Claire Williams, project manager for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, gives evidence about destroyed notebooks, value engineering decisions, and oversight failures.
00:00:10 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing in a moment we're going to continue hearing evidence from
00:00:17 from claire williams of the tenor management organization but before we do that there's something mr millett needs to deal with yes just a minute good morning mr chairman yes there is i'm afraid
00:00:28 chairman yes there is i'm afraid at 40 p.m on friday afternoon last week the inquiry received a letter from kennedy's the solicitors for the tmo that they had
00:00:39 the solicitors for the tmo that they had been
00:00:40 been informed by peter madison that morning and i quote having watched the evidence of his former colleagues at the inquiry and in particular the questions asked of
00:00:51 and in particular the questions asked of them
00:00:51 them as to whether minutes or notes of the meeting with ryden on the 18th of march 2014 had been made he decided to check his notebooks
00:01:02 he decided to check his notebooks to see whether he had made notes of that particular meeting this was the first time that kennedy's were made aware that peter madison had hard copy notebooks
00:01:13 hard copy notebooks in his possession at his house close quotes at our immediate request kennedy scanned the contents of the notebooks to us
00:01:24 notebooks to us and did so over the weekend and they delivered the hard copies to us here at the inquiry this morning at about
00:01:32 about 8 a.m mr chairman madam mr fan here they are you can see from this pile that there
00:01:43 you can see from this pile that there are in fact eight day books and five diaries spanning the years from the 23rd of january 2013
00:01:54 from the 23rd of january 2013 to the 10th of may 2017 they run to some 300 pages or so of often dense manuscript notes they cover
00:02:04 cover all of mr madison's work while he was at the tmo
00:02:08 the tmo during that period and they are not only about grenfell tower but they certainly include material about grenfell tower now thanks to the strenuous efforts of my team over the weekend
00:02:19 my team over the weekend and in particular andrew kinnear qc adam gad and emma hines of junior council and victoria o'brien and erica berkey of inquiry solicitors they have been read they plainly contain
00:02:32 they have been read they plainly contain material of the utmost relevance subject to a speedy redaction process that will start immediately they will be disclosed to core participants as soon as possible
00:02:43 as possible i am hoping during the day today now two things follow from that both of which are obvious first both kennedys and mr madison are
00:02:54 first both kennedys and mr madison are going to have to give clear and convincing explanations of why these documents were not disclosed to the inquiry and nor so far as we can tell to the metropolitan police
00:03:06 metropolitan police until now i will wish to examine mr madison on that subject at the start of his
00:03:11 his scheduled evidence on tuesday morning i reserve my position on the examination of the supervising partner or partners at kennedy's the present
00:03:22 or partners at kennedy's the present partner is continuing to investigate the position and is yet to respond meaningfully the second thing that follows is the substance
00:03:32 substance of mr madison's evidence and we would suggest that should not proceed immediately after being sworn in tomorrow as scheduled core participants should be
00:03:44 scheduled core participants should be given a fair opportunity to read and digest the contents of the notebooks and the diaries and suggest further questions to be asked of him by me it is unwise on the other hand to let
00:03:57 it is unwise on the other hand to let matters drift beyond a day or two or at least what is absolutely necessary for the core participants to have a fair opportunity to do what i've suggested and i'm going to suggest that we would
00:04:08 and i'm going to suggest that we would rise on tuesday after mr madison is sworn and examined on the disclosure question
00:04:14 question and then resume on wednesday possibly at 2pm on that day and hear his evidence through wednesday thursday and into monday of next week the 26th of october
00:04:25 october that would give core participants some 48 hours
00:04:28 48 hours we hope with the notes before he starts giving his evidence perhaps a little bit less than that but as much time as they can fairly be given by us
00:04:37 by us and we will of course be amenable to questions on those diaries right through the time he's giving evidence over the weekend friday saturday sunday including
00:04:47 including monday morning itself we want to bend over backwards to make sure that they really do get to the bottom of this critical material as well as us it is also right to say that he's coming back at module three in any event
00:04:59 back at module three in any event in march i think to give evidence and we can sweep up any remaining module one questions that do remain outstanding with him then as indeed we may with other tmo witnesses who are also returning where
00:05:10 witnesses who are also returning where further questions suggest themselves from this material if there's significant objection to that course from core participants then we will obviously reconsider well i would invite you to
00:05:21 reconsider well i would invite you to reconsider but what i'm proposing presents the best opportunity to get to his evidence while the tmo evidence of other witnesses
00:05:30 witnesses are is still fresh in your minds and in their minds and in the core participants minds
00:05:34 minds and not to lose very much by way of timetable hearing time that leads me mr chairman to a second
00:05:42 second and unrelated problem we were told yesterday morning by paul hyatt the inquiries architectural expert that a member of his household tested positive for covid19 last week
00:05:54 positive for covid19 last week and that as a result he now has to self-isolate until thursday the 29th of october we are therefore currently investigating whether we can adjust the timetable
00:06:05 whether we can adjust the timetable so as to hear the evidence of beryl menses the expert on building control on tuesday the 27th of october and the evidence from dr lane on
00:06:16 and the evidence from dr lane on wednesday
00:06:17 wednesday and thursday the 28th and 29th of october respectively and then take mr hyatt on monday and tuesday the 2nd and 3rd of november and put openings for module 2
00:06:29 november and put openings for module 2 off uh until wednesday the 4th and thursday the 5th of november if we can reschedule in that way we will lose no time at all we will continue to pursue this closely
00:06:41 we will continue to pursue this closely and keep core participants fully informed as we do so it's obviously of the first importance that any amendments to the timetable and any concomitant effect on the timetabling of the witnesses is kept to a minimum
00:06:54 witnesses is kept to a minimum finally let me add one final thing and i just want to mention it yesterday morning at 11 41 we received an email from kennedy's which had attached to it a two-page word
00:07:07 which had attached to it a two-page word document
00:07:08 document for disclosure which was plainly relevant to claire williams's evidence on the issue of residents involvement in the tender scoring and that is an issue that we covered on
00:07:19 and that is an issue that we covered on thursday
00:07:20 thursday we are at present mystified as to how this document was missed by the tmo in its disclosure and where it came from we've asked kennedy's but so far the answers have been with great respect to them unsatisfactory we will have to find out
00:07:32 unsatisfactory we will have to find out from miss williams but i will need to make sure that that document gets disclosed as soon as possible again as an absolute priority mr chairman that is what i wanted to say that will obviously cause some degree of dismay among those
00:07:44 some degree of dismay among those watching this process but i don't think it's necessary to hold
00:07:49 to hold up miss williams's evidence we can continue with that certainly for today and if there are further questions that arise from the single two-page document that i've
00:07:57 that i've referred to then they can be taken perhaps later today or tomorrow morning if need be yes well thank you very much mr millet uh it is very unsatisfactory that what appears to be
00:08:08 appears to be quite a substantial stack of notebooks should have yes been disclosed to us only very much at the last minute yes and it's essential that uh not only our own inquiry team but
00:08:21 uh not only our own inquiry team but also
00:08:22 also core participants should have an adequate opportunity to examine them and see to what extent they may be thought to be relevant and helpful so we are going to
00:08:33 relevant and helpful so we are going to have to make adjustments to the timetable for that purpose and there it is um as far as mr hyatt's concerned it's unfortunate of course that he's now had to go into isolation that will
00:08:45 had to go into isolation that will itself
00:08:46 itself inevitably mean some changes to the timetable
00:08:49 timetable yes uh from what you've said this morning i think that the proposals you've made sounds sensible
00:08:57 sensible but obviously we'll uh want to take note of anything that any of the core participants want to say about it yes and we'll to just take it from there but i agree there's no reason why we should hold up uh
00:09:09 should hold up uh uh taking the rest of miss williams evidence and uh it would be a good thing to get on and do that now yes well mr chairman i'm grateful thank you all right we'll get on with that and see how things evolve during
00:09:20 that and see how things evolve during the course of the day thank you good thank you very much yes would you ask mrs williams to come back in please
00:09:33 i'll give you in a second
00:09:43 good morning miss williams good morning good morning all right are you ready to carry on
00:09:48 carry on yes good thank you very much yes mr millet miss williams good morning before i start can i ask you please to confirm
00:09:56 confirm uh that your witness statements represent a full and truthful and correct statement of your evidence from which nothing material has been left out
00:10:04 left out i would hope so but if i missed anything out it was by error right not by design do you know what these are
00:10:17 diaries yes uh they are the diaries of and notebooks or day books of peter madison
00:10:24 madison we have a lot of them and they span the period from january 2013 to may 2017. have you ever seen these or anything like them before um i would have everybody if it was a
00:10:35 um i would have everybody if it was a work situation everybody would have a notebook of some sort would they and um did you ever see mr madison uh writing things in his notebook or in his diary while you were working with him
00:10:46 diary while you were working with him yes would you see him writing or recording things in books that looked like this or like this
00:10:53 this um the bigger one probably yes right do you know where he kept them in his desk i don't know i'm speculating but
00:11:03 but we all had a notebook that we would use so i don't know where he gets can you confirm for us that you have handed over all your notebooks diaries and records that you kept
00:11:14 that you kept like the ones i'm holding in my hand from peter madison to the to your solicitors to kennedy's yes i left the tmo in may 18 and
00:11:25 in may 18 and i binge all of them but the last one and kennedy's have possession of the last one which covered probably 1718. right okay thank you
00:11:38 right okay thank you hand those back to junior council
00:11:44 so can i just are you going to follow that up well i might um yes well i'm going to ask a question though please do just remind me again you left the tmo in
00:11:56 just remind me again you left the tmo in may 18 may 18 so it's nearly a year after the fire yes and at that time did you still have the various notebooks that you'd kept during the period since you joined
00:12:09 during the period since you joined um i probably would have because i joined in 13 i probably would have thrown the earlier one or two but i may have heard two or three that were there yes right
00:12:22 two or three that were there yes right and then you said you binned them is that right um i i i didn't keep them well what did you do with them i i think if the police didn't take them i bind them
00:12:33 i bind them you've been them even though you knew by that time that there was going to be a or was already on on foot a public inquiry um i believe i looked at them and they were notes everything that was
00:12:45 and they were notes everything that was in there i would have thought is actually documented elsewhere for example notes of site meeting minutes we would have site meeting formal site meeting minutes
00:12:56 meeting minutes i find it difficult to understand why you should have thought that first of all the notes you'd kept might not add something of value to the formal records and secondly why you should think it
00:13:07 why you should think it right to take it upon yourself to decide that question yeah no as i'm sitting here now i agree with you
00:13:14 with you but the police may have taken them but i i know there was none left in the office when i left with respect you if you actually took steps to destroy them
00:13:24 them which is what i assume you mean by bidding them yeah you would know that you'd done that wouldn't you yes i cleared my desk yes so do you remember destroying any of your notes
00:13:36 your notes i i don't i think i just tied it out the desk
00:13:41 desk i would have looked at them and thought there is nothing here that isn't informal
00:13:46 informal evidence and so i got rid of them but i i did keep the last one i had which is the one that i've given to kennedy's and by that time because we're now looking at may
00:13:57 now looking at may 2018 had no one asked you to retain any documents in your possession that might have any bearing on what you've been doing during the previous
00:14:09 during the previous five years i don't think so but i say that the police also took away most of my desk at the time but i don't know whether
00:14:20 at the time but i don't know whether they were in a drawer they weren't hidden i don't lock my drawers but nobody asked for them apart from say i i did keep the last one because that was the one that i thought was mostly yeah
00:14:31 yeah what i was really getting as far as you can recall no one asked you in general terms to ensure that no documents were destroyed
00:14:44 documents were destroyed i yeah that's right all right yes thank you
00:14:49 you do you remember whether you destroyed those notebooks before or after the police uh emptied your desk as you put it um
00:14:59 put it um i don't remember i i wasn't there when the police came to take all the paperwork away but all i know is when i left i just left with the one notebook
00:15:11 left with the one notebook are you quite sure that at the time you destroyed those notebooks just to follow up on the chairman's question you had had no advice from anybody that you had to retain all
00:15:22 from anybody that you had to retain all of your records relating to the grenfell tower project i i don't remember that at all and i say there would have been several options where it may have come up but i do not remember that do you remember
00:15:34 do not remember that do you remember whether you told kennedy's who had responsibility for the tma's disclosure that there were just there were notebooks which you had destroyed um i think it only came up
00:15:47 um i think it only came up when i said well i i have a book that may help
00:15:50 may help that that was probably the only point that it came out when was that please oh i don't remember possibly last year
00:16:02 can you explain why there's nothing in any of your witness statements about your record-keeping and in particular your decision to destroy records relating to the project that you
00:16:13 records relating to the project that you had in your possession um that there was nothing underhand about it i was clearing my desk i looked and decided that everything that was in there was
00:16:24 that was in there was the way it was noted it was then formally represented in minutes or in other paperwork and it was of
00:16:32 of little value so i appreciate that perhaps indication should have been given to
00:16:40 given to preserve everything but it was for me i just left the job and i cleared my desk at the time you made your decision to destroy these documents did you know that a public inquiry and a police
00:16:51 that a public inquiry and a police investigation or a police investigation were on foot i would have known that yes and that say i i don't know if the police would have had
00:17:00 had options to open the drawers so they could have taken what was there at the time i don't know why they weren't perhaps retrieved at that point did you ever inform the metropolitan police that you had destroyed documents which were relevant
00:17:11 destroyed documents which were relevant to their investigation no i didn't why is that because it's not occurred to me today it's the first time that
00:17:19 that i've ever really had a conversation about this i'm assuming that and i don't want to get into the evidence or communications but i'm assuming that uh you didn't tell anybody else either um i possibly would have said to kennedy's i
00:17:30 possibly would have said to kennedy's i only have one book which i have at home and they said bring it in why is it well i don't want to know about legal advice yes that remains privileged until the tmo
00:17:39 the tmo choose and they may to wave it about the communications between you and them on this subject so when i asked you at the very beginning of your evidence whether your
00:17:51 beginning of your evidence whether your witness statements were a full and candid account that that's not the case is it in respect to the destroyed notebooks um i've said that they weren't destroyed i didn't rip pages out of them you know so they covered other projects
00:18:03 you know so they covered other projects so i i
00:18:05 so i i cleared my desk so it wasn't uh conscious i'm hiding anything decision it was
00:18:12 it was i am clearing my desk well they were destroyed you binned them i put them in the bin
00:18:16 the bin yes so when i asked you at the beginning of your evidence whether your witness statements were a full and candid account that is not the case
00:18:24 case in respect of the binned records notebooks is it yeah no it didn't occur to me
00:18:30 to me it's not been an issue that's been raised
00:18:38 right well let's go back to the substance of the evidence can we uh go to the question of ryden's price
00:18:45 price against other bids please and i want to go please first to art402197 at page 12.
00:19:00 now this is a table within artelia's finder final tender report dated the 12th
00:19:05 12th of march 2014 ms williams which i think you're familiar with and this sets out uh the prices returned by the bidders as at that date and at the top of the page
00:19:16 at that date and at the top of the page we can see the column headers do you see descriptions artelia's pre-tender estimate ryden durkin mullally and then the average you see yes and then if we scroll to the bottom
00:19:27 yes and then if we scroll to the bottom row we can see the adjusted tender sums artelia's pre-tender estimate is just over 10 million pounds and then ryden comes in at 9.249 odd million
00:19:36 million with durkheim at 9.94 odd million and malali at 10.48 odd million pounds with the average at 9.8
00:19:46 9.8 so you could see from that at a glance that uh ryden's figure was um some seven odd hundred thousand
00:19:57 um some seven odd hundred thousand pounds or
00:19:58 pounds or lower than the next uh lowest bid der cans yes yes and about 600 000 pounds lower than the average
00:20:10 average did you think at the time that ryden's price was really quite a lot lower than the other
00:20:14 the other bidders
00:20:17 i would have expected artelia who had interrogated the figures to comment if there were any omissions or if there's any areas that were underpriced
00:20:29 underpriced if they didn't comment because they had obviously a clear overview of what the figures contained i would expected them to say to something i i wasn't familiar enough with the figures to comment
00:20:40 with the figures to comment right were you concerned that just looking at that page ryden's price was unrealistically low again i wouldn't know what they put in against each element so
00:20:51 against each element so it it wasn't part of my understanding whether it was high or low did it not strike you as significantly lower than artelia's pretender estimate durkheim's and
00:21:03 pretender estimate durkheim's and mullally's uh indicated tender bids
00:21:07 if you look at it at face value yes but as i say i didn't have the detailed understanding of where the costs were to know whether it was realistic or not well forgive me but all that information appears on the on
00:21:18 all that information appears on the on the page immediately above adjusted tender thumb that's the buildup what was what was missing that enabled you that disabled you from making a detailed understood having a detailed understanding or making an analysis
00:21:31 understanding or making an analysis for example i would look at external facade where you can see there is clearly
00:21:38 a million difference between the artelio view but if you look across the board there's about
00:21:47 400 000 difference between the high and the low
00:21:50 the low so there are lots of figures like that that would need interrogation and i i'm looking at it at face value right
00:21:57 right did you ever think that ryden's price uh might mean that ryden would not deliver quality or would cut corners no but it was a low ball figure just designed to win the deal possibly i did occur to you when you get
00:22:12 possibly i did occur to you when you get figures of a range like that they aren't that far apart but i would say that contractors who put in
00:22:20 in their prices are gearing it to what the market can bear and what their workload is
00:22:26 is but i think you accept there's a possibility that you it occurred to you that it was a label figure designed just to win the deal in the contract
00:22:33 contract no it was a figure they'd considered i i and artelier had checked it and therefore i had to take a face value based on their report well your first answer miss williams that was to my
00:22:44 answer miss williams that was to my question it was a label figure just to design the win the deal was possibly is that wrong or is that right um
00:22:53 possibly it could have been done to win the deal yes possibly they could have read all the paperwork let's turn to a different topic decision about cladding uh when you started at the tmo in september 2013 the prospect of using
00:23:06 september 2013 the prospect of using aluminium composite material or acm for cladding i think it already been
00:23:11 been raised do you remember that i think that the previous incumbents in post had looked at it yes
00:23:22 incumbents in post had looked at it yes is it fair to say that you don't know who suggested acm before your time yeah no as you say it was minuted before my time and is it fair also to say that you
00:23:33 and is it fair also to say that you therefore don't know what investigation was done before your time in relation to acm as an alternative to zinc true is it also right to say that at least by march 2014
00:23:46 least by march 2014 when the tender was one the only cladding material being considered was acm uh no at the tender time we'd asked for
00:23:58 uh no at the tender time we'd asked for alternative proposals so i i and we obviously hadn't had planning approval at that point so there was no um
00:24:09 so there was no um firm decision made it was still options uh let me put the question a bit more specifically do you agree that after the 18th of march once ryden had been notified that they were the winning
00:24:21 been notified that they were the winning bidder
00:24:22 bidder the only cladding being considered was acm
00:24:25 acm there was no further consideration of a zinc cladding with a metal honeycomb core i believe we went i went to meet the planners in the may
00:24:36 planners in the may so from the march i think acm was being put forward the architect was still
00:24:44 was still i'm quite keen on the zinc finish but it hadn't been finalized because we hadn't had the planner's view they may have had reasons for
00:24:55 they may have had reasons for um rebutting that option so i believe it was still
00:24:58 was still an option rather than a decision yes i'd like you to draw the distinction in your mind between zinc as the material and he's an aluminium material with a zinc finish it's right isn't it that the only
00:25:12 finish it's right isn't it that the only option put to the planners was an aluminium
00:25:15 aluminium composite material and there were questions about what kind of finish it should have is it yeah yes yes yeah yes can we then look at your february 2019 statement tm00840364
00:25:31 february 2019 statement tm00840364 please at page 15. i want to look at paragraph 81 with you please
00:25:37 and i'd like to look at the very last sentence four lines up from the bottom of the page and you say
00:25:45 there and my understanding was that there was no difference between the types of clouding in terms of specification etc and the only difference was in relation to appearance to suit the rbkc
00:25:57 to appearance to suit the rbkc preferences i had no input to these decisions now was your understanding as you stated it there
00:26:06 it there reached on the basis of any discussion that you had had with anybody on the project
00:26:10 project [Music]
00:26:13 [Music] the clouding discussions seem to be continuous in terms of the finish
00:26:24 in terms of the finish um the fixing [Music]
00:26:30 [Music] so i
00:26:33 so i i would say that that there was a lot of discussion about what what the look should be and how how it would be
00:26:44 how how it would be um what what the preference was of the planners
00:26:48 planners sorry i've probably lost the thread of your your question a little bit well i only ask it again then was the understanding that you had that you described there namely no difference between the types
00:26:59 namely no difference between the types of cladding in terms of specification was that reached on the basis of any discussion that you'd had with anybody on the project um as we were talking about the cladding there was always talk about it being
00:27:10 there was always talk about it being classo
00:27:13 classo and nobody said that this is an inferior quality this is a better quality it was all about the color the finish whether it was smooth whether it's textured that sort of issue so there was nothing in our
00:27:26 issue so there was nothing in our conversations at all to say that one product was inferior or different better quality than another when you say there was always talk about it being
00:27:38 there was always talk about it being class o
00:27:39 class o yes that is class naught but let's not worry about that when you say there was always talk about it when did that talk start to the best of your recollection um i believe
00:27:50 believe when bruce souness the architect introduced any color palettes or any information he would generally give us either
00:28:02 he would generally give us either hard copies of trade information or otherwise refer us to online websites and again that would be the information that we
00:28:13 that would be the information that we would always refer to right can you give me a date when he when he first when he first mentioned class naught to you um
00:28:22 you um i would suggest it was before the meeting with the planners so i'd suggest it was before the may right did he give you a certificate or as you would call it trade information
00:28:35 as you would call it trade information which showed that it was a class naught for our classification i believe he would have had it at a meeting i don't think he gave it to a copy to everybody i believe he had it
00:28:48 a copy to everybody i believe he had it available in his hand but as i don't remember taking away a copy
00:28:55 copy right you say there was always talk about class naught or class o was there ever talk about other kinds of performance characteristics such as ingress of water or wind loading or was
00:29:07 ingress of water or wind loading or was it any ever class naught in my recollection it was only ever class no so to say we got your evidence crystal clear miss williams are you
00:29:18 crystal clear miss williams are you saying that the discussions about performance or specification to use your words at paragraph 81 were only ever about fire
00:29:31 yes in my recollection i don't remember anything else other than classo being the
00:29:37 the specification that was presented with the samples or were there any of the options we looked at did mr sones tell you what classo meant
00:29:50 um i don't remember did you have any understanding about cl what class a meant i believe classo is about flame spread
00:30:01 believe classo is about flame spread because i dealt with it previously in paint finishes to communal areas so i assumed it was about flame spread i see
00:30:11 see just to dig a little further there and say you dealt with it in relation to paint finishes to communal areas did you know or have any understanding
00:30:22 did you know or have any understanding that class naught was the required surface spread of flame classification for the exterior of a wall construction on a building above 18 meters
00:30:33 meters because it was referred to in terms of the cladding i i made that assumption did you ever see any
00:30:40 see any regulatory documents building regulations the sheldon scheduled to the regulations b4 or approved document b no did you ever have a chance to look at those
00:30:51 have a chance to look at those regulations or guidance during your role as project manager on this project no i didn't
00:30:57 didn't did you see the bba certificate from january 2008 relating to the rayner bond pe 55 acm panels
00:31:12 i don't remember it may have been given to me at the end for the health and safety file but i don't remember seeing it earlier you see you said earlier on that bruce says would give you trade um trade
00:31:25 bruce says would give you trade um trade documents
00:31:25 documents was one of them the bba certificate for rayner bond pe55 acm he had them available he didn't he offered them around the table potentially he would
00:31:36 around the table potentially he would have had them you know in a pack by himself and said this is it and you know you can look at it i i don't remember seeing that did you take the opportunity yourself to have a look at what he was saying no given that fire safety was the only
00:31:50 no given that fire safety was the only uh functional uh aspect of the specification why didn't you take the opportunity just to check for yourself why it was said that these panels were class naught
00:32:02 class naught given that you had some experience of class naught before it wasn't my role within the project to check the architect and i know that he'd been doing research
00:32:13 been doing research and he'd looked at several products and he
00:32:17 he had an understanding of what he was looking for in your statement at the bottom of paragraph 81 you say i had no input to these decisions when you say that do you mean that you didn't provide any
00:32:28 you mean that you didn't provide any input
00:32:29 input as a matter of fact or that it wasn't your role to provide input
00:32:37 it wasn't my role because ultimately the planners were going to be choosing what color finish they wanted
00:32:48 can i take you to the nbs specification then this is sea 50169 sea five zero is one six nine
00:32:59 sea five zero is one six nine now uh this is the nba specification final revision date of the 30th of january 2014 it's the same uh or pretty much the same for the present purposes
00:33:10 for the present purposes as the version sent out to tenderers at the end of november 2013. does it just from its first page does it look familiar to you i i would have seen it at the time you
00:33:23 i i would have seen it at the time you would have seen it at the time do by at the time what do you mean um a tender right so during november 2013 when it went out
00:33:34 so during november 2013 when it went out to the
00:33:35 to the tenderers it was available online yes yes
00:33:39 yes when you say you saw it did you read it i would have looked through to see what the headings were i wouldn't have looked at specific items because it
00:33:51 looked at specific items because it wouldn't have meant much to me um so i would have just looked to look at the the headings as to what was what was there what they'd specified in terms of components perhaps you know
00:34:04 in terms of components perhaps you know where they'd looked at doors walls etc i see you say it wouldn't have meant much to you so does that mean you were relying on studio e for example to explain things to you if there was
00:34:15 to explain things to you if there was anything important that needed to be brought out yes obviously i was relying on relying on our professional consultants yeah um did you discuss it specifically with studio e when it was being compiled
00:34:27 with studio e when it was being compiled in the november of 2013 i think it was being compiled before the november 13 because bear in mind it had been out to
00:34:38 a tendering process with lead bitter previously i believe that a lot of it was already in place
00:34:46 in place but what they had done when the scheme restarted
00:34:49 restarted was they revisited areas so um
00:34:55 i i would have looked at it just to see what as i say what was in it but i wouldn't have particularly discussed it with them unless there was a glaring omission that i would notice
00:35:06 would notice right let's see if i can just trace this for a little bit you joined the tma on the 9th of september 2013 and the nba specification uh went out to tenderers
00:35:17 tenderers after having had an amendment to it in the i think on the 28th or 29th of november 2013 during those two and a half months leading up to the document going out in its final form did
00:35:29 document going out in its final form did you have discussions with studio e who were compiling it about what it should contain no no so did you see the document essentially in its final form or very
00:35:41 essentially in its final form or very advanced final form i saw it online before it went to tender yes right
00:35:46 yes right and why why were you looking at it online before it went to tenders it was a ginormous document it was massive
00:35:54 massive and there were drawings as well so it wasn't something that i would print off it was just too big i'm sorry you misunderstood my question and i'm not surprised um i wasn't asking you why he looked at
00:36:06 um i wasn't asking you why he looked at it online as opposed to in paper form my question really is why were you looking at it at all at that stage um i was the new girl on the
00:36:17 system people may have been more familiar with it than me but to me it's my way of familiarizing myself with what was what the project entailed right so do i take it from that that you had no input
00:36:28 take it from that that you had no input at all
00:36:29 at all either by way of instruction or by way of advice from studio e about what it should contain or did contain i did not advise or instruct them as to
00:36:40 i did not advise or instruct them as to what it should contain and they did they give you any advice about what it did contain
00:36:46 no right did you ever look at the employer's requirements during the project
00:36:51 project yes you did was there anything that you didn't understand about those
00:36:59 there may have been the one or one or two issues that cropped up during the course of the project where i would need to refer to them
00:37:11 where i would need to refer to them but again if i didn't understand i had my professional consultants there who i would ask right now you say that the nba specification didn't mean
00:37:22 that the nba specification didn't mean much to you did it not mean much to you even after you'd read it as i say i looked for the headings to see that everything i would expect to be there was in there but i wouldn't have looked at the bs
00:37:34 but i wouldn't have looked at the bs numbers or anything of that sort because again it's um specialist area and it's not my specialist did you look at the specification for the cladding or the insulation or the cavity barriers for example no
00:37:47 or the cavity barriers for example no you didn't no was there anything when you looked at it that puzzled you that you didn't understand
00:37:54 um i i wasn't really looking to look at the detail i was as i said just looking at headings to make sure there was something in there for
00:38:02 for every area that i understood was going to be worked on so whether it be i would have looked at the m e specification for example and thought oh it's got boiler works there i wouldn't have looked any more detail
00:38:13 i wouldn't have looked any more detail than that when the tma became principal designer
00:38:16 designer in october 2017 at 15 after the change in the regulations or rather the new regulations came into force in that month did you go back and refresh your
00:38:28 back and refresh your memory about what the mbs specification contained so that you could properly perform your role as a principal designer no because at that point the project
00:38:39 no because at that point the project should have completed because it the original completion date was the september 15 the design work was all all done the role of the pd was
00:38:51 role of the pd was to look at design and ensuring you eliminate risks because at the stage we were at the design was done it was just ryden were delayed in their program
00:39:02 program so that was one of the reasons that the tmo felt capable of taking on the pd role
00:39:07 role that there wasn't any design ongoing that would have meant that we had to look at that area which wasn't again our expertise potentially so
00:39:18 again our expertise potentially so we were just at the point of putting together compiling the health and safety file
00:39:23 file which is why i think we got it minuted we're going to come back to that in course but just i think the answer to my question is no you didn't look at the dnbs specifications no at that stage the design was done
00:39:34 design was done thank you can we then look at your um 2019 statement your february 2019 statement of page 37 we were on that just a moment ago and i want to go to paragraph 33 now a little
00:39:45 want to go to paragraph 33 now a little bit earlier on in the statement
00:39:49 paragraph 33 page 7 of your february 2019 statement um says
00:39:57 um says um the construction detail was interrogated by our bkc planners and building control who liaised with the principal contractor their advisors and london fire brigade lfb to ensure all building and fire safety
00:40:09 to ensure all building and fire safety requirements would be met when you say the construction detail was interrogated by our bkc planners what do you mean by construction detail there
00:40:19 there the the detailed drawings would have been lodged with the borough as part of the building control application
00:40:31 [Music] but by construction detail what are you telling us what detail is it that you think was interrogated by our bkc planners
00:40:39 planners they would have had the plan layouts they would have had any working drawings whether it was to do with m
00:40:46 do with m e whether it's to do with the external envelope
00:40:49 envelope they would have had access to all the material that was put together by the specialist designers if there was any gaps i would expect them to ask right would you accept that in fact
00:41:01 right would you accept that in fact planners don't generally look at construction detail generally not but in this case you appreciate the planners didn't want the cladding to have face fixings so they were that was probably
00:41:15 fixings so they were that was probably the only thing that the planners were interested in was obviously the aesthetics of the building but that particular detail was something they had
00:41:22 they had expressed interest in yes and the construction detail that they were looking at didn't to your recollection at the time did it go beyond looking at aesthetic matters color and texture and
00:41:34 aesthetic matters color and texture and fixings
00:41:36 fixings i agree the planners looked more at color and texture thank you now then moving the story on into may 2014 you mentioned earlier on this morning that you were talking to the planners in may that year can we look at
00:41:50 tmo.00851142 please this is an email run in early may 2014 and if we look at the top
00:41:59 top of that page we can see that you had sent an email to david gibson on the 6th of may 2014 copying in peter madison you see that yes and it forwards an email that you'd received from ryden
00:42:12 email that you'd received from ryden and can we please have the first and the second pages of this email run up together if we can you can see at the bottom of the first page simon lawrence's email to you
00:42:24 page simon lawrence's email to you and artelia copied to studio e and ryden steve blake internally and he says um afternoon all due to a pre-booked training course commitment i have i will
00:42:35 training course commitment i have i will not be able to attend thursday's meeting with the rbc rbkc planners
00:42:41 planners uh however fortunately steve blake my director
00:42:44 director he says um has offered his services to attend on my behalf i'll bring steve up to date with all of the information that i currently have so if we look at the second page uh under agenda points
00:42:56 under agenda points which was just below the paragraph i'm showing you he he lists them and uh in the uh first bullet point uh it says proposal of material
00:43:09 uh it says proposal of material change to the facade from zinc to aluminium composite put forward our case that acm is not an inferior product to zinc [Music]
00:43:20 [Music] now was acm considered or could be considered inferior to zinc by the planners
00:43:30 i don't know i think obviously the architect had originally put in for a zinc finish and that was probably on his uh early planning drawings so i think it was a question that the
00:43:42 so i think it was a question that the planners may have asked but i don't know that i would have said nobody had a view that it was an inferior product now at this stage the planning consent i think was full
00:43:54 the planning consent i think was full zinc as a material wasn't it the planning sorry the the the current planning was for zinc itself yeah the application yes the application yeah the
00:44:05 application yes the application yeah the application drawings would have possible they would have had zinc on them exactly did it um did was there any discussion about why it would be or might be that the clouders might think that acm
00:44:17 that the clouders might think that acm was an inferior product to zinc
00:44:21 i don't know i think
00:44:25 i think zinc sounds expensive but i don't know what the bottom line is right in what sense did you understand that mr lawrence thought there was a risk that acm could be seen as
00:44:36 risk that acm could be seen as inferior his word inferior what did you understand by that um i don't know i i don't know what he was thinking
00:44:47 thinking when he put that down again i don't know whether zinc sounds more exotic an acm is a not so exotic sounding but i i don't know i don't know why that
00:44:59 know i don't know why that his evidence is the inquiry which i'll summarize at day 24 page 29 line 25 and following was to the effect that he was only focusing on
00:45:09 on uh durability and aesthetics when considering whether acm warsaw wasn't an inferior product that that was his understanding
00:45:21 product that that was his understanding that's what he told us would you agree with simon lawrence's assessment that there was a concern that the planners might be concerned about durability and aesthetics
00:45:32 durability and aesthetics yes i think the planners were experienced and they um would be aware that it was a high building where
00:45:44 high building where winds etc may um cause the the cladding to move fall off whatever but also at the lower levels
00:45:56 but also at the lower levels there'd been some already some expression that the the clouding needed to be more robust to prevent scratches or mechanical damage
00:46:07 scratches or mechanical damage aesthetics though yeah soil aesthetics yes so aesthetics so there was no other is this right there was no other factor or feature of acm as opposed to zinc that might make acm inferior
00:46:21 i can't think of anything no can we scroll up to the first page please of this email run and this is um your email
00:46:35 that we started with and it says david our session with the planners reader cladding is this thursday
00:46:44 thursday and then in the second last paragraph if you just look with me at that you say i think we will have to take a view based on our response on thursday and perhaps get laura to bring pressure to bear to see if we can get some
00:46:55 to bear to see if we can get some reassurance prior to the final approval otherwise our contract some will be hanging out until
00:47:00 until the early july potentially where you refer to laura is that laura johnson yes of rbkc yes was she in the planning department no no would laura be able laura johnson
00:47:14 no no would laura be able laura johnson be able to bring pressure your words to the rbkc planning department i don't know did you think that that might be entirely appropriate or entirely
00:47:25 entirely appropriate or entirely inappropriate
00:47:28 it would probably be something that wouldn't be in her remit but i was suggesting it because my job is to facilitate the contract to see whether we could get a contract
00:47:41 to see whether we could get a contract some
00:47:42 some in place soonest and as you say it wasn't in her remit and it was a suggestion i threw out that was probably ignored yes um but you made it and i just want to
00:47:53 um but you made it and i just want to know why you thought it was appropriate to make a suggestion that laura johnson uh would do should do something outside her remit to bring pressure to bear on the planning department at rbkc can you explain
00:48:04 can you explain um i think it was me trying to say facilitate the contract and um say suggest that it may be something that
00:48:16 it may be something that could be considered i don't know whether it was ever taken forward well by playing fast and loose with the proper boundaries of responsibility within rbkc [Music]
00:48:25 [Music] i wouldn't say playing fast and loose i would say
00:48:28 would say we we wanted to get our contracts um finalized and obviously the cladding was a large element of that yes and shortly after this meeting the planners went to visit some properties
00:48:39 planners went to visit some properties where similar cladding had been installed
00:48:41 installed i think one of those was in kilburn do you remember that i know that they were offered visits yes can we look at ryd405374 please
00:48:53 yes can we look at ryd405374 please this is an email chain in late may 2014 and it's about the visit to kilburn uh it's uh
00:49:06 uh we can start i think with the second email on page one that's the email from simon lawrence uh on the 23rd of may 2014 to bruce sayings and you miss williams
00:49:18 miss williams you see that yes and in the first paragraph
00:49:22 paragraph uh he uh talks about the cassette versus face fixed and then the second line says it's a discussion which we will nee which will need to be made initially by kctma before it is
00:49:33 initially by kctma before it is presented to planners and says that it would have a great bear or could have a great bearing on the affordability of the scheme and justification of the spent to their residence
00:49:42 residence and if we go to page two of that email run
00:49:46 run and look at the last paragraph of the email he says to you as one of the addresses of this email
00:49:53 email claire would you like the planners to go and see the kilburn example to get an early indication pre-sample mock-up of their feelings around material choice and then he says this or is showing them cassettes a risk
00:50:06 cassettes a risk by risk that's what i want to ask you about
00:50:09 about what did you understand he meant
00:50:15 um sorry can i see the first email again can i see that page let's go back to page one that's the
00:50:23 the first part of the email okay um yeah my understanding is that um we can go back to the second page so that everybody can see what
00:50:34 page so that everybody can see what you're
00:50:35 you're answering or is showing them cassettes a risk and my question again what did you understand that there was still a lot of discussion about face fixed which is where you
00:50:47 about face fixed which is where you literally
00:50:47 literally see um sort of the fixings you get circular fixings there or the cassettes where the fixing is hidden
00:50:57 hidden so he's just suggesting that i think the face fixed option was
00:51:05 more economic so i think that's what he's implying but i think the planners were actually quite
00:51:18 keen to have something that would be beautiful
00:51:21 beautiful and last a long time so i think whatever we'd shown them they would have still made their own minds up he says or is showing them cassettes a risk
00:51:30 risk what i'd like to know please is what did you understand he meant by the word risk risk of what i believe that the face fixing was more economic the cassette fixing was more expensive
00:51:42 fixing was more expensive so did he did you understand that he meant that if they were shown cassettes they might go for the more expensive option that was that the risk that you
00:51:53 that was that the risk that you understood him to mean i suspect it was the financial risk but as you appreciate that's what the planners ultimately went for they did choose the most expensive fixing
00:52:04 expensive fixing option because the aesthetics of it to them
00:52:07 them were preferable
00:52:12 yes i i just want to get with precise a precise clear answer miss williams he used the word risk is showing them cassettes a risk and i want to know what he meant to your
00:52:25 and i want to know what he meant to your understanding by the word risk did you understand him to mean that if the planners liked cassette there was a risk that they would go for them and because they were more expensive the tmo wouldn't achieve the maximum
00:52:36 tmo wouldn't achieve the maximum possible savings as i say i believe it was a financial risk
00:52:42 risk the planners did choose cassettes and therefore
00:52:46 therefore we did install that on the building well let's look at the top of the uh email chain we can see that there's a reply to you from simon lawrence a few days later on the 29th of may
00:52:58 a few days later on the 29th of may 2014.
00:53:00 2014. and i say to you you're copied in as is david gibson and bruce and if you go um down a little bit in the email you can
00:53:11 down a little bit in the email you can see
00:53:12 see that uh it says uh in the third line um it was a full stop i'm afraid i would rather respond to the sense of it but um he says that uh
00:53:26 um he says that uh i'll take it from the second sentence it's probably easier kctmos and our feeling
00:53:30 feeling is that in order to progress the planning issue around cladding material and reduce the risk of affecting the procurement schedule is to show the plan as an example of an existing building in kilburn as reference below which has been completed from natural
00:53:42 which has been completed from natural aluminium brushed acm panel albeit this building is in cassette form rather than face fix hopefully from a visit we can get their early buy-in for the finished straight material
00:53:51 material natural metallic and visually textured to be used provided this is acceptable we then only have to convince them of the face fix rather than cassette by carrying out a mock-up on the side of grenfell tower
00:54:02 grenfell tower what are your thoughts uh and my question is were you aware that ryden themselves wanted to convince the planners to choose face fix for the cladding it looks from this as if you were
00:54:14 i believe that they'd use face fix before on a scheme called the chow cots it was something they were familiar with did you yourself share ryden's desire or
00:54:25 did you yourself share ryden's desire or ambition
00:54:25 ambition to persuade the planners to adopt face fixed
00:54:29 fixed panels as opposed to cassette system panels
00:54:34 panels i wanted them to make a decision the decision was theirs to make i i wanted the decision to be made so that we could keep on with the contract procurement i had no view over the fixing or the
00:54:47 i had no view over the fixing or the color it was
00:54:50 not my area my area was to keep the contract moving are you telling us that you had no preference yourself or the tmo had no preference itself about whether cassette or face
00:55:03 itself about whether cassette or face fixed was selected by the planners i had no preference myself as to whether it was
00:55:09 it was face fixed or cassette right [Applause] well let's go to your february 2019 statement
00:55:18 statement and look at paragraph 34
00:55:26 and look uh sorry page 34 page 34 i'm sorry not paragraph 34 paragraph 191 and you say in that paragraph
00:55:38 and you say in that paragraph a flat panel aluminium composite material acm was proposed as the cladding material at higher levels and that the flat acn be face fixed my understanding was that aluminium was preferred because of the
00:55:49 aluminium was preferred because of the preferred colors available which the planners were insistent on having
00:55:55 now aluminium of course was preferred to zinc
00:55:59 zinc on the grounds of cost as part of a value engineering exercise wasn't it yes yes and in fact it's right doesn't it that you had to go through an amendment to
00:56:10 you had to go through an amendment to the planning to swap acm in and take zinc out which didn't culminate until september 2014 when you got the approval is that right i don't know when the drawings were
00:56:22 i don't know when the drawings were amended but i believe we did get the approval as you say
00:56:26 say and it's right isn't it that in fact all through that period certainly from may to september 2014 both you and ryden were as one weren't
00:56:37 both you and ryden were as one weren't you
00:56:38 you in pushing the case for face fixed
00:56:42 aluminium i think that we wanted to move the project forward so i personally had no view and the planners were always going to be the
00:56:53 planners were always going to be the ultimate
00:56:54 ultimate decider as to what they wanted they were going to be the ultimate decider as to what they wanted ms williams
00:57:01 williams but my question was isn't it right that you and ryden were as one unanimous in in seeking to persuade the
00:57:12 unanimous in in seeking to persuade the planners to adopt the face fixed as opposed to the cassette
00:57:18 i i would not say that was the case we wanted a decision made i believe that the cost plan allowed for both options i think it was
00:57:31 options i think it was that the face fix was the cheaper option but
00:57:34 but i believe our cost plan had allowed for cassette fixing at that time and you wanted face fixed as opposed to cassette because it was the cheaper option i couldn't say that no but i'm suggesting i said that
00:57:46 suggesting i said that that was the cheaper option but we just needed the project to move because we were already on site and we needed to procure
00:57:57 the packages and we needed to know what we were procuring so i would say the tmo was more program orientated even though budget is a big
00:58:08 orientated even though budget is a big consideration and it wasn't as clear-cut as you're saying well did you ever tell ryden that you were indifferent to whether it was face fixed or cassette
00:58:21 i i didn't personally i don't know whether anybody else did i suspect not we just needed a resolution did you ever tell ryden that they needn't bother trying to persuade
00:58:32 needn't bother trying to persuade the planners at kensington to adopt face fix over cassette it was a waste of time because you were indifferent you didn't mind did you tell them that no we would not have phrased anything like that that sounds
00:58:45 like that that sounds unlikely what what we did was obviously say we need a decision made ryden had used face fix before they were familiar with that they said it was an economic option
00:58:58 they said it was an economic option but the planners visited kilburn i don't know if they visited the charcots as well and and they clearly had the preference not to have the fixings visible
00:59:09 not to have the fixings visible so i i think it was a um a battle that was never going to be won and i don't think we labored it the way you've explained what did you think at the time was the
00:59:20 what did you think at the time was the point of ryden having all these meetings with planning in order to push the case for face fix if in fact in the end you didn't mind whether it was face fixed or cassette the emphasis on the meetings wasn't all
00:59:32 the emphasis on the meetings wasn't all about whether it was face fixed or cassettes it was about the the colors it was about the color was a graduated color with different different bands
00:59:46 with different different bands it was a more general meeting with the planners it wasn't purely just bashing away at one point
00:59:56 i may come back to this question later in your evidence miss williams but for the time being let's move forward um can i then ask you about the value engineering effect of
01:00:07 the value engineering effect of acm as opposed to zinc can we start with the
01:00:10 the first of april 2014 contractors induction meeting note at art402256 please
01:00:21 now you were there as we can see as the third
01:00:26 third person down on the list of attendees and i think i'm right to say that you would have received this note or this minute before the next one is that right
01:00:37 that right yes so you would have had a chance to correct it um can we go to page two item 2.1
01:00:43 2.1 and it says there under proposed savings referenced in tender submission there is a potential saving of up to 376 175 pounds that could be realized
01:00:54 175 pounds that could be realized through changes to the proposed cladding savings can be achieved by changing the material and the method of fixing changing from zinc to aluminium and using a face fixing rather than cassette would save the most money
01:01:06 would save the most money can you recall who said that i would assume it would be ryden does it represent an accurate record to the best of your recollection
01:01:18 the best of your recollection of ryden saying what's recorded there
01:01:23 uh i'll tell you took the minutes but i i would suspect that's a resume yes yeah an accurate one
01:01:32 i know it's a long time ago yeah it's a long time ago and these minutes also said draft at the top don't know so i i suspect it's a fair resume do you remember the figure or a figure being mentioned at the meeting
01:01:45 being mentioned at the meeting um there would have been a figure at this point um but i don't remember the quantum you don't okay do you think do the best you can recalling it that what figure
01:01:57 you can recalling it that what figure they
01:01:57 they mentioned let's go with 376 175 because it's in the minute do you think that that was the maximum amount of saving that ryden could find or did you think it was the maximum
01:02:08 or did you think it was the maximum amount that they were giving to you regardless of whether they could get it for cheaper um i think it was it was recorded i think is the maximum they could find it is uh recorded as potential saving of
01:02:20 it is uh recorded as potential saving of up to 376
01:02:22 up to 376 175 pounds that could be realized through changes to the proposed cladding i just want i really want to get what your impression of what they said was did you think that that was the maximum amount that was available or
01:02:33 amount that was available or only the maximum amount that they were prepared to or or willing to give you i thought it was the maximum amount that was available because there would have been economies of scale on
01:02:44 have been economies of scale on cladding and on the windows because so it was a
01:02:48 it was a substantial financial package so that seemed to be the best that they could do
01:02:54 could do right do i take it from there that you didn't know what price is harley as the putative subcontractor cladding subcontractor were off uh were offering ryden at the
01:03:05 were off uh were offering ryden at the time no i wouldn't have known were you aware at the time that ryden did not offer and were not going to offer the tmo the full amount of savings that could be made
01:03:16 that could be made no would you have expected ryden to pass on all of the savings that could be made in respect of the cladding to the tmo
01:03:23 the tmo [Music]
01:03:24 [Music] yes because they knew that we were looking to make a viable contract some so yes can we go to ryd404204 please
01:03:37 so yes can we go to ryd404204 please [Music]
01:03:42 this is an email from zac maynard to steve blake it's an internal ryden email of the 8th of may 2014. so actually at the very time that you're discussing
01:03:54 discussing uh acm with the planners and you can see uh that the saving offered for aluminium face fix was 376 175
01:04:05 175 you see that it's a familiar figure harley
01:04:09 harley 577k see that yes and ali cassette saving off at 293 368 harley 420k alternative zinc face fix saving offer 202 372 harley 280
01:04:22 face fix saving offer 202 372 harley 280 alternative zinc cassette saving thousand offered 100 six pounds hardly 157 000 pounds those are the differences my question is having shown you that document
01:04:33 having shown you that document what would you have done had you discovered that ryden were planning uh to pocket up to two hundred thousand pounds odd difference between the savings harley had offered ryden and the savings ryden was offering
01:04:44 ryden and the savings ryden was offering the tma
01:04:46 the tma i would have taken it up to my manager managers
01:04:52 right
01:04:56 would you have expected them to pocket 200 000 pounds on the difference no thank you
01:05:06 did you understand at the time that if face fixed was selected as opposed to cassette face fix acm as opposed to cassette acm ryden would pocket a larger difference
01:05:20 no i didn't understand they were pocketing any difference at the time when did you first discover well did you ever discover until i'm showing you the documents or perhaps until these
01:05:31 you the documents or perhaps until these hearings began this year that ryden had pocketed or stood to pocket two hundred thousand pounds worth of difference i understood it when the
01:05:43 difference i understood it when the hearing started when ryden gave evidence did that come as a surprise to you yes can we just move on the story a little bit further then into 2014 and look at
01:05:54 bit further then into 2014 and look at the topic of value engineering uh we start with a rt405977 please now this is an email to you sorry from
01:06:07 now this is an email to you sorry from you
01:06:07 you uh from you to tui chen lim dated the 16th of july 2014. and i should just warn you miss williams the the dating on these emails which are internal artillery emails i've
01:06:19 which are internal artillery emails i've done in the american style so you start with the month and then you have the day and but that's not consistent but so we're doing our best to work out the dates but this is an email from you to treachen lim on that date 16th july 2014
01:06:31 lim on that date 16th july 2014 and you say hi twitch and this is just an urgent nudge email i've been reminded that we need good costs for councillor fielding mellon and the planner tomorrow at 8 45 am
01:06:43 and the planner tomorrow at 8 45 am we discussed one fully cassette fix cladding columns and panels fully faced fix cladding ditto hybrid version now first of all when you say i've been
01:06:54 now first of all when you say i've been reminded who reminded you i would suspect peter madison
01:07:03 do you know why he reminded you because i would think he would be meeting councillor fielding mellon and the planner i don't i might have been there i don't remember but peter would have been
01:07:16 remember but peter would have been um an attendee right you use the word good costs was that his expression to you or your expression to twitch in limb that was my expression and i'm meaning
01:07:29 was my expression and i'm meaning accurate
01:07:30 accurate it doesn't say i'm meaning accurate cost because obviously we wouldn't want to present anything to a counsellor and then have to change our mind i see by being too high too low so the idea
01:07:41 by being too high too low so the idea was that they were accurate costs not low not not not um something we could stand by and not have to say oh we made a mistake there was 20 grand difference so accurate cost
01:07:54 20 grand difference so accurate cost that we could put on the table and not have to change i see so rel reliable yeah reliable i follow
01:08:02 follow did you think that councillor fielding mellon's decision was going to be based in any way on questions of price um i don't know what council i feel during mellon i don't know whether he was going to be making a decision i think he
01:08:14 making a decision i think he wanted to have a look why did you think at the time that councillor fielding mellon would be interested in having reliable costs particularly for the cladding
01:08:24 cladding he was um
01:08:29 local and he was head of the rbkc department that i think it's called housing and regeneration or something of that sort
01:08:40 regeneration or something of that sort so he was an interested party and he lived locally i think those are the main
01:08:46 the main reasons why he would want to be aware of the situation right i can see why living locally might give him an interest in what it looked like
01:08:52 like but could you just explain to me why him living locally might be relevant to the good costs that were needed i think that it was a case of
01:09:03 i think that it was a case of say i think peter led this having full information at his fingertips so i don't think field council field in mellon would have particularly um sort of
01:09:16 particularly um sort of interrogated the cost but i think it was important that we had them available can we go to twitch and lim's witness statement where she deals with this email this is at art405817
01:09:29 this email this is at art405817 page 34 please [Music]
01:09:36 [Music] and if we look at paragraph 114 there in the middle of the page she recites the contents of this email that we've just looked at together and then at paragraph 115 she says
01:09:47 and then at paragraph 115 she says claire williams was under pressure within the tmo on the costs now of course this is twitching lim's observation would you agree that at this time you
01:10:00 would you agree that at this time you were under pressure on costs
01:10:05 well chu chen was a qs so she would know about the costing area of the project rather than anything else
01:10:13 else it was we were trying to finalize the contract cost so for her yes this would have been on her radar that i was talking to her specifically to see if we
01:10:25 talking to her specifically to see if we can
01:10:26 can get this resolved but it wasn't specifically just on cost as i say we needed this to be resolved to move the program forward but that wasn't her area of the business yes i mean
01:10:37 yes i mean is it right that you were under pressure within the tma on costs as she says to get to get them clear yeah so that we knew what our budget was
01:10:49 budget was i see
01:10:51 i see [Music]
01:10:53 [Music] can i then turn to the topic of value engineering and just look at that briefly did the projects that you'd worked on
01:10:59 worked on before you joined the tmo have value engineering exercises associated with them every project i've ever worked on had value engineering what do you what did you understand
01:11:11 what do you what did you understand value engineering to mean at the time of the grenfell tower project and particularly in the first half of 2014 value engineering is about looking at
01:11:23 value engineering is about looking at options either of construction technique or alternative materials which may be brought about because [Music]
01:11:33 [Music] technology changes there's different ways of doing things or it could be about alternative materials that are on the market which perhaps the specification
01:11:45 perhaps the specification didn't include but it's it's i think the critical bit is it's not about reducing the function it's about looking at alternatives that
01:11:56 it's about looking at alternatives that actually meet the requirements
01:12:00 this was a design and build contract but there are many partnering contracts where that is one of the first things you do you sit down with contractor client
01:12:09 client other professionals and you look at what the specification is and if there's a better way of meeting it and say quite often technology plays its part as well as materials that people who work
01:12:20 well as materials that people who work in those trades know that there's other options so it's a useful exercise on every scheme it's standard did you understand that there was
01:12:29 there was a distinction between on the one hand value engineering aspects of design or the materials or products
01:12:37 products within the scope of a project and on the other hand reducing the scape of the project
01:12:42 project in both cases in order to come within budget
01:12:45 budget yes as i say i'm clear that value engineering isn't about reducing function
01:12:50 function and particularly as a landlord you want to put in the best quality materials you can
01:12:56 can because you then have the ongoing maintenance so value engineering is well understood it's
01:13:03 it's quite constrained right mr chairman i've come to uh the end of that topic and the start of another topic which is a substantial one which i won't finish within five minutes right so that would be a convenient point if that's convenient to you yes
01:13:16 point if that's convenient to you yes yeah all right thank you well i think miss williams will take a break slightly earlier than usual but we'll take it at this stage um we'll come back at half past eleven please
01:13:25 please and uh in the meantime please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it okay thank you thank you very much
01:13:41 i'll foster lavender please thank you
01:30:41 yes thank you would you ask miss williams to come back in please
01:30:57 right mr williams ready to carry on yes can i just mention the issue of the diaries this morning i was thinking what did you want to say about them
01:31:05 them can i just mention that obviously we were being advised by somebody prior to kennedy's
01:31:12 kennedy's when yes i think we understand that yes okay
01:31:15 okay all right thank you yes mr miller yes thank you mr chairman um miss williams i want to ask you some questions on the subject of x over uh and start with what you knew about xover at the start
01:31:26 about xover at the start now can i um go to your february 2019 statement please at page 28 and i'd like to look with you at paragraph 159
01:31:38 and you say there i do not think i was aware of the involvement of x over at that time and just pausing there this is a at the time of your
01:31:49 time of your initial involvement but i was later aware that they produced reports to studio e
01:31:54 studio e and i therefore assume that they were engaged by studio e to assist them with the tender specifications specifically in relation to fire safety strategies i'm aware that xover produced reports to studio e giving input
01:32:05 reports to studio e giving input to fire safety strategies now i think is it right that your assumption was based on the fact that x over produced reports to studio e
01:32:19 i i yes they had produced i i'm aware of one report they'd produced a studio yes did you see that those reports or that report the one report which led you
01:32:30 report the one report which led you to your assumption or conclusion
01:32:33 i did there was in the stage d report there was something dated the december december 12 i think september september 12 i don't know but say
01:32:44 say the stage d report had an x over report that was from 2012. um i hadn't met anybody from x over right and so i assumed that that was the
01:32:56 right and so i assumed that that was the um they were sub-consultants to studio when do you think you first saw the stage d
01:33:00 stage d report
01:33:04 i suspect it was about the time i arrived
01:33:09 arrived i yeah i was given a lot of paperwork and i i think it was fairly fresh about the time i arrived or it or soon after
01:33:21 so it would have been september 13. did you ever check precisely by whom xover had been engaged
01:33:32 i had little information i i took over from somebody else during the role
01:33:38 the role so there was little information in the directory
01:33:42 directory and i think i i asked but it was a little bit unclear at the time it was i was trying to tidy up my spreadsheet understand what costs we would be incurring and it
01:33:53 what costs we would be incurring and it was a little bit unclear on x over that there was nothing that jumped out saying who'd appointed them right you've referred to this spreadsheet before ms williams and i'm not sure we know what you're talking about can you
01:34:04 know what you're talking about can you just enlighten us what is the spreadsheet it's a cost
01:34:13 spreadsheet which was updated monthly for um my financial controller and it
01:34:24 financial controller and it has the
01:34:27 every cost on it that i would be aware of so it has the works cost it has all the consultants fees it has all the ad hoc costs like decanting costs
01:34:40 it has we had to pay additional planning fees so it has items like that on it and and it's the whole scheme cost whether it's just works or on costs
01:34:52 cost whether it's just works or on costs just
01:34:52 just help me explore this a bit you say it's a cost spreadsheet which which is updated monthly for my financial control first of all who was the financial controller um magda magda novak right
01:35:05 um magda magda novak right and when you say it was updated monthly did does that tell us that it was amended monthly so that you wouldn't have a record of the previous month
01:35:13 month or as it were a railing dynamic document or did you produce a new one each month it was
01:35:21 it was overwritten with the old one being saved so there is a chronological right um record of what the costs were at each point and did you have your own hard or soft copy of this document or documents or
01:35:33 copy of this document or documents or was it on a central uh platform or database it was in my own directory
01:35:40 directory but i would share it with magda every month
01:35:43 month and she would effectively we would check i would check that i would say to her these are the invoices i know that i've paid and that's what the total figure is she would look at the accounts
01:35:56 figure is she would look at the accounts that came via the central finance database to make sure that the two tallied so we effectively did a reconciliation every
01:36:05 every month but also mine would then show also potential future costs so she would be aware of what was coming up right
01:36:13 up right do you know what happened to that document
01:36:17 document after the fire
01:36:20 um it would be in my directories what happened to your directories um they are with my lawyers right you see we've
01:36:28 see we've searched for those documents that you've referred to when you referred to them last week and we've asked kennedy's for them and so far we've had no disclosure of them can you explain that
01:36:39 that oh no right well we'll see if we can pursue that going back then uh to where i think i had left off when asking you about the question of x over
01:36:53 the question of x over um you uh
01:36:56 um you uh say you took over from somebody else doing the role and you think you asked who did you ask about what x over were doing and who particularly who they'd been retained by
01:37:09 particularly who they'd been retained by the person i took over from was a temporary project manager
01:37:16 sasha calderstone he wasn't clear either um so you asked him did you you asked sasha yes right i did um and he just referred me to the
01:37:29 um and he just referred me to the directory but there was no information there so then i believe i would have spoken to david or peter and then probably studio e ultimately to find out
01:37:40 find out um or perhaps artelia because i did have a session with italia on all the different appointments and what did any of those people tell you about by whom x over had been retained
01:37:53 the the wisdom was that they were sub-consultants to studio e but that the tmo were responsible for paying them right the wisdom that doesn't really
01:38:06 right the wisdom that doesn't really tell me much who said what do you remember i i don't remember it would be over a protracted period because when i first started as i say i talked to the people who were involved at the time and i had the
01:38:18 involved at the time and i had the directory
01:38:19 directory um which should have had appropriate documents in it was a little bit scant on information in relation to x over right given that you discovered
01:38:31 you discovered that the tma were responsible for paying them did you not think that it was your responsibility to make sure you knew what it was that xover were producing in return for
01:38:42 that xover were producing in return for the fees that you were paying they were working to studio e so it was a
01:38:48 a slightly different basis of appointment so i didn't instruct them to do anything at the studio e who'd instructed them in terms of the scope of their services is my understanding you say they were
01:39:01 is my understanding you say they were working to studio e but you were paying them
01:39:03 them yes but did my question is given that you were paying them didn't you want to see the work product i had seen the report that was in the
01:39:15 i had seen the report that was in the stage d
01:39:15 stage d report and they were clearly involved in the project
01:39:22 project because i was copied in on emails throughout
01:39:32 you say they were clearly involved in the project we will come to see the reports
01:39:37 reports they do but my question is as a general question given that the tma was responsible for paying x overs fees were you not keen to make sure that you
01:39:50 were you not keen to make sure that you were given and read whatever it was that xover produced from time to time
01:39:59 i understand what you're saying but i say i think at the time i was looking more to understand what the fee
01:40:06 the fee um total fee cost incurred would be and i understood that studio had appointed them and i didn't interrogate that but studio e was
01:40:18 didn't interrogate that but studio e was still involved with them so i assumed that they were getting the product they wanted
01:40:23 wanted there's an assumption you made without asking is it or did you actually ask them
01:40:28 them i don't remember asking studio e are you getting what you want from xover let's go to tm00855
01:40:38 please
01:40:46 this is an email chain between you and terry ashton at x over in november 2013 so only a couple of months or so after you'd arrived
01:40:57 months or so after you'd arrived and he sets out the stage that he considers x over has reached do you see yes and he says uh our fee proposal for providing
01:41:10 uh our fee proposal for providing consultancy services on the project was sent to bruce sowns uh this was for our in may 12. this was for rib stages c and d to e total fees were eight thousand six hundred
01:41:21 thousand six hundred pounds plus v a t well and then it goes on
01:41:24 on uh works for stage c have been completed with regards to stages d to e we have issued two invoices one dated the 19th of december 2012 for 489 pounds plus that
01:41:35 plus that one dated 30th of september 2013 for 973.50 p
01:41:39 973.50 p plus vat we are about to issue a further invoice of 851.75 p plus vat this will bring the total invoices to 2 314 pounds 25 p which leaves a balance
01:41:50 314 pounds 25 p which leaves a balance of 5
01:41:51 of 5 300 minus 2 314 25 equals 2 985 pounds 75 p plus that now i've said all that out to you those are detailed figures
01:42:03 you those are detailed figures um
01:42:06 you told us that you thought xover was studio e sub consultant yes what did it occur to you to ask why uh studio
01:42:13 uh studio why xover were writing to you about invoicing and payment i think when you asked who i asked about x over
01:42:23 x over i think i must have struggled to get a response
01:42:26 response so it looks here so i actually went to the horse's mouth and said what is your fee what what what is um the commitment fee wise that we have made
01:42:37 made right well let's um let's see if we can pursue that he said he went to the horse's mouth was the horse uh mr ashton as the x over rep yesterday uh let's go to
01:42:50 over rep yesterday uh let's go to exo50575 then please this is an email from you to x over on the
01:42:56 the 6th of november 2000 and 13. it's uh sent to william blair at x over copy to peter madison and margaret trina
01:43:09 copy to peter madison and margaret trina at xova
01:43:11 at xova william i've just this week i have i have just had this week from terry ashton the basis of your fee quotes apologies but i've just taken over this role and the electronic directories did not have adequate information so i could
01:43:22 not have adequate information so i could confirm the validity of the invoice and just pausing there is that you going to the horse's mouth it is right so the horse in fact was william blair not not terry ashton it doesn't matter
01:43:32 matter he you then say now i have terry as a contact i'll be able to pick up any queries with him apologies for the delay the invoice will be with our finance administrator this week
01:43:40 week as will the one just issued so by november 2013 you were at least familiar with the fact that xover were involved in the grenfell tower project
01:43:51 involved in the grenfell tower project in some way yes yes and am i right in thinking that you were the point of contact for x over at least on invoicing matters from this time yes my yeah as you say
01:44:04 from this time yes my yeah as you say this
01:44:04 this invoicing was my main priority initially yes
01:44:08 yes were you aware by this time early november 13 that xover had been asked to produce two strategies one for the building in its existing state and one for the refurbishment
01:44:20 and one for the refurbishment i'm aware they did one for the refurbishment
01:44:25 i i have heard from the hearing that they did an existing one but i don't i wasn't aware of that at the time i've only understood that in the last month or so right so just to be crystal clear
01:44:37 clear there is an existence and there's been plenty of evidence about it a document which is a draft called an existing fire safety strategy produced and dated the 16th
01:44:49 produced and dated the 16th of august 2012 which names the tmo as a client is that a document you've ever seen do you think no no i wasn't aware of it and i am not
01:45:00 no i wasn't aware of it and i am not aware of it now you say in your last answer but one but you were aware they did one for the refurbishment can you be clear in your mind what what you are
01:45:09 you are talking about yeah the one that brought them to my attention first of all was the stage d report and that was the report dated 2012.
01:45:21 2012. and you mentioned december in fact i thought it was december i don't know fun but a 2012 document is it yeah i was going to say i might got the month wrong but it's 2012.
01:45:37 now looking at the invoice sorry looking at the emails about the invoices that we've been talking about a moment ago you were told that there'd been a balance
01:45:44 balance of 292 985 odd pounds left from the fee quote
01:45:49 quote yes um does that did you understand from that that as of november 2013 xover expected that there was more work
01:46:00 xover expected that there was more work to be done on the the grandfield tower project can i just go back to the email because i focused on the what i thought was the final figure yes certainly uh it's tmo double zero
01:46:13 certainly uh it's tmo double zero eight five five nine two five
01:46:26 eight five five nine two five so sorry would you ask your question again sir yes um looking at this email and looking in particular uh that there was still 2985 pounds plus
01:46:37 uh that there was still 2985 pounds plus plus odd plus v80 left as a balance in other words work not done as part of the quotation
01:46:48 not done as part of the quotation um because there was still money to be paid to them did you understand that xover
01:46:53 xover expected there was more work to be done
01:46:58 i don't know that i did because this talks that the second paragraph from the bottom says we're about to issue a further invoice bring in voices
01:47:10 invoice bring in voices yeah no i i wasn't clear i would say i wasn't clear right you weren't clear did you try to get clarity about what it was
01:47:21 get clarity about what it was that would represent the balance of 2985 pounds odd of work which checks over yet to do no i would be looking i would be focusing
01:47:34 i would be looking i would be focusing on the first paragraph which said the total fees were eight thousand six plus v
01:47:38 v eighty i would be putting that into my spreadsheet right i wouldn't be thinking about the scope of works they had left i would just be looking at the financial commitment right um but in
01:47:50 financial commitment right um but in doing that you would understand that of the 8
01:47:53 the 8 600 plans plus that agreed only uh some 5 000 uh 300 had been used up leaving an un well either work in progress a
01:48:07 an un well either work in progress a work not yet done of 2985 pounds would that not have registered with you
01:48:14 um i don't remember but i understand what you're saying now yeah but i i don't remember at the time thinking of there's that much due but i probably would have when i put it into the spreadsheet that probably would have
01:48:25 spreadsheet that probably would have been crystal okay let's see if we can get
01:48:27 get it slightly differently when you started at the tmo is it right that the employer's requirements were being developed
01:48:33 developed for the tender
01:48:38 yes did you look at them
01:48:42 i because they were produced and sent out as a tender probably within two months of my arrival i had a lot to look through but what i
01:48:54 i had a lot to look through but what i did do i did glance through them again just looking at headings looking at topics that they covered
01:49:05 did you look at the documents that were provided with the tender documents or comprised the tender documents i i would have looked at what i might
01:49:16 i i would have looked at what i might have understood more than the bits i didn't understand so i probably would have looked up for example the new flats rather than the m e specification which would have been um something i wouldn't have even got a
01:49:28 um something i wouldn't have even got a understanding now the tender documents that were produced in november and went to all the bidders
01:49:35 bidders did have with them a version of xover's outline fire safety strategy in other words a fire safety strategy for the refurbishment as it stood at november 2013.
01:49:48 as it stood at november 2013. did you appreciate that
01:49:51 i can't say that i'd seen it no let's look at exo at four zeros one one zero six please
01:50:05 this is an uh an outline fire safety strategy as it says produced by xover and it's a report to studio e
01:50:17 xover and it's a report to studio e date 7th of november 2013 issue number three
01:50:20 three that's the first page of it is that familiar to you um it's a similar front p frontis piece as the 2012 report so
01:50:31 frontis piece as the 2012 report so i i don't remember that date
01:50:36 right i don't know whether it went straight into the tender i don't know whether it went to studio e but i i i'm not aware of reading this right let me try it differently when you read the tender
01:50:47 differently when you read the tender documents that went out to the bidders do you remember seeing annex over document that looked like this
01:50:54 this i don't remember seeing any x-over information in the tender it could have been i just didn't look at that area i would have looked at the areas that interested me not not the whole tender because it
01:51:05 not not the whole tender because it would have so i've seen something i would have got to grips with whose job was it within the tmo
01:51:11 tmo to make sure as the client that the tender documents were complete and in order the tender was compiled by artelier
01:51:24 the tender was compiled by artelier and i would expect them as part of their contractual responsibility to make sure everything was in there obviously they were our cdmc
01:51:35 obviously they were our cdmc and one of the cdmc roles is to make sure that the tendrils have all the information that is required to allow them to
01:51:47 do their tender and understand what any safety implications are of the work but i i i i would expect i tell you to have looked at the documents compiled for us
01:51:59 for us did anybody within the tmo have any responsibility to ensure that the tender documents were complete
01:52:09 complete and in order again we would have relied on our professional consultants because they all had responsibilities under the contract to make sure the paperwork was there you
01:52:21 make sure the paperwork was there you see
01:52:22 see this is a tender exercise that was the subject of detailed consideration and advice from artelia for many months during 2013
01:52:34 during 2013 which culminated in the sending out of a tender package to bidders having gone through a pqq process in the november of 2013
01:52:45 process in the november of 2013 and what i'm trying to get at is was anybody
01:52:49 anybody within the tmr responsible for making sure that the tender package that went
01:52:57 that went out that the tmo was conducting in relation to the tender was what the tmo wanted to send out
01:53:08 i believe that like myself others would have looked at this this had been on the table
01:53:14 table obviously it had gone to lead betters previously so i believe it will have been looked at but ultimately it was the responsibility of artelio to make sure that it was complete
01:53:25 to make sure that it was complete leaving aside the question of legal responsibility for the moment if that's what you understand by my question
01:53:32 question in in common sense or simple terms who was interested in the tmo in just checking and making sure that the tender documents were complete
01:53:43 that the tender documents were complete and in order if anybody i think that probably david gibson would have looked
01:53:53 looked them earlier on when they'd gone to led better obviously they're in a new version now i cast my eye across them but i say my interest would only be in certain
01:54:05 my interest would only be in certain areas and i wouldn't have the understanding as to enough about the project at this time to know what should be there and what shouldn't be there who was sorry let me try this was
01:54:16 who was sorry let me try this was anybody in the tmo uh given the role of signing off the tender package
01:54:25 not that i'm aware
01:54:29 does it does that tell us that nobody actually gave instructions to artelia final instructions to send it out
01:54:41 i don't remember giving instructions to artelia to send it out i believe they would have said we have everything in the package ready for tender are you happy for it to go out so it
01:54:52 are you happy for it to go out so it would have been slightly differently but that they were compiling the tender documents as under their their role that they would say to us we think we're ready to go
01:55:04 think we're ready to go are we good to send it out now we would have said yes right um are you happy for it to go out are we good to send it out those are two questions
01:55:15 two questions who did artelia ask those questions of
01:55:20 um i would suggest that
01:55:25 it would probably be
01:55:29 jenny or any any of the tmo team because obviously
01:55:33 obviously um by this point it it would only be going to the five tundras so we would just we would have already seen the draft letter that was going with it so we would have said yes please
01:55:46 with it so we would have said yes please go now
01:55:47 go now because obviously the whole program of works was predicated by the tender going out in a timely way you say i would suggest that it would probably be jenny do you actually recall who it was who took the final
01:55:59 recall who it was who took the final decision
01:56:00 decision within the tmo to instruct artelia to send out the tender package no no i don't remember specifically thank you
01:56:15 thank you did anybody tell you or did you discover from your such reading that you did that there were aspects of the external wall construction which xover said that they would
01:56:27 xover said that they would consider in a future issue of their report
01:56:40 now did anybody have a discussion with you about this report at any stage during the tender process no did anybody have a discussion with you about this
01:56:51 have a discussion with you about this report at any stage thereafter no
01:56:56 no [Applause] can we go to page nine please
01:57:04 and i just just asked the question i asked a moment or two ago in a more targeted way at the top of that page you can see paragraph 3.1.4 compliance with b4 external fire spread
01:57:16 compliance with b4 external fire spread and x over say this it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this
01:57:27 analysis in a future issue of this report
01:57:30 report did you know or did you ever become aware that xover had made that statement
01:57:36 no can you explain why you as the person uh nominally at least in charge of the project
01:57:45 project grenfell type project within the tmo did not know that it was not pointed out to me but also the stage d planning
01:57:58 the stage d planning report or stage d report was about the cladding so i would assume any further reports from 2012 would actually
01:58:09 2012 would actually cover the cladding because it was already in the stage d report stage today report was
01:58:17 very clear that there was going to be external cladding and it talked about what the options were well in both the stage d report and indeed the nbs specification which was a
01:58:28 indeed the nbs specification which was a much more recent document both put zinc forward as the primary cladding material
01:58:34 material that's that's right isn't it you knew that at least that much i don't know that it was only zinc and stage d i think because we hadn't made any decisions i think it might have mentioned alternatives
01:58:45 mentioned alternatives but otherwise it was clear that the building was going to be clowned and at this stage november 2013 no decision had been reached about what the product or material to be used in the
01:58:58 product or material to be used in the external wall by way of rain screen had been made
01:59:14 now it would follow from that that any fire strategy produced in november 2013 could never have been final and complete because it couldn't on any of you have
01:59:26 because it couldn't on any of you have taken into account the cladding as it was later to be chosen for this building
01:59:31 building did you accept that yes i i wonder why it wasn't picked up as i say i i yeah i do accept it yeah
01:59:44 yeah i do accept it yeah can we then go to the minutes of the contractors induction meeting first of april 2014 the document we've looked at together miss williams a number of times already art402256
01:59:58 already art402256 this is the meeting we can see that you were at as well as peter madison and david gibson and if we go to page four uh 5.3 on that page we can see
02:00:07 can see um that under novation of designers it says xover completed the fire strategy at tender stage i'll read the whole thing to you and
02:00:19 i'll read the whole thing to you and come back to that first sentence they have not been levated but sl will contact them with the view of using them going forward now just looking at the first sentence xover completed the fire strategy
02:00:32 xover completed the fire strategy at tender stage given that at tender stage say between november 2013 and the end of march 2014
02:00:45 november 2013 and the end of march 2014 or mid-march 2014 the cladding hadn't been decided do you accept that you couldn't have had a complete and finalized fire strategy
02:00:56 and finalized fire strategy by the first of april 2014
02:01:03 yes their report their report said they wanted to do a further report didn't it yeah who was it who said do you remember that xover had completed the fire strategy at tender stage
02:01:17 um i i don't know i don't know did you realize at the time that xover had not completed the fire strategy at tender stage
02:01:28 tender stage precisely because of the paragraph about external fire spread that i've just shown you
02:01:33 shown you in the 7th of november 2013 report no the minute then continues they have not been invaded but sl that simon lawrence will contact them
02:01:44 sl that simon lawrence will contact them with the view of using them going forward
02:01:49 do you remember who said that
02:01:55 i don't know obviously i tell you i did these minutes so i don't know if they led on the subject or whether simon lawrence did i don't know very well and it says indeed sl is in the action box so it could be one of those two
02:02:07 so it could be one of those two when um it was said that he would contact
02:02:11 contact x over with the view of using them going forward
02:02:14 forward and using them for what i thought that they were going to be part of their um design team who's design team uh ryden's for what using them for what
02:02:28 ryden's for what using them for what purpose
02:02:29 purpose i don't know i don't know enough about what the fire strategy there i don't know enough about the ins and outs of it but it looks as though they should have been a member of ryden's design team
02:02:40 ryden's design team right did you follow up with ryden your at this stage proposed contracting party to see whether or not
02:02:51 whether or not simon lawrence had contacted them with the view of using them
02:02:57 i'm aware that this minute goes on several times and that clearly it didn't go anywhere i think simon had said he would contact them but
02:03:09 them but the minute is never tied tied up because it's not
02:03:13 it's not resolved well you're you're reading ahead i think in the story so let's just take it in stages i think you were at the pre-start meeting on the 13th of june 2014 weren't you
02:03:26 13th of june 2014 weren't you art four zero is two four nine five let's just look at that
02:03:34 this is a a a a an artelia note of that meeting
02:03:38 meeting we can see you are present yes the first person in the list of those present and if we can go to page two
02:03:51 you can see uh that under i think it's page three actually i'm so sorry
02:04:08 uh uh item 3.5 a quarter of the way down the page
02:04:15 the page it says sl to appoint other consultants to include fire after the main subcontractors are on board
02:04:23 um so that was an um an action point minuted at that meeting did you follow up after that meeting to find out what simon lawrence had done
02:04:34 to find out what simon lawrence had done by a way of action no we waited for the next meeting for him to update us well let's go to those minutes that's 15th of july this is progress meeting
02:04:45 15th of july this is progress meeting number one now a rt402614
02:04:54 let's look at page two in that
02:05:03 and if we look at um item 1.8 there please third of the way down sl to appoint other consultants to include fire clearly he wasn't reporting back yes did
02:05:15 clearly he wasn't reporting back yes did you say to him what have you done no but i would expect artelia as employers agent whose role was to make sure that the project team had no gaps to pick this up they were
02:05:29 had no gaps to pick this up they were doing the minutes and they were managing the contract so i would expect atelier to be
02:05:37 clear that they should be pursuing this i see
02:05:41 i see um we get to the next meeting on the 16th of september 2014 which is progress meeting number three and i'll just read the reference in
02:05:53 and i'll just read the reference in ryd3018299 and then again progress meeting number four on the 21st of october 2014 at ar a rt three zero six seven
02:06:04 three zero six seven and on each of those occasions the minutes recorded exactly the same thing namely that simon lawrence two was to appoint
02:06:12 appoint other consultants to include fire now on none of those occasions do we see you recording him record chasing him up or asking him questions as to why despite the numerous action points
02:06:23 despite the numerous action points throughout the previous few months he hadn't got round to appointing a consultant on fire is that right i think there were lots of things going on the project he had lots of
02:06:36 on the project he had lots of elements of work to put in place but this should have been something that he was thinking about possibly he was but i say it wouldn't be my role within
02:06:47 but i say it wouldn't be my role within the project team to do that it would be atelier's employer's agent to make sure that there were no gaps in the um in the project team you said that on a number of occasions
02:06:58 you said that on a number of occasions and i'm getting the impression that you just left everything to artelia and didn't take much of an interest in what was going on would that be fair no that wouldn't be fair my role was to
02:07:09 no that wouldn't be fair my role was to manage the client side not manage the contract but this is a project
02:07:14 a project for the client and you are the client so to speak so i just thought possibly you might take greater interest in the project yeah no i understand what you're saying but bear in mind that
02:07:25 but bear in mind that on board before i was i wasn't clear what their appointment was about initially
02:07:32 initially i've never dealt with fire strategy in terms of
02:07:36 terms of occupied refurbishment so it was something that i was picking up from somebody else and say i i think that hindsight is great isn't it but
02:07:50 that hindsight is great isn't it but i think that it was clearly there it was minuted by italia i'm not i'm sort of trying to shirk responsibility but it was part of their role to ensure that
02:08:02 it was part of their role to ensure that the appropriate consultants were on board to complete the project and say i had interest in all of the project all of the time but this was something that i wasn't clear on obviously and
02:08:13 clear on obviously and i expected others who are professionally employed to do so to look after on our behalf
02:08:18 behalf right thank you um we come when we do to the minutes of progress meeting number five in on the 18th of november 2014
02:08:29 the 18th of november 2014 and there's uh no reference in there to simon lawrence or anybody else appointing consultants relating to fire the matter seems to have slipped off the radar by then now just looking
02:08:41 off the radar by then now just looking back at it we've had the reference on the first of april the con tractors induction meeting we've had the pre-start meeting 13th of june which i've shown you
02:08:52 i've shown you we've had the reference in the progress meeting number one on 15th of july and two further references on the 16th of september and the 21st of october 2015 to simon lawrence
02:09:05 october 2015 to simon lawrence appointing a fire consultant it's been repeatedly referred to and it looks as if it was pushed down the track and down the track down the track a number of different times my question is when you got to
02:09:17 times my question is when you got to the autumn of 2014 despite the fact that artelio was there at the meeting and having the role of cdmc why didn't you as the client say to ryden look you've been promising
02:09:29 say to ryden look you've been promising to appoint a fire consultant now as an action point for months have you done it
02:09:36 artelia were leading the meetings they went through the minutes in order
02:09:45 i i don't know why that conversation was never had but i know the appointed the other consultants listed there um so i i say i
02:09:56 um so i i say i i can't explain why nobody agitated
02:10:02 were you not curious to know why he hadn't appointed a fire consultant as he had been indicating he was going to on repeated occasions i believe that
02:10:13 on repeated occasions i believe that some
02:10:14 some the other consultants were appointed a long way down the road the dda and the acoustic
02:10:19 acoustic um person um so i think i assumed it was that
02:10:24 that the appointment wouldn't be needed until a later
02:10:27 a later stage but i think so because i wasn't involved with the inception of this i did miss the initial input into the fire strategy what it was doing and
02:10:38 fire strategy what it was doing and what it was about because i would have been more
02:10:41 been more alerted if i had been more aware
02:10:51 did you notice at the time you saw the minutes of this meeting or rather perhaps i should show it to you to be fair can we go to art403150 please
02:11:01 please these are the minutes of progress meeting number five of the 18th of november 2014 and the one can scan through them take it from me there's no reference at all
02:11:12 it from me there's no reference at all in this meeting note to mr lawrence appointing a fire consultant so the matter had clearly dropped off the radar and my question is did you notice at the time when you received these minutes
02:11:23 time when you received these minutes that unlike all the previous minutes running back to april there was no longer any reference to simon lawrence appointing a fire consultant no i didn't and looking at the attendees
02:11:35 no i didn't and looking at the attendees of this meeting
02:11:38 the person who would do the minutes would possibly be nick valenti who was a new assistant project manager to phillip so
02:11:49 assistant project manager to phillip so it could be that he said do you want me to keep this in the minutes and it it slipped out with the new personnel but you're
02:12:00 with the new personnel but you're speculating i'm speculating 100 speculating apologies
02:12:05 apologies so the answer to my question you didn't notice when you saw the minutes no
02:12:14 now simon lawrence told the inquiry when he gave evidence that ryden had made a positive decision not to appoint a fire consultant as a and he said he did so as a team and
02:12:26 as a and he said he did so as a team and the reference to that is day 23 page 80 at lines 8 to 22. i don't think you need to see that my question is did ryden ever tell you about any positive decision that they
02:12:39 about any positive decision that they had made
02:12:41 had made not to appoint a fire consultant no
02:12:51 can you explain why ryden
02:12:57 would not have shared that with you no simon lawrence also told us in his evidence that xover was only going to provide advice on the lower four floors and and again
02:13:09 on the lower four floors and and again just for
02:13:10 just for the reference it's day 23 page 48 line 17 and there's no need to look at that and also day 23 page 66 at 9 3 again no need to look at that
02:13:23 3 again no need to look at that um did ryden ever tell you that it wasn't their usual practice to appoint a fire consultant no did ryden ever tell you that they were only considering a fire consultant in relation to the lower four floors
02:13:34 in relation to the lower four floors no did the tma ever agree that fire consultancy services would be limited to an analysis of the left or floors of the building
02:13:41 building no now after 2000 after november 2014 which is where we've got to in the story on this point did you know that xover was still working from time to time on on the grenfell
02:13:52 from time to time on on the grenfell tower project yes i was being copied into emails with their name on it yes and you were getting the invoices too
02:14:01 possibly yes yes given that you were getting the invoices
02:14:09 did you realize that ryden had not appointed a conference a fire consultant themselves
02:14:17 i i didn't pick up the i didn't pick up that
02:14:22 could you go to zero ex0401205 please
02:14:31 this is uh this is an an invoice as a copy
02:14:42 uh this is an an invoice as a copy invoice
02:14:44 invoice addressed to the tmo uh and if you look at the top right hand corner it delivered cc to peter madison claire williams you see that your email address and the
02:14:55 your email address and the substance of it is the invoice is numbered the invoice date is the 18th of february 2015 and the description is upgrade works riba stage d to e invoice for
02:15:08 riba stage d to e invoice for consultancy services provided on above project
02:15:11 project during november 2014. you see that and the
02:15:15 the sum of eight 118 000 sorry 118 pounds uh plus that 118 pounds plus that is
02:15:24 is charged not a great deal of money um but um
02:15:27 um do you none did you wonder at the time what the consultancy services were in november 2014 were was for which they charged 118 pounds plus that
02:15:38 that no did you sanction payment yes why did you sanction payment for something when you didn't know what it
02:15:48 was i believe it was within the the fee proposal they'd already given me
02:15:57 it may have been but did you not want to know what the work was that they were doing on a continuing basis no because i would have looked at this thinking it's a mop up of the fee at the end of the
02:16:08 end of the financial year
02:16:11 well it does say invoice for consultancy services provided on the above project during november 2014 you see yes and i i just want to know whether you asked yourself well i wonder what those
02:16:23 asked yourself well i wonder what those services are given that simon lawrence was going to appoint a consultant a fire consultant no i assumed it would have been residual fee for what they'd been working with bruce on
02:16:35 bruce on but that was an assumption you never investigated no i didn't investigate right
02:16:45 can we go back to ryd3075860 please
02:16:53 now this is an email exchange much later in the story in april 2016 principally between you and david hughes at ryden and david hughes
02:17:04 hughes uh responds to an email that you send him on the 27th of april at the top of the page there you see that yes and he says to you hi claire please see answers below to the
02:17:15 claire please see answers below to the best of my knowledge any questions please give me a call and if we look at the email from you we can see and i hope it's clear on the version you get that your email questions are in black
02:17:27 that your email questions are in black and his responses he's typed in in blue do you see that yes
02:17:33 yes and if you ask him at paragraph one in black can i please have a copy of the latest fire strategy document i have an original version but want to
02:17:44 i have an original version but want to make sure it has not changed drawings would be useful and his response in blue is x over fire strategy attached not updated from tender as far as i'm aware and fire
02:17:56 tender as far as i'm aware and fire strategy drawings attached to be updated to as bill's question mark close bracket now and attached to this email
02:18:07 now and attached to this email is uh the uh the outline fire safety strategy of november 2013. and just to be absolutely clear and put that in front of you can we please have
02:18:22 ryd3075861 [Music]
02:18:26 [Music] this is what he attaches it's a it's a different disclosure number from the one i showed you but it is the same document just looking at it closely it's to studio e it's dated the 7th of
02:18:37 it's to studio e it's dated the 7th of november 2013 and it's issue 3. yes yes so when you got david hughes's email in the april of 2016 am i right in thinking that you would have seen this document then
02:18:48 document then if he attached it yes well we could see that he did attach yes right does that tell us that between november 2013 and the end of april 2016 when you
02:18:59 and the end of april 2016 when you received this document um that's a period of two and a half years isn't it yes yes in that two and a half year period
02:19:08 period there had been numerous changes to the design hadn't there design of the tower
02:19:15 at the lower levels yes well there'd also be changes to the rain screen cladding yes yes they'd also be do you recall a change or an apparent change at least
02:19:28 a change or an apparent change at least to the specification of the insulation i wouldn't have known that right did you also know
02:19:35 also know perhaps you didn't that uh
02:19:39 insulation had been put onto the building which wasn't even in the specification i wouldn't have known that either did it occur to you given the time between the tender
02:19:51 between the tender and april 2016 to the two and a half years
02:19:55 years uh that there was a chance at least that this document dated november 2013 might be materially out of date
02:20:05 i'd assumed that it may be updated as my email
02:20:09 email but when he responded he said he hadn't been updated as far as he was aware
02:20:16 aware so i assumed that they were on board but hadn't updated it when you got this document did you read it
02:20:28 i don't know i haven't can't remember seeing it recently so i don't remember what's in it i'm afraid well he sent it specifically to you in response to your in response to a question you'd asked
02:20:40 in response to a question you'd asked him right
02:20:41 him right is there any reason why you wouldn't have read it um no i'm sorry i just i would like to see the rest of it because i don't know whether i've whether i absorbed it or not okay the
02:20:54 whether i absorbed it or not okay the front page is similar to the one i'd seen from
02:20:56 seen from yes indeed it's got that rather fancy um design on it but certainly um let's look at the first page or the second page of the email the first page of the there's the revision history
02:21:10 there's the revision history and uh if we go to the second page or next page there's the list of contents
02:21:17 contents you see that yes and then the next page introduction yes with a statement of the refurbishment that notably omits any reference to the
02:21:28 that notably omits any reference to the cladding
02:21:29 cladding do you think you might have noticed that no
02:21:32 no i hadn't noticed that and then let's turn the page again i'm just going to show you this document yeah thank you and then statutory considerations headings building regulations regulatory reforms fire safety order
02:21:43 regulatory reforms fire safety order 2005 london building acts and then next page compliance with the building regulations and he deals here with b1 means of warning and escape
02:21:54 with b1 means of warning and escape is that something you remember seeing in april 16 no can we see what what the revision was does he highlight in this what the revision was from the 2012 one well we can go back to the first page uh
02:22:06 well we can go back to the first page uh the second page and and see that we can see some dates but no we can't see a track changes if that's yeah that's what i was wondering what a change but we know we can't we but we can we can show you if you want
02:22:18 but we can we can show you if you want uh two documents dated 2012. um there's a design note of the of the 12th of uh the 12th of uh september 2012
02:22:29 the 12th of uh september 2012 and then there is the issue one of the outline fire safety strategy uh dated the 31st of october 2012 which would have been in very similar
02:22:41 which would have been in very similar form to this no that that's fine thank you i understand so i would have probably opened this and just
02:22:51 just thought thank you and i would have put it in a directory i wouldn't have understood enough to know or read it in detail to know that it it was something that wasn't complete
02:23:04 it was something that wasn't complete right well can we go to page nine then again
02:23:08 again and just look at uh paragraph three point one point four under the heading compliance with b4 external file spread i'll read it yeah i'll read it again it's a now a familiar paragraph it is considered that the proposed
02:23:19 it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fast bread but this will be confirmed by an analysis and a future issue of this report now here you are you get this document this paragraph is in it did you read
02:23:31 this paragraph is in it did you read this paragraph no can you explain why not
02:23:37 i had assumed that it was complete i hadn't read that paragraph clearly it's in the 2012 report
02:23:50 and it seems to be the same paragraph in this report as well yes and can you explain why you didn't notice that no i didn't look at it i
02:24:01 at it i say i knew that x over had been involved in the scheme during the progress of works and so i didn't read this paragraph to understand that they're still talking
02:24:12 to understand that they're still talking about a future issue let's look at your response to his email which is at ryd 305
02:24:26 75983 and you you say to him
02:24:34 uh this is the 28th of april dave this still has the old tmo office i think the fire strategy stuff may have been superseded on this basis
02:24:45 basis what old office address are you referring to on in the body of the building it was initially proposed that the tmo office would stay in the main
02:24:57 the tmo office would stay in the main building
02:24:58 building subsequently because we had to decant the office out of the building for works we used the office space to provide new flats
02:25:09 flats so i must have looked at it in terms of the drawing and seen that the office was showing up in the
02:25:17 in the the layout so that's where i'm saying has has it been superseded because i'm seeing in the drawing office whereas i know there is
02:25:30 drawing office whereas i know there is no office in the building anymore so you got that from the drawing yes right
02:25:39 right so does that did that tell you at the very least uh that the original fire safety strategy that you had received was now out of date and that the one that he was sending you needed to be
02:25:50 that he was sending you needed to be studied
02:25:52 studied what he did say in his previous email was that it needed to be as built so the office location was possibly in the same place as the flats it may have been just the
02:26:05 flats it may have been just the um the naming of it so i didn't that didn't
02:26:09 didn't alert me to any issues i i say i just saw the that the office was there as i knew it was flats but i say i didn't alert me because
02:26:21 but i say i didn't alert me because i believe the footprint was the same well let's just then go back having having covered that point off to your original email which started this chain off and which prompted mr hughes to send you the seventh
02:26:33 hughes to send you the seventh of november 2013 fire strategy you ask him the question i'll repeat it can i please have a copy
02:26:44 i'll repeat it can i please have a copy of the latest fire strategy document i have an original version but want to make sure it has not changed drawings would be useful and then he attaches the fire strategy attached not updated from tender as far
02:26:57 attached not updated from tender as far as i'm aware and fire strategy drawings attached to be updated as to as built and my question is having asked him the question having actually specifically asked him
02:27:08 having actually specifically asked him for the latest fire strategy document because you had an original version but wanted to make sure it hadn't changed can you explain why you didn't read the the fire strategy report he was sending
02:27:21 the fire strategy report he was sending you done by x over to make sure that it hadn't changed
02:27:28 i think i probably well i clearly looked at the drawings because that's how i raised my future issue um but it looks to me as though i didn't read the report because he's saying
02:27:39 read the report because he's saying the strategy has not updated from tender as far as he's aware so it should be a similar report
02:27:48 but you didn't read it the first time you told us before no no so why didn't you read it this time because it was the same report in essence it was the same report as the one you hadn't read given that
02:27:59 as the one you hadn't read given that you are asking for this document why didn't you take the opportunity to read it now given that this was as you say the first time you'd seen this document
02:28:06 document yeah no i i i would have looked at the drawings expecting them because i'm here looking to put together the health and safety file so i'm thinking can i have the drawings
02:28:18 so i'm thinking can i have the drawings which most people would expect to be part of this package so i suspect i would have looked at the drawings
02:28:27 drawings and because there was nothing on the paperwork to say anything had changed he said nothing has changed so i would have assumed that it passed muster because obviously it was the same document as went to tender
02:28:58 so can you just explain in a sentence why you didn't look at the report that that he was attaching given that this was the first time so you say
02:29:08 you say you were being shown this document i i believed it was the same document i'd seen before i suspect it wasn't because i think i'd
02:29:19 i suspect it wasn't because i think i'd only seen the december 12 one with that clearly said november 13. but i assumed it was exactly the same and i say it it was appropriate at tender
02:29:30 it was appropriate at tender therefore it should be a professionally produced document that would be suitable um at completion
02:29:41 have you any explanation to give us about why you didn't notice in april 2016 that x over were according to the
02:29:53 that x over were according to the document you were being sent promising a confirmation of their view in a future issue of a report which by that stage you had not had no
02:30:06 can we go to cst402141 please
02:30:18 can we go to cst402141 please this is an email uh from uh uh you and i'm so sorry i'm looking at the second email down it's from you to janice ray on the 23rd
02:30:29 it's from you to janice ray on the 23rd of may 2016. subject grenfell fra and you say janice this is the information on the fra the last drawing gives the typical
02:30:41 fra the last drawing gives the typical floor plans as well as the new so i think this should be sufficient for carl's purposes and won't require him doing any
02:30:45 doing any sketching this is the first item on my list from friday so the other info will trickle through maybe we can sort more after our tuesday a.m visit and if we go up
02:30:54 we go up to page one we can see an email on the 23rd of uh may 2016 uh same day only about 20 minutes or so later
02:31:05 later uh and this i'm afraid you'll have to um
02:31:10 uh take from me is to carl stokes and i'm i'm sorry but the identity of the addressee has been uh removed because it's a private email address
02:31:21 address but um leave that on one side c is carl stokes
02:31:25 stokes and janice ray says to him claire has provided another copy of the x over fire strategy and floor plans which he raised in the ffra action plan are these plans now sufficient
02:31:36 are these plans now sufficient now take it from me that this attachment uh is issue three of the x over outline fire safety strategy and just for the record it's cst402142
02:31:54 and just for the record it's cst402142 do i understand it from this email run that you must have read the november 2013 outline fire safety strategy before you sent it to janice ray
02:32:07 no i'd say i i don't remember reading the
02:32:11 the the report i would have looked at the floor plans right only the floor plans is that right uh that's yeah i i picked up about the
02:32:22 uh that's yeah i i picked up about the floor
02:32:24 floor plan being wrongly named so i clearly picked that up i don't remember reading the report so we've seen you receiving the issue three of the x over outline fire safety strategy
02:32:35 strategy at the end of april from david hughes and we see you passing it on to janice ray
02:32:40 ray at the end towards the end of may 2016. i'm right in thinking that on neither occasion did you take the trouble to read the document i don't remember reading it
02:32:54 let's turn them to a different topic um although still linked i suppose loosely to the last one which is the fras actions relating to cladding now you've given
02:33:04 given evidence in a number of your witness statements about the fire risk assessments done by carl stokes uh limited at various times now in module one of this inquiry
02:33:16 module one of this inquiry i only want to ask you about one action which appeared on carl stokes's fra of october 2014. can we go to your february 2019 witness
02:33:28 can we go to your february 2019 witness statement please at page 42. and i want to go on that page to paragraph 236 and 237.
02:33:39 paragraph 236 and 237. you say in 236 i am aware that on the 17th of october 2014 carl stokes conducted a fire risk assessment and then you give the reference to it for grenfell tower under the regulatory
02:33:51 for grenfell tower under the regulatory reform order as indicated i believe i would have seen a copy of the fire risk assessment at the time
02:33:56 the time and it recorded amongst other things that the evacuation strategy for residential areas was a stay put which karl stokes confirmed meant the residents remain within their own
02:34:07 residents remain within their own dwelling during a fire incident unless the fire were in that dwelling or it were otherwise affected in which case they should immediately evacuate the dwelling
02:34:14 dwelling and call the fire and rescue service
02:34:19 now first who was it within the tmo who received the fras or fire risk assessments for grenfell tower they would be um sent to
02:34:31 they would be um sent to janice ray the health and safety manager as a matter of general uh practice would she then send those on to you
02:34:37 to you she'd send them on to the appropriate worker yes well would she send them on to you for grenfell yes for grenfell yes can we then go to the fra itself which you exhibit
02:34:48 fra itself which you exhibit uh to paragraph 236 of your statement it's tmo100042446 please
02:35:03 now we can see what this is it's an it's a fire risk assessment for grenfell tower
02:35:10 tower for the tmo by carl stokes on the 17th of october 2014. you see that yes and if we go to the bottom of the page it says the significant findings and
02:35:21 it says the significant findings and action plan of this fire risk assessment are inserted next with this document continuing on page two now the the document itself is at cst6094 and we'll
02:35:36 document itself is at cst6094 and we'll come to that in just a moment before i do do you remember when you saw this document um that the significant findings and action plan constituted a separate document but
02:35:49 constituted a separate document but should be read into this document i think they were delivered together so that would be the assumption yes and did you understand that the fra was produced to the tma essentially in
02:36:00 produced to the tma essentially in in two parts or two documents this one and the record of significant findings and action plan which should be read with it
02:36:10 yes yes now let's look at the record of significant findings in action plan dated the 17th of october 2014. that is at cst6094
02:36:23 this is its first page you can see the date 17th of october 2014. do you recognize this document yes you do you can see that there are
02:36:35 yes you do you can see that there are items
02:36:36 items uh down the left-hand column and then they're given a priority and a red box is a high priority as we can see there and then casting the eye across the page
02:36:48 and then casting the eye across the page you see identified risk or hazard actions to be taken by whom and date to be completed by and can you see that in this version of the document
02:36:59 the document the two columns on the right are blank yes yes yes now if we go to page 10 of this document this is colored uh red it's high risk or high priority
02:37:12 uh red it's high risk or high priority and the identified risk or hazard you see that
02:37:15 see that yes is the external face of this building is to be overclad the piece of clouding fixed to the external wall at the moment is on timber battens
02:37:25 battens and then you see actions to be taken i would recommend let's just look at this carefully i would recommend that the contractor provides the scope of clad the scope of works covering how this
02:37:37 the scope of works covering how this cladding
02:37:39 cladding question mark how will the cladding be fixed to the building and there's clearly a word missing in the first sentence there that will have some significance in a moment paragraph two
02:37:51 moment paragraph two what fixings will be used paragraph three the fire rating of the cladding and the fixings paragraph four the building control office's acceptance of this fixing system
02:38:02 of this fixing system and the cladding used
02:38:07 now just keep that in mind we may need to come back to that but if we just go to your september 2019 statement please that page 12.
02:38:21 i'd like to show you paragraph 57 now you say in the third line if any of the findings identified related to the refurbishment works janice ray would send carl's report to
02:38:32 janice ray would send carl's report to me
02:38:33 me to forward to ryden to complete i would then liaise with ryden for them to take forward
02:38:38 forward however my understanding is that carl stokes would also attend grenfell tower to carry out fire safety inspections directly with writing
02:38:48 so that's what you say there can we next go to tm010012526 please
02:38:59 this is a a a version of the record of significant findings and action plan accompanying the 17th of october 2014 fra but now we can see the column by
02:39:13 fra but now we can see the column by whom
02:39:14 whom has been filled in by the tmo and just looking at the first one because it's in front of us you can see there that it says in relation to identified risk or hazard
02:39:27 relation to identified risk or hazard work is presently being undertaken to convert some areas on the lower three floor levels of this building into domestic dwellings along with other work and the overcladding of the whole building proposals have been submitted to the local authority building control
02:39:38 to the local authority building control department on the building regulations process
02:39:41 process actions to be taken and then in blue building control application on file approval is not due until all items resolved
02:39:48 resolved and then the by whom column is now filled in claire williams with the date to be completed by july 2015 just in relation to that item um who was it who who put into this
02:39:59 um who was it who who put into this document
02:40:00 document the words that we see in blue under actions to be taken i'm not sure whether it was myself or jani stray
02:40:10 and who filled in the words by whom indicating that you were the person to take those indicated i would believe janice would put my name against items i see did she do that before or after
02:40:21 i see did she do that before or after she discussed it with you um both i think usually she would she would put it in and say is that right okay so i suspect she would lead and put it in and then
02:40:32 and put it in and then leave it to me to correct it right were there email correspondences or communications between you on this subject or did you do this
02:40:39 do this face to face or on the telephone she would probably send it to me and she would then if i hadn't responded to her in a timely way
02:40:49 way or she she would we worked in the same building but just in different parts of the building so i would sit with her and go through each point
02:41:00 now can we go to page 10 and look at the bottom of that page and over to the top of page 11.
02:41:11 and over to the top of page 11. at the bottom of page 10 we can see under high priority identified risk or hazard
02:41:19 hazard the same as we saw before the external face of this building is to be over clad etc you see that yes and then i under actions to be taken i would recommend that the contractor provides
02:41:31 recommend that the contractor provides the scope of the works covering how this and we'll go to that in a moment and then the by whom column you just see it there is um oh we go back thank you the by whom column is claire williams question mark
02:41:43 column is claire williams question mark you see that yes and then in green if you go over to page
02:41:49 page 11 um
02:41:53 11 um timber battens purely for markup cladding has horizontal cavity barrier to 30 30 awaiting building regs approval first do you know why there was a
02:42:04 first do you know why there was a question mark next to your name
02:42:08 no i don't know if it was because we were assuming ryden would do it but it would still be my name against it for the action why would there be a doubt about whether it was your name i i don't know
02:42:19 it was your name i i don't know right i mean the question is was there anybody else in the tmo who could stand in on this issue no right did the action eventually become yours to resolve
02:42:32 eventually become yours to resolve yes i believe it was my name against it right
02:42:35 right now we heard evidence from simon o'connor that the fra action followed mr stokes's viewing visit for the mock-up and the mock-up was indeed on timber battens
02:42:47 indeed on timber battens and um his evidence was that mr stokes had agreed that the timber was the obvious presenting issue as he put it
02:42:58 obvious presenting issue as he put it that's day 26 page 133 line 16 to 21 just for our record did you understand that this reference was to a reference to the mock-up
02:43:10 was to a reference to the mock-up the comment on the left is about the mock-up yes yes i see the comment on the left is to the mock-up and the comment in relation to the timber battens similarly a reference to the mock-up yes
02:43:21 the mock-up yes yes can we then go um to tm00858290
02:43:30 this is an email some months later you to simon o'connor at ryden
02:43:42 uh and it's dated the 10th of april 2015 as you can see from the top of that page and the subject is grenfell fra outstanding items simon and i have
02:43:55 fra outstanding items simon and i have gone back through the list and need just a few more bits and then at the bottom at page five bottom of page one at paragraph
02:44:05 paragraph five you say i would recommend the contractor provides one the scope of works will be covering how this cladding and then there's something missing how
02:44:16 and then there's something missing how will the cladding be fixed to the building
02:44:18 building what two what fixings will be used three the fire rating of the cladding and the fixings
02:44:23 fixings for the building control officers acceptance of this fixing system and the cladding
02:44:27 cladding used now this is a direct cut and paste isn't it from the section of the 17th of october 2014 fra we've just been looking at
02:44:35 at it is it is it even inc includes the grammatically incomplete paragraph one hasn't it yes yes was this the first time that you asked ryden to deal with this fra action point
02:44:47 this fra action point i think it looks like the second time because i've said i need a few more bits i think he'd already given me a partial response and this was me chasing why do you say that
02:45:00 why do you say that because this this particular one had a lot of points on and i remember it taking
02:45:05 taking a little large resolve normally i'd expect it to be back within the week but i think this one had a little bit more information required and so i i believe i got partial information and
02:45:16 i believe i got partial information and i went back to ryden to get the outstanding information i understand that uh looking at it generically ms williams but just on item five
02:45:25 five is this the first time that you are asking ryden to answer the questions that the fra had asked
02:45:33 asked you and it was your action item back in october of the previous year no i believe it was a chase up and i think it could be that
02:45:47 and i think it could be that um he was saying oh you know we've got all the drawings but i've said no we still need to see something can you give me the specific responses to these items [Music]
02:45:58 [Music] there's no indication under paragraph five that you'd asked for any of these matters or you'd ask any of these questions before it's a simple cut and paste from the fra
02:46:09 it's a simple cut and paste from the fra as you've
02:46:10 as you've rightly confirmed yeah that rather suggests doesn't it that this was the first time that you he had asked him for these uh details i
02:46:21 uh details i i think that so i'm using the phraseology in the first sentence which says
02:46:27 says i need a couple more bits i you've given me something but not enough it doesn't say a couple it says a few more bits few more bits and there are five more bits but the bit we're looking at is a complete bit
02:46:39 is a complete bit isn't it it's a cut and paste of the whole
02:46:42 whole of what the fra had contained on the 17th
02:46:46 17th of october yeah i i suspect i know you don't like that sort of word but i would have given simon a hard copy and
02:46:58 i would have given simon a hard copy and he possibly would have responded to some of it but not the rest so i'm asking him to finalize the information as requested
02:47:10 well when did you give simon o'connor do you recall a hard copy um that would be in my emails if it's it isn't um i i i don't know but i
02:47:21 it isn't um i i i don't know but i i would have given him a hard copy bear in mind i was on site most weeks he would have said you know i might have emailed it to him previously or to simon lawrence
02:47:32 previously or to simon lawrence but this wouldn't be the first time he'd seen it which is why i'm chasing
02:47:40 what has prompted you to send him this request some seven months after the fra i i would have sent it to him
02:47:48 him pretty much straight away there's no reason for me to hang on to it i have a busy workload the quicker and get things off my desk the better this would be something with a priority so i would have sent it to him
02:47:59 priority so i would have sent it to him earlier
02:48:00 earlier so so my my view is still that he'd give me a partial response and i'm chasing the outstanding items well you say you would have sent him to him he would have sent it to him pretty
02:48:12 him he would have sent it to him pretty much straight away we have no email record that you did that at least not in the documents disclosed uh and there's no indication in this email that you had
02:48:23 that you had done you had asked these questions before and were now chasing him up now given those two facts my question again why were you only doing this now
02:48:34 doing this now i i i understand what you're saying but i wouldn't have sat on this one janice ray was incredibly organized and would have been on my case
02:48:45 organized and would have been on my case secondly i would have done it anyway in order to move my workload there's no virtue to me of having this hanging over my head
02:48:51 my head i would want to get this sorted as soon as possible right well the light of that answer let's look at a document ryd30 is 43476 please
02:49:02 bearing in mind the date of the email we've just been looking at is the 10th of april 2015. here is now an email from you on the 10th of june 2015 exactly two months
02:49:14 2015 exactly two months later to simon o'connor subject urgent urgent urgent grenfell fra outstanding items and you say to him
02:49:27 and you say to him simon i think you could polish this off quickly don't you see you at 9 30 tomorrow and below that email you can see that you have uh sent him again the email that you sent him on the 10th of april the two
02:49:38 sent him on the 10th of april the two months previously
02:49:42 and you've added the subject header urgent urgent urgent urgent do we take it from this that you had had to ask him again for these items including item five that
02:49:54 for these items including item five that we looked at earlier because during the two months up to the 10th of june 2015 he hadn't responded yes i believe i had spoken to him about it many times
02:50:07 spoken to him about it many times and he'd said he was following it up i'd get it i'd get it but i didn't get it and so i thought i need to put this in writing because this is a an efra is obviously a
02:50:18 this is a an efra is obviously a priority
02:50:19 priority and i just wasn't getting a response from him so having spoken to him many times it went in writing
02:50:26 writing oh i see so you're saying that the the email string here doesn't reflect the fact that between the second email on the page and the first email on the page you've had lots of discussions with him asking
02:50:37 had lots of discussions with him asking for the document is that right that's right is that your evidence it is why is there nothing in your witness statement about that my witness statement covers areas that i was aware of that i thought would be
02:50:49 was aware of that i thought would be um of importance to the inquiry i i obviously it was a long project in their areas that would have been um of less interest perhaps in my view of our lawyer's view
02:51:01 perhaps in my view of our lawyer's view well i don't really understand that yeah well it was a long project three years i was just masses of paperwork
02:51:08 paperwork so i'm not going to remember every single item and i wouldn't have prioritized this no i just wonder why this particular issue
02:51:17 issue a request from your fire risk assessor that the contractor provides details about the cladding uh and your reaction to it by chasing up ryden wasn't something sufficiently important for you to cover in your
02:51:28 important for you to cover in your witness statement ms williams can you explain that i reiterate it was a long project there were lots of emails over many topics my statement covered areas that myself
02:51:39 my statement covered areas that myself and the lawyers thought would be pertinent
02:51:41 pertinent was the question from the fra what is the fire rating of the cladding and the fixings
02:51:47 fixings not impertinent given that the all witness statements are produced after the fire and are dealing with an inquiry into the fire at granville tower yes i as you say i understand what
02:51:58 yes i as you say i understand what you're asking but at the time in the scheme of things it wasn't brought to my attention as something that i should be prioritizing and i probably may not
02:52:09 and i probably may not remember these emails anyway right but you would have us believe that you had lots of discussions with him about it i was on site most
02:52:20 with him about it i was on site most weeks
02:52:20 weeks and i would be pursuing it actively because
02:52:24 because this was something i was aware of can i just ask do you actually have any concrete recollection of discussing this is with mr o'connor
02:52:35 of discussing this is with mr o'connor or are you just telling us do you think you probably would have done it no i know in this instance i did he was under a lot of pressure at the time and i think he left fairly shortly afterwards but i i no i do
02:52:47 shortly afterwards but i i no i do remember talking to someone about this specifically it's not speculation thank you very much well then you'll have to explain to the chairman how it came about or comes about that if you look back at the first email on this page there's no reference
02:52:59 email on this page there's no reference at all there to any discussion with you between you and simon o'connor between the 10th of april 2015 when he posed the question to him and you're giving him an urgent reminder
02:53:12 and you're giving him an urgent reminder why is that the fact that there's no emails doesn't mean that we didn't have verbal conversations and we did yes i understand that but my i'm asking
02:53:23 yes i understand that but my i'm asking you really about the tone and content of your
02:53:25 your chasing email simon i think you could polish this off quickly don't you there's no reference to the fact that you've been nagging him from up for weeks about it i believe that at that point the project
02:53:36 i believe that at that point the project was under a lot of pressure simon was under a lot of pressure i was perhaps giving him more leeway than he should have had and that is a very gentle reminder to say i need this now that's
02:53:49 reminder to say i need this now that's why the headings is urgent urgent urgent because i've been waiting for this for many months indeed you had and i'm going to suggest you this is in fact the first time you chase this up which is which is consistent and only
02:54:01 which is which is consistent and only consistent with the content and tone of this email that that's i i'm not true i did chase it with him i remember talking to him about it because say i was being chased
02:54:14 it because say i was being chased internally it was a fire risk assessment i would want the responses as soon as possible and simon was the stumbling block he wasn't getting back the responses as quickly as he should
02:54:25 quickly as he should now mr o'connor was asked about this email and
02:54:28 email and he his evidence was that he would have forwarded this on to someone such as neil crawford no for would have in my question to you that's day 26 page 88 lines 11 to 13.
02:54:41 that's day 26 page 88 lines 11 to 13. do you know whether he ever in fact ever did
02:54:45 did forward this message to him onto somebody
02:54:48 somebody else such as neil crawford i don't know but i am aware that he might have mentioned he was passing it on to somebody particularly
02:54:59 passing it on to somebody particularly in relation to the last the critical points about the cladding i i think he he would have passed that on and i but i don't know who he passed it on to
02:55:10 on to we have been unable to find any record of a response from ryden on in answer to your question
02:55:22 from ryden on in answer to your question did you receive any response i don't remember but i would hope that we
02:55:32 that we might have sat down together to to because he just wasn't getting the paperwork together i don't know sorry i shouldn't speculate i don't know well given
02:55:43 well given what you now tell us was the absolute importance of getting this information in respect of which you chased him you say many times between april and june 2015.
02:55:54 between april and june 2015. we see no record of any response
02:56:00 can you explain that
02:56:03 no but i thought the email to janice no i don't know sorry because it looks you see from the documents although you asked him the
02:56:14 documents although you asked him the question he never responded given the importance of the information that you say you were after i just want to know why that is i i suspect we would have sat down and we would have just gone through it
02:56:25 we would have just gone through it because i was getting nowhere in terms of getting information from him now the questions that you were asking him to which you say you suspect you sat down and got answers to fall into four categories there are four
02:56:36 fall into four categories there are four questions very clear questions did you make any record of the answers that simon o'connor eventually gave you you say um only those that would be recorded on the fra
02:56:47 recorded on the fra what did you tell him was the fire rating of the cladding and the fixings i wouldn't have known so i i haven't seen the ultimate fra but that would presumably have been a resume of our discussion
02:57:00 so we've got to look to the next fra is that right that's why i'm expecting that there would be
02:57:07 would be the feedback yes
02:57:11 right it looks from the documents that despite your asking this question you never received a response and didn't follow it up to close it off so that you had a clear
02:57:23 to close it off so that you had a clear document trail and a response in writing from simon o'connor is that right if you're saying there are no documents there are no documents but say i believe we did close it off
02:57:35 but say i believe we did close it off and we would have done that by sitting down together and me just using his information because clearly he was under pressure and not getting anything back at this stage well when you sat down together and i'm afraid
02:57:46 you sat down together and i'm afraid this isn't in your statement so i'm i'm just asking you blind as it were but would you have written down what he was telling you in answer to each of these questions i would have probably written it on the form yes on the form what form
02:57:58 form yes on the form what form the fra form right mr chairman it's three minutes to one yes and
02:58:05 yes and uncharacteristically um i'm going to ask you to
02:58:08 you to rise a little early because i've come to the end of that topic and one or two things i need many to go over over the lunch break to maybe to revisit that topic um but it would be a convenient moment
02:58:20 um but it would be a convenient moment well then we'll stop at that point very good yes thank you well mr williams forget to stop now so we can all get some lunch uh we'll resume at two o'clock please and as usual in the meantime please don't talk to anyone else about your
02:58:32 don't talk to anyone else about your evidence or anything relating to it all right okay good thank you very much
02:58:48 thank you two o'clock please
02:59:17 you