Ivor Meredith, former Kingspan technical manager, gives evidence about K15 insulation product development, fire testing from 2005 onwards, and the company's marketing of the product for high-rise despite limited test evidence.
00:00:12 [Music] uh good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear the first of a number of witnesses who
00:00:24 the first of a number of witnesses who are or were employed by kingspan yes mrs yes mr chairman can we have mr iva meredith please thank you
00:00:48 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr meredith sit down make yourself comfortable
00:01:01 all right yes there's some water there for you
00:01:14 good right yes we're strange yes thank you mr murdoch can you give the inquiry your full name please iva john meredith thank you and i want to start by thanking you for
00:01:25 to start by thanking you for attending this public inquiry today to give evidence it is very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions i'm going to ask you
00:01:35 you please ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way if you feel that you need a break at any time please just let us know we will take scheduled breaks one in the
00:01:46 we will take scheduled breaks one in the morning one in the afternoon but if you need any further breaks please just let us know
00:01:51 us know and the other thing i'd ask you to do is just try and get your voice up because there's a lady just sitting to your right there who's transcribing a clear note of everything that's said so if you can speak clearly into the
00:02:02 so if you can speak clearly into the microphones that would be great
00:02:05 now you've provided us with a witness statement can we go to that it's um k-i-n-3022312
00:02:17 it's dated the 12th of may 2020 if we go to page 75 there we can see that date and is that your signature yes and have you read that witness
00:02:30 yes and have you read that witness statement recently yes and can you confirm that the contents are true yes and have you discussed your statement or your evidence with anybody before coming here today
00:02:43 only with my legal team okay thank you now just to start i'm going to ask you some questions about your background and experience now when were you first employed by
00:02:54 now when were you first employed by kingspan
00:02:56 kingspan can you remember um i think it was january 1999 yep um i studied uh building at university um
00:03:09 at university um i was working on the production line when i saw an advert for a technical advisor position at kingspan i was successful with that application yeah
00:03:20 application yeah great so you were working on the production line at kingspan is that right when you saw an advertisement yeah it's technical department yes so how old were you around that time 22 i
00:03:32 how old were you around that time 22 i think
00:03:33 think yeah and you said you had a qualification in in building is that right yeah what qualification was that it's a diploma uh it's a higher national diploma yep yeah
00:03:44 yeah great now you tell us in your witness statement
00:03:48 statement if we can look at paragraph 1a on page 1 that you worked at kingspan for a long time you worked there from february 1999 up until august 2015. that's almost
00:03:59 1999 up until august 2015. that's almost 16 years yes yes that's correct and during that time you tell us in that paragraph that you held the following roles we can see that in the bold text there
00:04:10 there you say technical adviser february 99 to october
00:04:14 october 2005.
00:04:17 and then technical project leader november 2005 to january 2015 yes and then just towards the bottom of that page
00:04:26 that page technical project manager between february 2015 and august 2015. that's right isn't it yep
00:04:36 now philip heath who was the technical manager at kingspan between 2001 and 2010. he says in his witness statement that he promoted you from a technical
00:04:47 that he promoted you from a technical advisor
00:04:48 advisor to being the technical projects manager in 2005 um within the technical team rather than in
00:04:59 within the technical team rather than in 2015 so you say you made it to technical project manager in 2015 and he says in his witness statement that was 2005. can we just check are you sure that it
00:05:11 can we just check are you sure that it was technical project manager in in 2015
00:05:20 my job role although essentially remained the same yeah i think my title did change somewhere between 2005 and 2015 sorry
00:05:31 somewhere between 2005 and 2015 sorry yeah um that's okay but essentially i was doing the same job role it was that was just when i got my business cards printed i think i see yeah
00:05:45 and when you were promoted in 2005 who did you report to philip heath yeah and he was the technical manager yes yes
00:05:56 yes yes and how regularly would you report to mr heath
00:06:04 i'd say at least three or four times a week
00:06:07 week yeah and was that mainly by email or was that also in face-to-face meetings we um we shared an office for a considerable duration i think it was
00:06:18 considerable duration i think it was about maybe three years right yeah can you remember roughly when you were sharing that office with mr heath
00:06:25 heath not directly no okay and what about mr malcolm rochford he was the uk technical director how often would you report to him
00:06:39 i think i only really started talking to him
00:06:42 him in my latter
00:06:46 two-thirds of my employment at kingspan i think yeah yeah and again would that be when you say talking to him would it be with face-to-face meetings or would it be mainly with email
00:06:57 or would it be mainly with email exchanges with mr rochford there would be a monthly technical meeting
00:07:03 meeting where all the issues of the business were discussed from the technical perspective yeah and if my line manager philipp heath wasn't available
00:07:14 available i would sometimes go and speak to malcolm if the inquiry was urgent yeah yeah and those monthly technical meetings would you routinely go along to those with mr heath and mr
00:07:25 go along to those with mr heath and mr rochford
00:07:27 rochford yes yeah towards the the latter part of my uh
00:07:31 my uh time at king's penis yeah and when you say towards the latter part what kind of period of time do you think you're talking about when you would all be there at monthly technical meetings together
00:07:44 technical meetings together i'd say maybe after 2008 yeah to the end yeah now you've told us in your witness statement um
00:07:55 statement um that and this is the same bit there that we were looking at that from 2005 you supported it's under the technical project leader you've got technical
00:08:06 project leader you've got technical project leader november 05 to january 15.
00:08:09 15. and you say that you supported kingsman business development and uk certification requirements and this includes sourcing all the fire testing
00:08:18 testing for kingspan is that right this was all the fire testing for kingspine insulation limited uk yes yeah
00:08:30 and you've also stated i'm sorry sorry can i correct you there yeah it was um
00:08:37 was um i did the majority of the the large-scale testing there was a number of um
00:08:42 of um small-scale tests the class o tests which i were not directly involved in yeah that's helpful but you were managing all of the large-scale fire
00:08:53 managing all of the large-scale fire test that's right isn't it yes that's correct yeah and then you've also stated that um when you're a technical project manager and i appreciate it may not be completely clear exactly when
00:09:05 completely clear exactly when that role started you man you say managing the project team and the high-rise
00:09:10 high-rise technical help desk we see that there yes
00:09:14 yes and can you just help us what was the high-rise technical help desk in uh 2012 we started experiencing a lot of inquiries with regards to the performance of k15 as high-rise
00:09:28 the performance of k15 as high-rise so rather than let the frontline technical team deal with it i created an email address which
00:09:35 which was distributed to myself and my colleagues where we were able to get a handle on the questions being asked and deliver the the correct answers yeah
00:09:48 and when did you first become involved in the fire testing of the k-15 product can you help us on that
00:09:58 i think it was the first test which was in 2005
00:10:02 in 2005 if i recall correctly did you receive any training before you started to carry out that role
00:10:12 it was on the job training this was a new test method at the time so i witnessed a test of the the previous variant fire note 9
00:10:24 previous variant fire note 9 so it was a case of just applying that to k-15
00:10:29 to k-15 and when you say you witnessed a test of the previous variant far note 9 so we know fire when note 9 was the precursor to br135 wasn't it yes and when you say you witnessed that test to fire note 9 what was that a test
00:10:42 test to fire note 9 what was that a test of can you remember that was uh an eid an external wall system um so it was a rendered insulation um i believe it was with a company
00:10:53 um i believe it was with a company called perma rock right yeah it was the k5 product not k15 right i see yeah and when you started to become involved in this large-scale testing for kingspan
00:11:05 this large-scale testing for kingspan what knowledge did you have of the building regulations and the practical guidance in approved document b on fire safety i had an understanding of the
00:11:18 i had an understanding of the the the limitations with regards to combustible insulations yeah and the requirement for uh an alternative route to compliance yeah so you knew did you that um approved
00:11:31 so you knew did you that um approved document b the primary route was to say all insulation materials on built tall buildings needed to be of limited combustibility you knew that did you yes and you knew that there was an
00:11:42 and you knew that there was an alternative route to compliance through full-scale fire testing yes yes
00:11:49 now if we look on page two of your witness statement now at paragraph um three a
00:11:58 so we can see there that you're asked about your knowledge of k-15 in the questions including
00:12:05 including a when k-15 was first developed and you say this you say i believe around 2004 i was not involved in the ppds product
00:12:16 i was not involved in the ppds product process production development system at that time
00:12:20 that time um so is that right that you you believe that k-15 was first developed around 2004 is that your recollection in 2003 2004 i was on the technical help
00:12:33 in 2003 2004 i was on the technical help desk
00:12:33 desk so i was on the the front line dealing with the architects and inquirers we've always be asked to provide an alternative product sometimes through the distributors
00:12:45 sometimes through the distributors celetex were putting a pir product forward for use within glazing systems and when asked for an alternative and then when we looked at the
00:12:56 and then when we looked at the regulations we started to consider a phenolic foam as an appropriate solution
00:13:03 solution so we started putting that forward but then we came across the 18 meter rule and that was when we started to source
00:13:11 to source a bespoke product for that situation but it needed to have testing basically to justify its use i understand thank you that's very helpful now the first marketing material that we
00:13:22 now the first marketing material that we can find
00:13:23 can find in what's been disclosed to us appears to have been issued in 2001. if we could just have a look at that this is kin30s 20720.
00:13:35 this is kin30s 20720. so if you can see in that top right hand corner there's a small date there it says first issue march 2001. do you see that
00:13:43 see that yes i do yeah and it's it's headed cool firm k15 rain screen board do you see that there yes do you remember
00:13:55 yes do you remember being aware of of this first issue of the prod of the marketing material in in 2001
00:14:05 that date doesn't seem right in my recollection yeah okay i should have seen it yeah if we look on this page at the second
00:14:16 if we look on this page at the second bullet point it says it says they're specifically designed for use within rain screen cladding systems do you see that there yes and don't think we need to go back
00:14:27 yes and don't think we need to go back to it now but you tell us in your witness statement um this is a paragraph three e page two when asked about the purpose or intended use of k-15 that it was a you call it a cladding system insulin
00:14:40 you call it a cladding system insulin um in your statement would you agree that it
00:14:44 that it was specifically designed though for use within rain screen cladding systems
00:14:50 yes that version of that product yes yeah
00:14:56 and you also say clad in your statement this is paragraph four page two that cladding is a high-rise application um perhaps let's just look at that at page two
00:15:07 at that at page two paragraph four of your statement if we look down the page
00:15:14 you're asked the question there at what stage in the development of the product did kingspan consider that it was suitable for use as insulation in external cladding systems on high-rise buildings
00:15:25 buildings and you say this cladding is a high-rise application the insulation is fit for purpose if used with the correct components do you see that there yeah when you say those word cladding is
00:15:36 yeah when you say those word cladding is a high-rise application can you help us a little bit more what you meant by that what i meant was rain screen cladding is predominantly used on high-rise
00:15:47 predominantly used on high-rise buildings as opposed to alternative methods like brick facing and that sort of thing right okay that was your understanding was it
00:16:00 and can you help us as to whether any fire testing had been completed on the k-15 product 2001 i know you weren't quite sure about
00:16:11 2001 i know you weren't quite sure about that 2001 date but were you aware of any fire testing having done been done on the k15 product before that time
00:16:20 no large scale fire testing no
00:16:26 can we go then to um an email chain i want to look at now this is kin405048 and this is from november 2003
00:16:41 we can see at the top there
00:16:46 it's a chain that involves malcolm rochford philip heath and your cc'd on that top email and i just want to start
00:16:57 just want to start with the bottom email in the chain at the bottom of that first page sent by mr heath at 16 and 47. so it's philip heath the gwynne davis malcolm rochford and then
00:17:08 malcolm rochford and then you and steve huxson are copied in there do you see that yeah on the 11th of november 2003 and he says could we undertake a small trial with k15
00:17:19 trial with k15 with the lemtech 25 micron facing to both
00:17:22 both surfaces asap this is to assist in the large scale facade test we are planning for early next year and then he says the plan is to undertake two tests and then the cost of
00:17:34 undertake two tests and then the cost of the test is around fourteen thousand pounds do you see that he said now where
00:17:39 now where where he's referred there to the lemtech 25 micron facing do you think he means the lamb tech spelled with an a he does mean the lamb text yeah and is that the foil facer of
00:17:51 text yeah and is that the foil facer of the k-15 product
00:18:06 i'm not sure at this point okay yeah fine but but k15 did have foil facings didn't it on either side yes yeah um and when we see
00:18:18 yes yeah um and when we see because we'll see it in a number of places reference to something like 25 microns or 50 microns referring to the foil phaser what's that telling us is that thickness or is it
00:18:29 telling us is that thickness or is it weight what what is that
00:18:33 i think it's the weight per it's an american um description i think it's the weight per square foot or something like that
00:18:44 square foot or something like that yeah of the uh the foil layer in in the core of the laminate facing i see yeah
00:18:54 and then if we go up the page the email immediately above is sent by gwyn davis
00:19:01 and he says their same day no problem [Music]
00:19:05 [Music] please confirm thickness and panel dimensions would a hundred meter square be enough and then he says this will also this will be also pentane blown do you see that there
00:19:16 see that there yes now just help us on what that means pentane blown this is a it's a blowing agent used to um
00:19:25 um create the foam yeah and that's you the blow that blowing agent is a liquid blowing agent used um i'm not sure it's uh
00:19:38 it's uh and it's used when the phone's manufactured is that right yes this was about the time that kingspan were buying an alternative technology
00:19:49 technology yes i'm going to come to that with you in a moment we'll come to look at that um but at this point it does look like what they're proposing at this stage will be pentane blown doesn't it yes
00:20:03 and what's your understanding that the k-15 product that was being sold in 2003 was pentane blown
00:20:14 i can't recollect okay yeah let's go now into 2004. we're going to look at an activity report that you produced in january 2004. if we can go
00:20:27 produced in january 2004. if we can go to
00:20:31 kin405054 we want to start on the first page so if we look at the top of that page can we see this is it says it's an activity report by you
00:20:44 it says it's an activity report by you on the 26th of january do you see that there
00:20:49 there yes and then if we go down to the third paragraph
00:20:54 paragraph if we can zoom in on that third paragraph headed phenolic development [Music]
00:21:00 [Music] k15
00:21:05 and there we can see it says looking at the potential for a class b phenolic product that will achieve acceptability for above 18 meters in facade construction by building regulations
00:21:18 construction by building regulations the product has been made pentane blown with a heavier grade full facing 25 micron i will be testing within the sbi on 29th of january 04 and if successful
00:21:31 on 29th of january 04 and if successful results are obtained we will be moving towards a large-scale testing scenario bs 8414 performed in conjunction with steel frame system market leaders metsec
00:21:42 steel frame system market leaders metsec do you see that there yes so we can see that that this appears to be talking about the development of k-15 doesn't it and it's testing yes
00:21:59 and it's testing yes now there it says the product has been made in the second sentence there second line down the product has been made pentane blown with a heavier grade foil
00:22:10 pentane blown with a heavier grade foil facing 25 micron so it is that the k15 as you understood it to be
00:22:17 it to be when this report was written in 2004 january 2004
00:22:22 okay i um i was lobbying within the business for uh
00:22:29 uh an improved fire performance product for this application so i was seeking to have the 25 micron phaser which would offer more fire resilience
00:22:40 resilience or resistance i was using the single burning item test as a uh to benchmark the performance because i wanted an improved product for
00:22:52 because i wanted an improved product for use in this application yeah above the standard yeah so that's an improved product for use above 18 meters yes and can you help us now as to how
00:23:05 and can you help us now as to how different that product was to the k-15 that had been being sold up to that point
00:23:13 as far as i'm aware i was just looking at the um
00:23:17 at the um an improved facer of that yeah so it was that heavier grade foil facing the 25 micron yeah i see yeah
00:23:30 i just want to show you now a major changes spreadsheet that's been put together by kingspan for this inquiry if we go to
00:23:41 kin3022307 and we'll need the native version and the tab at the bottom of the excel spreadsheet titled major changes
00:23:58 if we go to line four in um of this spreadsheet if we go down to line four
00:24:06 sorry there we can see february 2004 on the left hand side have you got that yes and it says there the change 25
00:24:17 yes and it says there the change 25 micron
00:24:18 micron foil used in facer do you see that there yes
00:24:21 yes so this is a spreadsheet that's been put together to by the inquiry because we wanted to know what the different changes had been to the k15 product over time and that's what we see there
00:24:35 so as you've explained that product was given the heavier grade foil facing because what you thought that might have a better chance of passing in the large-scale fire testing is that right
00:24:47 is that right it would offer more stability to the product
00:24:50 product under fire yeah
00:24:54 so yes and can you help us was that foil facer
00:24:58 facer perforated or unperforated
00:25:07 i believe that we had to um sorry kingspin had to change to a perforated facer for manufacturing reasons
00:25:18 facer for manufacturing reasons it was unable to produce it with a unperforated um 25 micron foil yes and wasn't that change
00:25:27 change when the new technology k15 came in which we're going to come to in a little while when you bought the dutch company yes the kester end technology yes yes
00:25:38 yes the kester end technology yes yes so does that mean am i right then that before that the 25 micron foil that would have been used in 2004 in 2005 was unperforated
00:25:49 in 2005 was unperforated yes that's correct yeah
00:25:55 now if we just go back to the email chain uh we were looking at um
00:26:04 sorry the um the activity report we were looking at kin four zeros five zero five four
00:26:15 and just i want to ask you a little bit more you've already mentioned it you said you were doing some testing under the single burn burning item tests you say that there in the third sentence
00:26:27 the third sentence was that testing under the european testing
00:26:31 testing and classification system yes yes that's the en 13501 euro class yes testing
00:26:38 testing yes and we've had dr lane explain to us what that those tests that testing is and you said earlier that that was to benchmark so was that you testing it out on a smaller scale to get
00:26:50 testing it out on a smaller scale to get some sense of how it was performing in fire
00:26:54 fire the bre indicated that if the product was euro class b then it would
00:27:01 would stand a good chance of being successful when tested to be s eight four one right so that's what i wanted for for the product yeah and who was it at the bre
00:27:15 yeah and who was it at the bre that gave you that advice can you [Music]
00:27:18 [Music] remember
00:27:20 remember it was either
00:27:24 phil clark or sarah colwell right probably sarah colwell yeah and can you help us when you did did you do those single burning item tests
00:27:38 yes i think we tried you tried and and did it get a b in those tests
00:27:49 a b in those tests i think we only achieved euro class c right yeah
00:27:58 and we can see from this paragraph um that the plan is if you get some successful results with that smaller scale testing we'll be moving towards a large-scale testing scenario to bs8414
00:28:11 large-scale testing scenario to bs8414 can you help us when was that first large-scale cladding test to bs 8414 carried out on k-15
00:28:25 i think i recollect around 2005 yeah if we look at your witness statement on this if we go to page 54 paragraph 115 a
00:28:38 it's in the bottom half of that page and a with reference to a may 2005 test
00:28:50 a with reference to a may 2005 test you're asked was that the first test to bs 8414
00:28:53 bs 8414 carried out by kingspan on a system incorporating k-15 and you say yes if this is the 60 millimeter k15 with the non-combustible board in front now we can tell you that the tester
00:29:06 now we can tell you that the tester bs8414 carried out on the 31st of may was carried out on a 60 millimeter k15 product um so does that mean that it's likely that that was the first
00:29:17 likely that that was the first test to 8414 on a system incorporating k15
00:29:22 k15 that would be the first test on the system yes i did i have a recollection of testing without a facing
00:29:31 a facing just to understand the performance without a cladding system in front of it yes yes i think we've got some records of that and i'm going to take you to that in a moment like a naked test i think someone calls it
00:29:42 naked test i think someone calls it with with no boredom no cludding in front of it just the insulation yeah can we go now to an email from the 19th of march 2004
00:29:53 an email from the 19th of march 2004 this
00:29:53 this is kin four zeros three six eight five
00:30:04 so if we look at the top half of the email first we can see there this is an email that you've sent to someone called mr chilvers phil
00:30:16 to someone called mr chilvers phil chilvers at the labc services and also andy bowers at tower hamlets and the
00:30:23 and the the heading is insulation above 18 meters do you see that yes and you've copied in here steve hux stephen huxson and is it right
00:30:34 steve hux stephen huxson and is it right that he was the business development manager for k15 is that right yes that's correct yeah and we can see from the first paragraph of your email there that the
00:30:45 of your email there that the product under discussion is k15 it's it says further to our recent discussions regarding the above mentioned issue and the use of kingspan call form k15 phenolic insulation in facades above 18
00:30:57 phenolic insulation in facades above 18 meters
00:30:57 meters we would ask you to comment on the following and then there's uh further paragraphs underneath um and you say in the second paragraph k15
00:31:08 k15 is a classed under the building regulations as being class naught rated um and then you give the bs 476 part six and part seven references you say exhibits less than
00:31:21 references you say exhibits less than five percent smoke obscuration when measured under bs five triple one part one you say it's also thermoset material and therefore does not run melt or drip when affected by heat when
00:31:33 melt or drip when affected by heat when subjected to a flame source the phenolic foam will form a surface char in much the same way as wood this surface char will protect the underlying foam from the fire phenolic foam will also resist a
00:31:44 phenolic foam will also resist a chemical breakdown at a significantly higher
00:31:45 higher temperature than any other thermoset insulation these are all very important quality when looking at fire resistance of buildings and means of escape in the event of fire do you see that there yes and then if we look at the third
00:31:58 yes and then if we look at the third paragraph i want to read that with you you say reading section 13.7 adb now pausing there what we now know as 12.7 was back then
00:32:09 as 12.7 was back then 13.7 in a previous version of adb that's right isn't it i think so yeah so it says reading section 13 7 adb in a building with a story of 18
00:32:21 7 adb in a building with a story of 18 meters or more above ground level the documents suggest insulation material used in ventilator cavities
00:32:27 cavities in external wall construction should and you've
00:32:31 you've put it in quote should be of limited combustibility unfortunately the product does not meet the criteria for limited combustibility bs 476 part 11 as described in adb
00:32:43 bs 476 part 11 as described in adb therefore it is pigeonholed with the combustible insulations even though the char that forms when in contact with a flame source limits the combustibility of the product having spoken to the b
00:32:54 having spoken to the b having spoke to the bre regards their guidance paper br e-135 the purpose of the publication is so that products that are classed as combustible
00:33:05 combustible can be incorporated above 18 meters in ventilated facades as long as attention is given to the correct detailing i.e fire breaks etcetera
00:33:14 etcetera the first publication of this document provided statements of fact for basic construction types utilizing a range of insulations from highly combustible eps to less
00:33:25 from highly combustible eps to less combustible mineral fiber materials giving recommendations on their real use in ventilated facades and then you go on within this document guidance is given for the use of fire
00:33:36 guidance is given for the use of fire barriers
00:33:37 barriers every two stories with the combust with combustible insulations as the second edition is considered an extension of the document and not an amendment or replacement we believe this
00:33:48 amendment or replacement we believe this advice
00:33:48 advice still be credible as long as all risk areas have been assessed and the correct preventative measures have been adopted do you see that there yes so
00:33:59 do you see that there yes so those are long paragraphs but the first point i wanted to to ask you about this is can we take it from all of that that you were well aware in march 2004 that k-15 was
00:34:11 well aware in march 2004 that k-15 was not a product of limited combustibility yes that's correct and you were well aware that according to adb in order to be classified as a material of limited combustibility
00:34:22 combustibility a material would need to be tested to part 11 of bs 476 and meet certain criteria or be classified as a1 or a2 under the european
00:34:32 european classification system that's right isn't it yes that's correct and k15 was never tested to part 11 of bs
00:34:41 bs 476 was it
00:34:46 i think i remember doing one at a later stage
00:34:50 stage but it was never going to meet that those performance requirements i think we just did it just to box off that question i see yeah so it didn't get anywhere
00:35:02 yeah so it didn't get anywhere close to meeting the requirements it needed to meet to be of limited combustibility is that right yes that's correct yeah
00:35:11 and is it also fair to say based on this that you did have a good understanding at the
00:35:15 at the time of the relevant regulatory regime and the relevant guidance you'd obviously looked at it in detail by this point
00:35:25 yeah we we've taken guidance on this docu
00:35:28 docu on this document to try and understand what
00:35:32 what what were the routes to compliance yeah who had you taken that guidance from
00:35:38 i think we'd spoke to everyone and anyone we could that had a knowledge of this document so we talked to the bre i think we spoke to anthony bird at the
00:35:49 i think we spoke to anthony bird at the time um
00:35:51 time um we would speak to insurers architects anyone would have fire engineers but it was you know this was kind of a new area at the time i think utilizing these products in this
00:36:02 utilizing these products in this situation yeah
00:36:09 now going looking at this email and the wording that you use in the third paragraph um looking at it now do you think your description of the combustibility of the product
00:36:20 combustibility of the product is fair and accurate there
00:36:25 you say say in the fourth line down it's pigeon holed with the combustible insulations even though the char that forms limits the combustibility of the product
00:36:36 the combustibility of the product do you see that there yeah there's some of this uh terminology is pulled out of a um a standard answers document that was
00:36:47 um a standard answers document that was in circulation within kingsman i think um it was maybe some faqs from the epfa yeah website
00:37:00 from the epfa yeah website i see did you agree with those standard answers did you think that they were correct in terms of what you knew about its fire performance
00:37:13 i believed them yeah you believed them yeah
00:37:18 yeah when you say it was pigeonholed with the combustible insulations and what do you mean by that because it was a combustible insulation what wasn't it
00:37:30 what wasn't it what what kingspan were trying to say was that phenolic was a better combustible insulation than the other combustible insulations i see and i think
00:37:41 see and i think that was a fair comment okay yeah and then if we look on at the the short fourth paragraph after that long third one
00:37:52 one um you say there this product has been regularly accepted above 18 meters with many ventilated facade systems as long as proprietary fire barriers have been adopted do you see that there
00:38:05 have been adopted do you see that there now was that right as far as you understood it that in march 2004 the product had been regularly accepted above 18 meters with many ventilated facade systems
00:38:21 as far as i understand yes yeah and where would you have got that information from how would you know that it had been regularly accepted above 18 meters
00:38:32 regularly accepted above 18 meters because it was being used and we weren't um
00:38:38 it was being yeah because it was being that the specifications were being accepted
00:38:45 i see so what you're saying is specifications being written for buildings at this time with k-15 in them for above 18 meters and those were simply being accepted yes did you know on what basis
00:38:57 did you know on what basis they were being accepted
00:39:24 probably off the back of the guidance in br135
00:39:27 br135 which states that you have to use fire barriers
00:39:35 so do you think people at that time understood br135 to mean provided you've got fire barriers in there you can use phenolic foam even though it's combustible
00:39:47 that's how we interpreted br135 at the time
00:39:51 time i see yeah okay and was that your understanding at the time that that's how you could justify k15
00:40:03 you could justify k15 being used above 18 meters that it was looking back to the language of br135 it was that your understanding it quickly evolved as soon as bs-8414
00:40:17 as soon as bs-8414 and fire note 9 were readily available test methods i see so then once once they were set in stone as available that was our route compliance
00:40:28 that was our route compliance i see and if we go to the fifth email um sorry the fifth paragraph of this email you say that kingspan insulation limited
00:40:40 say that kingspan insulation limited have tested a phenolic board behind a mortar render system at the bre facility in march 2002. the product satisfied the criteria of the test bs 8414 part 1
00:40:53 the test bs 8414 part 1 2002 by having no far growth in the facade above the 5 meter mark above the 3 megawatt combustion chamber as a direct result of these discussions i have opened dialogue with the
00:41:05 i have opened dialogue with the frs department at the bre and we are currently devising a test configuration using cool firm phenolic in a ventilated facade as we are confident of this product's performance
00:41:18 confident of this product's performance we have proposed to test the phenolic insulation without the use of fire barriers
00:41:23 barriers on successful completion of this test we will have approval through bs 8414 part one
00:41:28 one for using phenolic foam insulation k15 above 80 meters without additional fire barriers do you see that there
00:41:38 there now that first sentence there just starting with that you say kingspan have tested a phenolic board behind a mortar render system at the bre in march 2002
00:41:51 at the bre in march 2002 is that right was there a large-scale bs-8414 test this was i think the perma-octas the render system and was that with k15
00:42:04 render system and was that with k15 no that was with um cool therm k5
00:42:11 so that was with a different phenolic board is that right that test essentially the same phenolic core
00:42:18 core yeah but a different facer and how is the facer different it was um it would be a glass tissue facer
00:42:25 facer on the k5 but this was a product with a render directly in front of it yeah so it's not directly comparable to
00:42:36 so it's not directly comparable to um a ventilated facade no i'm just a bit taken back by my comments there about without fire barriers the purpose of
00:42:47 without fire barriers the purpose of testing a render system is you would normally need fire barriers above at high rise but with um if you had a bs 8414 test
00:43:00 but with um if you had a bs 8414 test you could actually prove the use of the system without fire barriers right so i think i might have been just getting a little bit confused there with the uh
00:43:10 the uh with the ventilate with the unventilated test with the render test right i see yeah um
00:43:19 are you aware that bs 8414 part 1 was not
00:43:23 not published until the 13th of december 2002.
00:43:31 so where you say there in the first line that there was this test at the bre facility in march 2002 and the product satisfied the criteria of bs 84141 2002
00:43:45 of bs 84141 2002 in fact we know that bs 84141 didn't wasn't published until december 2002. can you help us yeah i recall we were testing to a draft version of the bs i see
00:43:59 draft version of the bs i see yeah so for all essential purposes it was the
00:44:03 was the the final test method i see yeah and were you personally involved in that test in 2002
00:44:18 i witnessed it and i i looked over the the test report yeah yeah i i i was there
00:44:26 there so were you in the burn hall when when the test took place it was in the burn hall yes
00:44:30 hall yes yeah yeah and you said it was with a glass tissue facer was that a phaser that was likely to perform as far as you understood it better
00:44:38 better than say the 25 micron foil facer
00:44:45 no if anything the the foil would have better performance i think
00:44:52 and who else that kings fan was involved in in that test
00:45:01 i can't recall on that yeah it's a long time ago um do you remember how the tested system performed
00:45:10 this is the rendered system yeah it was successful right was there ever any formal test report produced
00:45:18 produced yeah but this would be owned by um perma-rock i see
00:45:26 now i want to move now to ask you about the the kester the kester end technology transfer that you've already referred to this morning now we know that kingspan acquired a dutch company in around 2003
00:45:38 acquired a dutch company in around 2003 named
00:45:39 named marek a manufacturer of insulation that used a
00:45:42 used a different technology in the manufacturing process when producing phenolic foam that's right isn't it i think it was called taric tar right the name of the company
00:45:56 tar right the name of the company yeah i see yeah and is it right that this technology was then produ used to produce k-15 and was referred to internally at kingspan as
00:46:08 internally at kingspan as new technology or kester end technology is that right yes that's correct and is it right that kesterin was the name of the plant in the netherlands where it originated yes that's correct now were you aware of
00:46:20 yes that's correct now were you aware of what fire testing that new technology foam had been subjected to
00:46:26 to prior to acquisition of that company by kingspan were you ever told that
00:46:33 i think we were told that it was classo to the uk
00:46:37 to the uk test methods okay but nothing else nothing else and were all of kingspan's phenolic products transferred to that new technology as far as you understood
00:46:49 new technology as far as you understood it at the time
00:46:52 i believe some of the the duct range the duct insulation may have remained the old technology right but i'm not sure and the inquiry
00:47:03 right but i'm not sure and the inquiry understands that a kester in technology transfer group was set up to manage the transition from the old technology k15 to the new technology k15 is that right
00:47:16 technology k15 is that right i believe so yes were you part of that group
00:47:23 i'm not sure if i was directly okay did you have some involvement with that group
00:47:31 i may have i don't recall okay and can you help us how did new technology or kester end technology k15
00:47:44 technology or kester end technology k15 differ from old technology k15
00:47:49 um this is rather i'm limited on my chemical understanding of these products so
00:47:58 i was told that it was a better more robust product more easier to easily manufactured okay um is it right that the new
00:48:10 okay um is it right that the new technology k-15 introduced perforations to the foil facer
00:48:15 facer that's correct
00:48:18 and i think you tell us in your witness statement that you you believe that the perforated foil was essential for stable production is that right yes that's the case what
00:48:29 is that right yes that's the case what does that mean essential for stable production i think it
00:48:34 it it required a certain amount of drying we had
00:48:37 we had drying ovens installed and i know they had
00:48:40 had various problems with those ovens and they had to put new ovens in so the product was improving slightly after the changeover
00:48:51 after the changeover yeah and and you say there as well that you believe all cool firm products uh all the call them process move to perforated foil is that correct
00:49:03 move to perforated foil is that correct that's my understanding yes and you also say that kingsman kept meticulous records of production batches to ensure traceability is that your understanding
00:49:14 understanding each production run would have an individual number and there would be a um continuous factory production control on that run yeah and it would be tied
00:49:25 on that run yeah and it would be tied back to a standard operating procedure yeah so yes and just to be absolutely clear old technology k15 had unperforated foil faces and new
00:49:38 had unperforated foil faces and new technology k15 had perforated four faces that's right isn't it as far as i understand yes
00:49:47 now if we can go back to that schedule of changes um we looked at before this is
00:49:56 kin3022307
00:50:04 and then i want to look at row 7 this time
00:50:10 just back one yeah so here we have date on the left hand side september oh six and we can see the change it says their kester end technology
00:50:22 their kester end technology sops with perforated um i appreciate you haven't written this but sops what would that probably stand for standard operating procedure yeah
00:50:33 procedure yeah thank you and in the detailed description it tells us following its purchase of a dutch manufacturer of phenolic foam kingspan adopted its methodology for producing phenolic foam
00:50:45 producing phenolic foam this was referred to in pembridge as new technology orchestra in technology pembridge is the place in herefordshire isn't it where king spans yes that's correct based
00:50:57 and it says um this was referred to in pembroke as new technology orchestra in technology and had been being run successfully in holland for many years before kingspan acquired the business
00:51:08 the business and then that i want to look at that column end then on the right hand side it says that the ppds shows that vincent coppock the r d manager is that research
00:51:20 coppock the r d manager is that research and development manager yes was the project manager his role was to work with the dutch manufacturer to understand the kester end technology and bring that technology to pembridge including arranging any trials and then
00:51:31 including arranging any trials and then it says this malcolm rochford technical director updated the status of the ppds confirming that the fire testing was
00:51:42 confirming that the fire testing was required for this project philip heath technical services manager signed off the part of the ppds to confirm that physical fire tests and
00:51:53 to confirm that physical fire tests and certification were completed do you see that there and the the ppds does that stand for product and process development system that's correct and so that that's
00:52:05 system that's correct and so that that's a a
00:52:06 a a system for monitoring the development of that new product is that right that's an internal system that was devised i think as a requirement of iso 9000
00:52:16 9000 i see yeah a quality control process yeah so it's a quality control process to ensure that you understand the attributes of the new product is
00:52:27 the attributes of the new product is that right that's correct yeah and do you agree with what's said there in terms of who had responsibility for different aspects of this including that philip heath undertook the fire
00:52:38 that philip heath undertook the fire testing and certification for the new technology k15 yeah this is the problem i had with this
00:52:49 yeah this is the problem i had with this system that although it's signed off it doesn't necessarily mean that it's done it means that it's in hand i think because this the certification and the
00:53:00 because this the certification and the fire testing for these products we were doing it for years after the changeover so yeah so i think what you're saying is
00:53:11 so yeah so i think what you're saying is after the change had been made and certainly all products including k-15 was being produced with this technology you were still trying to bottom out its fire performance do you agree
00:53:25 we received the the test reports from castron but to obtain the certification and because this
00:53:36 the certification and because this came from a different marketplace with different market requirements we we needed to apply the uk test methods and the uk testing regimes to actually get the product signed off
00:53:50 to actually get the product signed off i think we introduced our portfolio to the to the bba and they were in agreement that they would accept the product based on the test evidence that we had
00:54:02 based on the test evidence that we had so the certification was it was ongoing absolutely i'm going to take you back as a special topic to look at the bba certification a little bit later
00:54:14 but in terms of what's said there philip he signed off the part of the ppds to confirm
00:54:20 confirm that physical fire tests and certification were completed can you help us as to what fire tests were involved in that signing off process
00:54:34 i think at this time we were ce marking the products so we were probably going through the european
00:54:42 european en 13 501 fire tests
00:54:50 and can you remember specifically with relation to k-15 whether it achieved any particular european en 13501 classification
00:55:01 european en 13501 classification before the sign off by philip heath i can't recollect okay
00:55:13 so can you help us as to what certification had actually been completed for the new technology k15 before it was launched
00:55:25 we had british board of agramond certificates for most of the phenolic range the standard the
00:55:35 the the the the floorboard the k3 the wall board the k8
00:55:41 i think we may have had certification for k12 then so we would have contacted the bba and they were they came in four
00:55:52 the bba and they were they came in four times a year anyway so they would have monitored that process change including on k-15 k-15 was not subject to certification
00:56:05 k-15 was not subject to certification at that point
00:56:08 right so when k-15 was being sold after this change it was not subject to certification at that point is that right no it took us quite a few
00:56:20 is that right no it took us quite a few years to obtain british board of agrimon certification for k-15
00:56:32 can you help us as to what test reports were received from kesterin before you i remember seeing um bs476 part six
00:56:44 um bs476 part six tests and part bs476 part seven the surface spreader flame yeah so those relevant to national class naught but any other more
00:56:56 but any other more larger scale fire testing did you get any such results from i don't think there was any large-scale testing at that time for european classification results single burning i think there was
00:57:09 results single burning i think there was um yeah there was there was some sbi testing can you remember what that said i think there was a variety of classifications between b and c however
00:57:23 b and c however the kingspan facings were the uk facings were predominantly different to those used in kestring so it was a case of
00:57:33 case of repeating these tests yeah that's because their facings were perforated and your
00:57:37 and your facings prior to that have been unperforated that's right isn't it
00:57:44 um
00:57:47 sorry the the facings previously were unperforated yeah in pembridge and the facings after were perforated yeah as to the the facings in castron i wasn't really aware
00:58:00 facings in castron i wasn't really aware okay of what they were i think but i know that they weren't necessarily appropriate for the uk market yeah i now want to ask you about the large-scale fire testing of k-15
00:58:13 large-scale fire testing of k-15 and if we look at your witness statement at page 50
00:58:18 you were asked at paragraph 111 who held overall responsibility sorry let's just bring that up yeah so you were asked who within kingspan held overall responsibility for planning and
00:58:29 overall responsibility for planning and arranging testing to bs 8414 on systems incorporating k15 and you say this would be myself as leader of the project team and i would report to tony milichap or
00:58:40 and i would report to tony milichap or philip heath as the technical managers who in turn would report to the technical services team led by the technical
00:58:46 technical manager do you see that there yes and who was it that mr heath and mr uh milichat report reported to was that
00:58:57 uh milichat report reported to was that mr rochford yeah that would be mr rotchford the technical director yeah and
00:59:06 yeah and if we look um at page 51 of your statement
00:59:10 statement paragraph 114 b
00:59:16 you tell us there that um you project managed all bs 8414 testing between 2002 and 2014. that's right isn't it
00:59:26 isn't it i believe that to be correct yes and you stay in in c just below that we asked whether you were present and you say i was present at all the tests
00:59:37 you say i was present at all the tests is that right i believe that to be correct yes and who appointed you to that role as as project manager for all of that large-scale testing
00:59:52 that would have been my technical manager and and the technical director at the time so malcolm rochford and philipp heath tony miller yeah philip heath has said
01:00:05 tony miller yeah philip heath has said in his witness statement that you were given a large degree of autonomy would you agree with that we were um a very busy business
01:00:19 we were um a very busy business i was i was tasked with doing the testing and i was asked to find out what what and how we were supposed to test so
01:00:34 but i was coming up against a brick wall really in the marketplace because there were certain elements that didn't want to be involved in testing and the bre was still learning about the
01:00:46 and the bre was still learning about the test method so they weren't being able to give us really good guidance on the approaches to take i see when you say you were coming up against a brick wall because there were
01:00:57 against a brick wall because there were certain elements that didn't want to be involved in testing what do you mean by that which elements weren't wanting to be involved in testing
01:01:05 testing we started an association called rain screen works where we sought to bring the cladding manufacturers the the fire barrier manufacturers the
01:01:16 the the fire barrier manufacturers the framing people into the fold so they could help us fund this testing because uh you know ten thousand time pounds of time it was ludicrously expensive for us to get something that
01:01:28 expensive for us to get something that would be
01:01:30 would be would cover a large proportion the market so we approached the major cladding manufacturers to try and involve them in a bs 8414 test and they refused at
01:01:41 in a bs 8414 test and they refused at the time
01:01:42 the time because they were happy that they were being included in high-rise without this test evidence when you say happy they were being included in higher ed you mean happy
01:01:53 included in higher ed you mean happy that phenolic foam was being included in hives no they were um oh happy with their product they were happy that their products were currently being
01:02:01 being used in high-rise in front of say a non-combustible cladding a non-combustible insulation therefore they felt that they didn't need to do any further testing yeah and which cladding manufacturers
01:02:14 yeah and which cladding manufacturers were you think were you thinking of here i think it was um trespa
01:02:18 um trespa eternity all the leading clouded manufacturers we approached yeah now back to philip heath he also says so he says that you were
01:02:29 he also says so he says that you were given a large degree of autonomy but he also says that he maintained a general supervisory role over you is that right that's correct yes and were decisions about what components
01:02:40 and were decisions about what components and materials to use in large-scale fire tests
01:02:43 tests were they collective decisions of the technical team they were collective decisions between myself and my line managers yeah and i tried to seek advice from the
01:02:56 yeah and i tried to seek advice from the technical team where it was appropriate yeah i just want to show you just some passages and some other uh witness statements and get your your view on it um if we look at tony
01:03:08 your view on it um if we look at tony miller chap's um statement uh where he's dealing with your role in large-scale fire testing if we go to kin three zeros 20821 at page 56.
01:03:22 and it's at 11.13
01:03:28 and he says there as i say above the fire focus group decided the testing strategy and delegated the execution of the strategy to iva meredith who would specify some of the finer details such as fire barriers to address
01:03:41 details such as fire barriers to address the variables in line with his experience and then go away and select the agreed materials do you see that there yes is that an accurate description of of how it worked in practice
01:03:55 i think somewhere around 2010 we introduced a fire focus group yeah so i could get more official feedback
01:04:06 so i could get more official feedback from
01:04:06 from the other parts of the business yeah so yeah that's that's true but i also utilized my line managers as well yeah
01:04:17 utilized my line managers as well yeah who was part of that fire focus group
01:04:21 i think it was myself philip heath justin davis gwyn davis um vincent kroppock
01:04:32 um vincent kroppock malcolm rochford lindsey hobbs so it's a big group of people yeah yeah in terms of the design of the test rigs if we go in the next paragraph down at 11.14
01:04:45 in the next paragraph down at 11.14 the top of the next page he he says this if we can zoom it bring it up yeah he says iva meredith was responsible for the design of the test rig
01:04:56 the design of the test rig including the preparation of drawings and plans
01:04:59 and plans i would have overseen this process providing technical input and feedback if necessary particularly with regards to whether the test rig design was realistic do you see that there
01:05:11 so is that right that you would design the test rig and prepare the drawings and the plans for it and i would use an external designer
01:05:22 and i would use an external designer or contractor but
01:05:26 a cladding system would have a set number of elements in it and we would take advice from the an appropriate architect or designer that yell we were incorporating the elements correctly
01:05:38 incorporating the elements correctly yeah did tony militech provide any technical input on how to design the test rig i think
01:05:50 on how to design the test rig i think tony's input was like everyone's input it was just with regards to what materials we were essentially using right yeah he would have responsibility for that yes
01:06:01 for that yes yes and and before his time would that have then been philip heath it would have been philippe yes yeah
01:06:11 can you remember ever getting any feedback from tony militare or philip heath about whether or not the test rigs you were designing were realistic and representative of cladding systems actually available on the market
01:06:29 we would have discussions with regards to
01:06:33 to what we were going to receive from the bre after this what what the test result was going to mean what we wanted was for the test result
01:06:44 what we wanted was for the test result to have a large scope of application for it to mean that our product could be used in conjunction with a number of different systems because the because of the cost and the
01:06:55 because the because of the cost and the time it took to arrange a test we needed to get as much out of it as possible
01:07:02 possible um and this was our current understanding with the bre guiding us to test with
01:07:07 test with a non-combustible cladding system yeah that we would be approved for all non-combustible cladding systems yeah however this after the test they removed that uh proviso yeah we're going to come on
01:07:20 uh proviso yeah we're going to come on to this in just a minute i think what you're saying is your understanding was prior to the the test you did in 2005 is that right that the bre had said if you can test
01:07:31 that the bre had said if you can test one non-combustible outer exterior we'll give you some kind of report that says you can use it for any non-combustible outer exterior is that right that's correct and your evidence is that they then i
01:07:43 and your evidence is that they then i think you say in your witness they pulled the rug from under your feet and changed their minds yes yeah great we're going to come back to that um just back to how you set up the the
01:07:55 um just back to how you set up the the test rig and selected the materials if we then look at paragraph 111 16 at the bottom of this page in mr militap's statement he says either meredith was responsible
01:08:06 he says either meredith was responsible for checking that the built system conformed with the drawings and plans however the bre or other test house always thoroughly examined the build-up and would only sign off on it jointly with either
01:08:17 sign off on it jointly with either meredith
01:08:18 meredith when it was satisfied that it conformed with the drawings and plans do you see that there yes and would you agree with that that that's what the vre did that they would always thoroughly
01:08:29 did that they would always thoroughly examine the build up and only sign off on it when they were satisfied that it conformed with the drawings and plans yeah the bre would go through the build-up with a fine tooth comb and make sure that it it was the
01:08:40 comb and make sure that it it was the same as the plans that we were presenting right and was that the case for all tests to bs8414 carried out on systems incorporating k-15 yes definitely
01:08:52 yes definitely and who was it at the bre that would be going through it with a fine tooth comb and checking it
01:09:01 i think phil clark had the sort of control of the laboratory but i th there were guys underneath him that were
01:09:11 that were running around with clipboards checking this kind of thing okay thank you and then if we look at um the next paragraph in mr militap's statement he says at 11 17
01:09:23 statement he says at 11 17 iva meredith was primary responsible for checking draft test or classification reports
01:09:29 reports although there was a lot of interest in draft test reports internally when we were sent them generally iva meredith would be the only one to look at them in detail and others would not really see the
01:09:40 and others would not really see the reports until the final copy was produced and circulated either meredith would then explain the contents of a test report to me and the rest of the technical team do you see that there
01:09:52 you see that there yes now do you agree with his description of of how it worked in practice within kingspan in terms of who would be looking at the test reports and whether
01:10:03 looking at the test reports and whether he would only look at them in detail once the final copy was produced and circulated is that an accurate description i would often circulate a draft sometimes in paper instead of email
01:10:14 sometimes in paper instead of email to prevent it being used
01:10:19 but really we would only check it to ensure
01:10:22 ensure that the correct terminology was used for the kingspan products right so it was then adequate for release into the marketplace
01:10:34 when he says in the end of that paragraph iva meredith would then explain the contents of a test report to me
01:10:42 me would your managers be reading the test reports themselves
01:10:49 they would often need guidance as to where
01:10:52 where the product was meeting the past fail criteria i see so i would show them the graphical data at the back of the report yeah and then what you would give them
01:11:03 yeah and then what you would give them guidance on whether that satisfied the criteria in br135
01:11:09 at the time yes
01:11:14 does that mean that without your guidance they wouldn't have been able to read and understand all of the test reports themselves
01:11:24 i don't think that's completely the case this was a very expensive test you know this was a lot of money being spent in this area so i think they read it cover to cover yeah
01:11:42 and then if we look at paragraph 1121 now um this is a similar point to the one we looked at before but i just want to ask you about this uh in the middle of that page she's mr
01:11:54 uh in the middle of that page she's mr miller chap says from kingspan ivor meredith was responsible for ensuring that the test rig matched the specification however the bre were fastidious in examining the test rigs and their agreement to the drawings and specifications provided do you see that
01:12:06 specifications provided do you see that there
01:12:06 there yes and again do you agree with that yes i agree with that yeah
01:12:16 now can we just look at philip heath's witness statement this is at kin308 at page 29 and i want to look at paragraph 4.43
01:12:28 paragraph 4.43 on page 29.
01:12:33 he says that to this any written advice provided as to the use of k15 over 18 meters beyond the provision of product literature and once received the bba and labc certification
01:12:44 certification would have received input from either iva meredith andrew pack or myself with iva meredith providing the primary input into any bespoke advice as he was considered within kingspan
01:12:56 considered within kingspan to be an expert in this regard i would therefore only provide my input where he requested it or where he was unavailable do you see that there sorry whose statement is this yes sorry
01:13:07 sorry whose statement is this yes sorry this is philip heath's statement
01:13:11 sorry could you read yes a question so and i wanted to ask you in particular about where he says uh in the fourth and fifth line that that you were considered within kingspan
01:13:22 that you were considered within kingspan to be an
01:13:23 to be an expert in this regard so he starts the paragraph talking about any written advice provided about the use of k15 over 18 meters would have received including you and
01:13:36 would have received including you and you would have provided the primary input into any advice about that as you were considered within kingspan to be an expert in that area
01:13:47 in that area is that how you understood it at the time did you understand people to think you were an expert in this at the time because i was the one that performed the test yeah then i was the one with the
01:13:58 test yeah then i was the one with the expertise to understand the test yeah so to that extent you agree with with what he said there yeah yes
01:14:10 yeah yes did you sound a little bit doubtful do you want is there something you want to qualify i was very much involved in producing test reports but i i don't
01:14:21 producing test reports but i i don't know if i was too busy to actually get involved in the literature side of it i know i
01:14:26 know i i steered clear of the the latter versions of the literature it was circulated to a wide group and i was just involved in
01:14:37 and i was just involved in in testing predominantly so you know we we had we we had the test evidence and that was what we provided to the marketing department i see so are you saying that in terms of
01:14:49 i see so are you saying that in terms of when you talk about literature are you talking about the marketing literature for k-15 yeah any written advice really yeah any written advice so your your evidence is what you would
01:15:02 so your your evidence is what you would steer clear from that and just keep your focus on the testing is that right well still stay clear of the the the literature side of it i i was involved in written advice to customers
01:15:14 involved in written advice to customers yes so i did some of that but we we agreed our our approach i see so you take care of the literature side
01:15:22 side but you agree that you were involved in some written advice to customers yeah and i'm going to take you later to some of the written advice you gave on on a couple of big projects yeah
01:15:34 on on a couple of big projects yeah miss tim just one more question before i or that's all right you have to take a break take your own course um adrian pargeter now mr pardita who's the head of technical and marketing for kingspan
01:15:45 kingspan if we just look at his third statement um this is um top of page 23 paragraph 3.25
01:16:00 sorry k i n three zeros two two six one o
01:16:09 and it's page 23
01:16:16 so he's asked who who was more senior to mr meredith in this specific area of work within kingsville and he's talking about k-15 and testing of k-15 and he says this no one
01:16:27 one at insulation uk was more knowledgeable than either in this specific area of work
01:16:31 work although either always reported to someone in a position more senior to him within the business do you see that there
01:16:37 there yes again would you agree with that that there was no one within kingspan that was more knowledgeable than you but that you always reported to someone in a position to someone in a position more senior to
01:16:49 to someone in a position more senior to you within the business yes that's correct yeah mr tim i think that's probably a good moment for a break good um well mr meredith we're going to have a short break now um we'll come back 25 to
01:17:02 short break now um we'll come back 25 to 12
01:17:03 12 please and i have to ask you on this occasion and others when you leave the room
01:17:07 room please don't talk to anyone else about your evidence or anything that touches on your evidence you can talk to people about anything else and not about your evidence all right okay thank you would you like to go to the ocean please
01:17:28 good 25 to 12 please
01:36:44 i know you do and i'm
01:36:47 touched by your politeness but i'm afraid from the earliest stages i decided that people should not feel they need to stand when i then now we walk into the room so
01:36:59 i then now we walk into the room so thank you
01:37:00 thank you but don't trouble yourselves on another occasion
01:37:03 occasion um right you asked mr meredith to come back in please right mr meredith it's
01:37:20 back in please right mr meredith it's all ready to carry on yes good thank you very much yes that's great yes thank you so i want to talk now about the 2005 bs 8414 test we know that on the 31st of
01:37:31 bs 8414 test we know that on the 31st of may 2005
01:37:33 may 2005 kingspan tested a system at the bi bre using k15 as recorded in report 220876 and that test report is then
01:37:45 220876 and that test report is then dated the 8th of december 2005. and we also know but we're not going to get into it now that the br 135 certification report classification report in relation to that test
01:37:57 report in relation to that test was not issued until 10 years later on the 28th of september 2015 that's right isn't it that's correct
01:38:05 correct now whose decision was it to undertake that may 2005 8414 test
01:38:12 it was a market requirement for the use of
01:38:16 of an insulation above 18 meters so it was a it was a needs must right yeah and and who within kingspan authorized that that test to be
01:38:27 authorized that that test to be undertaken who would have had been the ultimate decision maker it would have been between philip heath and malcolm rochford but due to the expense it would have gone to the managing director
01:38:40 gone to the managing director yeah and the managing director at that time who was that peter wilson and what was the purpose of carrying out that test what did kingspan hope to achieve
01:38:52 kingspan hope to achieve by it to show that k-15 could be accepted for use above 18 meters
01:39:03 and did you have discussions with the bre
01:39:07 bre about um how that test might be used prior to it being carried out
01:39:15 we the bre were learning as we were learning
01:39:19 learning every test we performed they would send many people to to watch it because they were still agreeing their um x-app rules their scope of application
01:39:31 scope of application so there were no firm rules to say if you tested in this configuration it would be acceptable for use in these scenarios yeah so although
01:39:42 these scenarios yeah so although [Music]
01:39:43 [Music] the bre had suggested that if we test with the non-combustible cladding we will be acceptable for use with all non-combustible cladding systems who was it who suggested that within the
01:39:54 who was it who suggested that within the bre
01:39:56 bre i believe it was sarah colwell and when you say you believe were you present when that conversation took place or did someone i would have had that conversation with her on the on the telephone or face to face
01:40:11 yeah and you've said in your witness statement just for the transcript this is a paragraph 115 e on page 55
01:40:22 paragraph 115 e on page 55 the decision to carry out this test was a collective decision with all senior members of the technical team to test the particular system that was tested in 2005. that's right isn't it
01:40:42 i collated the materials together and would have presented them to my line manager
01:40:49 manager um this was the the one in 2005 was our first step of potentially many tests so it was agreed that this was a good starting point yeah
01:41:01 starting point yeah and your line manager was that philip heath that would have been philip heath at the time i want to show you an email that you wrote to david hawe and sarah colwell of the bre on the 30th of may this is
01:41:12 the bre on the 30th of may this is 2005. this is the day before the test took place this is it kin four zeros four seven nine one
01:41:24 and um if we could blow that up a little bit more
01:41:27 bit more yes so it's from you to those two individuals at the bre and um what you do there is essentially is list
01:41:36 is list people who are going to be attending the test tomorrow do you see that there yes and you've got yourself at one you've got philip heath at three steve huxma at four and others within
01:41:47 steve huxma at four and others within king's kingspan you've got at six it's angie shut from eurofox i think he helped you build the rig yes that's correct yeah and then in the second to last paragraph of this
01:41:58 the second to last paragraph of this email
01:42:00 email beginning please i just want to read this out you say please could you only discuss the results with myself or my boss philip heath
01:42:08 heath i don't know whether there will be a few moments after the test to do this after attendees four to seven have left or whether we could fit this in on wednesday i would like a copy of the video
01:42:19 video preferably preferably to turn up in mpeg format and then you ask about the video and what they can offer so just focusing on on that first part of that paragraph where you
01:42:30 first part of that paragraph where you said please could you only discuss the results with myself or my boss philip heath
01:42:35 heath why was that why did you want to have that discussion only when the other attendees had left because i didn't want our sales team running away with news about a successful test
01:42:48 with news about a successful test until myself and phil had understood how we could disseminate that information to the marketplace right i see so you wanted it to be a
01:42:59 right i see so you wanted it to be a decision that you and philip heath took first about well we needed to understand the results and what we could then do with it so he could we could relay it back up the chain to the
01:43:11 back up the chain to the kingsman management and in fact did that discussion take place after the test was there a discussion with just you and philip heath and the bre about the test afterwards
01:43:24 and the bre about the test afterwards there would have been a point where i don't know if phil was um involved in it where i would have got the
01:43:31 the the so-called green light from the bre staff they're not officially allowed to say
01:43:36 say but they can give you a print out of the unverified um thermocouple data yeah and you can see quite clearly that the
01:43:48 the the 600 degrees temperature threshold was not hit at the second level thermocouples yeah therefore
01:43:55 therefore that was seemingly a test success yeah obviously that we that isn't ratified until you get the full test report but it's very rare that they would screw
01:44:07 but it's very rare that they would screw up their
01:44:08 up their thermocouple results that badly that you you didn't get the pass that you thought you got
01:44:12 you got i see yeah i think what you're saying is that if you can see it hasn't reached the 600 degree it's given that the test standard allows you to hit that but for no more than 30 seconds if it's not here
01:44:24 no more than 30 seconds if it's not here that at
01:44:25 that at all then you've got some idea that it's met
01:44:28 met that particular part of the br135 criteria would you agree yes that's correct and there are other parts of the br 135 criteria aren't there
01:44:40 recollect it's um breaching the top of the rig
01:44:45 the rig and i think falling debris is part of the
01:44:48 the lpcb certification side of that test method so
01:44:52 method so mechanical performance yes yeah yeah in terms of the materials used in the test can we go to philip heath's witness statement first
01:45:02 first um on page 72 this is kin three zeros 20709
01:45:08 20709 and look at page 72. sorry can i just add yeah um i saw the name david hall there yes he was actually probably my
01:45:20 yes he was actually probably my principal contact in written for more discussions prior to phil heath i'm not phil sorry phil clark taking over the um the burn hall so although i would
01:45:33 um the burn hall so although i would discuss with sarah as much as i could it would be david would be my day-to-day yeah contact it might have been him that i had that discussion with about the non-combustor boards i see i see so the discussion that you
01:45:45 i see i see so the discussion that you thought might have been with sarah colwell about being able to extrapolate from this test might have been with philip hall yeah yeah
01:45:52 yeah david hall sorry david hall um
01:46:00 so then looking at mr heath's witness statement
01:46:03 statement page 72 kin3020709
01:46:09 11.11 at the bottom of that page you might have looked at this before you say either meredith would have selected the exact materials however the decision to use a
01:46:20 however the decision to use a representative non-combustible cladding panel in the 2005 test would have been the result of more general discussions which are likely to have taken place primarily between me
01:46:31 have taken place primarily between me iva and the commercial team but also as part of a wider discussions with the technical team i agreed with the approach taken and the use of the selected panels as being representative of non-combustible
01:46:42 representative of non-combustible cladding panels do you see that there yes and and do you agree with what he said there about um the decision to use a representative non-combustible cladding panel
01:46:53 non-combustible cladding panel would have been the result of more general discussions with him you and the commercial team and also wider discussions within the technical team do you agree with that yes i agree with that now we know
01:47:06 yes i agree with that now we know it's right isn't it that you built the test rig yourself with some help from eurofox is that right that's correct yeah who designed the rig for this test can you
01:47:17 designed the rig for this test can you help us
01:47:21 we um i worked with euro fox um we took guidance from the bre on the position of the fire barriers based on what they had seen previously
01:47:34 based on what they had seen previously with other cladding systems what advice did they give you about that what kind of advice i think it was in respect of the the positions of the fire barriers
01:47:45 positions of the fire barriers i how to position the fire barriers in order to
01:47:50 order to pass the test the the proximity of the fire barrier is to represent floor-to-floor fire barrier requirements i see so where the fire barriers should
01:48:02 i see so where the fire barriers should go
01:48:03 go to be representative of how it would work in practice i see let's go to the test report now this is at bre402511
01:48:20 this is the test report um as i mentioned earlier the test was done on the 31st of may 2005 but the test report itself is dated december 2005. we can see that
01:48:33 is dated december 2005. we can see that there in the bottom right hand side and if we
01:48:38 if we look on a page six within this report under the heading um trade name we've got description of product at the top of this page if we can blow that
01:48:49 this page if we can blow that first half up we've got um under trade name and
01:48:53 name and specimen identification code or number we've got cool firm k15 zero odp phenolic rain screen insulation board do you see that there yes can you help us what does that mean
01:49:05 yes can you help us what does that mean we know what cool them k15 is there but zero zero ozone depletion potential
01:49:13 potential this was um it was just the latest uh marketing terminology for the product i see i think it was um
01:49:24 i see i think it was um yeah it was because all our products we were claiming zero odp when they were zero ozone depletion potential
01:49:34 right yeah and was this um old technology k15 since new technology was yet to be produced in the uk
01:49:52 i think it must have been yeah that's our understanding but we wanted to check with you
01:49:58 with you and what about the foil faces were they perforated or unperforated
01:50:05 if it was old technology it would have been um
01:50:10 been um unperforated yeah and was it your understanding that the k-15 used in this test was the same product that was being offered for sale by kingspan in the market at this time
01:50:23 by kingspan in the market at this time so in may
01:50:23 so in may 2005 i think i i believe it was yes
01:50:29 now staying on their page six if we now look under immediately below two or two below that we get fixing details in bold and
01:50:41 in bold and we've got details of the call firm again in the first line and then if you look at the end of the second line we can see it gives a description of the cladding that was used on this
01:50:52 that was used on this for this test and you've got 1 200 millimeters times 900 millimeters times 6 millimeters thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac were mechanically fixed
01:51:05 uac were mechanically fixed at 600 millimeter centers to an aluminium railing system which was also mechanically fixed to the block work substrate do you see that there yes
01:51:16 and as far as you were aware were those cement particle boards non-combustible it was a um
01:51:28 it was an it was a non-combustible cement particle board manufactured by uac barhard or berhad they were
01:51:35 they were a middle eastern manufacturer
01:51:40 but yes it was non-combustible as far as i was aware and is that description of the outer cladding given there correct that it had those dimensions six
01:51:51 correct that it had those dimensions six millimeter thick cement particle boards manufactured by uac is that description accurate yes that's definitely accurate and can you remember who ordered the boards that were to be used as that
01:52:03 boards that were to be used as that outer cladding
01:52:08 there's probably a record in my um email i know i i think i got them from speaking to andrew at eurofox he put me onto a
01:52:20 put me onto a uh cement particle board supplier i believe yeah and i i got got a shipment sent across the purposes of this test
01:52:31 this test yeah and they were based in the middle east this
01:52:34 east this this manufacturer yes so not a uk company
01:52:37 company not a uk company no
01:52:42 do you know whether any record was kept of the boards that were used other than what we see on this test report
01:52:53 i was under the impression the bre take a sample of all the different elements of the uh the build-up
01:53:01 build-up right this is something that if you go for certification as opposed to just testing yeah this was something we were moving towards and hoping to
01:53:10 hoping to achieve eventually so later tests i would ask the bre to keep a sample of the insulation board and a sample of all the other materials so it could be tied back to the test result
01:53:21 result yeah what discussions had taken place within
01:53:25 within kingspan um as to what should be used as the external outer surface on this test rig
01:53:32 rig how would you come to fix upon these particular cement particle boards manufactured by that manufacturer we um we tried to
01:53:43 we um we tried to involve lots of different cladding manufacturers hoping that they would put something towards the test and help us build the rig there was a bit of
01:53:55 help us build the rig there was a bit of a reluctance at that time so we just took a um a non-combustible board that was available
01:54:04 available and we we just fitted it to the outside of the cladding to represent a non-combustible cladding system
01:54:12 system that was that was the idea that was what we were working towards yeah and when you say a non-combustible board that was available available to who in what market that you could buy in the uk market
01:54:25 that you could buy in the uk market right
01:54:27 right obviously this wasn't supposed to be a cladding system this was just supposed to be
01:54:33 to be representative of a non-combustible outer layer the point of bs 8414 is the fire will regardless of the materials will inevitably break into the space above
01:54:44 inevitably break into the space above the window and it's the speed it spreads up the insulation how the the fire barriers
01:54:52 barriers stop it from spreading the buckling of the
01:54:56 the the framing system for the for the cladding and to some degree the type of cladding used which will decide whether this system meets the requirements yes and that's quite an important point
01:55:08 yes and that's quite an important point i think you just made there you said this wasn't supposed to be a cladding system this was just supposed to be representative of a non-combustible outer layer so would you accept that this this as
01:55:19 so would you accept that this this as constructed it wasn't representative of a real-life real-world cladding system at that time no we were looking just to put a non-combustible layer on
01:55:30 just to put a non-combustible layer on the outside so it could be extrapolated by the bre to apply to many non-combustible outer layers or any non-combustible outer
01:55:41 layers or any non-combustible outer layer
01:55:42 layer i see you began that answer with no did you in fact mean yes the question i put to you so was so would you accept that this
01:55:51 that this as constructed wasn't representative of a real life real world cladding system at the time and you said no do you mean no it's not directly
01:56:02 do you mean no it's not directly representative right yeah thank you and who in kingspan had been involved in those discussions about what outer layer to to choose
01:56:16 it would have been myself and and philipp heath we we were solely perhaps naively looking for just a non-combustible board yeah just to go on the outside yeah this
01:56:28 yeah just to go on the outside yeah this was our first real step into this testing
01:56:30 testing yeah and when you say we were solely perhaps naively looking for a non-combustible board what do you mean when you use the words perhaps naively
01:56:41 perhaps naively well later after seeing a lot of tests i would understand that that the the size of the cladding panel would potentially have a bearing
01:56:53 would potentially have a bearing that there is a multitude of factors yes this is why the bre couldn't tie down any exact rules at the time yes because it was just going off in too
01:57:04 because it was just going off in too many different directions basically the the variations that could be get you could get in one cladding system so to
01:57:14 so to get a catch-all test result was not possible
01:57:17 possible yes yes
01:57:23 yeah so i think what you're saying is each time you tested you realized how complex this area was in terms of system testing
01:57:29 testing definitely and that unless you've actually tested the system that you're using
01:57:33 using you actually can't predict how it's going to perform in fire can you
01:57:40 not not at that point no no i mean the bre did suggest that there would be
01:57:49 myself and phil had a meeting with the bre when
01:57:52 bre when kingspan metalcon we went down there with the director and the discussions were okay we want to approve
01:58:00 approve these five systems and they were five systems
01:58:04 systems and the bre were talking about somewhere in the region of 300 ks were for testing but that wouldn't box off anything that would just tell them
01:58:15 would just tell them tell they would be able to then tell us how much more testing we'd have to do to actually get where we needed to be so it was an impossible situation for us
01:58:26 so it was an impossible situation for us and that meeting you've just talked about with the bre can you remember roughly when that had occurred i can't unfortunately i think it was um
01:58:38 it might have been some time after this test
01:58:42 test and before kingspan metalcon did their testing right yeah and a couple of times you've referred to exact rules extended application rules
01:58:55 exact rules extended application rules exactly i just want for the benefit of those listening um what you mean is rules that might allow you to take one test and extrapolate into other scenarios that's what you mean by that yeah there are um
01:59:08 mean by that yeah there are um known exact rules for say the roofing test
01:59:12 test yes but there aren't any at this point well there weren't any that i was aware at this point for um bs8414 no yeah so with fire resistance you sometimes
01:59:24 so with fire resistance you sometimes got exact rules is that fair but for this kind of large-scale fire testing there weren't there were no such rules and the only the rules would only be created after a number of tests were
01:59:36 created after a number of tests were completed yeah precisely can we look at um the second witness statement of adrian pardita at this point this is kin3020824
01:59:47 point this is kin3020824 a page 100.
01:59:52 and i want to look at paragraph 10.57 there and he's talking there we can see in the first line about the 2005 bs 8414
02:00:04 the 2005 bs 8414 test he says there in the first line it refers to a six millimeter uac cement particle board being used as the external cladding element of the system tested
02:00:13 tested this would be unusual and would not be representative of an external cladding element
02:00:18 element because such material is not designed for an external application and may be subject to degradation on weathering and then he says this however having investigated the issue further
02:00:29 further kingspan is of the belief that the test report incorrectly references the type of cladding used and that the cladding actually used in the external cladding system tested in 2005 was a fiber cement
02:00:43 tested in 2005 was a fiber cement board non-combustible as opposed to cement particle board which is generally rated as euro class b which would be more representative of an external cladding system
02:00:54 external cladding system used in practice at that time and then he finishes but i think it likely that the fiber cement board was chosen to simply replicate a non-combustible facade element as representative of the cladding used
02:01:06 as representative of the cladding used at the time do you see that there yes and i want to ask you as the person who
02:01:11 who constructed the rig and was was present and was intimately involved with it whether you agree with what he says there where he's saying it wasn't a cement
02:01:24 where he's saying it wasn't a cement particle board but it was a fiber cement board do you i would struggle i don't know i'm not
02:01:33 not okay with those sort of materials to know what the difference between the two is right but as far as you were concerned
02:01:42 concerned was the description given in the test report an accurate one
02:01:48 i would have sent the the uac data sheet to the bre and they would have then taken that information and used that to create the uh description which appeared in the
02:02:00 uh description which appeared in the yeah in the test and do you think you did have a uae data sheet
02:02:05 sheet um at the time
02:02:08 i i believe i had something it's a long time ago so i can't recollect
02:02:16 i see let's go to um a photograph
02:02:21 kin405079 this is a close-up photograph that i think you took of the cladding boards
02:02:31 there we go so these are photographs from the rig in the 2005 test and are the the exterior cutting boards we're referring to here the ones at the bottom
02:02:42 at the bottom here in grey yes that's correct does that help in any way as to whether this was a cement particle board or a fiber cement board
02:02:53 i can't see whether that had fibers in it or particles unfortunately sorry right yeah and i'll come to ask about it in a moment but can you just explain to us
02:03:05 moment but can you just explain to us what else we're seeing above that in this photograph what's the the black bar okay that's the the proma rsb rain screen barrier yeah which is a
02:03:17 rain screen barrier yeah which is a ventilated graphite-backed intumescent fire barrier that was on the marketplace at the time right um that's that's our essentially our fire barrier
02:03:29 our fire barrier at floor level yeah so were there a number of those within this rig there was um one right the way across the the rig horizontally at about i think it was
02:03:42 horizontally at about i think it was one meter above the window aperture and then
02:03:46 then again just below the half a meter below the second level thermocouples yep i see otherwise are we looking at
02:03:57 yep i see otherwise are we looking at the the k15 and its foil facer that's the k15 yes with the underneath that yep
02:04:05 that yep yep okay just going back to what adrian parted has said in his um witness statement about it being a fiber cement board and not a cement
02:04:18 a fiber cement board and not a cement particle board um have you ever been asked since that time exactly what material was used in the test
02:04:32 i think we would have just referred to the report but it was yeah at the end of the day it was a it was a non-combustible ball to represent a non-combustible cladding yeah so
02:04:44 cladding yeah so [Music]
02:04:45 [Music] like i say it's accepted that a fire a flash over fire breaking out of a window will
02:04:51 will destroy the lintel and it will break in to the lower part of the facade system through the cladding yeah so if we were to do that test with a
02:05:01 a cladding that was 20 mil or something that was totally impregnatable you wouldn't actually be testing the insulation because you'd just be testing a non-combustible cladding system so we
02:05:12 non-combustible cladding system so we put something there that would that would fail at that critical area allowing the fire to get into the the chimney
02:05:20 chimney effectively and then we would see if the fire barriers worked in conjunction with the k-15
02:05:33 can we go now to um a series of emails between you and um mr clark and mr in november 2005. this is at bre
02:05:46 403278
02:05:51 this is a series of emails between you and
02:05:54 and phil clark and david hall in november 2005. and in the top email so in the most recent of the chain you're proposing the actual text to be
02:06:06 you're proposing the actual text to be used to describe certain components in the test report yes do you see that so you've written phil with regards to the ventilated cavity barrier please use the descriptions below for the test report
02:06:18 descriptions below for the test report so we can see your you're giving text to put in the test report about what the materials were is that correct yeah i'm taking the um the
02:06:29 yeah i'm taking the um the manufacturer's description and just stripping it down removing any uh company terminology like promo rsb and intimax lpsk i'm just breaking it down into what the
02:06:41 i'm just breaking it down into what the material was
02:06:46 and then if we look in the fourth line down of the third paragraph
02:06:57 yes it's in black um it begins for the confidential section of the bre report it's the second black paragraph as opposed to the blue text on that page
02:07:08 as opposed to the blue text on that page and you see it says for the confidential section of the bre report i would propose
02:07:14 propose can you just help us what is the confidential section of the bre report my understanding was that the bre would hold a log of the materials utilized in the test
02:07:26 the test and it was the proma rsb that was used so therefore it needed to go
02:07:33 go in the the actual the main folder that the bre hold on this test
02:07:40 this test but with regards to the the version that we wanted to put out in the marketplace we wanted to remove potentially the the reference to the the pro map product
02:07:52 the reference to the the pro map product because
02:07:53 because maybe they didn't contribute any monies towards this test method or this testing or might it be that you wanted to remove reference to the specific products so
02:08:05 reference to the specific products so that you could use it to say that it supported a wider range of cladding systems than the one
02:08:14 the one specifically in this test could that also be the reason we were looking to to make the report general yes that was our end goal was to have
02:08:25 that was our end goal was to have something that that could be used in as much as it is as it could basically so the more generic the description of what was tested the more helpful that
02:08:36 of what was tested the more helpful that would be wouldn't it for kingspan in its marketing of k-15 yes certainly a fire barrier has a an independent test requirement under the british standard
02:08:47 the british standard so we were hoping eventually say that the promising rsb um performed had one hours fire resistance we would want
02:08:56 want other one-hour fire resistant fire barriers to also be acceptable i'm constantly thinking of the
02:09:03 the the future marketing of the product here yeah
02:09:07 yeah back to that line about the confidential section of the report how would you become aware that there would be a confidential section of the report at all how did you know that
02:09:20 i think that's just my terminology i what i was happy for them to keep that information on file i just wanted a a more generic
02:09:31 i just wanted a a more generic fire barrier discussed within the the main report yeah can we go now to an email sent before the test this is kin405075
02:09:46 the test this is kin405075 it's an email you sent on the 26th of may 2005.
02:09:51 may 2005. so if we can blow up that email it's from you and it's to a number of generic
02:09:58 generic technical services email addresses and also copying in malcolm rochford can you see that in the top yes and you say
02:10:09 yes and you say please find and close pictures of the bs 8414
02:10:12 8414 part one test rig i have been constructing at the bre watford this and last week you see that there and just to be clear bs 8414 part one is a test on a masonry structure isn't
02:10:23 test on a masonry structure isn't it as opposed to a steel frame structure yes that's correct and and then you say this the construction utilizes an aluminium bracket system 60 millimeter cool them k15 a 40
02:10:35 60 millimeter cool them k15 a 40 millimeter ventilated cladding zone which is fitted with ventilated cavity barriers at floor level the outer places is clad with a sacrificial cement board which will be destroyed by the three
02:10:47 which will be destroyed by the three megawatt fire that will be breaking out of the aperture at the bottom of the facade
02:10:51 facade the idea is that the fire will not spread up the cladding zone of the remaining insulated construction outside of the burn area when this happens we will have a verified k-15 is the insulin of choice for use in
02:11:04 k-15 is the insulin of choice for use in high-rise situations as per far note 9 references in part b of the building regulations and then you say a sample of the intermediate ventilated far break is situated on my desk
02:11:15 desk should you wish to have a closer look now
02:11:19 now i'm going to come back in a moment to that description you give there of a sacrificial cement board i'll pick that up separately um but i i just want to ask you for the moment
02:11:29 moment you've said at the end of that email that a sample of the intumescent ventilated fire break the cavity barrier is is on your desk and you invite people to go and see it if they want to why did you do that
02:11:43 so they could be familiar with the kind of materials they needed to talk up to gain acceptability for use of k-15 yeah and
02:11:56 for use of k-15 yeah and as we've already discussed it was a pro-matte promo seal rsb cavity barrier yes yes that's correct and did you yourself select that particular cavity barrier for use in
02:12:07 particular cavity barrier for use in this test
02:12:09 this test i think it was one of the only ones available in the marketplace at the time so i took it and ran with it basically
02:12:19 and did you understand that that cavity barrier used in that test was representative of the type of cavity barrier which might be used on a rain screen cladding system
02:12:33 that was what promat um promoted that product as yes i see were you aware that the pro-cavity barrier had a very high graphite content
02:12:46 it was a graphite yeah it was an intermediate graphite cavity yeah yeah fire barrier what i want to put to you is that this particular cavity barrier was not a commonly used or widely available
02:12:58 commonly used or widely available product what's your response to that i was not aware of that yeah
02:13:12 on the test report itself we see let's just go to this for a moment at bre back to the tester part bre four zeros two five one one page six of the
02:13:23 zeros two five one one page six of the test report
02:13:28 under the at the bottom of that page you see
02:13:31 see some words headed installation of specimen about three headings up do you see that there in black
02:13:39 black and it says installation of specimen the test sponsor undertook the supply and installation of the test specimen bre staff undertook no supervision of this process do you see that wording
02:13:50 this process do you see that wording yes now is that right because i think you've told us that in fact the bre do carefully check the installation of the system
02:14:01 system to check that what's installed is what was planned to be installed i think this is a comment towards like the certification approach of testing
02:14:12 the certification approach of testing where they would come into the factory they would witness the production run they would sign the production batches we would then send them to the laboratory they would then check with
02:14:23 laboratory they would then check with their records that the sign product is what's being installed onto the wall that's what i believe they're talking about there they would they were constantly checking
02:14:35 they were constantly checking cross-referencing the drawings the the mounting of the insulation onto the facade
02:14:42 facade i see is what you mean that they're somehow trying to draw a distinction here between testing and certification by saying in that second sentence bre staff undertook
02:14:53 staff undertook no supervision of this process i believe that's what they're angling towards there yes i see
02:15:03 but as far as you were concerned did kingspan carry out careful checks of what was installed for this test
02:15:11 this test sorry not kingspan the bre carry out careful checks of what was installed in this particular test as far as i was aware they were constantly monitoring what we were
02:15:22 constantly monitoring what we were putting up on the wall
02:15:27 if we go to page 33 of your witness statement now and i want to look at big big paragraph m there on page 33. sorry actually it's little m uh in the
02:15:40 sorry actually it's little m uh in the middle of that page and here you're being asked about the bba certificates which we're going to come back to for k15 but there's i want to ask you what
02:15:50 what about something you say at lines two to four there about eight four one four testing
02:15:55 testing you say this you say therefore the product when tested as part of a system meets br135 you cannot strictly say k15 on its own
02:16:06 you cannot strictly say k15 on its own meets br135 you have to talk system do you see that there
02:16:12 there yes now you were aware at the time of the may 2005 test is that right that bs 8414 is a system test do you agree
02:16:27 we came to understand this yes did you understand that prior to this 2005 test
02:16:42 i believe so yes yeah it's right isn't it that no one component of the system
02:16:49 system can be picked out as suitable for use over 18 meters following a test to bs 8414 can it
02:16:59 no it's got to be tested as part of a system yeah on the contrary following the test in 2005 in order to build an external wall system
02:17:08 system incorporating k15 which would be compliant the exact system tested would have to be replicated wouldn't it
02:17:18 without any except rules yes that's correct yeah
02:17:23 and just to be clear there never were any except rules were there no
02:17:32 i now want to ask you about a spreadsheet that's been produced for the inquiry by kingspan it was provided in response to questions from the inquiry as to exactly what k15 product was tested during each test to
02:17:44 product was tested during each test to 8414
02:17:46 8414 it's dated the 31st of january 2020 and if we go to it it's at kin3022357
02:18:04 and [Music]
02:18:07 [Music] what i'm going to do is ask you whether you can help us fill in some of the blanks or unknowns in this schedule i take it you've not seen this schedule before
02:18:18 before i don't think so no so um we can see that
02:18:22 that what the columns along along the top do is they tell us the test date the sponsor
02:18:27 sponsor the system tested the result etc any report number and then in the sixth column they tell us the properties of the insulation of the
02:18:36 the tested insulation product you see that there it's the wider column in the middle of that page properties of the ins tested insulation product and then
02:18:47 tested insulation product and then in the next column they tell us um was the tested insulation product the same as k-15 being offered for sale by kingspan insulation at the time and they say whether it was
02:18:58 they say whether it was known or not known um
02:19:04 and would you agree that that's quite an important question whether what was tested was actually offered for sale by kingspan at the time
02:19:14 yes and if we look at the first two tests that we've discussed already today they're recorded on this spreadsheet and we'll come back to this
02:19:25 spreadsheet and we'll come back to this spreadsheet a number of times we can see that the first test listed is the naked insulation only test from 2004. do you see that december 2004 yes and we can see it says insulation
02:19:37 yes and we can see it says insulation only in the third column and there doesn't appear to have been a test
02:19:43 test report identified it says for this this was purely an indicative test method
02:19:50 method yes that was my question that was because it was purely an indication of how
02:19:55 how k-15 behaved is that right yes yeah
02:20:00 and going over to the next column the properties of the installation tested in that test in december 04 the naked test are unknown can you help us any more about what i
02:20:11 can you help us any more about what i believe it was a 60 millimeter yeah cool them k-15 so the same as what was tested then in may 2005 it's my understanding yes
02:20:24 and then if we look at the 2005 test in the row below that the 31st of may 2005 test
02:20:35 and we can see there that the insulation tested was 60 millimeter properties of the insulation product tested
02:20:47 tested and i believe you just told us that that was old technology k15 that's right isn't it
02:20:53 i think it was and from looking at the photos that you just showed me i believe it was the unperforated version yes so old technology yeah and so in that column
02:21:07 um there could we put in that it was a 25 micron
02:21:13 25 micron unperforated foil that was tested at that time
02:21:23 i think that would be the case yes yeah
02:21:30 and as old technology that would have been manufactured using a pentane blurring agent is that correct
02:21:39 i can't quite remember the blowing agents used actually and then staying with that 31st of may 2005 column when asked was the tested installation product the same as being offered for
02:21:50 product the same as being offered for sale
02:21:51 sale by kingspan insulation at the time it says unknown can you help us as to what your understanding was what's your understanding i think you've already confirmed this to us but just to be clear that the k-15 you used on that may o5 test
02:22:04 the k-15 you used on that may o5 test was what was being sold to market it was as far as i understood yes
02:22:15 and so you would have been content at that time is this right to tell customers in your marketing material that the k15 used in the 2005 test was the same as that
02:22:25 that which was being offered for sale in 2005.
02:22:29 2005. yes so i now want to ask you about br135 classification for the 2005 test now we know that it
02:22:40 for the 2005 test now we know that it wasn't received until the 28th of september 2015 over 10 years after that test was undertaken but in terms of your evidence what i want to focus on is what happened
02:22:51 want to focus on is what happened in the months after the may 2005 test about this if we can go to paragraph 31 of your witness statement towards the top of page 15.
02:23:06 you're asked the question there at 31. between 2005 and 2014 were any customers or prospective customers made aware that no br 135 classification report existed for a cladding system
02:23:18 report existed for a cladding system incorporating k-15 and your answer is kingspan had testing that met the requirements of br135
02:23:28 br135 a classification report was additional expense
02:23:31 expense which really said no more than the test unless you could add except rules and give it some scope of compliance this is what we tried to do with offsite and the original part one test without
02:23:44 and the original part one test without success
02:23:46 success now can i just check does it remain your view that a br135 classification report was a an additional expense which said no more than the test report
02:24:04 this was additional monies to pay for a test to pay for somebody to interpret the results which i personally find easy to interpret i did not know that a classification
02:24:17 i did not know that a classification report was required i understood that you just needed to cross-reference your results with the br 135 document but it became apparent that
02:24:30 but it became apparent that at a later date that it was prudent to get a br 135 certificate to actually validate your test results but at the time we just didn't think it
02:24:42 but at the time we just didn't think it was needed when you said that i didn't know that a classification report was required when are you talking about then when did you not understand that that was
02:24:53 you not understand that that was required and when did that change
02:25:10 i say required because the marketplace asked for it that's why i say it was required when we did the testing in 2005 perhaps to 2008 we
02:25:22 to 2008 we we didn't feel that it was a necessary thing to spend money on when we would want to get a classification report
02:25:33 report when based on a number of tests that was my end goal so a classification report which would say
02:25:41 say kingsman k15 is suitable for use behind non-combustible cladding with this size cladding panel this size ventilated zone etcetera etc
02:25:52 ventilated zone etcetera etc that's that was our end goal but we obviously didn't sorry kingspan didn't achieve that okay let's just look at some emails now on this topic if we can look at kin405156
02:26:07 this topic if we can look at kin405156 this is an email from you to sarah colwell of the bre on the 24th of march 2006.
02:26:14 2006. so we know that you've had the december 2005 test report for the for the mayo 5 test and this is now in
02:26:22 now in march 2006 and you write in the first line you say sarah i hope all is well further to our meeting last month have you progressed with the k-15 assessment to bre-135
02:26:33 to bre-135 we could do with this asap please let me know predicted time frame and costing do you see that there yes
02:26:44 and and would you agree that at this time kings fan was very keen to obtain a br135 classification for the 2005 test what i'm asking for here
02:26:55 here is an assessment of k15 not just that particular test but i'm looking for a br 135
02:27:03 135 classification for a number of systems i want them to give us as much as they can based on the evidence that we've got to date
02:27:12 to date and potentially suggest what further testing we need to do to actually gain a meaningful certificate i am unsure as to whether you'll find
02:27:24 i am unsure as to whether you'll find any responses in my email from the bre with regards to this they seem to not be able to respond to us
02:27:33 us we'll come on to what we found in the email chains um so are you saying that at the time you understood br 135 as something that could be used to classify in a
02:27:44 that could be used to classify in a broad sense for a range of applications is that what you're saying
02:28:08 that's what we were looking for yeah as to whether that was possible with br135 is questionable yeah that email there is referring to a
02:28:20 yeah that email there is referring to a meeting last month it says further to our meeting last month have you progressed um can you help us as to um whether that meeting was about br 135 classification
02:28:32 meeting was about br 135 classification and if so what was discussed
02:28:38 i would have been asking for
02:28:43 scope of application on the k15 test results
02:28:48 results and what we could do with that test evidence what we how we could apply it to the marketplace what it actually meant in reality yeah because it was them that guided us down
02:28:59 because it was them that guided us down the route of testing with a non-combustible cladding board to represent non-combustible cladding systems so you know we wanted i wanted to
02:29:10 so you know we wanted i wanted to i wanted them to do what they said they were going to do basically yeah and again it you've talked about it was they that led us down this route of testing a non-combustible cladding board
02:29:22 testing a non-combustible cladding board is that the conversations you were talking about earlier either with sarah colwell or david hall yes that's correct yeah [Applause]
02:29:33 and what was sarah caldwell's response to this email do you know
02:29:40 i don't know if she ever responded right
02:29:45 what was your understanding at this time as to why the br135 classification was not
02:29:51 not forthcoming from the bre
02:29:59 this is not we never requested a br 135 classification for the 2005 test we were requesting assessments of the 2005 test to apply against br135
02:30:14 of the 2005 test to apply against br135 i see so you're requesting extrapolation yeah
02:30:17 yeah that's your understanding yes i see let's have another look at some other emails um
02:30:24 emails um let's go to kin403688 which is some exchanges you had with kingspan off-site now kingspan off-site are a subsidiary company of kingspan is
02:30:36 are a subsidiary company of kingspan is that correct that's correct yes and it's an email you write you can look at the top of this page to alan scuppum of kingspan offsite copying in simon waller
02:30:47 waller of kingspan off-site as well and you start this email by saying you say with regards our recent telecon about the performance of our call them k-15 and
02:30:59 performance of our call them k-15 and ventilated cladding systems please find and close the two versions of bre-135 and i think what you're you're enclosing there
02:31:09 there is the the the publications br135 is that correct that's correct yeah
02:31:16 and then you say this in the second sentence
02:31:20 sentence you say this as the test bs 8414 has no official pass or fail criteria these documents must be referred to in order to make sense of the test report that is included within the following
02:31:32 that is included within the following mail do you see that there yes so is it right then that you were clear at this point
02:31:43 at this point that br 135 classification was required after the 8414 testing
02:32:00 what i'm saying here is that the br135 must be referred to i'm not i didn't believe you had to pay the bre extra money
02:32:13 you had to pay the bre extra money for them to say that it's classified in accordance with this standard
02:32:21 i see so what you're saying is you thought anybody could take the 8414 test and work out for themselves whether the br135
02:32:31 br135 criteria pass fail were met is that right
02:32:34 right this this sort of information we were targeting it at fire engineers people that the people that would read this test we were expecting them to have the the
02:32:46 were expecting them to have the the knowledge to be able to extrapolate that information that they were looking at i see
02:32:52 at i see yeah now
02:32:56 yeah now you you go on in in this email to set out in some detail the history of the relevant regulatory regime in this area so in the second paragraph you're
02:33:07 so in the second paragraph you're talking about a bre publishing a paper in 1960
02:33:11 in 1960 and then you talk about 1983 bre published guidance document so you're setting out your understanding of the history of the relevant regulatory regime you talked
02:33:23 relevant regulatory regime you talked then about on the 11th of june 1999 a fire at fifth floor flat which fled up the outside of a 14-story block in irvine so that's the garnet caught fire is that correct that's correct and you're
02:33:34 correct that's correct and you're explaining what happened thereafter i think i got this text out of um sarah colwell's
02:33:40 colwell's presentation that she sent to me i see i see so this is information you've learned from the bre yes and if we look in the sixth paragraph
02:33:50 paragraph down if we keep going down this email we can see the end of the fifth line
02:34:03 we can see the end of the fifth line that's right so it's in the large paragraph there beginning approved document b stipulates so let's just read this together you say approved document b stipulates that in buildings with stories over 18 meters which is additionally the height of a
02:34:15 which is additionally the height of a fireman's ladder the cladding in the insulation must conform to stricter requirements than for low buildings adb requires that the material is either limiting combustibility or assessed in accordance with br135
02:34:26 accordance with br135 and then in the next sentence you say this cool firm k-15 has been successfully tested by the bre to bs 8414 part one and assessed in accordance with bre-135
02:34:40 and assessed in accordance with bre-135 now what i wanted to put to you is that that's actually not correct is it because it hasn't actually been assessed no i think in accordance with br135 has it
02:34:52 it i think that was just bad terminology on what i meant was it can be assessed in accordance with br135 because it met the requirements i see
02:35:05 the requirements i see in the next sentence you say where call them k-15 is utilized above 18 meters to fall within the requirements of approved document b horizontal ventilated cavity barriers must be introduced at every
02:35:16 must be introduced at every floor level above the 18 meter point do you see that there yes can you help us as to why in this email to kingspan offsite you're not
02:35:27 email to kingspan offsite you're not clarifying that k15 can only be used in one specific construction over 18 meters either one that had actually been tested in may
02:35:38 2005.
02:35:44 sorry could you say that yeah okay why didn't you clarify in that part that kingspan k15 can only be used in the specific construction that had been tested in may
02:35:57 construction that had been tested in may 2005
02:35:59 2005 this was effectively an extension of an ongoing discussion that we'd had with king spun off site they were preparing their own
02:36:09 their own um test data or they were preparing to put their own tests forward of the systems i think they were putting four systems in the marketplace so they were looking to do that testing
02:36:23 so they were looking to do that testing i see would you agree that that sentence reading it now gives the clear impression that there's no further requirement to using k-15 over 18 meters other than properly spaced cavity
02:36:35 other than properly spaced cavity barriers
02:36:39 i could it could be interpreted like that yes i agree you agree yeah
02:36:45 you then move to a section of the email which you've headed for internal ears only exclamation mark do you see that there
02:36:52 there yes and you say the bs 8414 flyer is currently being reviewed and we will be removing the references to the fact that a class naught material can be used below 18 meters on request
02:37:03 can be used below 18 meters on request about asms also the assessment that it mentions is not officially available as i'm currently discussing the content with our friends at bre
02:37:14 our friends at bre frs i think that's bre far research station is that right that's correct
02:37:24 by assessment there if we go back and look at what you said at the bottom of that page
02:37:29 that page before you say also the assessment that it mentions there were you referring to the br135 assessment for the 2005 test
02:37:41 assessment for the 2005 test yeah this is what i hope to get off the bre yeah
02:37:44 bre yeah and were you discussing that with the bre at the time yes in the in the emails that we've just seen i believe and did the bre have reservations about
02:37:55 and did the bre have reservations about providing a br 135 classification report for the 2005 test as you understood it i don't believe they had any i don't believe i never requested one
02:38:07 requested one so it what what i was asking for was it expanded scope of application i didn't want a classification report solely on what we tested
02:38:18 tested and what king's fantastic i wanted a classification report that that meant something realistic to the marketplace right but you didn't get either did you no
02:38:30 if we go uh back to the second page of this email and look at the second paragraph you say this the above mentioned assessment will be a more
02:38:41 mentioned assessment will be a more favorable
02:38:41 favorable document that's easier to interpret and will not include the bad pictures that are featured within the test report although the construction achieve what can be diagnosed as a pass when cross-referencing the documents
02:38:53 cross-referencing the documents it does look very destroyed however this test is mainly looking at fire spread and then you say it's because of this that we haven't yet done a metal metal con metal frame test to bs-476
02:39:07 metal con metal frame test to bs-476 abs-48414 part two do you see that there yes
02:39:14 would you accept looking at this now that
02:39:17 that you were well aware of the importance of the classification report at this time
02:39:28 i was aware of the importance of a classification report that gave us scope of application like i said that was my um in in hindsight my
02:39:40 was my um in in hindsight my bad management that i never requested a classification report for the initial test
02:39:46 test but i didn't believe it was required
02:39:50 initially let's look at an email now um from april 20 2008.
02:39:56 20 2008. um this is kin402584 this is an email you wrote so
02:40:10 this is an email you wrote so two years later and it's to tracy durman at a company called rainscreencadding.co.uk and then lee rainscreencladding.com are they part of something called lsc
02:40:22 are they part of something called lsc limited is that right
02:40:26 can you recall i can't recall directly to be honest this email is about the fire barriers used in the 2005 test that that's the um
02:40:40 test that that's the um seems to be the main subject can we read the first paragraph together you say sorry for the delay with this please find attached test data and picture showing installation of the
02:40:51 picture showing installation of the promat
02:40:51 promat rsb being used in conjunction with the cool them k15 high performance phenolic rain screen insulation in order to adhere to our installation specification for the rain screen barrier the product is fixed to a metal
02:41:03 barrier the product is fixed to a metal angle back to the substrata calcium silicate or masonry and the phenolic should be closely buttered to maintain insulation continuity and then you say this to meet the
02:41:14 and then you say this to meet the requirements of br135 five barriers should be adopted at every intermediate floor level to support this we have attached the bre report on the call firm k15 and rsb system
02:41:25 k15 and rsb system along with kingspan's internal memos um and then you say this in the second paragraph in buildings which have stories over 18 meters traditionally the height of a farmer's ladder the clouding and the insulation
02:41:37 ladder the clouding and the insulation must confirm to the strictest stricter requirements laid out in approved document b the document requests that the material within the cavity is non-combustible or assessed in accordance with bre
02:41:48 assessed in accordance with bre 135 to show that the fire spread up the facade
02:41:52 facade is limited cool them k-15 has been tested by the bre building research establishment 2bs8414 and an assessment in accordance with bre
02:42:03 and an assessment in accordance with bre 135
02:42:04 135 will shortly be published do you see that there
02:42:18 my question mr meredith is was that true so we're almost three years after the test
02:42:25 test why did you write in 2008 that an assessment in accordance with bre 135 will shortly be published because this is what we hope to this is
02:42:36 because this is what we hope to this is what kingspan hope to achieve so here's what you're saying is that king span what was still in talks with the bre about this at the time is that what you're saying
02:42:47 this was something we were looking to get out of the bre yes we're talks in fact going on with the bre at that time
02:43:00 i think we pretty much hit a brick wall with the bre they weren't moving forward i think we requested this be looked at
02:43:11 i think we requested this be looked at on a number of occasions and it just never came to fruition
02:43:17 so is it right that you were still expecting to receive a br 135 cert classification report for the 2005 test
02:43:30 we were looking for an assessment which would include the information gleaned in the 2005 test yes
02:43:37 yes yeah right
02:43:40 in the next sentence so it's right in the middle of that second paragraph it begins to fall
02:43:48 six lines down you say this you say to fall within the requirements of approved document b cool them k15 can continue above 18 meters however horizontal ventilated cavity barriers
02:43:59 cavity barriers must be introduced at every floor level do you see that there [Music]
02:44:05 [Music] and then you go on a material that doesn't achieve class naught would most likely not be able to pass the 8414 test now again can you help us as to why you're saying there that
02:44:16 you're saying there that k-15 can be used over 18 meters and that the only limitation is for cavity barriers
02:44:21 barriers to be installed at every floor level
02:44:39 um tracy and lee are they are they part of
02:44:42 of promat or they are competitor fire barrier manufacturer i'm afraid i can't help you with that at the moment we'll i'll see if anyone behind me can um
02:44:52 um [Music]
02:44:55 i mean do you agree taking that sentence and looking at it now that you appear to be saying that k15 can be used over 18 meters and that the only limitation is that horizontal ventilated cavity
02:45:07 is that horizontal ventilated cavity barriers installed at every floor level this is in respect to fire barrier usage yes
02:45:13 yes i see so are you saying that that that therefore affected how you gave the advice in this email because you were referring
02:45:24 because you were referring principally to fire barriers i understood this is what we were talking about here was fire barriers i see not about the other elements of the cladding system i see my other question for you is
02:45:37 i see my other question for you is why not make clear that it can only be used over 18 meters if the whole system construction is exactly the same as that that was tested in 2005
02:45:51 because we hoped to get a larger scope of application we had tests underway with um off-site that were looking at different cladding systems we were hoping that this
02:46:03 systems we were hoping that this information could be thrown together and we could have something useful to go to the marketplace yeah
02:46:13 let's now look at an email exchange with a company called richardson roofing in 2008 if we can go to kin403696
02:46:25 2008 if we can go to kin403696 and i want to look at the first email on page two from gareth mills on at the 20 on the 29th of february 08 at 10 35.
02:46:39 at 10 35. i think it's at the top
02:46:43 yep so the background to this is he's sending rob henry duncan from richardson roofing supporting documentation for k-15
02:46:56 supporting documentation for k-15 um this is gareth mills to rob henry duncan
02:47:00 duncan calls that the subject is cool them k-15 use on projects above 18 meters in height
02:47:07 height and he says please find attached a letter i've produced summarizing the details about the use of k15 on it means high-rise buildings and details of the third-party accreditation for the product
02:47:18 product and then if we go to the next email in the chain
02:47:25 the chain from rob henry duncan he says on the 6th of march
02:47:29 of march 11 11 back to gareth mills gareth thanks for your email can you please forward details of the bre test 135
02:47:39 so he's asking for that there and then gareth mills writes to you on page two on the 10th of march 2008 at 12 52
02:47:50 12 52 and he says to you this client has requested details of the bre-135 info following receipt of the attached letter do you have any issues with me emailing the bs 8414 report as i don't
02:48:01 emailing the bs 8414 report as i don't have a fax number for this practice gareth and then if we go to the email above which is your response
02:48:14 so right at the bottom of that page 11th of march
02:48:18 of march at 9 15 we can see you right back to him copying in andrew pack and you say please do not email the report if you can help
02:48:30 can help and then you say instead ring up directory inquiries or speak to roofing sales
02:48:37 sales and then if we can go over the page and ring this chap up and tell him you had to fax it
02:48:48 had to fax it um so you're talking about how to fax it and the only way to send it is to fax the photocopy as nobody asked for it we've yet to individually scan and collate all the 30 pages of the test report
02:48:59 pages of the test report we could do that but it may take a week and then you say this if this report gets into the wrong hands we could lose a lot of work and also make these sorts of jobs a lot
02:49:10 and also make these sorts of jobs a lot more difficult for us to justify pf's use that means a lot more and longer letters exclamation mark richard richardson roofing cannot always be trusted do they do many facades
02:49:24 be trusted do they do many facades so um can you help us mr meredith why didn't you want to email the report at this time in response to the requests that have been received i the 8414 report
02:49:38 we were aware that there was a commercial advantage to having um test data of this type and we were aware of
02:49:47 aware of competitors trying to get hold of copies of reports um what we didn't want to do was put a report into the marketplace that
02:49:59 a report into the marketplace that without the full story it was important that
02:50:03 that we understood what their cladding system was and
02:50:08 was and that we needed to talk to them to show them that
02:50:11 them that you know we this information only represents this part of the story you need to go out and speak to all of the cladding manufacturers to get
02:50:22 of the cladding manufacturers to get more information on this this isn't this isn't your solution for use at high rise you've got a you know you've got to tick a number of boxes
02:50:32 why would the test in 2005 make it difficult to justify the use of phenolic foam i had concerns of the the pictures in the back of the report
02:50:43 the back of the report although it it met the br 135 criteria it showed a lot of damage and to the uneducated eye this could
02:50:54 and to the uneducated eye this could seem
02:50:55 seem negative was your concern in fact that you were concerned that someone would be able to read the report and decipher that the test data applied
02:51:07 and decipher that the test data applied only to the specific system tested was that a concern you had
02:51:23 i think thinking back that that could have been there could have been an element of that definitely yeah and was there also in your mind a concern that the build-up of that test was not representative or
02:51:35 of that test was not representative or realistic
02:51:37 realistic and you didn't want people to work that out
02:51:42 we knew that that representative sorry kingsman knew that that was not directly representational um and we were still
02:51:50 still awaiting assistance from the bre to present that information in a more acceptable light it's right isn't it that kingspan had
02:52:01 it's right isn't it that kingspan had been relying on that test to promote k-15 into the high-rise market for three years by this time that's correct that's correct and there was no other test
02:52:13 was no other test to bs 8414 on which king's band could rely in the market was there
02:52:19 that's correct yes
02:52:23 is it the case that the bre didn't provide a br135 classification report at the time because they considered it only to be an indicative and not a representative
02:52:34 representative test i don't believe that to be the case no
02:52:38 no the only reason a bre classification report was not issued was because we didn't request that directly we were requesting an assessment of the k15 results
02:52:51 an assessment of the k15 results to give them scope of application can we go to a document now bre 3020074 so this is some correspondence from 2015
02:53:05 so this is some correspondence from 2015 when the bre had been asked to issue a classification report for this 2005 test and i want to look at the email from adam heath of kingspan from the 8th of september
02:53:16 of kingspan from the 8th of september 2015 at the bottom of page 1 and on to page 2. so at the bottom there adam heath writes to a lady called vid veda gaba sait
02:53:30 a lady called vid veda gaba sait at the bre and he says dear vida and goes over the page thanks for the prompt response on a slightly related topic it's come up in discussions recently
02:53:41 recently that we never commissioned a classification report for our bs 8414 test
02:53:46 test attached for reference this test was originally completed in 2005. i have three questions really can if a classification report be issued for this test
02:53:55 test how much will it cost what's the time scale for delivery do you see that there now you wouldn't just to be clear you wouldn't have been aware of these emails because
02:54:02 because you're not a recipient of them and then if we
02:54:06 if we we see that this request is sent on to tony baker of the bre who writes at the top of page one
02:54:15 on the 9th of september 2015 at 1650 he says this hi veda this is not a straightforward one in theory we could issue a classification document
02:54:27 classification document however i can understand why one was not issued for this test as it seems like an indicative type test bs 8414 and br135 is a system test
02:54:38 bs 8414 and br135 is a system test and classification system and from what i can see from this report there is no external weather protection system included eg render system or rain screen cladding whilst they have a cement board over
02:54:50 whilst they have a cement board over cladding i doubt this would be considered a complete system data such as this has been misrepresented in the market in the past and then he suggests that this question should be passed by
02:55:01 should be passed by steve howard or debbie smith before a response is sent do you see that there yes
02:55:09 now do you agree with the view that tony baker of the bre expresses here that the build-up of the 2005 test was not representative of a complete overcladding system
02:55:23 i agree that it wasn't a representative of a complete overcladding system yet did you or as far as you were aware anyone else receive any indication from
02:55:34 anyone else receive any indication from the bre at any stage that there was a problem with the provision of a classification report to br 135 for this test because it was only an indicative test
02:55:45 because it was only an indicative test this was um this was a full test that the test report supports that however what they the the terminology indicative here is because it's just
02:55:58 indicative here is because it's just it's not representational of an official build up
02:56:01 build up this was our um attempt to you know our first stab at showing that k-15
02:56:09 k-15 could be used in non-combustible systems so yeah i i can agree with his his stance
02:56:17 stance at a later date but this was not the stance of the bre back in 2005. i'm pretty confident if i'd have asked directly for it br 135 classification to the original
02:56:30 classification to the original 2005 test they would have issued one i never got any feedback from them to say that they wouldn't issue that or there was a problem with that because they would have issued one based on
02:56:42 they would have issued one based on it would only have been applicable to that specific system what i wanted out of them was an assessment which was what never came to fruition
02:56:52 fruition what i want to put to you is that that that was why a br 135 report was not issued in 2005 or 2006 wasn't it because the bre thought it wasn't actually
02:57:03 thought it wasn't actually representative of a rain screen cladding system i'm afraid no that conversation was never had i this is this is purely my fault my
02:57:15 this is this is purely my fault my oversight
02:57:16 oversight i believed that you could extrapolate any
02:57:20 any knowledgeable building engineer could extrapolate the 8414 results and just apply them to br135 and could see that the data that we had was representational of
02:57:31 was representational of meeting the requirements would you accept now that when you're looking at the pass fail criteria in br135 it does require expert assessment by a body like the bre
02:57:43 expert assessment by a body like the bre as to whether it has in fact passed those criteria
02:57:49 is that in the is that a change in the most
02:57:53 most recent version or was that always in there no i'm going to suggest you that that was always there that there always had to be some form of assessment to the pass fail criteria in br135 by
02:58:04 to the pass fail criteria in br135 by persons who are appropriately qualified to make that assessment i i wasn't aware of that i'm afraid
02:58:16 can we just look at um kin404791 again which is that email date of the 30th of may that we looked at previously
02:58:28 and i said i would come back
02:58:34 to this about two thirds of the way down there's a sentence beginning cosh data towards the bottom of that page and four main paragraphs up it says cosh
02:58:45 and four main paragraphs up it says cosh data will follow in the morning for the coolsam
02:58:47 coolsam k15 and the six millimeter cement board that simulates the cladding do you see that there yes and again the fact you were using the word simulate that suggests that it was only a
02:59:00 that suggests that it was only a representation doesn't it and it wasn't an actual rain screen cladding system
02:59:10 yes that's correct and you've described in other emails that we looked at the cement ball was there to simulate the cladding do you remember that we
02:59:21 the cladding do you remember that we looked at that this morning yes and that was for the same reason wasn't it
02:59:27 we were looking for a non-combustible outer layer that would simulate the performance of a non-combustible outer layer on the outside of the chimney
02:59:36 chimney because that was the what we saw as the critical criteria was the fire spread between the insulation the ventilated cavity and the back of the cladding
02:59:47 cavity and the back of the cladding yeah mr chairman i think that's a good moment to break for lunch i think it is yes thank you very much but we're going to have a break now mr meredith so we can all get some lunch um as i mentioned to you earlier please
02:59:59 um as i mentioned to you earlier please don't
02:59:59 don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room and we'll come back at two o'clock please okay all right would you like to go to the ocean please
03:00:21 2 o'clock please thank you
03:00:38 you