem and notify the complainant accordingly we understand that sometimes staff may view a complaint as a personal criticism this is not usually the intention from the complainant's perspective
02:11:14 the complainant's perspective they usually just want something done about what it is that they are complaining about as such it's important that staff do not respond negatively and defensively but instead look at the opportunity that might arise from a complaint
02:11:25 might arise from a complaint to improve the services we provide
02:11:31 did you understand even if you weren't familiar with the text here that principle yes and i agree you agree and if we get out of page 11 we could
02:11:42 and if we get out of page 11 we could see paragraph 4.1
02:11:47 under the heading recording and monitoring the complaint anyone who receives what they think is a complaint is responsible for promptly forwarding this to the complaints team via phone or email
02:11:57 email to complaints at kctmo.org.uk on receipt of the complaint the complaints team will usually identify whether it is a complaint or a service request contact the complainant within two working days to
02:12:08 complainant within two working days to acknowledge receipt ensure they understand the complaint and let the complainers know what will happen next
02:12:15 did you send all possible complaints or by which i mean all can all come all complaints that potentially qualified as complaints
02:12:26 potentially qualified as complaints to the complaints team as a matter of practice
02:12:30 yes they would normally come via the complaints too did the complaints team provide
02:12:34 provide guidance on whether the matter was in fact a complaint properly so-called or a service request properly so called yes broadly now against that general
02:12:45 yes broadly now against that general background let's look at tm0083
02:12:53 i just want to look at a particular complaint from gtla this one is 9th of november 2013. and we start on page five of this email run please
02:13:04 run please which uh has that date on it and it's an email on the second half of that page from the grenfell tower leaseholders association
02:13:15 leaseholders association dated 9th november to robert black and copied to a list of people you can see in blue there on the screen
02:13:25 and you say or as you said to mr black if you turn the page dear mr robert black
02:13:39 and then underneath that
02:13:42 it says uh we write to you in reference to the email dated 14th october 2013. instead of mr peter madison due to the fact that he has joined the kctma early this year and our issues and concerns we submitted
02:13:53 and our issues and concerns we submitted to the t complaint procedure stage two almost decade-old complaints we expect either you to deal with it and we are also very much exhausted to deal with mr daniel wood
02:14:04 deal with mr daniel wood and janice pretorius of home ownership department and a lack of commitment and arrogance to deal with our serious issues and concerns now there's then a long list of
02:14:16 now there's then a long list of of topics which go on over the next few pages including i should just pick up at page seven refurbishment of grenfell tower as one of the topics towards the bottom of your screen
02:14:32 and just picking this point up while we're on it in the in the seventh line down they he said they say it's logical to consult the residents and the stakeholders of
02:14:43 the residents and the stakeholders of lwe on design but also not so much about the color of the clouding and the window that must be left over to the designer if tma want the cult project to complement gtrp there has been more consultation on
02:14:56 gtrp there has been more consultation on the design of gtrp than the calc project when in fact the kctm have messed up the planning application seven times and then there's various other matters discussed in relation to the refurbishment
02:15:07 relation to the refurbishment that's just an as an example of what's being raised here and then if we go back to page um well footed page four over to the top of
02:15:18 well footed page four over to the top of page five where the email starts and splits you can see that at the bottom of page four
02:15:29 you send this email to robert black or rather you write to robert black and over the top of page five you say robert we have agreed
02:15:40 five you say robert we have agreed with rbkc that we will direct mr aduero who misspelt his name through our complaints procedure we have been through stages one and two and this should be treated as a stage
02:15:52 and this should be treated as a stage three complaint
02:15:55 my question is having shown you all of that who decided that the complaint would be directed through the complaints procedure
02:16:10 um i don't know you say it here that we have been through stages one and two
02:16:21 and is that correct i don't recall this um i'm not sure specifically related to this i mean
02:16:37 i must have formed that view for some reason and we must have responded right and we the the way that the leaseholder
02:16:48 the the way that the leaseholder association communicated as you can see it was to copy a broad range of people in and i think that sounds to me as if there's been a conversation here about
02:16:59 there's been a conversation here about you know
02:17:00 you know obviously this is it's been copied into more than one organization as well so there's also been a conversation about which is the most appropriate route to deal with the issues being raised
02:17:11 to deal with the issues being raised if we go to page two in this email chain uh after some discussions with joanna burke about it being a three-stage process if we go to page two we can see that here is an email from
02:17:23 we can see that here is an email from you to uh janet seward uh and joanne burke and daniel wood of the 14th of november 2013 and it says janet attached to the stage one and two responses to mr awaderu i also attached the various
02:17:34 i also attached the various correspondence which we've received from him
02:17:38 him it looks from that as if in fact this complaint or set of complaints had actually been through stages one and two and you were on top of that that right it looks like it's that that looks it
02:17:51 it looks like it's that that looks it looks like there's been a stage one in stage two
02:17:53 stage two response i don't know who did those responses right uh so you don't remember doing them yourself
02:18:01 yourself um dealing with them without seeing the specifics um
02:18:06 do you know what investigations have been carried out into the heads of complaint raised by the gtla
02:18:15 the gtla it would be all detailed in the correspondence with the gtla
02:18:22 do you know what the difference was between the stage one and stage two processes so far as these complaints were concerned well i understood what stage one and stage two processes were yes no no it's
02:18:35 stage two processes were yes no no it's not my question i don't remember the specifics of these only if i could see you right if i could see the correspondence i might be able to help but i can't remember them
02:18:48 my question is really whether you you can remember anything and help me beyond the correspondence that you can't i'd have to see the correspondence i mean this is nearly ten years ago and um there was a
02:18:59 nearly ten years ago and um there was a lot of correspondence
02:19:03 can we go to tmo double zero eight three one two eight five please
02:19:19 and if we go to page four in that email run
02:19:32 you can see that this is an email
02:19:37 which says uh and this is within the chain we're looking at uh joanne is from jan burke to you of the 11th of november dear peter our stage 3 process involves
02:19:48 dear peter our stage 3 process involves a review by a panel of people who have no
02:19:51 no previous involvement with the complaint this would normally be the ceo or director resident board member and a council appointed or independent board member
02:19:58 member the review should be completed within 28 days however due to the complexity of this case and possible housing ombudsman involvement it is my view that we seek an independent review our policy states we can offer this at
02:20:09 our policy states we can offer this at any stage of the process what are your thoughts
02:20:12 thoughts and your response to this is just above that if we scroll up please higher up page four joe and i don't think this that this case is particularly complicated there are actually very few tangible issues raised
02:20:23 actually very few tangible issues raised in the correspondence i think it would be very helpful to have a stage three panel that comprising a kc mo director a rep from rbkc amanda johnson question mark and an independent board member
02:20:36 and an independent board member why were you as it appears from this reluctant
02:20:40 reluctant to have an independent review at this stage
02:20:43 stage as opposed to a stage 3 panel
02:20:49 i don't remember
02:20:53 i mean some of gtla's concerns were long standing
02:20:57 standing and related to a number of different areas relating to tma's management of the
02:21:01 the of grenfell tower do you accept that it could have been helpful to have had an independent view an independent voice on the management issues raised by the gtla at that stage
02:21:12 that stage um and the the bit of the i mean i don't remember the specifics of the
02:21:19 the correspondence the bit you showed me was specifically regarding the design of the building and that was something that actually i felt
02:21:30 that was something that actually i felt that
02:21:32 that the gtla were concerned of lack of progress
02:21:35 progress and felt that the consultation that we were carrying out as part of the design of the building was i think in their words was time wasting rather than um we should be getting on and doing the
02:21:47 um we should be getting on and doing the work which was really the thrust of their concerns well i showed you the bit about the refurbishment that it wasn't only about progress but input into design but let's let's go back to it let's go back to the list at page six
02:22:02 let's go back to the list at page six um and i'll take you just through the headings we've got the email of 6th of august 2013. we've got under item two the relationship between lancaster west estate management board and tmo going back to the 2009 report
02:22:16 going back to the 2009 report do you remember the 2009 mamoli report well no i wasn't there until now i know do you remember no you remember it finding out about it when you arrived no
02:22:27 when you arrived no are you familiar with the 2009 report at all no
02:22:32 so when you got this document you didn't ask
02:22:35 ask anybody the question well what is the 2009 report well i wouldn't have been dealing with that part of this comp this correspondence so the issue about the relationship between
02:22:47 issue about the relationship between various
02:22:48 various parts of the organization would have been dealt with either through the um through the resident engagement team or through um through the company
02:23:00 or through um through the company secretary in terms of the governance arrangements that i would have no direct so in a way some of these complaints or some of these uh communications from the gtla
02:23:09 the gtla were quite broad some of the issues were quite old
02:23:12 quite old yes um and so and you said you know i think that was an issue as well so it was referring to some issues that had
02:23:20 that had occurred maybe 10 years ago which either had
02:23:23 had either been addressed previously through the complaints procedure or were timed out in accordance with the
02:23:34 the policy well let's just since you asked let's keep going with the list bottom of page six heating and hot water system item four is refurbishment of grenfell tower we looked at item 5
02:23:47 tower we looked at item 5 was the 30th of april 2010 fire which broke out at grenfell tower in which
02:23:56 there was a problem uh six is cleaning eight was the power surges this doesn't seem to be a seven although it's a i think it's a state garden management uh
02:24:08 garden management uh eight was uh power surge in may 2013 and you'll remember that and a lot about that so these issues are numerous widespread and historic my question again do you accept sitting
02:24:20 my question again do you accept sitting here today that it would have been helpful to have had an independent view on the management issues raised in this email um i didn't have i didn't have a view i felt that
02:24:30 felt that an independent view was was going to be gained through the route that i proposed i hadn't
02:24:35 i hadn't and it was for the um the complaints team to
02:24:40 team to recommend what would be an appropriate route to best resolve these issues going back to page two is your email to janet seward 14th november i showed you this a minute ago let's look at the third paragraph in
02:24:51 let's look at the third paragraph in this which i didn't show you but i will now
02:24:54 now you you say when you've had a chance to review this would you like us sorry would you like to let us know how you would like to take this forward for instance would you like daniel and i to draft responses to the relevant parts
02:25:06 to draft responses to the relevant parts of mr awaderi's latest email what were the relevant parts of mr awadari's email so daniel is daniel wood who's the head of home ownership
02:25:16 ownership so a significant number of the issues that were being raised by mr awaderu were related to service charges and the service that he was being charged for through his service charge so some of these issues
02:25:29 service charge so some of these issues were going to be dealt with through my team so for example the the grenfell refurbishment project and the power surges they were issues that my team had dealt with
02:25:40 dealt with all of the others were dealt with were primarily raised were relating to the service
02:25:48 service for which daniel wood as head of homeownership was responsible for so really what i was trying to do was to ask the um the person who had the overview of the complaints procedure to give some directions to how they
02:26:00 to give some directions to how they wanted to coordinate those bets because it wasn't one person or one service that was responsible here janet seeward was in the complaints team
02:26:11 janet seeward was in the complaints team she was the senior manager so the complaints team the head of complaints john burke reported to janet seawood now you're offering to draft responses to the relevant parts did you expect to
02:26:23 to the relevant parts did you expect to provide draft responses even before the stage 3 panel had convened
02:26:32 um
02:26:37 i don't know there was responses to mr aldero or
02:26:41 aldero or or reports on the relevant bits i mean i'm
02:26:45 i'm that's what i'm asking janet is how does she want to coordinate this because this was quite a multi-faceted and complex
02:26:55 piece of correspondence when you're not offering to set out your view in relation to a stage three independent panel investigation you're offering to draft
02:27:06 investigation you're offering to draft responses to the relevant parts of mr arudera's latest email my question again did you intend to provide the draft responses to mr aoderu's complaints even before
02:27:18 to mr aoderu's complaints even before the stage three panel had convened no so what are you offering then when you say
02:27:23 you say would you like daniel and i to draft responses to the relevant parts of mr awaderi's
02:27:28 awaderi's latest email i think drafting responses doesn't mean replying to the to the actual complaint it means pulling together brief impacts and information that the
02:27:36 that the panel could consider i assume well it doesn't read that way does it sometimes emails are written in very short notice that on the hoof and i think right
02:27:49 on the hoof and i think right um
02:27:53 can we take it that you would have expected the stage 3 panel to agree with what you put in your response to the complaint
02:28:03 was the fact that you wanted to or offering to draft responses to mr awaderi's email or at least the relevant parts of it the reason why or a reason why you preferred
02:28:14 why you preferred not to hold an independent review the holding the independent review wasn't my call
02:28:18 call it was the view that was the call of the complaints team you weren't supporting it though were you it had been suggested but you didn't you didn't embrace it if they decided
02:28:30 you didn't embrace it if they decided that that was the most appropriate way of dealing with it then i would have embraced that then if we continue up this email chain please
02:28:39 please to the foot of page one we can't see a reply from janet seward to you
02:28:48 but if we go to the foot of page one and over to page two we can see a further email from you on the 27th of november 2013 to janet stewart
02:29:00 of november 2013 to janet stewart uh copied to among other people to session sasha jevons janet following our catch-up last week i'm resending mr alderi's original correspondence relating to his stage three complaint
02:29:12 three complaint as we discussed it would be sensible to have amanda johnson involved in the panel
02:29:19 panel we also agreed that you would prepare a report detailing the outcome of your review of the case and giving a summary of the key issues that the panel may want to consider when making their decision has a date been set for the review
02:29:30 has a date been set for the review hearing can we have sight of the report that you will send to accompany the pack i think that yvonne and or sasha should have a chance to review this before it's issued how do you discuss
02:29:41 before it's issued how do you discuss with janet seward your intention to provide a response to the panel
02:29:52 um i don't where does it say that i was doing that
02:30:02 sorry
02:30:07 but looking at the second center the second paragraph we also agreed that you would prepare you would prepare a report detailing the outcome of your review of the case and giving a summary of the key issues that the panel may want to consider when making their decision
02:30:19 making their decision so that's janet c would not me that's producing that report yes had you discussed with janet seward your intention and certainly as encompassed in your implied by your
02:30:31 encompassed in your implied by your question there that the panel should have a response
02:30:37 no so what was the subject of this agreement then a briefing i mean i'm assuming that
02:30:45 what was agreed is that janet would prepare a report detailing do you think the outcome of the review of the case so we should produce a written report with the evidence that could be reviewed by the state three panel i assume right and you asked for a site
02:30:57 i assume right and you asked for a site of the report why did you want to see that just to ensure it was correct and we had everything in there that was relevant i see
02:31:04 see and why did you expect yvonne and sasha to have a chance to review it um for the same reason to make sure that it was
02:31:16 to make sure that it was complete right what would sasha jevens know
02:31:20 know about the report that she could add to or subtract from or comment on i don't know i can't remember who had dealt with the stage one in the stage two
02:31:30 two issues here um without seeing the detail of that i can't really remember right well maybe we'll come back to that question later
02:31:41 question later did you want to control the information that was put before the stage three panel
02:31:45 panel um only to the extent that it was important that all the correct information was there
02:31:51 when you say the correct information do you mean factually correct or correct from the point of view of what it was that you wanted them to see actually correct let's see
02:32:02 them to see actually correct let's see so you is this right that you you just wanted to make sure that any statements of fact that were in that report were complete and accurate that they had all of the information on
02:32:13 that they had all of the information on which they could base a judgement so they were reviewing the information that had been provided right at all events do you accept that you had or at least looking to have input
02:32:24 or at least looking to have input into all three stages of the complaints process for this complaint well i haven't seen stage one or stage two so i can't really comment on what involvement i had at either of those stages and stage three
02:32:36 those stages and stage three all i'm trying to ensure is that the panel get all of the information so that's not having input it's making sure that they have the information on which they can consider their decision well i'm not sure i follow
02:32:47 decision well i'm not sure i follow um if you had had not had input into stage one and stage two how would you be able to know whether the report uh detailing the outcome of the review so far was accurate
02:33:01 sorry i don't follow the question but let me let me just your question was that do i accept that i was
02:33:08 i was involved at stage one two and three i haven't seen who's written what at stage one and stage two
02:33:15 stage two mr madison because i haven't spent the time going through all of that with you because otherwise we'd be here till thursday next week i'm sorry i can't answer this i think i can okay and i'm trying to short-circuit it
02:33:25 it you can help me do you accept that had you not been involved in stage one or stage two
02:33:30 stage two you wouldn't have needed to and in fact would not have been able to provide any input
02:33:33 input into the report thus far to make sure that it was complete and accurate
02:33:39 i'm sorry i i don't really i don't really follow there what all i was trying to do here is to ensure that we had the right information so that people could make the correct review and make sure that we
02:33:52 the correct review and make sure that we got the right decision for to that complaint and that reached that reason that right decision is either it's upheld and we agree a set of action or it's not upheld and we agree why
02:34:04 upheld and we agree why and it's about giving clarity in this process so as part of that yes i would see my role as ensuring that i get as much of the information so that that independent panel can review
02:34:16 that independent panel can review that process well if you hadn't been involved in the stage one or stage two process
02:34:21 process what input would you be able to give in into ensuring that the report about the the uh complaint review so far was complete and accurate
02:34:34 i'm assuming that i was involved because i had some knowledge of some of the information that was going on at this this stage and it's clear that some of the issues certainly related to the power surges i'd had um
02:34:46 the power surges i'd had um extensive involvement with in both in terms of
02:34:50 terms of engaging with residents but also in terms of communicating to the council and to the property scrutiny committee and our board so i was just making sure that all of that relevant information was available so that the panel could
02:35:02 was available so that the panel could consider
02:35:04 consider whether the appropriate decision had been made
02:35:16 it is certainly the case from the records that you were involved in the stage two complaint and we can look at that if you need to do you not recall that independently i don't let's just quickly look then tmo
02:35:27 i don't let's just quickly look then tmo double zero eight four six six four three
02:35:39 this is your
02:35:43 letter let me make that good if you turn to page two your name is at the bottom you're sincerely peter madison if we go to page one we can see that
02:35:54 if we go to page one we can see that this is the letter of the 14th of october 2013 to mr awadaru vice chairman of gtla our dairy stage 2 complaint
02:36:03 complaint thank you for your email dated 29th september i'm considering your complaint to be considered at stage two of the kctma complaints procedure and then you set out your response to it so
02:36:14 so without going into the details uh you can see that you are involved in stage two
02:36:19 two yes yep yes and then if we look at the penultimate paragraph on that page um you say uh you have not specified issues that you feel have not been properly addressed in the stage one
02:36:30 properly addressed in the stage one response i've reviewed the stage one response
02:36:33 response and given the evidence provided today i would confirm that i agree with joanne burke's decision not to uphold your complaint
02:36:39 complaint it looks as if from this um joanne burke had dealt with the complaint at stage one you had dealt with it at stage two
02:36:47 stage two and were now having looking to have input into stage three having input is overstating my involvement is making sure that the panel had the information to allow them to make the decision do you accept that you were involved
02:36:59 you accept that you were involved in reviewing stage one at stage two and involved in some respects in as we've seen from this email chain in stage three i would have naturally i
02:37:10 in stage three i would have naturally i would have reviewed the stage one response at stage two that is part of the process make sure and so i've responded to stage two and it was communicating with the
02:37:22 two and it was communicating with the complaints team to ensure that they had that the panel had the correct information to allow them to review that decision now let's turn to a different topic i
02:37:34 now let's turn to a different topic i want to ask you about a complaint now by uh mr tufan about fire safety in 2014 can we start by looking please uh
02:37:45 can we start by looking please uh at uh tmo one triple zero seven three five three
02:37:56 uh this is an uh a series of emails about
02:38:01 about uh complaints made about access to the building
02:38:05 building in uh 2014 if we scroll down to the start of where i want to show you at page seven in this email run
02:38:19 you can see here that there is an email from mr defaun sorry an email from mr dewis ben deus of london fire brigade to janice ray of the 8th of july 2014 um
02:38:30 to janice ray of the 8th of july 2014 um which he sends to her in which he says dear janice i received this email below from an edward defan who you may be aware of
02:38:38 aware of who lives at grenfell tower and then within the email is set mr defan's email to ben dewis of the lfb and if we go up the chain well let's look at the topic i should
02:38:50 well let's look at the topic i should show you the topic he says dear ben please be advised that residents of grenfell tower are very concerned about fire safety after the recent closure of a land and rights of way to the west and north of grenfell tower we're also very concerned that we have
02:39:02 we're also very concerned that we have no idea where to assemble should there be a fire
02:39:04 be a fire in granville tower as there is no open space in the vicinity that is available to our community please can you help ensure that the fire brigade will monitor the current changes on lancaster west estate that impact on our fire safety and could
02:39:16 that impact on our fire safety and could you also inform us where we should assemble in the event of a fire thank you for assistance and now if we look up the chain please uh we can see that there is an exchange of emails between ben dewis
02:39:28 of emails between ben dewis and janice ray uh particularly foot of page five over to page six just to give you the context in the string of emails and then running up scrolling up
02:39:39 up scrolling up to page four further emails between janice ray and ben dewis and then if we eventually we arrive at an email
02:39:51 eventually we arrive at an email on page four from january first of september copy declare williams on the same subject of fire safety
02:40:00 and then if we go to page
02:40:04 two we can see that janice ray writes to claire williams and you on the 4th of september 2014. peter and claire as discussed i asked ben dewis lfb inspection officer if he
02:40:16 ben dewis lfb inspection officer if he would provide us with a copy of his response to mr dufan or at least a summary of his response please see me email and his response below do you need me to go back to him and your response
02:40:30 to go back to him and your response is on page one i'm sorry about the long run up to that but i wanted to make sure you had the full context and you say this uh to janice ray and claire williams uh
02:40:42 uh to janice ray and claire williams uh as we discussed briefly i think mr defon's blog is scaremongering and could be quite frightening to residents i think we need to send out a very clear message to residents in a letter or newsletter about the current safety of the block
02:40:54 about the current safety of the block and how we will maintain this over the duration of the works it would be good to be able to put out a clear statement with the support of the fire brigade however before we do so i think we need to do a further belt and braces check on fire safety compliance in the block
02:41:06 on fire safety compliance in the block and stitch the fire brigade into this can you please lead on this and bring in members of anr as necessary
02:41:15 were you a regular reader of the grenfell action group blog um no i was aware of i was aware of it um generally when i first joined the tmo
02:41:27 um generally when i first joined the tmo mr o'connor would send emails with his latest blog attached but that stopped after about a few months success mr o'connor left the country do you remember a policy decision being made by
02:41:38 remember a policy decision being made by the tma to block staff access to the blog i was aware of that
02:41:43 that and um but councillor blakeman would sometimes forward me an email saying this is mr defan's latest blog and ask for comment and um i would
02:41:55 and ask for comment and um i would you know so i did ask the i head of i.t to remove the block because i thought it was unhelpful because if there was an issue being raised and it's we i did correspond with
02:42:06 and it's we i did correspond with mr defan and explain that we weren't monitoring the blog and um and i know robert black wrote to uh to mr define as well to explain that we didn't
02:42:17 we didn't monitor and respond to um to blogs and round robin emails i think the
02:42:23 the um it was it was quite uh the blog itself wasn't an engagement process there was no way of contacting the person who was writing the blog and in fact the blog was anonymous
02:42:34 blog was anonymous it's just we we we assumed it was mr defaunt but it wasn't there wasn't any means of contacting him and mr dufan was contacting um the tmo on a regular basis if he had
02:42:47 um the tmo on a regular basis if he had specific issues to raise do you remember when access to the blog was blocked by the tma no i don't uh we can see here that your view was that mr
02:42:58 can see here that your view was that mr defan's blog was scaremongering why did you think that um it was raised in issues of fire safety that i'd understood were in in hand so it was um the blog
02:43:09 were in in hand so it was um the blog itself that you showed me well you haven't shown me the blog you've made the reference in the email to ben dewis it was about access across the the green space around the block
02:43:22 the green space around the block and having recently read the blog it was about
02:43:27 about changes in access arrangements within the building which we had had checked by the fire brigade amongst others to ensure that it was safe and appropriate so my concern was
02:43:39 safe and appropriate so my concern was by raising a concern saying that it wasn't safe it could be quite frightening message to residents and i felt that we needed to get a clear message out to residents about what we were actively doing to
02:43:50 about what we were actively doing to make sure that the the block the block was safe
02:43:53 was safe but before we doing that i suggested to janice that we should do some further belt and braces checks just to make sure everything is in order are you saying your last answer you
02:44:05 are you saying your last answer you checked access arrangements with the fire brigade to ensure it was safe and appropriate are you saying that you investigated the fire safety concerns raised by mr tufan in his email to mr duis
02:44:21 um i didn't deal with this as part of a complaint
02:44:24 complaint if this wasn't dealt with as part of a complaint i it was flagged up as a i assume somebody has given me a heads up that there was this blog and i've asked my team to check
02:44:36 blog and i've asked my team to check whether there's any issues being raised here that we need to be aware of and look at how we get communication out to
02:44:44 to all residents in the block to reassure them of what action we've taken and what what should happen well did you investigate any of the fire safety concerns raised by default in his email to ben duos i don't
02:44:56 default in his email to ben duos i don't um i wasn't partied to that correspondence well you were you see the banduras i've just shown you
02:45:05 oh you got you got ripped into it looped into it
02:45:09 into it okay so so i'm all right i i don't i don't um i'll ask my question again having seen these emails as of the fourth or after the fourth of september
02:45:20 fourth or after the fourth of september 2014 did you uh or or anybody under your direction investigate any of the fire safety concerns raised by mr dufan yes so so my correspondence here was for
02:45:32 yes so so my correspondence here was for janus
02:45:32 janus to carry out further investigations her response to this i understand was will do
02:45:37 do and they were um
02:45:46 there was a there was a irregular liaison between janice and claire and the fire brigade in relation to um issues across the borough but specifically with grenfell so but there was also
02:45:57 so but there was also correspondence with there was a regular engagement with the fire brigade who would attend site on a regular basis to meet with ryden's to discuss issues that are emerging throughout the
02:46:08 that are emerging throughout the refurbishment works so i so i knew there was a good liaison between the fire brigade and um and the team on site and i was asking
02:46:18 asking janice and claire to come to check that everything was in order before sending out a message to residents regarding how they should act in the event of a fire just say that we're clear when you say
02:46:29 just say that we're clear when you say in the last but one paragraph we need to do a further belt and braces check on fire safety compliance in the block and stitch the fiber grade into this were you
02:46:38 were you saying that janice ray should investigate mr defan's concerns and ensure that his concerns were met
02:46:53 and ensure that his concerns were met yes did that happen janet responded to me that she would do and i
02:46:59 and i and that was there was a dialogue going on from this where by which we did send out further fire safety information to residents in a future newsletter i think remember
02:47:10 in a future newsletter i think remember there was i'm just going to show you those my question did that happen was there in fact a further belt and braces check on fire safety compliance in the block
02:47:21 on fire safety compliance in the block with the fire brigade stitched into it my understa i don't know whether the fire brigade was switched into it but but actually the fire brigade were engaged with uh janice and claire on a bi-monthly basis and
02:47:33 and claire on a bi-monthly basis and also
02:47:35 also there were regular independent visits of the fire brigade to meet with ryden's on site
02:47:40 site to consider any issues that were arising over the evolution of the work did you yourself follow up to make sure that the belt and braces check that you had asked for
02:47:50 for was carried out fully to your satisfaction i don't recall specifically how how i did that but there was a regular liaison between myself
02:47:58 myself and and the project team janus and the contractor yes there was but my question once more do you remember
02:48:07 remember actually following up and satisfying yourself
02:48:11 yourself that the belt and braces check that you had asked for was in fact carried out i didn't double check right why is that i think that well i didn't specifically double check in terms of an action but
02:48:22 in terms of an action but obviously i had an ongoing dialogue with those teams and from that i would have got comfort that those issues have been reviewed
02:48:32 we've identified two grenfell tower regeneration newsletters you refer to newsletters which refer to fire safety advice the first one is july 2014 which predates this exchange
02:48:45 2014 which predates this exchange and predates your request for a belt and braces
02:48:48 braces check the second one is dated may 2016 uh which is i'll just show it to you jrp 6028
02:49:06 there's the date uh in the fire safety advice
02:49:10 advice is is on page four
02:49:16 which is about the stay put policy it's not about
02:49:19 not about fire brigade access do you know why a letter or newsletter or indeed any information about the safety fire safety of the block
02:49:30 block was not sent to residents after the email exchange we've seen in july to september 2014. i don't know whether any separate information was sent through the janus
02:49:42 information was sent through the janus after that meeting have you seen any um i haven't seen anybody but i don't know what other correspondence has gone in relation to to that
02:49:54 to that uh now i'm going to turn to a different topic which i i'm unlikely to finish before the break but i'm going to start it mr chairman if i can
02:50:01 i can and that's the 2015 complaint about the aov
02:50:04 aov system i'm going to ask you to start please by looking at your first statement page 15
02:50:15 and it's paragraph 82
02:50:19 and you set out in that paragraph at some length your understanding of the aov system for the refurbishment
02:50:30 for the refurbishment and at the end of it you say this in the last sentence all i can say is that it was a system that was designed and checked by max fordham to be compliant with current regulations
02:50:41 be compliant with current regulations and it was still under warranty with ryden at the time of the fire to what extent were you involved with the other contractors working on the smoke control system so which other contractors uh
02:50:54 so which other contractors uh well for example psb no no have you heard of psb no no right were you aware that it was psb who designed the system as installed rather
02:51:05 designed the system as installed rather than max fordham did you not know that no right were you kept updated about the progress of replacement of the aov
02:51:15 in broad terms as part of the overall program yes right let's go to tm01 triple zero eight four one six please
02:51:26 just uh just on the subject of the design of it max fordham were actually retained
02:51:30 retained by the tmo to give advice on the technical aspects of the the installation of the aov under the the design and build contract with ryden's so
02:51:41 ryden's so max fordham had a role in ensuring that the aov complied
02:51:48 yes um can we please go to this email which is 5th of january 2015 from you to amanda johnson at rbkc and i'll just explain it relates to a complaint raised by the grenfell
02:52:00 to a complaint raised by the grenfell tower leaseholders association through tunde avodaro who was still the vice chair at that time regarding among other things the progress of the work on the smoke extraction system so that's the
02:52:13 extraction system so that's the that's the topic and if we look at the foot of the email thread at page four
02:52:21 uh we can see uh i'm so sorry again it starts at the top at the bottom of page three uh from the grenfell tower leaseholders association
02:52:35 to um councillor dent code and judith blakeman friday 2nd of january 2015 with a long list of copy ease on it
02:52:46 with a long list of copy ease on it including
02:52:49 you i think and if you go to page 4 you can see that there's a subject line
02:52:59 uh improvement work on existing smoke extraction and ventilation system which links to the fire alarm under the grenfell regeneration project
02:53:09 and if we um pick it up on page four four paragraphs up from the bottom so about halfway down uh it says ryden has been on site can you see that yes thank you
02:53:20 yes thank you ryden has been on site since june 2014 and so far there is no tangible evidence whatsoever ryden and kctmo intend to carry out replacement of the smoke vent and extraction and ventilation system
02:53:31 extraction and ventilation system which links to the fire alarm we need confirmation that ryden will carry out the work as part of the regeneration project as promised by the kctmo and then they copy the next paragraph the fire risk assessment
02:53:43 paragraph the fire risk assessment of the 20th of november 2012. now um we know that you saw this because if you go up to page one
02:54:01 uh you you um are at the top of the email stream and say in the second paragraph mr aberdeer's correspondence has addressed the counselor den code and councillor blakeman
02:54:13 blakeman uh it's been forwarded to you for help in responding i suggest we treat this as a members inquiry at this stage so that's the members inquiry root as opposed to the complaints procedure root
02:54:24 opposed to the complaints procedure root yes yes yes now
02:54:29 you then go on to say i intend to draft a brief response to councillor blakeman explaining the following and then there's a long list of matters underneath that going over onto page two just in general
02:54:42 going over onto page two just in general is it right that your email response here at the top of this thread was effectively discussing how the tmo should respond to this inquiry
02:54:55 i think mr adware's email was sent to a very wide audience and i was trying to establish which route what was the appropriate route
02:55:06 route what was the appropriate route to respond yeah and
02:55:11 would the tmo's response to this email have been any different if it had been treated as a complaint and sent through the complaints procedure as opposed to being treated as a members
02:55:23 as opposed to being treated as a members inquiry i don't think so no
02:55:28 right
02:55:35 say the fact that a complaint would be responding directly to mr howard area whereas a mems inquiry should be responding directly to the councillor yes i see
02:55:46 councillor yes i see did you tell the gtla that their complaint would be considered as a member's inquiry and treated through that route as opposed to the complaints procedure route i don't remember what was ultimately written
02:55:56 written now let's go and back up to page one uh and go down to page two we've scrolled down through page one
02:56:08 we've scrolled down through page one where you set you're setting out some of the intended response and on page two picking it up at the top of the screen
02:56:16 you say the scope of work to grenfell includes the upgrade stroke renewal of smoke
02:56:21 smoke and fire safety and ventilation system the system is currently beyond economic repair we are working with building control to agree a design for the system that will meet current standards
02:56:32 standards we've been in close contact with the fire brigade to make them aware of the current situation so that they can take this into account in their approach to any fire safety issues our contractors ryden have also been in liaison with the fire brigade
02:56:43 liaison with the fire brigade to agree safe working methods in the interim while the system is being worked on
02:56:47 on we've posted notices throughout the building and explained in newsletters that a staple policy is in place in the event of a fire now just going up to the second paragraph there where you say the system
02:56:59 paragraph there where you say the system is currently beyond economic repair what did you mean by that
02:57:05 that i think it couldn't be relied on to work at any particular time it was it could be you know so yeah it needed replacement yes and was it working at all
02:57:18 yes and was it working at all um at this particular time i don't recall but there were certainly times when
02:57:23 when um it it was working but at no point in the time that i was there was it reliably working it needed to be replaced
02:57:32 replaced when you said it was beyond economic repair did you mean to indicate that it was technically capable of repair but the cost of doing save was prohibited no i meant it really wasn't working really well it needed to be replaced as
02:57:44 really well it needed to be replaced as what
02:57:44 what i was trying to communicate right uh when you said that what was your information based on what was your
02:57:55 information based on what was your statement there based on um i've had various reports from um from the contracts management team within my team we've been trying to maintain it through
02:58:06 we've been trying to maintain it through the existing term contracts i'd had feedback from the contractors who were working with for ryden's in this and also i they've been various communications
02:58:19 i they've been various communications that i'd understood between janus ray and claire and the fire brigade in relation to to this matter do you know for how long these aov system had been beyond
02:58:32 these aov system had been beyond economic repair i don't precisely now did you did you investigate no well my my assumption at this time was that the
02:58:43 my assumption at this time was that the system wasn't working and the priority was to get the new system in place
02:58:50 in place did you at this time or around this time did you see the draft existing fire safety strategy which had been done by over in respect to grenfell tower in
02:59:01 over in respect to grenfell tower in august 2012. no did you know of its existence no
02:59:11 that was before my time to your knowledge had anyone that the tmo actually told the lfb precisely what the state of the aov system was in the way that you've just described it to us the way i described it as the way
02:59:24 to us the way i described it as the way i'd understood it is that there had been clear communication with the lfb about this current condition the fire brigade had visited site on a regular basis as part of familiarization visits
02:59:37 familiarization visits but also as part of the liaison with writings over the duration of the works so i'd be really surprised if it
02:59:45 if it wasn't clear throughout all that correspond like communication that they were clear that there was a significant problem with that and had also had feedback through
02:59:56 and had also had feedback through um i can't remember exactly who who was from now who explained that they were aware of the situation and would would take breathing apparatus if if there
03:00:09 take breathing apparatus if if there were an issue that was my understanding is that they had a way of working around the issue what was the basis of your understanding that the lfb were fully aware of the
03:00:21 that the lfb were fully aware of the precise
03:00:23 precise condition of the aov as i've just described there's a there's been there's been extensive communication with the fire brigade and on various levels within various teams and
03:00:33 teams and including the health and safety team and the project manager for the right for the project but also independently with ryden's and the lfb um so
03:00:45 the lfb um so my understanding was that there had been clear communications i'm asking you for the source of your understanding was it a person or a letter did somebody say to you the lfo have been told it's not working
03:00:57 it's in it's it's it's it's stated in a number of meetings minutes that i've seen that the lfb are aware that's that was clearly my understanding at
03:01:08 that was clearly my understanding at that time
03:01:09 that time right and mr chairman it's it's a couple of minutes past one i apologize for going over a little bit but we are still on this topic and this email chain but this is probably the moment for the lunch break right
03:01:21 the moment for the lunch break right thank you very much mr millet whether we are mr madison we'll break now to have some lunch and we'll resume at two o'clock please thank you and no talking to anyone about your evidence
03:01:40 good thank you two o'clock please
03:02:07 you