Philip Heath, former Kingspan Technical Services Manager, gives evidence about K15 fire testing, the change from old to new technology, lack of BR135 assessment, and marketing of the product for high-rise use.
00:00:14 so
00:00:22 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:25 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr philip heath of kingspan so would you ask mr heath to come back in please okay
00:00:48 good morning mr he's good morning
00:01:08 right all ready to carry on then thank you thank you yes it's great yes thank you i just want to start with some follow-up questions um following your evidence on thursday
00:01:19 um following your evidence on thursday afternoon
00:01:21 afternoon we we talked about the building regulations and you explained your understanding of the building regulations and the approved document be between 2001 and 2010
00:01:32 be between 2001 and 2010 can we agree on this that the building regulations are there to ensure that health and safety is properly safeguarded yes and when i say properly safeguarded
00:01:43 yes and when i say properly safeguarded that means protecting the lives and bodily integrity of anyone affected
00:01:48 affected by for example insulation products that's correct and did you understand that between 2001 and 2010 yes i did did you take health and safety
00:02:01 yes i did did you take health and safety seriously when you worked as a technical manager for kingspan yes i did did you take care to ensure the fire safety of your products was properly assessed and described
00:02:12 properly assessed and described to those outside kingspan who were using those products yes i believe so and did you expect your technical offices underneath you to do the same to take care to ensure that they were properly
00:02:23 care to ensure that they were properly described
00:02:25 described i would have done yes and did you take care to ensure that you engendered a culture of taking health and safety seriously while you were at kingspan yes
00:02:36 seriously while you were at kingspan yes i would
00:02:38 i would now just one question on the transcript if we can go back to the transcript that's day 78 page 191 this is your evidence from thursday afternoon
00:02:52 so picking it up in line 18 there this is where i was asking you about um
00:03:00 about um the point at which it became clear that you couldn't extrapolate and use one test to say that the system could be used in other applications so at 18 i say yes i was going to come
00:03:12 so at 18 i say yes i was going to come to this
00:03:13 to this so are you saying that it was suggested to you by the bre that if you tested that kind of simplified system let's call it that then you would be able to extrapolate from that and use it in other applications
00:03:24 applications and then you answer at the time that was that was the inference from the bre yes and then we go on i say when you say at the time what period what time period
00:03:35 what time period are you referring to are you referring to before the 2005 test was done in may 2005 and you say yes it would have been yes and then i asked in line five did there come a time when you became aware
00:03:47 there come a time when you became aware that that wasn't the case that in fact either because the bre told you it or because you'd worked it out elsewhere you couldn't test k15 in a representative configuration and then extrapolate onto other
00:03:58 and then extrapolate onto other applications and then you say well obviously we we took advice or that or the suggestion from the bre to go down that route of that particular assembly
00:04:08 assembly i think that was also probably to give them or to give them some technical data as well in relation to how that particular test performed with regards to when we realized i think after the test was completed but i'm not
00:04:19 after the test was completed but i'm not sure of the period of time but and then you say i say yes and then you say when the bre i believe retracted
00:04:28 retracted their original suggestion and then we go on i say yes mr meredith described it as moving the goal post right is that a fair characterization of what had happened and you say well that's certainly an
00:04:40 and you say well that's certainly an analogy do you see that there and i just wanted to see if we i could pin you down and it's exactly when it was that the bre made it clear
00:04:51 that the bre made it clear that you couldn't use that test in a representative way
00:04:58 it was certainly post-test yeah with regards the period of time from the test
00:05:06 test to being given that notification i have no recollection okay and can you help us as to how you became to be aware of that from the bre was that in a meeting
00:05:18 bre was that in a meeting or were you made aware of that by others at kingspan can you help us it would have been from others within kingspan
00:05:26 kingspan and do you think it was before after the test report arrived in december 2005. we know the test was in mayo five was the point about it not being representative made clear to you
00:05:37 representative made clear to you before or after december 05 i i really can't recall
00:05:43 now when we finished on on thursday we were in the middle of discussing the fact there was no
00:05:51 no br135 classification report for that 2005
00:05:55 2005 8414 test at the time that you were technical manager can we look now at
00:06:04 kin3020718 this is a technical services report from january 2006 which is the month after that test report was issued in december 05
00:06:18 report was issued in december 05 and that this technical services report you tell us in your statement would have been produced by iva meredith and you would have sent on to mr rochford is that right that's
00:06:29 on to mr rochford is that right that's right
00:06:30 right all the uh the team leaders or the senior people within the department would provide a report and either either or andrew pat would collate them yeah present it to me and then i would
00:06:42 yeah present it to me and then i would uh
00:06:43 uh present it to dr rochefort yeah yeah and if we go to page two about halfway down under the heading projects we can say that we can see the first
00:06:54 we can say that we can see the first bullet point there says this the k-15 facade test report is here bs-84141 although very advantageous in its raw form a further assessment is needed to gain full advantage do you see that
00:07:06 gain full advantage do you see that there
00:07:06 there yes i do and what did you understand that to mean a further assessment is need to gain full advantage from recollection that would be an assessment by by iva
00:07:17 assessment by by iva in relation to the to the test report and the data that's it within it i see a written assessment a written or verbal assessment by uh by either and the bre to either or
00:07:29 uh by either and the bre to either or because we've meeting with them regularly so just to be clear
00:07:33 be clear you said either in the bre in that last answer yes it would you understand would be providing this assessment to gain full advantage
00:07:44 assessment to gain full advantage for me it would have been a combination of both either and the bre yeah and just to be clear would you have expected to see that in writing um i'm not sure
00:07:56 um i'm not sure you're not sure no i see because i put it to you that there is no br 135 written assessment by anybody at this time by either or by the bra we don't see that in in a
00:08:07 or by the bra we don't see that in in a written form do we no i'm not sure if when i said a further assessment that that related to the uh the bre
00:08:17 195. sorry i've forgotten the number of it but
00:08:21 it but i don't think that further assessment comment was related to the written assessment that would be the bre-135
00:08:31 bre-135 so what was that i think it was just an assessment actually on the test report i see well i i suggest to you that actually a natural reading of that is that it is referring to the
00:08:42 that it is referring to the further assessment under br135 with the pass fail criteria in it that is being referred to it there but you say that's not right yeah i can't i can't recall that far
00:08:55 yeah i can't i can't recall that far back whether it's as i would have thought then it was an assessment not a formal vre 135 report i see is it possible that the bre did not provide a br135 classification
00:09:08 provide a br135 classification report at the time because those involved at kingspan and the bre considered this to be an indicative test and one which was not representative of a real-life external cladding system
00:09:20 a real-life external cladding system no not at all i think it's we didn't kingspan didn't believe it was important to actually have the bre-135 i think it was felt potentially it was optional at that time
00:09:30 that time we'd had the uh verbal assessment from the bre that they felt it had passed that test and i think at the time we felt it was it was sufficient i think i want to look
00:09:43 it was sufficient i think i want to look at some correspondence from 2015 now which you wouldn't have seen at the time but i want to ask you about whether the substance of it was communicated to you if we go to bre 405123
00:09:59 if we look at the bottom of page 1 this is an email request from adam heath of kingspan to the bre
00:10:12 um it's veda the gold state at the bre and he basically says in the first line on a slightly related topic it's come up in discussions recently we
00:10:23 it's come up in discussions recently we never commissioned a classification report for our bs 8414 part one test done in 2005. do you see that there and what happens is this request is sent
00:10:34 and what happens is this request is sent on to tony baker of the bre you can see that from the email immediately above on the 8th of september that's forwarded to tony baker and then if we look at the top of page
00:10:46 and then if we look at the top of page one at his response he says this hi vida this is not a straightforward one in theory we could issue a classification document however i can understand why one was not issued for this test as it seems like an
00:10:58 issued for this test as it seems like an indicative type test bs 8414 and br135 is a system test and classification system and from what i can see from this report there's no external weather protection system
00:11:09 external weather protection system included
00:11:10 included for example render system or rain screen cladding
00:11:14 cladding 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 do you see that there yes now what i want to ask you is
00:11:25 yes now what i want to ask you is whether that was communicated to you at the time that one at least one of the reasons why a br135 classification report wasn't obtained was because in fact it wasn't a complete
00:11:38 in fact it wasn't a complete overcladding system it had no weather protection included on the outside of the board whether render or rain screen was that ever said to you by anybody no it wasn't
00:11:51 [Applause]
00:11:55 were you aware that kingspan positively asserted to customers
00:12:02 customers that such an assessment was being or had been carried out a br135 assessment after the 2005 test where you were aware of that
00:12:13 of that sorry could you sorry you just repeat that again yeah were you aware that kingspan positively asserted to customers
00:12:19 customers that such an assessment was being or had been carried out that br135 assessment were you aware of that not as far as i'm aware i see
00:12:33 now i want to ask you now about the change in the technology of the um the phone we briefly discussed last week
00:12:42 week the change from old tech to new tech k15 and i want to ask you in more detail now and if we look at your witness statement first on page nine so kin30s 20709 and i want to look
00:12:56 nine so kin30s 20709 and i want to look at paragraph 3.4
00:13:01 you tell us in that paragraph that in around
00:13:05 around kings 2003 purchased a dutch company called marek based in kesterin in the netherlands which also produced phenolic insulation using basically the same chemistry but different production technology than
00:13:17 different production technology than call firm limited and you say because the kester and phenolic technology allowed a faster production line speed and the production of greater thicknesses it was decided to transfer the production of all phenolic products
00:13:29 the production of all phenolic products onto that kester in technology and to do this by modifying the production line at the kingspan site in pembridge do you see that there yes i do
00:13:42 and you say there that it was basically the same chemistry but different production technology so that's in the um
00:13:54 technology so that's in the um second and third lines really in the third line basically the same chemistry but different production technology what do you mean by basically the same chemistry uh well i'm i'm
00:14:05 chemistry uh well i'm i'm obviously not an industrial chemist but i believe the the three major components remain the same
00:14:14 um yeah i think it's basically yeah the fundamentally that the three major components of the uh of the foam remain the same right about
00:14:24 about the basically the same chemistry if we go over the page to 3.5
00:14:34 you you tell us in the second line just picking it up in the second sentence to the best of my understanding the difference between old or barry phenolic
00:14:45 difference between old or barry phenolic technology and new orchestra in phenolic technology relates to the manufacturing technique and the processing of the same chemicals namely
00:14:53 namely phenol resin acid catalyst and blowing agent do you see that there yes i do now if we can look at a spreadsheet now which was produced for the inquiry by kingspan
00:15:04 the inquiry by kingspan and it's exhibited to the third witness statement of adrian parjito it's at
00:15:11 two kin30223 oh seven and we'll need the native version
00:15:17 and we also need the second tab which is major changes
00:15:30 so this was provided to the inquiry after we asked for details of all major changes to the k-15 product since it's its inception and if we go
00:15:41 since it's its inception and if we go down to row 7 on this spreadsheet
00:15:46 we see the change in the kester in
00:15:52 technology do you see that there at the bottom of the page september 06 kester end technology sops with perforated facing do you see that there yes i do
00:16:03 yes i do and sap stands for uh standard operating procedures yes thank you
00:16:13 and that is a reference there to the kester end top not technology also introducing perforations to the foil facing that's right isn't it that's correct yes whereas previously
00:16:25 that's correct yes whereas previously the k-15 foil facings had been unperforated hadn't they they had that's a significant change isn't it to go from a perforated foil to an
00:16:36 go from a perforated foil to an unperforated to a perforated foil um it's a change i wouldn't i wouldn't have thought it would have been a sorry what was the word
00:16:47 a sorry what was the word significant change yes yes i wouldn't have thought it was a significant change in uh in the facing the facing remain the same with obviously some perforations within it
00:16:58 it did you ever think about that might be whether it might be a significant change from the point of view of its fire performance um i wouldn't because the the constituents or the build up of the
00:17:09 constituents or the build up of the of the composite face remain the same the the contribution of the of the foil at the time would have been minimal so i i wouldn't have expected and under advice from the
00:17:21 have expected and under advice from the the technical processing team i wouldn't have thought that was a significant change did you ever ask for any tests to be carried out to check whether the change from a unperforated to a perforated full facing
00:17:33 unperforated to a perforated full facing made any difference in terms of its fire performance i can't recall but whether the brokers the processing team would have undertaken
00:17:44 would have undertaken if they felt it necessary some small scale tests but i can't recall particularly asking for them i see now at column i if we can have column i on the page
00:17:55 if we can have column i on the page this provides details of the steps taken to ensure
00:17:58 to ensure satisfactory product quality do you see that there and i want to read from the second paragraph down beginning the resin have you got that there
00:18:09 that there do you see that yes yes and it says there the resin that was going to be used in the production of phenolic foam at pembridge was trialled at kesterin before the pembridge machine was commissioned in order to approve the use
00:18:20 commissioned in order to approve the use of the resin kingspan worked closely with the resin supplier to duplicate the resin that was used at kesterin do you see that there yes i do
00:18:30 yes i do so does that mean that the transfer to the new technology also involved the use of a resin which had not previously been used in the pembridge production line
00:18:44 reading that it would seem to be a uh a variant
00:18:52 so that was a change wasn't it that would be uh that would be seen as as a change in uh in the chemical that different supplier but obviously trying to resemble what they were
00:19:03 trying to resemble what they were producing at kester and yes yes and my question to you that that different resin is a different chemical is it not
00:19:11 is it not it is a different chemical how different it is from a a chemical composition i couldn't comment but it is a different chemical did you ever take steps to ascertain what the difference was in terms of its
00:19:22 what the difference was in terms of its fire performance the change in resin i'm not sure if i i knew that was the case at the time so that you are you saying you didn't know it was a different resin
00:19:33 know it was a different resin i might not have known there was that variable at time in let's look at column n of this spreadsheet
00:19:44 various details are given in column n of the names of the individuals who were involved in consideration assessment or testing of each change and if i can
00:19:56 change and if i can read that paragraph it says the ppds just to help us what's a ppds um i believe it's um
00:20:07 um i believe it's um either a product plan development system or a product process development system yes yes so that's a a method of um checking the significance of any change
00:20:20 checking the significance of any change would you agree that was a system that uh dr rochefort introduced in in the 90s i believe yes yes and and it was a system for checking whether there had been any any consequences to a change made do you
00:20:32 consequences to a change made do you agree
00:20:33 agree yes and it says there the ppds shows that vincent coppock
00:20:40 coppock r and d that'd be research and development yes yes r d manager was the project manager his role was to work with the dutch manufacturer to understand the kester and technology and bring that technology to pembridge
00:20:51 to pembridge including arranging any trials malcolm rochford
00:20:54 rochford technical director updated the status of the ppds
00:20:58 the ppds confirming that fire testing was required for this project and then it says this philip heath technical services manager signed off the part of the ppds to confirm that physical
00:21:10 confirm that physical fire tests and certification were completed
00:21:13 completed do you see that there yes i do and is that correct that you did sign off um the part of the ppds to confirm that physical fire test and certification
00:21:25 physical fire test and certification were completed at that time yes yes i'm not sure of the list of fire tests that i signed off but yes i did sign that off no i'm gonna
00:21:38 yes i did sign that off no i'm gonna ask you about that before before i ask you some more details about that i just want to take you to something mr meredith told us during his evidence we can go to the transcript day 75 page 39.
00:22:02 and i want to pick it up um from line three
00:22:05 three towards the top of that page and this is where i'm showing mr meredith exactly the same spreadsheet i've just shown you right and i asked him do you agree with what's said there in terms of who had
00:22:16 what's said there in terms of who had responsibility for different aspects of this
00:22:19 this including that philip heath undertook the fire testing and certification for the new technology k15 and he says yeah this is the problem i had with this system
00:22:29 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 and then i say i see and then he says because this the certification and the fire testing for
00:22:41 certification and the fire testing for these products we were doing it for years after the changeover do you see that there yes i do now would you agree with mr meredith that the fire testing and the
00:22:52 that the fire testing and the certification work for the new product was being done for a period of years long after
00:23:02 k-15 had been sold in its new technology form
00:23:10 yes i mean it is an ongoing development of the products you know by 2006 you know we could not have tested it with every single component that's involved in in
00:23:22 single component that's involved in in ventilated range screen i think the sign off was related fundamentally then to make it
00:23:30 as a correlation to say old technology so you'd be looking at small scale tests potentially for reference safe for ce marking
00:23:41 but can you help us understand why it was that you were carrying on doing fire testing
00:23:49 testing long after the 2006 start date for the new technology the sale of new technology k-15 yeah so i think you know like say we're only a component within
00:24:00 component within a wall assembly you know we would get approach from other component or associated product producers to be involved in further testing
00:24:10 testing so you know there would be the initial test but that there would always be further ongoing tests i mean that's not just the case in in ventilated drain screen but we also saw that in in flat roofing
00:24:22 we also saw that in in flat roofing applications as well where um other material manufacturers wanted to test
00:24:29 to test their product with our product within a particular system so it might be a new player or an existing player in the market but on what basis did you consider it was safe
00:24:40 was safe to be selling new technology k15 from a fire safety point of view i think then it would have been based on the small scale test to either a euro class or to the classo
00:24:51 to either a euro class or to the classo surface better flame and then also the 2005 test so so that's your evidence is it that you did some euro tests and the class national class nought tests it would
00:25:03 national class nought tests it would have been
00:25:04 have been from memory it would have been based on those there might have been other small scale tests that the technical process team had undertaken to to help me understand that more as well
00:25:16 to help me understand that more as well and when did you actually sign off on the ppds
00:25:21 the ppds saying that that testing was complete and
00:25:24 and from your point of view it was a safe product to be selling uh i can't recall when i would have signed that off if we can go to mr rochford's witness statement at this point this is kin
00:25:37 statement at this point this is kin four zeros eight eight three eight and i want to look at paragraph three 3.16 on page nine
00:25:51 here mr rochford's dealing with the transfer to the new tech and if i pick it up in the third line he says i've seen a screenshot of the data that was captured through the ppds process relating to the
00:26:04 through the ppds process relating to the transfer of new technology for all phenolic products except cool duct
00:26:09 duct which shows that this product was signed off by me in january 06 and ultimately signed off by the operations director september 06. this process did include a section in relation to fire testing and
00:26:20 relation to fire testing and certification which was signed off on the 21st of february 2008 by phil heath which indicates to me that fire testing was one of the requirements to be completed and signing off would indicate that this
00:26:32 and signing off would indicate that this had been completed for all affected products do you see that there yes i do can you explain why that fire testing and certification
00:26:43 why that fire testing and certification part of the ppds was signed off by you in february 2008 when the evidence suggests that k-15 are being been sold in its new form
00:26:54 k-15 are being been sold in its new form for two years prior to that point
00:26:59 yeah no i cannot i cannot explain that
00:27:04 would you agree that what ought to have happened was a comprehensive program of fire testing so that you fully understood the fire safety consequences of that new product
00:27:15 safety consequences of that new product before it was sold and particularly before
00:27:18 before it was sold and marketed for use on buildings over 18 meters on reflection yes
00:27:30 now you've been able to confirm to us in your statement that the test that was carried out onto in 2005 the 8414 test must have been on old technology k15
00:27:41 must have been on old technology k15 that's for the record that's at paragraph 311 of your statement now moving on now we don't need to go to it but at paragraph 3.17
00:27:52 it but at paragraph 3.17 of your statement on page 12 you explain that was an internal group set up specifically to handle the transfer to the new tech which was called
00:28:01 called the kester end technology transfer group that's right isn't it yes i believe so and as a member of that group you explain that you were confirming what further
00:28:12 that you were confirming what further testing
00:28:13 testing of new tech was required prior to its adoption and arranging the appropriate tests
00:28:19 tests if we can look at some minutes of a meeting of that kester on technology transfer group this is kin3022003
00:28:36 now it doesn't look like you're present at this meeting you've sent apologies by the looks of it this is 16 september 04 do you see that there and at the bottom of page two
00:28:53 right at the bottom of page two we see a heading certification and tested needed and it says basically all current uk results will need to be confirmed with kester and product
00:29:05 kester and product sbi single burning item results are mostly already covered and should be transferable and then it says bs476 part six and seven class naught has been achieved by
00:29:16 achieved by some kester end products and then p heath confirm outstanding tests needed and arranged testing do you see that there yes i do so consistent with that
00:29:28 yes i do so consistent with that spreadsheet that kingspan provided to us it looks like you were responsible for confirming what outstanding tests needed to be doing and arranging those tests is that right
00:29:43 sorry could you just repeat the question yes consistent with the spreadsheet we've had from kingspan it looks like you were responsible for confirming what outstanding tests were needed and arranging those tests is that right
00:29:58 uh looking at the action that was that was the action yeah now just going back to your witness statement if we could bring this up on page 13 of your witness statement
00:30:10 on page 13 of your witness statement paragraph 3.19 on page 13.
00:30:17 you say this as part of the change from old tech to new tech k15 we were continuously undertaking product development and fire testing when new technology k15 was first adopted in 2006
00:30:28 first adopted in 2006 my recollection is that i understood that it had equivalent fire performance to old technology k15 and i had signed off on this as part of the kester end technology transfer
00:30:39 the kester end technology transfer project
00:30:39 project do you see that there yes i do now can you help us as to how you came to the conclusion then that the products were equivalent
00:30:51 that the products were equivalent in fire performance to old technology on what basis did you reach that conclusion at that time um i would have i would have imagined that that would have been based on
00:31:03 have been based on the small scale tests on on euro class and potentially
00:31:14 yeah the small the single burning item test i would have based it on that and also the comments from the uh the processing team that the technology that we were
00:31:26 that we were transferring across wouldn't have had any
00:31:29 any particular difference to the uh to the to the old technology is it your evidence that there were in fact further tests that were actually carried out by kingspan on the new
00:31:40 carried out by kingspan on the new technology to ascertain it it's its fire performance new tests certainly the a4 1 4 test would have been a new test
00:31:52 1 4 test would have been a new test which 8414 test are you referring to there
00:31:57 that would have been the 2005 test yes but i think we're all agreed that sorry that was on old testament that was on old technology sorry so what tests actually were carried out
00:32:09 carried out to as far as you can recall under your watch
00:32:12 watch to in to investigate and to reach that conclusion or i can't recall because i know we were very much the technical department
00:32:23 very much the technical department our technical services department were very much involved in the large-scale testing and the small-scale tests would have generally been organized by the technical processing team
00:32:36 the technical processing team and so although it said in the minutes previously that i would arrange the tests it wouldn't be as far as i can recall it wouldn't be myself or my team would arrange
00:32:48 myself or my team would arrange small scale tests but you presumably as the person signing off the ppgs on fire performance you would expect to be informed about the results of those fire tests indeed i would but i can't recall what
00:33:00 indeed i would but i can't recall what those tests would be and would those have included tests to to national class naught bs four seven six part six and part seven tests um it would or or we'd have correlated
00:33:14 um it would or or we'd have correlated it from
00:33:15 it from results of the kestrel technology let's look at a report now
00:33:23 nine kin405292 it's a half yearly report for two thousand and seven
00:33:31 kin four zeros five two nine two you see that there kingspan technical services department half yearly report for 2007.
00:33:43 half yearly report for 2007. yes and underneath can you see it says andrew pack technical services manager yeah and then iva meredith and gareth mills are listed on there do you see that there that that's your team isn't it uh
00:33:55 that that's your team isn't it uh andrew iver yeah gareth yeah the the three direct lines were andrew park ivan meredith and justin davis
00:34:03 davis i believe gareth reported into either but yes
00:34:08 but yes and then if we look on page five there's a heading ce marking certification and fire testing do you see that there yes
00:34:19 and if we go on to page 11 i think what we see is that we can see from page 11 that this section appears to have been written by iva meredith do you see that there yes so this section of the report is
00:34:31 yes so this section of the report is written by him can you remember reading that half-yearly report
00:34:39 i would have read it at the time yeah and if we can go to page seven and look at the first paragraph there
00:34:51 and we can read that so it says we have had numerous attempts with the new technology to achieve the class naught requirement within the bs 476 part 6 test
00:35:02 within the bs 476 part 6 test we are now looking at future modifications using fire retardants however this will push us into a mandatory higher level of attestation for ce marking which for the moment may be an issue for
00:35:13 which for the moment may be an issue for phenolic
00:35:14 phenolic do you see that there we are also looking at repeating some of the near misses at alternative laboratories just in case
00:35:22 in case so we know that bs 476 part 6 is a fire propagation test and it's one of the tests you you have to have done and set results obtained to achieve
00:35:33 done and set results obtained to achieve national class naught it appears from this doesn't it that the new technology was struggling to pass 476 part six by mid
00:35:44 struggling to pass 476 part six by mid 2007 doesn't it
00:35:48 yes it does and that would suggest wouldn't it that it didn't have equivalent fire performance do you agree
00:35:56 the problem with the 476 part six it's and any tests of this nature the very variable
00:36:04 variable in in the results that it it provides um and i think one of the characteristics of a phenolic and and and other insulins is that it can
00:36:15 and other insulins is that it can extinguish the flame source um so it is it's a very variable test mr heath do you see the first lines there it says we have had numerous
00:36:27 there it says we have had numerous attempts with the new technology they hadn't tried it once they've had numerous attempts and you're being told that it's
00:36:34 that it's struggling to achieve that four seven six part six test what i'm asking is at the time did it occur to you that it wasn't of equivalent fire performance
00:36:48 of equivalent fire performance at the time of look looking at that it would appear that way but i mean the process team would be advising as to how they were going to continue and pursue this i think there was a number
00:37:00 pursue this i think there was a number of people looking at this whole project but at the time we were clearly struggling in uh in meeting that fire propagation test yes
00:37:08 yes can you explain how you were continuing to sell k15 with class naught as part of the marketing literature throughout this period i think under
00:37:19 throughout this period i think under advice from the the processing team you know we were using i think some uh a fire test report that was based on the old
00:37:27 the old question or based on the kestrel technology
00:37:32 that we're using at the time
00:37:38 so are you saying for their national tests these are national they're they're specific to the uk not holland you were based you were
00:37:50 not holland you were based you were trying to rely on reports that had come from from holland is that what you're saying i think we're based basically based in we had the classo results from the kestrel technology
00:38:02 results from the kestrel technology produced in holland yes where are those reports can you remember actually seeing them
00:38:09 them i i can't recall is it speculation on your part that there were such reports or do you actually recall seeing such reports from the netherlands i've no recollection
00:38:20 the netherlands i've no recollection it's just obviously the uh how we were informed by the uh the processing team about the the results both the kestrel team and the uk team but i have no recollection of seeing those
00:38:33 have no recollection of seeing those reports
00:38:34 reports i mean i see a lot of reports so i have no recollection of of one individual now i'm a bit puzzled by this mr heath see if you can help me um is it your recollection that tests in
00:38:46 um is it your recollection that tests in accordance with the british standard this is bs 476 part 6 had been carried out in holland on the what we call the new technology material
00:38:57 material i was under the impression that the bs 476 part 6 and 7 test had been done on the kestrel produced phenolic technology where the tests were
00:39:08 phenolic technology where the tests were undertaken whether it's in the uk or a dutch laboratory i'm not sure but i was under the impression that a class hoe had been achieved for that technology although not produced in pembridge
00:39:19 not produced in pembridge i mean that's slightly difficult to reconcile with the first paragraph on this page isn't it
00:39:30 yes i agree yes
00:39:34 we go to page 11 of this report within this same section from mr meredith and i want to look at this second bullet point down do you see there he says uh he's summarizing the main highs and
00:39:46 uh he's summarizing the main highs and then the main lows second down he says successful promotion and persuasion of the market into accepting phenolic as the best thing since sliced bread
00:39:57 since sliced bread do you see that there yes i do and in the third bullet point the approved document b consultation and the introduction of the 8414 clauses therefore allowing us better access to the high-rise market for k-15 i above 18
00:40:10 the high-rise market for k-15 i above 18 meters do you see that there yes i do so would you agree that what's being said in this report is one of the highs at this time is that you've successfully promoted and persuaded the market
00:40:21 persuaded the market into accepting phenolic including in the over 18 meter market
00:40:28 did this report also did it reference the
00:40:33 the 2005 test as well on what what well check that could you just remind me what date this is we can check that but i think we're agreed that actually i'm being told no it does not but the 2005 test was on old tech
00:40:46 but the 2005 test was on old tech right not new tech right so if you were using that you shouldn't have been should you
00:40:59 sorry what's that sorry could you repeat the first question so what i was asking is do you accept from those two bullet points there that what's being said is one of the highs at this time is you've successfully promoted and persuaded the market into accepting phenolic including
00:41:12 market into accepting phenolic including in the over 18 meter market it would read that way yes and yet if you look at the lows do you see the second bullet point there
00:41:24 do you see the second bullet point there it says struggling with verification of basic properties i low lambda and class naught do you see that there yes i do so in mr meredith's summary he's also highlighting to you
00:41:37 he's also highlighting to you that you're struggling to verify the basic properties including class naught
00:41:44 that's correct are you saying that at this time you still understood the new tech to have equivalent fire performance to the old tech
00:41:56 performance to the old tech well these these reports obviously that we passed up the uh up the line as well to ask for comments from uh
00:42:05 from uh from my my director as to where the next direction this would go but i clearly recognize that we are struggling in the verification of classo there yes yes
00:42:16 the verification of classo there yes yes and it was your responsibility as the person
00:42:19 person under the ppds who'd taken responsibility for the fire testing section to sign off on the new tech wasn't it
00:42:28 wasn't it correct yes do you accept that it was your responsibility to ensure that the bs
00:42:34 bs 8414 test results you'd had from 2005 remained relevant if you were still marketing it for use above 18 meters
00:42:51 sorry sorry you accept that it was your responsibility to ensure that the bs 8414 test results you'd had from 2005 remained relevant given you were still
00:43:02 remained relevant given you were still marketing it for use above 18 meters yes i do in 2006 new technology k15 had not been incorporated into any test
00:43:13 not been incorporated into any test for bs 8414 had it that's correct
00:43:22 just while we're in this document just to pick up on a slightly separate point but
00:43:26 but we're in this document it's um and if we look at the second paragraph on page nine just before we leave it
00:43:37 do you see in the middle of that page it says this kingspan technical were heavily involved in the consultation of the english fire regulation approved document b out of the 250 consultation submissions kingspan submitted
00:43:49 kingspan submitted six versions under various guises broofma
00:43:52 broofma epfa company and individuals do you see that there yes i do so it would appear that kingspan under various guises has made submissions about the consultation that
00:44:05 submissions about the consultation that was carried out to a pre-document b is that right that's correct through various of the trade associations we were involved in at the time yes we should was that normal practice for kingspan to
00:44:17 was that normal practice for kingspan to submit numerous consultation responses under the guises of other organizations such as brookman or the epfa
00:44:29 i think casting my mind back though there was seats available within the consultation through the various trade associations
00:44:41 various trade associations and i think through our marketing department we we gained it we did accept the seats that
00:44:48 that were available to us on those consultations i see okay now moving forward with the chronology and now i want to ask you about the tests in 2007 and 2008
00:45:01 about the tests in 2007 and 2008 on systems incorporating k-15 it's right isn't it that kingspan carried out four tests to 8414 part two at the bre in 2007 and 2008 on
00:45:12 two at the bre in 2007 and 2008 on systems incorporating new technology k15 certainly our the k-15 new technology was
00:45:21 was was used on four tests i don't know whether the all the tests were commissioned by kingspan i think something two were in in conjunction with kingspan off-site right in 2008 and two
00:45:33 right in 2008 and two were um with so tech and metsec right so yes so they were the two tests commissioned by
00:45:44 the two tests commissioned by sotech and i presume the other two tests were commissioned by the kingsman offsite division at the time i see yeah and kingsman off site that's another company owned by the kingspan group is
00:45:55 company owned by the kingspan group is that correct uh it was yes yes it was a business involved in looking at um prefabrication both um 2d and 3d
00:46:07 both um 2d and 3d modular construction and it's right isn't it that none of those systems in those four tests passed and could be classified to br 135 could they they were all failures
00:46:18 br 135 could they they were all failures i believe they all failed yes
00:46:22 did that have any uh effect on your view that the
00:46:25 that the fire performance was equivalent it was difficult to say because obviously there were there were different
00:46:32 different completely different tests uh the two so tech tests i believe were based on an aluminium cassette um which performs considerably different from a
00:46:43 from a that the uh the non-combustible um tests we under we carried out in 2005. so
00:46:51 so yeah yes there were completely different tests i think that one of the other off-site tests was a combustible external cladding material um with a
00:47:02 external cladding material um with a render on it but certainly the suso tech ones were
00:47:05 ones were were aluminium and i believe there was king span tester but also i think mineral wool was also tested in that same series of tests which also
00:47:16 same series of tests which also failed do i take it from your answer that you didn't have any concerns about the performance of k-15 based on the evidence that was available about these tests i think at the time it was just a huge
00:47:27 i think at the time it was just a huge learning curve with these large-scale tests
00:47:30 tests um i think i said in a statement you know we were very new to this technology and i think the bre was very new to this technology and there was reticence
00:47:43 was reticence from component suppliers to be involved in in these tests as well because they were obviously they had a share of the market which didn't require them two tests
00:47:54 which didn't require them two tests sorry just to answer my question is it right that you didn't have any concerns about the performance of the k-15 itself based on these tests i think based on those tests i think that's correct i
00:48:05 those tests i think that's correct i think we were looking at this as a whole system test and the system failed not just the uh the k-15 in this instance
00:48:12 instance i see well let's keep going with the documents um so just to put this in context by the end of 2005 a separate british standard test bs 8414
00:48:23 a separate british standard test bs 8414 part
00:48:23 part 2 had been published and is it right that by 2007 queries were being raised with kingspan by customers about the use of their products in high-rise building with steel frame
00:48:35 high-rise building with steel frame systems
00:48:37 systems i believe so yes the documents i've seen yes
00:48:41 yes and if we could go to kin408847 this is a
00:48:46 a document we're going to go through in some detail this is an internal report written by mr meredith and dated the 7th of january 2008. do you see that there
00:48:59 yes i do yes and for now i just want to look at the second page under the title project stakeholders and the second
00:49:10 project stakeholders and the second paragraph
00:49:11 paragraph down so there we can see he says the project was run jointly between sotech metsec and kingspan cosplay three ways
00:49:19 ways if it had been successful sotek would have included it in their approved red book listing etc and then in the next paragraph it says this this information is essential to kingspan
00:49:30 kingspan for all facade sales above 18 meters throughout the uk and ireland not having evidence that our product performs onto a steel frame is causing job losses specifically in scotland on a daily
00:49:42 specifically in scotland on a daily basis
00:49:43 basis however we are fighting the case for each project with the bs 84141 onto masonry test data performed in 2008. do you see that there
00:49:57 performed in 2005. sorry i'm so sorry do you see that i do yes did you read uh this report when it was uh i did i i agreed with um either that
00:50:10 i agreed with um either that he would commission this report because he had concerns and i asked him to prepare this report as well so it was an agreement between myself and iva
00:50:21 agreement between myself and iva so it could actually progress it yeah up the chain and be discussed at future meetings yeah yes and you said you agreed that iva would prepare the report
00:50:30 report because he had concerns had he told you before you saw this written report that he had concerns about how k-15
00:50:38 k-15 itself was performing yes and and you know he came with this suggestion to write this report and i agreed he should
00:50:50 did you understand how kingspan was fighting the case for each project with the 8414 part one test data performed in 2005.
00:51:02 performed in 2005. i wasn't aware we're fighting for for each project i knew we were getting enquiries in relation to to projects in general yes did you ever question how kingsbank
00:51:13 did you ever question how kingsbank could be doing that given that you are now selling new technology k15 uh on reflection yes
00:51:24 does that mean on reflection you didn't question
00:51:27 question that or no on reflection i would question that yes yeah looking at it now
00:51:34 at it now yes yeah
00:51:37 and then if we go to page five about halfway down that page
00:51:46 we can see in the third paragraph down about halfway down that page there's a um paragraph beginning however do you see that there he says however last year the second version of the 8414
00:51:58 last year the second version of the 8414 series was published this raised the issue that the bs-8414 part 1 data that we were using did not cover steel frames although we continued to use the 2005 test
00:52:09 continued to use the 2005 test some fire regulators were asking for evidence to support bs 8414 part two do you see that there yes i do
00:52:20 and do you agree that it was well understood internally by kingspan by this time
00:52:24 this time that the 8414 test data the part one test data
00:52:28 test data was not relevant to steel frame systems
00:52:34 i believe so at that time yes and yet would you agree that the strategy at this time was to continue to use that data to support compliance of the product for over 18 meters
00:52:45 over 18 meters on steel frame systems nonetheless i think we
00:52:49 think we provided the the test reports to interested who were to inquiries in relation to part two for them to understand what we had tested and if necessary for them to seek
00:53:01 tested and if necessary for them to seek further advice
00:53:10 if you can go to an email at this zeros point
00:53:13 point two four three this is an email chain from november oh six
00:53:24 this is where kingspan had sent the 2005 8414
00:53:28 8414 test report to barris in order to support the use of k15 on this particular project and if we look at page two
00:53:39 there's an email sent by james emery of wintec to bob williamson of carillion on the
00:53:44 the 30th of november at 1205. do you see that there i do yes and if we pick it up he says after further research the test
00:53:57 he says after further research the test report
00:53:58 report and that's the 2005 test number is not a valid test for the system constructed by varys at buxton street he says we believe it's been tested to the wrong part of 8414. it should have
00:54:09 the wrong part of 8414. it should have been tested to part two and not part one our understanding is the t of the test is that part one is aimed for a masonry wall construction and part two is for lightweight steel structures do you see that there
00:54:21 structures do you see that there yes and then it says the build-up of components is not comparable between the test report and the buxton street construction to utilize this test as a method of showing compliance to building regulations the whole system needs to be
00:54:32 regulations the whole system needs to be tested by
00:54:33 tested by all the components installed at buxton street
00:54:36 street do you see that there yes
00:54:40 and we can see from the top email in the chain that this was sent to you by mr meredith asking for guidance as to how to answer it
00:54:50 do you see that there he says um to you first of december 2006 any guidance on this one mr any guidance on this one mr
00:55:01 mr any guidance on this one mr wintec does say he will assist by providing a test though this mess is all pro matt's fault i will copy you with the email i'm sending nigel murray as i may need it editing as i'm angry do
00:55:12 as i may need it editing as i'm angry do you see that there yes i do we launched their product and they ain't helping us so would you agree this shows you were well aware that
00:55:21 that when you tried to use the 2005 test data some individuals on steel frame projects projects were questioning that from this yes yes i do yeah
00:55:34 from this yes yes i do yeah can we look at another email chain
00:55:38 kin403701 this is from may 2008
00:55:45 at the bottom of the first page mr meredith emails you on the 19th of may 2008
00:55:51 2008 do you see that at the bottom and he says there to you i'm having big issues with k15 approval at the moment the problems are relating to nhbc jobs this
00:56:01 this causes a lot of concern perhaps we can chat tomorrow do you see that there yes and then going up the chain you say in the next email okay i'm out in meetings in london all
00:56:12 okay i'm out in meetings in london all day but we'll make contact do you see that there yes i do and it's about a development can you see it says walnut's way stevenage do you see that there yes and then if we go up to the very top
00:56:24 yes and then if we go up to the very top email in the chain mr meredith says this this was the email i'm worried about we simply do not have the information to support use of k15 above 18 meters with steel frames
00:56:36 above 18 meters with steel frames i'm worried that the product will be removed from site and the ongoing effect of such an action i think getting this sorted should take priority over all other projects as it's causing us to lose work do you see that there yes i do so he
00:56:48 do you see that there yes i do so he seems to be concerned that the product is going to be removed from sight because k-15 cannot be used in steel frames above 18 meters do you see that there yes
00:57:01 and he's absolutely clear with you at this point that there's no evidence to support
00:57:05 support the use of k15 above 18 meters with steel frames would you agree at this time yes
00:57:16 and can you recall what advice you gave about this use of k-15 on this building
00:57:25 i can't recall what what advice i gave to iva in relation to that now would you accept that mr meredith repeatedly raises in
00:57:36 repeatedly raises in writing a lack of test evidence about the use of k-15 above 80 meters including in steel frame systems
00:57:44 systems would you agree that you have that repeatedly in writing from mr meredith i would i think the the whole team understood the that situation yes
00:57:55 the that situation yes what did you do about those concerns uh it would have been discussed at the technical lamination meetings as to how we would move that forward but what did you do about it he's concerned that
00:58:07 did you do about it he's concerned that you can't
00:58:08 you can't support the use of k-15 on high-rise buildings including steel frame systems you're his manager your manager of the technical department
00:58:19 technical department what did you do about it all i did at the time was was passes up to my superiors to to determine if there was from a product
00:58:30 to determine if there was from a product development how we could move that forward that's your evidence is it that you passed these concerns up to your superiors
00:58:39 superiors did you do that also discuss with either you know how we could how we could best move this issue on you know it's yeah with reflection
00:58:50 you know it's yeah with reflection [Applause] we may have handled this different yes
00:58:56 if we could look at paragraph 7.58 of your witness statement on page 54. and i want to ask you about the just the
00:59:08 and i want to ask you about the just the last few lines there the last four lines you say
00:59:10 you say in this period we did not have a bs 8414 part 2 test to support this type of system and we were only able to provide evidence of the 2005
00:59:19 the 2005 8414 test and suggest that in steel frame systems a non-combustible substrate should be used
00:59:26 used to simulate the system tested in 2005. do you see that there yes i do how did you determine that it was appropriate to suggest to customers
00:59:37 was appropriate to suggest to customers to simulate the 2005 test rather than replicate it by using a non-combustible substrate
00:59:45 substrate even within a steel frame system all right i'm
00:59:48 right i'm sorry what is there a period of time i'm referencing this at all or not yes i'm going to take you to some technical literature in may 2009 to just show you this maybe
01:00:01 may 2009 to just show you this maybe we should let's do that now this is kin four zeros two six zero seven this is a technical bulletin dated may o nine
01:00:16 do you see that there we can see the date in the top right hand corner insulation for ventilated rain screen cladding systems yes can you help us as to who would have drafted this and signed off on
01:00:27 drafted this and signed off on this document um at the time there was a number of people involved in this technical bulletin within the department um i believe there was representatives
01:00:39 um i believe there was representatives from
01:00:40 from technical services andrew pack iver myself business development and and marketing
01:00:48 if we go to page two of it the bulletin says at the top left hand side it says under steps to conflict
01:00:59 it says under steps to conflict compliance it says this technical bulletin details the route to compliance with approved document b2 to the building regulations for insulated rain screen cladding systems fixed to new and existing steel framed or masonry walls do you see
01:01:12 steel framed or masonry walls do you see that there
01:01:17 yes i do and if you go
01:01:23 on to page three and look in the bottom left
01:01:31 we can see it it says um there at page three for buildings of 18 more meters more in height as kingspan calls them k15 meets the br135 performance criteria
01:01:42 meets the br135 performance criteria when tested to 84141 2002 with a horizontal cavity barrier called them k15 complies with the requirements of pre-document b if installed and this is
01:01:53 pre-document b if installed and this is the point if installed on the cold side of a non-combustible substrate ie calcium silicate board or masonry and the maximum vertical distance between cavity barriers is 3.5 meters
01:02:04 cavity barriers is 3.5 meters do you see that there yes i do and the literature therefore said that any non-combustible substrate can be used
01:02:13 that's right isn't it the literature at the time said that yeah okay right do you agree looking at that it says
01:02:21 it says if installed on the cold side of a non-combustible substrate on this data sheet yeah on the technical bulletin yes yeah yes it absolutely does not make clear does it that kingspan's test data is based
01:02:33 test data is based only on masonry substrate it doesn't it doesn't but i i i i know where the that reference came from to with regards to the calcium
01:02:45 came from to with regards to the calcium silicate board and masonry can you help us where did that come i think it was um it came from the sbi the single burning item test which
01:02:56 sbi the single burning item test which classed
01:02:56 classed a non-combustible substrate as calcium silicate
01:03:00 silicate masonry and steel but king's band hadn't tested that solution had it it hadn't tested a steel frame with then a calcium
01:03:12 tested a steel frame with then a calcium silicate board which then the k-15 is attached to in a rain screen system it hadn't done that had it
01:03:19 had it we hadn't no no
01:03:22 and you said it was based on sbi testing but that's that's european classification testing it's much smaller scale than eight four it is it was just the the the narrative surrounding non-combustible substrate i think
01:03:35 non-combustible substrate i think was that checked at any stage with a fire engineer to say whether they would agree that that was appropriate for kingspan to be suggesting
01:03:46 to be suggesting no it wasn't
01:03:52 did you ever at any stage consider the risks of recommending an untested solution in this way
01:04:01 i believe we did we we understood the the situation and with with hindsight we would
01:04:11 provided a different document i believe
01:04:17 if i look go on in your witness statement now and i want to look at paragraph 3.25 on page 16.
01:04:25 i want to pick it up in the fourth line down
01:04:34 you're talking about the test in 2007 and 2008
01:04:38 and 2008 and you say this in the second line i considered the failure of these tests to be indicative of the tested system being unable to meet the performance criteria of br135
01:04:49 criteria of br135 rather than any particular component being unsuitable including the new technology k15 do you see that there yes i do can you help us as to when you reach that conclusion that you
01:05:00 reach that conclusion that you considered that failure to be indicative that the tested system rather than telling you anything about any particular component including the new tech k-15 when when did you reach that
01:05:11 did you reach that considered conclusion well i believe all these
01:05:15 these large-scale they are system tests and i don't believe the results are allied to
01:05:23 allied to one particular component within that within a system um you know failure can be from what i can gather be on a number of levels and this test was was very complex in that regard
01:05:36 was was very complex in that regard so does it follow then that you can't use
01:05:39 use the system test to indicate the suitability of any the suitability of any individual
01:05:48 component it's it's difficult to say because you might you know what one material might pass in that test and it may not it does so many variables with regards
01:06:00 it does so many variables with regards to cavity widths and things like that so it is but isn't that the whole point of a system test if it's a system test yes you can say whether the system as a whole passed or failed
01:06:11 whole passed or failed yes but if the system passed you can't extrapolate from that to say that any individual component of the system is or is not good because you put it
01:06:22 is or is not good because you put it together with other components yes in another system you might get a different result that's correct yes yes yeah did you consider that these failed tests to part two of 8414
01:06:33 failed tests to part two of 8414 impacted at all on k15 suitability for use on steel frame systems
01:06:44 sorry could you repeat the question again sorry did you consider that these failed tests to part two of 8.14 impacted at all on k15 suitability for use on steel framed systems
01:06:56 use on steel framed systems uh steel frame systems with those particular external systems on so are you saying that with it within that thing that there would be systems using a
01:07:10 that there would be systems using a steel frame system that k-15 would be suitable on after these tests uh potentially there would have been systems available that we would have passed and
01:07:21 available that we would have passed and i think we have subsequently passed some eight four one four part two tests what tests are you referring to there
01:07:30 i don't know particularly but i believe after my tenure there was some part two tests completed and passed after the grenfell tower fire no after my tenure as technical manager
01:07:43 my tenure as technical manager i see but you you couldn't have known about those at the time could you no by definition by definition but you know the
01:07:49 the testing of the two sotech tests you know it's obviously those systems it was obviously difficult to pass those
01:08:00 it was obviously difficult to pass those systems both with our products and other products i believe yeah let's go back to mr meredith's report
01:08:06 report and i want to look at some other sections of it kin four zeros four
01:08:13 and we don't need to go to it but you confirm in your statement that you you did receive this report from mr meredith and you sent it to mr rochford on the 29th of january 2008. let's move to page two now towards the
01:08:25 let's move to page two now towards the bottom of the page under the heading results
01:08:30 if we could look there it says this by 17 minutes the top fire barrier had breached and the raging inferno moved up to the top thermocouples and pushed them past 600 degrees
01:08:41 pushed them past 600 degrees thus failing the simple criteria of br135 do you see that there yes i do and at the bottom of that page he notes the 84142 doesn't have a pass or
01:08:52 the 84142 doesn't have a pass or fail it needs to be cross-referenced with br135 and then over the page
01:08:59 can we see the top of the page he says this the phenolic was burning on its own steam and the bre had to extinguish the test early because it was in
01:09:08 in endangering setting fire to the laboratory do you see that there yes i do and then after why did it fail he's got a heading why did it fail and then he says this
01:09:19 why did it fail and then he says this the new technology phenolic is very different in a fire situation to the previous technology which has passed several similar tests the old technology would turn to a light ash and fall away
01:09:30 ash and fall away leaving to substance to feed the fire do you see that there yes i do
01:09:38 now when you read this report do you agree that it was clear from what mr meredith was saying that he considered the fire performance of the k-15 itself
01:09:49 the fire performance of the k-15 itself to be a matter of significant concern i do yes and these observations he's made here
01:09:58 made here the ones on this page the phenolic was burning on its own steam the new technology phenolic is very different
01:10:05 different he's highlighting those separate from any concerns about the system isn't he he is yes did you agree with those concerns when you read this
01:10:16 concerns when you read this um i agreed and based on the evidence that um
01:10:21 that um ivor was providing though i i'd not obviously witnessed this test but i could only go on whatever was telling me yes and he was your your expert in this
01:10:33 yes and he was your your expert in this area by this time wasn't he had the expertise yes yeah on the large-scale tests yes did you have any basis on which to disagree with him about what he was reporting about the
01:10:43 the fire performance of the new technology k15
01:10:48 k15 i didn't at that time no
01:10:53 can we just look at the transcript day 75 this is in mr meredith's evidence page one five seven i want to pick it up on line
01:11:03 on line seven
01:11:10 and i ask him there at line seven we can see that you're clearly concerned about the way the phenolic burned did philip heath and malcolm rochefort share your concern about the fire performance of the new technology k15 at this time and then he says this he
01:11:23 at this time and then he says this he says
01:11:23 says like i say i think this might have been the time that i was criticized for not being very positive about our products or sorry the king sound products and i say so does it follow that you didn't think your managers were concerned or
01:11:34 think your managers were concerned or were concerned in the same way as you i don't think they were concerned in the same way as me no do you see that there yes i do do you agree with what he says there that you weren't as concerned as he was
01:11:46 that you weren't as concerned as he was at the time um i disagree with with with that i've have to say i've never criticized ivor's work or is his his his uh
01:12:00 his commitments are on work but i've never criticized either for for not being positive at all so you don't ever remember a time when you what about
01:12:11 you what about when you passed down feedback from someone above you he he talks in another place about a director being negative about him did you ever pass on comments to him
01:12:23 did you ever pass on comments to him that others in the company higher up than you thought he was being too negative
01:12:27 negative i would have done yes yes i would have passed those comments on do you remember passing those comments on i don't remember passing those comments on but i've i i would have done because
01:12:40 i've i i would have done because i was i say i've i've i've no criticism survival work as of sorry i had no criticisms of either's work
01:12:48 work at all but i did pass on comments from uh from other people to him yes but i was fully supportive of him
01:12:56 him yes so you say i did pass on comments from other people to him were they negative comments to him about not being positive enough about k-15 at this time there was some
01:13:08 about k-15 at this time there was some criticism in that regard yes and and that you know that's why i passed it on to show that i was fully supporting him yeah there was this christian i was fully supporting him yeah so even though you yourself weren't
01:13:19 so even though you yourself weren't saying it you were passing on comments from your superiors to iva to that effect i was now supporting him in relation to that as well
01:13:29 if we carry on at picking up line 20 he said i felt a tremendous responsibility for this because the buck stopped with the technical department to make sure that it was suitable for the marketplace and we had to do the testing
01:13:40 testing and then i say after you wrote this and obviously this report was delivered to the technical team did you feel at the time that your concerns about the fire performance of new technology k-15 were being taken seriously by philip
01:13:52 were being taken seriously by philip heath and malcolm rochford and then he says this i felt like i wasn't ever heard actually when it came to issues like this now do you agree looking at it now and i'll show you some more parts of
01:14:04 and i'll show you some more parts of this report in a moment that you didn't take iva's concerns seriously enough when he raised them with you i personally did yes you did take them seriously i did yeah i
01:14:15 you did take them seriously i did yeah i had a lot of respect for either when you say you took them seriously what did you do about them um these would have been conveyed to to malcolm and i expect to
01:14:27 conveyed to to malcolm and i expect to hire up as well so the technical meetings you know ivor would present his his monthly report and i'd fully support him in in in what he was saying and what was the result when you
01:14:38 and what was the result when you communicated those concerns to those higher up than you i can't i can't recall you can't record i can't recall do you actually have a clear recollection of saying to your superiors
01:14:50 recollection of saying to your superiors i was really concerned about this fire performance i'm passing that on to you because this is really important do you ever remember saying that i would have done a technical meeting when he provided his his monthly report or gone over the
01:15:02 his monthly report or gone over the aspects of it i would have fully supported him yes i see
01:15:08 going back to his report it's at eight eight four seven kin four zeros did you study the photographs within the report and contrast those with the photographs of the 2005 test i can't
01:15:20 photographs of the 2005 test i can't recall whether i would have done or not
01:15:26 can we go to kin403693
01:15:38 can we go to kin403693 this is an email chain between the bre and
01:15:42 and mr meredith around this time and if i go to the bottom half of page one yes there we see mr ivers mr meredith's email to sarah colwell and
01:15:54 meredith's email to sarah colwell and phil clark on the 9th of january now you're not copied into this exchange but in the first line he says this further to yesterday's viewing of the carnage
01:16:05 viewing of the carnage should you could you please send the dvd to the address below asap as you can imagine there are many senior persons in kingspan wishing to view it do you see that there yes i do did you
01:16:17 do you see that there yes i do did you yourself watch the recording of that december 2007 test i can't recall whether i did i would imagine i did but i have no recollection of it
01:16:27 of it i see and then in the second paragraph he says um picking up in the second sentence having cross-referenced with previous tests it
01:16:38 cross-referenced with previous tests it would seem there was more fire spread from the insulin however please don't quote me on that and the cavity barrier may have failed slightly
01:16:45 slightly you're off the record and on the record comments may prove helpful do you see that there yes i do and you were aware at the time weren't you that either meredith was telling you
01:16:56 you that either meredith was telling you that
01:16:56 that there was more fire spread from the insulin itself yes i was aware of his comments yes and then in the final paragraph of that email
01:17:08 if we look at the very final paragraph of it beginning as we are getting
01:17:15 right at the bottom of that page it says this as we are getting some pressure from a certain manufacturer questioning the performance of our product i need to be confident that the bre would not write it was the fault of the flame spread on the insulin
01:17:27 flame spread on the insulin from our discussions i understand the official statement would would system failure i will not quote you on this i just need to be confident when we say the material has the ability to pass
01:17:38 the ability to pass however whether it does or not can boil down to the system do you remember at the time that it was agreed with the bre that there would be an official statement that this was system failure and that they wouldn't say anything
01:17:50 and that they wouldn't say anything further about the concerns that they and mr meredith had about the performance of the k-15 i wouldn't at the time no you wouldn't have been aware of that
01:18:01 have been aware of that i wouldn't no
01:18:04 let's go back to mr meredith's internal report kin-408847 and on to page three
01:18:16 [Applause] we've got under why did it fail
01:18:23 we've read the first paragraph under why did it fail if we looked at the next paragraph he says this the phenolic burnt very ferociously and gave the top cavity barrier a serious hammering
01:18:33 hammering do you see that there i don't in the second paragraph after you've got why did it fail yes there's a heading we've read the first paragraph
01:18:44 first paragraph i was reading then the next line in the second paragraph the phenolic burnt very ferociously and gave the top cavity barrier a serious hammering do you see that there i do yes
01:18:55 hammering do you see that there i do yes [Applause] and then on um page three about halfway down
01:19:02 down um so it's right at the bottom of that page just keep it as it is we can see it says perforations in the phenolic foil faces have caused a reduction in the euro class when tested in the sbi
01:19:15 class when tested in the sbi loss of the perforations may help do you see that there yes i do so would you agree that you're also being told in this report that the perforations in the foil have caused a reduction in the euro
01:19:27 have caused a reduction in the euro class do you see that i do if i go back to that other paragraph though about the phenolic burnt ferociously yeah i'm just looking at the second line it did however hold out and there was a slim
01:19:39 however hold out and there was a slim chance that it may have held out long enough in the crib to start burning down and the test would have been successful so this is one of the issues of the test you know
01:19:50 you know sometimes it can look worse than it actually is and still and still gain a pass so
01:19:54 pass so i just thought i'd mention that let's look at the bottom of page three and we'll do this and then we'll break there's a section at the bottom of page three that's headed comments from
01:20:06 three that's headed comments from the bre do you see that there yes i do and it says this the official line it's a system failure no individual component can be solely held responsible for the
01:20:17 can be solely held responsible for the failure
01:20:19 failure and then we see this however unofficial comments
01:20:22 comments it was apparent that the insulation was fully involved in the test surface spread of flame was apparent and the core continued to burn when the flame source had been extinguished they stated they did not
01:20:34 extinguished they stated they did not remember the product performing like that last time do you see that there i do yes and do you remember reading those unofficial comments from the bre at that time
01:20:45 time with hindsight yes i would have uh i would have read those but i cannot recall but i would have read them yes so it's not just either telling you that it's performing very differently the
01:20:56 it's performing very differently the k-15 itself it's also the bre telling you that isn't it
01:21:02 it in that narrative yes again you know whether the the system and the aluminium contributed to the extra burning of the of the phenolic i couldn't comment but yes i read what they're saying
01:21:14 yes i read what they're saying and did you read this report and continue to think that they had equivalent fire performance the old tech and the new tech
01:21:23 again it's a it's a system test and correlating the two so as i sit here now it's difficult to say what my opinion was at the time
01:21:36 i see well i'll we'll ask some more questions about that after the break right is that a good moment that's a good moment right well we'll have a short break now mr easton okay we'll come back at 20 to 12 please okay
01:21:48 we'll come back at 20 to 12 please okay and as i think i said to you on thursday when you're out of the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything
01:21:55 anything relating to it right okay thank you would you like to give the usher please thank you
01:22:03 [Applause]
01:22:08 thank you 20 to 12. please
01:41:07 would you ask mr heath to come back in please thank you
01:41:25 all right mr heath ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes ms grange yes thank you mr this morning you mentioned that you did escalate mr meredith's concerns up to
01:41:36 escalate mr meredith's concerns up to those
01:41:37 those more senior to you at kingspan can you recall
01:41:40 recall who it was that you discussed his concerns with at kingspan a be that my direct line manager dr rochefort and he would have have seen all the correspondence that uh
01:41:51 have seen all the correspondence that uh that i've
01:41:51 that i've had written and i would assume i will um dr ashford then would have also passed that on or reported that at the uh
01:42:02 the uh the divisional board meetings you made that assumption did you you didn't know that
01:42:06 that i didn't know that but that was you know generally the the protocol but certainly malcolm was was aware of of all the written correspondence and and discussions i'd had with him in relation to i was concerned yes
01:42:18 relation to i was concerned yes just on these so tech mech tests uh in 2007
01:42:23 2007 2008 um can we look at paragraph 322 of your witness date now on page 14.
01:42:33 and i want to pick it up in the fifth line down
01:42:38 you say it begins having been you say having been shown contemporaneous documents in preparation of this witness statement it appears that in january 2008 metsec and sotech tested the same system
01:42:50 and sotech tested the same system using mineral fiber insulation in pace of k-15
01:42:53 of k-15 and that this also failed to meet the br135 criteria do you see that there i do yes are you including that in your witness statement because it was a a factor for you
01:43:05 it was a a factor for you in determining the suitability of k-15 that set the same sister system tested had
01:43:14 had been tested with rockwool and had failed i i think i put that into the the statement because i think it just shows that the performance of of the
01:43:26 shows that the performance of of the aluminium in that particular 8414 test obviously had a impinged greatly on the overall performance of the system
01:43:37 performance of the system but was that actually a factor in your thinking at the time thinking back to it i can't recall you can't record no
01:43:49 now going back to mr meredith's report again
01:43:54 again kin408847
01:43:56 kin408847 if we go back into page three just over halfway down there's a paragraph beginning in all honesty
01:44:04 can you see just over halfway in the middle of that page he says this in all honesty from what i've seen the way the phenolic burned is of the most concern therefore we need to add a fire
01:44:16 therefore we need to add a fire retardant which could also help us get class naught do you see that there yes i do so just to be clear you were aware at the time were you that mr meredith thought this was of the most
01:44:27 mr meredith thought this was of the most concern
01:44:28 concern how the phenolic had burned from reading that yes
01:44:35 that yes did you give any consideration at this time
01:44:39 time um as to whether it was appropriate for kingspan to keep selling the k15 product and including for built jobs that it knew over 18 meters
01:44:54 sorry can you repeat that sorry i was just looking back did you give any consideration at this time as to whether it was appropriate for king sam kingspan to keep selling the k-15 product including for jobs that it knew
01:45:05 product including for jobs that it knew to be over 18 meters i don't recall at the time having that opinion
01:45:12 opinion i may have done i can't recall at the time can you help us as to why you didn't say stop all sales of this product particularly sales over 18 meters we
01:45:24 particularly sales over 18 meters we need to do some further investigations why did you not do that i i can't
01:45:31 i i can't recollect why i wouldn't have said that i don't know why i want to said that did it ever occur to you at the time that that might be something you ought to give consideration to you're seeing your product
01:45:42 your product perform much worse in fire testing this is about life safety did that not ever occur to you i think we were again just looking at that particular system test
01:45:55 that particular system test and and coming back to the system you know we probably wonder was it just that system that it was failing on at that time
01:46:02 time did that impinge on it so that there was a number of things we were considering at the time as a collective i see if we go back again to your witness statement page 14 paragraph 3.21
01:46:19 you say this you say i shared ivor's internal report with malcolm rochford on the 29th of january 2008 and suggested we discuss it at the technical meeting following
01:46:28 following for the following day and then he says it appear
01:46:32 it appear you say this it appears from the document shown to be to me i think you mean in preparation of this witness statement that as a result of this test further comparative calorimetry studies were
01:46:43 comparative calorimetry studies were undertaken to understand the difference in far performance between old technology and new technology k-15 do you see that there
01:46:51 there yes i do
01:46:59 if we can now go to the monthly activity report prepared by mr meredith for april 2008
01:47:05 2008 this is kin three 303698
01:47:12 what we see in the third bullet point is mr meredith reporting back on those indicative calorimeter tests and he says this indicative calorimeter
01:47:23 and he says this indicative calorimeter tests on new k-15 versus old have shown a quicker time to ignition and double the heat output for the newer product thus confirming initial suspicions
01:47:34 initial suspicions in respect of reaction to fire do you see that there yes i do and were those the studies that you were referring to in your witness statement to understand the difference between old tech and new tech
01:47:46 between old tech and new tech i can't recall whether that was what i was referring to at that stage april 2008 now that you've got
01:47:55 got that data back from those indicative calorimeter tests you know it's got a quicker time to ignition and double the heat output can you explain to us why at that stage
01:48:06 can you explain to us why at that stage you don't consider whether or not you need to be withdrawing k15 certainly from the over 18 meter market i think also those tests were commissioned by dr
01:48:17 commissioned by dr rochefort so you know i would at that point
01:48:21 point waiting to see what the comments were from the technical processing team but but on reflection in relation to your question um yes
01:48:32 in relation to your question um yes yes you ought to have been considering withdrawing k15 for the over 18 meter market at this point shouldn't on reflection yes obviously that he was reporting its third bullet point here he's reporting back on his action that
01:48:44 he's reporting back on his action that he was given from the lamination meeting
01:48:48 you say in your witness statement if we can go back to that at paragraph 3.23 on page 15
01:48:58 picking it up in the fourth line and you're discussing this very this very passage in that report from april 08. you say this information would have been included in
01:49:10 information would have been included in the wider technical services report which i shared with malcolm rockford as technical director and these indicative results would have been discussed at the monthly technical meetings as we continue to undertake further small-scale product development testing
01:49:23 small-scale product development testing including potentially with versions of k-15 with an added fire retardant do you see that there yes i do yes
01:49:30 i do yes so it's obviously been discussed at the monthly technical meetings were there ever any discussions at those meetings about withdrawal in k-15 particularly from the above 18 meter
01:49:41 from the above 18 meter market given its markedly different performance in fire not that i reckon not that i can recall now and can you help us as to why not why do we never see any consideration of
01:49:52 why do we never see any consideration of that being given at this time i don't know
01:50:01 did you yourself ever wonder um whether it was appropriate to still sell the new technology k-15 product including for use over 18 meters once
01:50:12 including for use over 18 meters once you have this information i would imagine at that time in in 2008 i would have had some concerns about it
01:50:23 i would have had some concerns about it yes
01:50:24 yes you imagine you would do you not have any recollection of having concerns this would
01:50:29 would this would be quite an important moment wouldn't it for you to realize that the product you're selling performs this way and fire it would if we would you know we'd always question it like
01:50:40 always question it like it was 12 years ago you know i would be looking for a steer as well from from dr rochefort as how we would how we would pursue this or how it would move forward
01:50:52 move forward is the truth that in fact all you were focused on at that time was desperately trying to obtain some other evidence that k15 could be considered appropriate
01:51:03 considered appropriate so that you could maintain the sales you were already achieving in that market i don't believe we were desperate we certainly wanted to be in that market i don't believe we were
01:51:16 in that market i don't believe we were desperate to be in that market but we were certainly wanted to be in that market well you were already in that market weren't you
01:51:23 you we were lots of examples of k15 being used on tall buildings before this time uh on all yeah i'm below 18 meters as well yes yeah
01:51:35 well yes yeah but i'm going to ask the question again in truth weren't you focused at that time on
01:51:42 time on on sales and not focused at all on health and safety i certainly wasn't focused on sales my role was managing the technical department at the advisory service and
01:51:53 department at the advisory service and the large-scale tests my my role wasn't sales orientated and to what extent do you think you were
01:52:04 and to what extent do you think you were appropriately focused on life safety at this time
01:52:13 i think we always we were always focused on life safety would we do things differently on reflection i would say yes we would yeah
01:52:24 i would say yes we would yeah can we go now to the technical services department monthly report for july 2008. this is at kin40848
01:52:35 this is at kin40848 and i want to look at page 2 under the heading projects
01:52:43 so here we can see it says a sample of the op90 fire retardant phenolic has been sent to the bre for indicative calorimetry testing we hope to find a lower calorific output and slower time
01:52:55 lower calorific output and slower time to ignition do you see that there yes i do and then it says this a product with these characteristics is required to maintain our position in the high-rise facade market above 18 meters do you see that
01:53:06 market above 18 meters do you see that there
01:53:09 yes i do so do you agree there was no question but that you were fully present in that market and seeking to maintain kingspan's position in it
01:53:22 yes i do agree yes and then it says below it a bs 8414 part 2 test is being planned for august if the op90 product shows beneficial characteristics so that's the fire retardant product isn't
01:53:34 that's the fire retardant product isn't it a changed product i don't i don't know i can't recollect what was different with the op90 development product and then we can see this it says a
01:53:45 and then we can see this it says a definite increase has been seen in ts inquiries does that stand for technical service inquiries it does yes questioning for knowledge suitability for use above 80 meters do you see that there
01:53:56 you see that there yes i do so would you agree that you were also aware at this time that people were beginning to question how this phenolic insulation could be used above 18 meters
01:54:08 used above 18 meters uh reading that yes yes and i was aware of of more inquiries in relation to uh
01:54:15 to uh to rain screen cladding per se yes yeah and yet it's your evidence is it that you simply didn't give any consideration to whether or not k-15 should be in that market at all
01:54:27 um
01:54:30 above 18 meters with with reflection at that time
01:54:34 that time but look below 18 meters you know there was obviously opportunities for phenolic and other insulin combustible insulation materials and when you say above 18 meters with
01:54:45 and when you say above 18 meters with reflection at that time are you saying that you at the time you simply didn't give any consideration to whether or not k-15 should be in that market
01:54:56 we would have given reflection at that time we would have considered it but like say
01:55:00 like say with reflection and based on all the knowledge we're receiving now then you know you would maybe have had a different opinion yes yeah
01:55:13 opinion yes yeah and i want to ask you about the king spa kingspan off-site testing we know that two tests were carried out with kingspan off-site at the bre to 8414 part two on systems which
01:55:26 to 8414 part two on systems which incorporated new tech k-15 those were on the 9th of april and the 6th of june 2008. do you remember those i don't i i yeah when i wrote my statement i had no recollection of
01:55:37 statement i had no recollection of of them but obviously with contemporaneous documents i have been made aware of it now yes do you remember kingspan off-site raising concerns about how the k-15 performed in
01:55:48 concerns about how the k-15 performed in those tests uh with it within the system they tested yes yeah
01:55:53 yes yeah and do you remember dealing with how to answer those concerns yes and those tests in april and june
01:56:04 yes and those tests in april and june 2008 they were both failures weren't they they couldn't be classified to bl-135 yes that's my understanding if we can go now
01:56:16 now to kin four zeros three six nine eight
01:56:23 this is a a report for my arava meredith fourth of april 2008. and we can see in the first bullet point he reports he reports this he says bs 8414 part 2
01:56:35 he reports this he says bs 8414 part 2 off-site test with rendered versa panel rain screen 210 millimeters of k15
01:56:41 of k15 failed that test do you see that there i do yes
01:56:46 and i want to ask you about some correspondence in the days after the second off-site test that was on 6th of june 2008. can we go to kin kin403704
01:56:59 to kin kin403704 and look at the bottom of the first page this is an email on the 9th of june 2008 to you
01:57:07 to you malcolm rochford vincent kovac sorry you're copied in here it's to malcolm rochford vincent koppak and then you're copied with wyn davis and mr meredith says this malcolm
01:57:19 and mr meredith says this malcolm vincent the question of k15's bad performance is no longer just an internal one it would seem offsite had a very dramatic test failure you see that there yes i do and then he
01:57:31 you see that there yes i do and then he says therefore i need to know how soon i can have samples of the op90 phenolic for business critical r d research and development and then if we can go over the page
01:57:42 we can go over the page he says once i've reviewed the information i will provide a more comprehensive report later however the attached picture shows the most recent k-15 test performed by offset
01:57:51 offset off-site and k-15 burning under its own steam 10 minutes after the test was put out and then he says this off-site are gravely concerned
01:58:03 gravely concerned that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does and then he says to validate the new product from a fire point of view i would need samples of the following
01:58:14 would need samples of the following sizes
01:58:16 sizes so he wants various samples including to do a part six test you see that two lines down yes do you remember
01:58:27 yes do you remember receiving this email from mr meredith i don't remember seeing uh receiving it but i've obviously i was copied on it so i would have read it do you remember being aware that
01:58:38 it do you remember being aware that off-site kingspan off-site were gravely concerned
01:58:41 concerned that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does yeah i believe that there were annoyed probably the wrong word but they certainly had
01:58:52 certainly had they were concerned that it had failed that particular test yes [Applause] but the the test i think the verti panel
01:59:03 but the the test i think the verti panel is
01:59:03 is is is classed as a combustible cladding material in front of it as well so you know it's if that played a part of it but yes i was aware of their concerns
01:59:14 was aware of their concerns well you say that it had a combustible panel and so that might play a part of it but
01:59:21 it but just look at the top page of this email offsite are reporting that k15 was burning under its own steam 10 minutes after the test was put out it's entirely consistent with what mr meredith had reported
01:59:33 with what mr meredith had reported and what the bre had reported about the two previous 8414 tests isn't it that's correct yes yeah did you take these concerns seriously the concerns of kingspan offsite
01:59:44 kingspan offsite as communicated to you by mr meredith uh by a copy of this yes i would be concerned and obviously it was sent to malcolm and vince so it'd be interesting to see how they responded to uh to auburn's
01:59:57 how they responded to uh to auburn's concerns
01:59:59 concerns are you saying because they're copied in somehow you didn't need to worry about it because your bosses are copied in there what about your own from your own position as technical manager
02:00:10 position as technical manager were you not concerned yourself that you were selling something doesn't do what you say it does i was obviously concerned that it was failing these eight four one two four tests obviously i was i was
02:00:22 four tests obviously i was i was concerned yes but it wasn't just failing 8414 tests was it you couldn't get it to pass the bs 476 part 6 test that's why you're trying to validate a
02:00:33 that's why you're trying to validate a further new product in this email would you agree
02:00:38 i would agree yes yes
02:00:44 now moving to the top email in this chain you respond
02:00:53 you say this you say um on the 9th of june 2008 either i think it's important we see the fire test report from offsite whilst also looking at the facade assembly cavity widths and materials adopted within the test rig
02:01:05 adopted within the test rig any response to offsite on this matter should be run past myself before it's sent to the outside world as you know off-site are extremely reactionary do you see that there i do see that yes with regard to their
02:01:16 i do see that yes with regard to their comment
02:01:17 comment that we are selling something that doesn't do what we say it does what statements are there are they referring to
02:01:24 now first of all what did you mean by off-site can be extremely er reactionary as you know off-site are extremely reactionary why did you say that
02:01:33 that they were on a a critical path to to launching various systems off-site 2d systems into the marketplace and obviously
02:01:44 obviously any failures would disrupt that that critical path and by default they had to they would do it express their concerns that they're uh they were being pushed back
02:01:55 they're uh they were being pushed back on their
02:01:56 on their market readiness yeah but it wouldn't be reactionary to express concerns about fire safety would it
02:02:03 would it it wouldn't no no but as i think overall the term they were the reactionary because they were on such a critical path but you know they were right to have concerns
02:02:14 concerns when you ask mr meredith what statements are they referring to about that comment that we're selling something doesn't do what we say it does did you genuinely not know what mr
02:02:25 did you genuinely not know what mr meredith was referring to no i wouldn't know what the comments they were making but whether they were they had specific their comments were related to actually specifics
02:02:36 related to actually specifics that we were saying i think that's what i was trying to ask you were rare weren't you at this time that your marketing material was promoting k-15 including for use
02:02:47 was promoting k-15 including for use over 18 meters uh yes it was yeah
02:02:54 in the meantime mr rochford's responded to mr meredith already if you look at the email below this one
02:03:03 he says this please expedite this trial either if you're confident the old process will pass the test we may have no choice but to provide old process k-15 for off-site until the fr
02:03:14 process k-15 for off-site until the fr issue is sorted out now just taking that sentence
02:03:18 sentence you're on the next part of the string so presumably you saw this email can you help us as to what you understood him to mean we may have no choice but to provide old process k15 for offsite until the fr
02:03:32 old process k15 for offsite until the fr issue is sorted out what were you suggesting sorry what did you think mr rochford was suggesting there he was obviously suggesting that if we could go back to the old process k15 we might have a an increase
02:03:46 k15 we might have a an increase uh chance of passing the uh that particular off-site fire test and did you take him as suggesting that you could provide some old process k-15 for the purpose of
02:03:58 some old process k-15 for the purpose of some further off-site testing
02:04:02 sorry can you just repeat that again sorry did you take him as suggesting that you could provide some old process k15
02:04:08 k15 for the purpose of some further off-site testing
02:04:13 yes whether that was material we had available or we could switch the technology because at that time we we did have the capability to switch the technology because some
02:04:24 switch the technology because some products were still being made i believe under the old technology so whether it was
02:04:28 was material we had available or whether he could
02:04:31 could produce further product just for kingspan offsite yes going forward i presume not just not just for the test but going forward as a bespoke product i see
02:04:44 as a bespoke product i see what go back to producing old old tech k15
02:04:49 k15 for what use reading that now i i would assume he's thinking of producing old technology k15 both to test and supply to uh to offsite
02:05:01 both to test and supply to uh to offsite going forward i see and then he says this can i just you just explain you were providing um k-15 to off-site for their manufacturing
02:05:12 k-15 to off-site for their manufacturing purposes
02:05:13 purposes is that what was going on yes they were for all intents and purposes an oem um and they were outside engineered manufacturer so
02:05:25 outside engineered manufacturer so basically we were just a component within their system right um so we manufactured k15 and they would then assemble it in their 2d or 3d
02:05:35 2d or 3d wall or building assembly thank you yes in the next sentence there at the end of that email he says gwyn i know this is a nightmare for processing but we can't carry on providing something
02:05:47 we can't carry on providing something that we know fails a fire test do you see that there yes i do specifically to whom did you think he meant
02:05:53 meant the product could not continue to be provided
02:06:00 i think we is is is kingspan yes but providing to who to kingspan offsite or to someone else
02:06:11 it could be read it could be read in a number of ways that it could be off-site or or in general can you help us as to how you understood it at the time
02:06:21 time yeah i i can't recall how i would understood it at the time i would assume at the time maybe i would i would infer our third off-site
02:06:31 off-site is what he was referring to right if we can go now to kin3020913 and i want to look at page four this is
02:06:42 and i want to look at page four this is another email chain from that same chain in june 2008 and on page four there's an email from ivan meredith 9th of june 08 at 1801. do
02:06:53 ivan meredith 9th of june 08 at 1801. do you see that there and it's to gwin davis malcolm rochefort vincent coppock and you are copied and he says this you're correct the old process i recently tested unfortunately also failed however the
02:07:06 unfortunately also failed however the new process would not have had a chance whereas old process will self-extinguish new process has proven itself in a vertical situation to continue to burn
02:07:17 vertical situation to continue to burn when the flame source is removed we do have a paper trail that shows considerably better performance with old tech however this cannot be applied to steel frame facade situations
02:07:28 situations which is 80 of the market and then he says i don't currently suggest we revert to old tech yet just to give top priority to getting the op90 trialled do you see that there yes i do were you
02:07:40 do you see that there yes i do were you yourself aware of the paper trail showing considerably better performance for old technology k15 than the new technology k15 at this time i would have done at the time yeah
02:07:51 time yeah it's the paper trail we've just been looking at this morning isn't it i believe it is yeah
02:08:00 do you agree that this shows that in june 2008 kingspan did not have a k-15 product which it considered capable of passing a large-scale fire test when tested as part of a cladding system
02:08:13 tested as part of a cladding system uh we were certainly struggling on some aspects of of k15 on the one four tests we've undertaken yes
02:08:24 one four tests we've undertaken yes going back to this thread the email culminates if we look at pages three to four
02:08:29 four there's a there's a plan then is is made to conduct testing on the research and development fire retardant k-15 with a with a different resin
02:08:40 with a with a different resin um that's if you look at the 10th of june 08
02:08:43 june 08 1108 12th of june 10th 10th of june 08. sorry
02:08:52 we go bottom of page 3
02:08:57 do you see there 10th of june 08 1108 and if we go over the page to page 4.
02:09:06 vince coppock says as as the passing bs476 part six low heat release data achieved with this op920 present in this foam has only been with black lamb tech fall at 20
02:09:18 with black lamb tech fall at 20 millimeter thickness any further insight would into heat release
02:09:22 release by calorimet calorimic technique compared to standard new tech foam without that would be of benefit how big a sample do you need he's got this op920
02:09:33 this op920 modified phenolic phone that's undergoing lambda aging so vincent is suggesting a a different form of k-15 that could be tested in the future
02:09:44 future do you agree
02:10:01 without the op920 is that what you're referring to
02:10:07 yes i'm what i'm suggesting is that the thrust of this email is he's discussing what
02:10:12 what products you could test in the future including with this op920 which is it's a yes yes with and without the op920
02:10:21 op920 yeah yes and the r330 uf can you help us as to what that is i have no idea i'm afraid no and if you go to the top of page one on
02:10:33 and if you go to the top of page one on the 13th of june at 2 19
02:10:40 after there's been some discussion about what you've got in stock and what you can
02:10:46 can kind of develop for testing you say thank vin thanks vince this does seem the best route in the short term so do you agree that you approved this
02:10:57 so do you agree that you approved this approach
02:10:57 approach of doing some more research and development and trying to find another formulation of k-15 that might pass a large-scale fire test i did i did agree with the route forward
02:11:10 i did i did agree with the route forward with regards to the
02:11:14 the formulations i couldn't pass a comment but the the the concept he put forward did seem at the time the best route forward in the short term
02:11:27 [Applause] now mr meredith we've seen has raised concerns repeatedly about the far performance of the new technology k15 we've seen that in a number of these
02:11:38 we've seen that in a number of these documents
02:11:42 would you agree that in fact what the emails show is that you dismissed his concerns about the fire performance of the current product and just pressed on with trying to find a different product that might pass in
02:11:54 a different product that might pass in the future um i did have concerns i'd be wrong to say i didn't have concerns what iva was telling me i think it was the the decision to
02:12:05 i think it was the the decision to to move forward and continue with you know development of products was was made as a collective not not by an individual
02:12:16 let's look at some more emails linked to this king the king spike kingspan off-site uh episode do you remember that in 2008 you malcolm rochford and mr meredith continued to be involved in dealing with queries
02:12:29 involved in dealing with queries from kingspan off-site about the the test that they'd done to four one four part two
02:12:40 do you remember that oh sorry i swear to that um
02:12:45 that um i do recall it's only three contemporaneous documents yeah let's go to kin3020917 and i want to look at the bottom of page two an email from mark stevens of
02:12:58 two an email from mark stevens of kingspan offsite
02:13:01 and in this email he asks a series of questions about the fire performance of k-15
02:13:07 k-15 his email is dated july 2008 and he says i'm concerned with the lack of response with regard to the performance of the k-15 product on the 8414 test that we have completed
02:13:18 on the 8414 test that we have completed i have a further four tests booked as you are aware and at this time i'm unsure of the way forward in terms of detailing the samples to pass the test we have the samples built here at sherborne
02:13:30 sherborne insulated with material from the same batch as the previous failed tests and he asks these questions is the material appropriate to use on the future tests is the reason for the failure specific
02:13:41 is the reason for the failure specific to a batch of k-15 to the current formulation of k-15 or to the details that we used is it normal for k-15 to continue to burn for in excess of 30 minutes
02:13:53 in excess of 30 minutes from the removal of the ignition source do you see that there yes i do so he's raising would you agree some pretty pertinent questions relevant to the testing that they've been doing out
02:14:04 they've been doing out doing on k15 under 8414 tests yes
02:14:09 and he's saying in the first lines that he's concerned with the lack of response do you see that there i do yes can you remember why he was saying that to you and iva meredith in this email had there been a lack of
02:14:20 this email had there been a lack of response
02:14:21 response i i can't recall
02:14:25 did you have any evidence at that time to suggest that the failure was specific to a particular batch of k-15
02:14:35 i can't recall at the time i think i think malcolm may have been involved in in in
02:14:42 in in in in these discussions as well at some point
02:14:45 point um but i i can't recall
02:14:50 at the minute whether i had any concerns about a particular batch there were problems though with the current formulation of k15 as he's inquiring whether or not we've
02:15:02 as he's inquiring whether or not we've just been looking at document after document
02:15:04 document which sets out those problems would you agree it does but it's not related to those who are not related as far as i'm aware to a
02:15:15 aware to a a faulty production batch no i agree what i'm suggesting to you is that you were aware by this time july 08 that there were problems more
02:15:26 july 08 that there were problems more generally
02:15:27 generally with new technology k-15
02:15:31 yes i agree yes and you were also aware of previous large-scale tests in 2007 and 2008 where the k-15 had done the same thing
02:15:43 where the k-15 had done the same thing it continued to burn after the removal of the ignition source do you agree yes i do agree and you respond to mark
02:15:54 yes i do agree and you respond to mark stevens this is the next email up on the same page on the 2nd of july at 1652
02:16:02 you say this mark as you are aware there are always inconsistencies in relation to fire tests both large and small scale you have seen the results achieved by kingspan insulation with regards k15
02:16:14 kingspan insulation with regards k15 both with a generic cladding and without the cladding and the result was similar with the temperature of the thermocouples being within the guidelines of the standard now pausing there it's right isn't it
02:16:26 now pausing there it's right isn't it that those tests you're referring to with a generic cladding without cladding you must be referring to the 2005 tests yes
02:16:34 yes the 2005 test to 8414 yes that would have been yeah and then you say the burn pattern of the k-15 was also identical in each instance with no
02:16:45 also identical in each instance with no continuation of the burning seen in your test
02:16:47 test do you see that there yes i do as with all companies within the group we are always striving to improve the performance of our products with this in mind we're currently awaiting confirmation of the availability of
02:16:58 confirmation of the availability of formulation additive that we believe may improve the far performance of k15 our resin suppliers are working to understand the viscosity increase that may be seen with this addition to the formulation which may or may not
02:17:09 to the formulation which may or may not affect our processing and then you say that standard practice in resin manufacturer and then you go on in short we are away waiting confirmation of time scales but would envisage a month
02:17:21 would envisage a month two months before we see raw material to trial on the line we would then undertake small scale tests to confirm our expectations with regards the reason for failure this is difficult for us to determine
02:17:32 is difficult for us to determine especially having already had some success with bs-8414 i would suggest only the bre technicians can confirm if it was due to the details that were adopted
02:17:43 the details that were adopted in consideration of the above together with the official report observations you may decide to wait until this modified product is available or continue with your planned testing program do you see that there yes i do why
02:17:56 do you see that there yes i do why didn't you tell him that the tests you're referring to there from 2005
02:18:01 from 2005 were on a different product
02:18:05 i don't know why i wouldn't i've advised him that
02:18:09 him that why didn't you tell him that when tests had been carried out in 2007 and 2008
02:18:18 2008 on the new tech k-15 it performed very differently to how it performed in 2005.
02:18:27 i think with those two tests there's a lot of confidentiality involved so it's it
02:18:32 it it is difficult to to actually discuss those with a third party but this is about fire safety it is about live safety
02:18:43 about live safety why would confidentiality prevent you from sharing with a kings ban offsite a partner company i agree on on the outside it might look
02:18:55 i agree on on the outside it might look that way but you know there are confidentiality agreements in place and you know i think it was always the assumption we'd we'd have a better product you know this this letter was
02:19:06 letter was clearly written not just with with my input there would be input here from the processing side as well so i think in respect
02:19:18 it's it is difficult to highlight failed tests in that regard to it to another third person you talk about confidentiality why
02:19:29 you talk about confidentiality why couldn't you forget sending him the test reports from 2007-2008 why couldn't you just describe that iva meredith the bre had seen
02:19:40 that iva meredith the bre had seen k-15 performing very differently and make that clear that wouldn't have breached any form of confidentiality to to anyone else would it it wouldn't but you've got you know we were testing a
02:19:52 you've got you know we were testing a different system here with with offsite as well
02:19:54 as well so it was it wasn't the aluminium cassette that had failed in the past so whether that was playing a part in our thinking as well why didn't you tell mr stevens about the quicker time to ignition
02:20:05 quicker time to ignition and the double the heat output that you knew the new version of k15 was showing in the small scale tests i don't know why i wouldn't have told
02:20:16 i don't know why i wouldn't have told him that
02:20:18 if we can go to kin409031 where this continues
02:20:28 can we go to the top of the page
02:20:32 we can see what you've done is forward the email that you've sent below to gwen davis do you see that there i do yes
02:20:44 there i do yes on the 2nd of july 2008 and you say this i'm spinning so much i'm dizzy do you see that i do yes what did you mean by that comment i think basically the two issues what
02:20:55 i think basically the two issues what one extremely busy but also the contents of the
02:20:58 of the of the email that was was written by the uh by the team was was trying to provide us with
02:21:06 us with more time to get a product that we could feel we could pass with mr heath you're you're spinning because you're you're not telling the whole truth
02:21:17 you're not telling the whole truth that's right isn't it uh no i think it's basically inferring that we're trying to give ourselves time or the production particle time to actually develop a product that would pass the test i don't
02:21:28 product that would pass the test i don't think it was it was spinning in relation to leave things out i think it was basically we're trying to create a delay with offsite so we had a more robust product that they could test within their system but he's asked you
02:21:40 within their system but he's asked you direct questions very pertinent questions given the information you had about the performance of k15 and as we've just discussed you haven't told him any of that
02:21:51 you haven't told him any of that pertinent information i haven't no and that was probably i would say under under advice as well from from the processing team
02:22:02 processing team i'd suggest to you that the reason you've said i'm spinning so much i'm dizzy
02:22:05 dizzy is because you're effectively showing off to gwyn davis that you've spun a tale to mark stevens which you know not to be the entire truth do you agree i don't agree no i think
02:22:17 do you agree i don't agree no i think it's purely in relation to that we were trying to delay their tests and
02:22:22 and wait for wait for this next development product to come through i don't think it was a malicious in any way to say i was withholding information back now i didn't say it was
02:22:36 information back now i didn't say it was malicious
02:22:37 malicious i was saying that you weren't telling the full truth to mark stevens and you knew that
02:22:42 knew that when you sent that email
02:22:46 looking at it now there's certainly gaps that you would you would you would provide more information but at the time from the team like i said it was felt we just wanted more time to develop another product for
02:22:59 more time to develop another product for for testing in their particular assembly can we look at another email link to this kin3020916
02:23:14 this is mr meredith responding to you on the 2nd of july 2008 and he says he's obviously seen your email below to mark stevens and he
02:23:25 your email below to mark stevens and he says
02:23:25 says nice one political genius do you see that there i do yes would you agree that that's entirely consistent with the fact that you haven't told the entire truth to
02:23:37 haven't told the entire truth to mark stevens in your email below well as i said before you know it there is gaps in there now that you know with hindsight we would have filled but at the time we were just
02:23:48 filled but at the time we were just trying to
02:23:49 trying to delay until we had a product available so it was a political letter
02:23:56 on the next day mr meredith emails you if we can go kin3z
02:24:06 looking at the email at the bottom of that page
02:24:11 he emails and he says help i'm getting seriously grilled now based on this email i'm currently on the phone we need to ensure continuity of our answers
02:24:22 ensure continuity of our answers otherwise we'll we will destroy our relationship and never be taken seriously again also i may get accused of being a liar if we change our story are we saying that the products applied which failed their test
02:24:34 which failed their test is the same product that we got to pass the test
02:24:37 the test and would you agree that's a key question isn't it whether or not you are saying that or you aren't as had been asked of you by mark stevens
02:24:51 yes you could assume that yes and then he says i've been working closely with the bre technicians and they are currently helping us understand why old tech worked and new tech doesn't and whether od 90
02:25:02 and new tech doesn't and whether od 90 will have a chance and then he goes on do you see that there i do yes and then you respond up the page who are you getting grilled by and then mr meredith says aiden and mark
02:25:15 and then mr meredith says aiden and mark up the page and then you say is this since my email and he says yes and then you say finally forward emails and or ask them
02:25:26 finally forward emails and or ask them to put concerns in writing do you see that there i do yes
02:25:32 what was your answer to mr meredith's question where he says are we saying that the products applied which failed their test is the same product that we got to pass the test
02:25:42 the test what was your answer to iva's question i can't recall if i answered him or not well the answer is no
02:25:50 no isn't it um the real answer no the product which passed in 2005 is not the same as the one you supplied to them was it on reflection correct did you ever tell
02:26:02 on reflection correct did you ever tell kingspan offsite that at any stage they've raised concerns with you they've asked questions did anyone ever
02:26:11 get transparent with kingspan off-site and tell them exactly what the true picture was i i can't recall them we had various conversations face-to-face meetings as well but i
02:26:23 face-to-face meetings as well but i can't recall the specifics
02:26:29 aiden wilkinson of kingsman offsite does put his concerns in writing this is at kin403714
02:26:42 if we can go to that it's page two
02:26:52 in the bottom email
02:27:00 mr meredith uh to kingspan offside sorry if we go just below this i think we see
02:27:08 yeah if we go sorry go up we've got mr meredith saying yes sorry ivor meredith is there saying to mark stevens and aiden wilkinson on the 14th of july gents i've received
02:27:20 on the 14th of july gents i've received the dvd footage from the disaster fire test today it would help me a lot if you put your specific concerns in writing so i can pass on the message sorry that's what we see there yes um
02:27:31 sorry that's what we see there yes um and then moving up the bottom to the bottom of page one agent wilkinson's questions are in the same vein
02:27:40 same vein as those we've already seen by mark stevens
02:27:44 stevens yes following the recent fire test we have the following concerns after the heat source was extinguished continued to burn considerable time in excess of 30 minutes and then he goes on is that what's
02:27:55 and then he goes on is that what's expected of this material is it normal for k-15 to burn in excess of 30 minutes is it specific to a batch so pretty much identical questions to those that they were asking previously
02:28:06 those that they were asking previously and then going up the chain you state following that you say to either meredith malcolm rochefort and vincent koppak you say good evening
02:28:17 koppak you say good evening we need to be careful how we answer the concerns of off-site any suggestions
02:28:23 and you needed to be careful didn't you because there was a lawful lot that was relevant that you weren't telling them do you agree i think that was one of the reasons why i asked either to ask them to put it in
02:28:34 i asked either to ask them to put it in writing so that ivor and i could actually elevate their queries as well so everybody could understand what the concerns of offsite for so that was one of the reasons i did ask iver to
02:28:45 reasons i did ask iver to ask king spent offsite to put their comments in writing
02:28:50 if we now go where we can see this chain carries on kin four zeros eight eight four four we go to page two about halfway down we see the same email
02:29:01 about halfway down we see the same email from you saying we need to be careful sent on the 16th of july and then above that we can see either meredith's response sent the next day 17th of july
02:29:13 at 11 29 it starts at the bottom of page one if we can just see that
02:29:19 17th of july 2008. there and then if we go over
02:29:28 and he says aiden is pushing me for a meeting so we can work together on getting a pass for offsite this collective work could be of great benefit but first we need to agree what can be disclosed do you see that
02:29:39 what can be disclosed do you see that there who's this address to this email sorry
02:29:42 sorry yes sorry it's it's it's spanning two pages
02:29:46 pages if we go right at the bottom of page one
02:29:52 it's to you malcolm rochefort and vincent coppock right can you see that yes was it cc's as well sorry
02:30:01 yeah queen davis is sea seed right and he's saying aiden's pushing for a meeting
02:30:07 meeting first we need to agree what can be disclosed and do you agree he's saying that because thus far king's ban off-site haven't been told
02:30:16 been told about the problems with the performance of new tech k15 yes
02:30:23 yes there was gaps in my response yes yeah
02:30:27 yeah and then he says i've inserted in the next paragraph i've inserted some answers below however believe we should tread very carefully here by offsite going all out for lpcb approval with their first test
02:30:38 with their first test i.e fully witnessed has not been wise and this move could be responsible for a lot of the questions we are now getting from industry do you see that there yes i do and then he says i think we should at least
02:30:49 he says i think we should at least discount the product previously supplied as an especially bad batch however and then he goes on having reviewed the video the problem seemed to recur about 22 minutes
02:31:01 22 minutes and then he he goes on to make some observations about the test you see that there
02:31:06 there who who would have decided what could be disclosed to kingspan off-site that would be malcolm and what were the questions which you
02:31:17 and what were the questions which you understood at the time kingspan were receiving from industry iva meredith's referring there to questions we're now getting from industry what did you understand those questions to be i think it's in relation to its
02:31:28 i think it's in relation to its suitability the questions we did get were
02:31:31 were were fairly bespoke as to suitability in certain applications above 18 meters
02:31:38 yeah did you share mr meredith's view that it was not wise for offsite's test to have been fully witnessed
02:31:50 fully witnessed by the lpcb or yeah i don't who are the lpcb just help
02:31:58 help um it's the loss prevention certification board yeah i believe um yeah i think yes i think that's
02:32:11 yeah i think yes i think that's the acronym
02:32:15 if we go up
02:32:18 if we go back to the chain sorry we're dotting out these chains they're all in different emails but if we go now to kin403714
02:32:26 kin403714 on page one 17th of july 2008 at 9 19. you've asked for any suggestions and this is malcolm rochefort his he
02:32:38 and this is malcolm rochefort his he says i think the best response at the moment is to say we are investigating possible reasons for the failure and we'll come back to them as soon as we are clearer on what caused it meanwhile we recommend they do not test the other material they have used to
02:32:49 the other material they have used to fabricate the installations as that was the same batch and may suffer from a similar problem if necessary i suppose we could send old formulation material for the testing if you think this is a better chance
02:33:01 you think this is a better chance and they are pressing but this is undesirable for several reasons and i'd rather delay and get the new fr product made as soon as hexane can supply the material do you see that there yes i do were you content with um that way of
02:33:14 were you content with um that way of responding to kingspan offsite at that time i would have been
02:33:23 did anyone as far as you were aware ever tell kingspan offsite anything more about the k15 that they'd been testing and the differences you'd observed i can't recall whether whether
02:33:35 i can't recall whether whether we did or we didn't
02:33:41 i now want to look at some marketing material um for k-15 during the period that you were the technical manager um if we
02:33:54 just pick up the very first product literature for k-15 just to flash it up on the screen it's kin302072
02:34:03 kin302072 is from march 2001
02:34:08 and there are various editions of this marketing material and it's not until the 7th edition in march 2007
02:34:19 2007 that any references made to the 8414 testing carried out in may if we bring that up it's at kin 40250
02:34:34 and if we go to page so that's that's the
02:34:37 the mayo seven marketing lecture we can see that from the top right hand side do you see that there yes yes i do and if we go to page two
02:34:48 yes yes i do and if we go to page two we can see three pictures on the left hand side
02:34:52 hand side the first depicts an unspecified cladding panel on a masonry wall do you see that there figure one yes and then below that is a masonry back
02:35:04 and then below that is a masonry back system
02:35:05 system with a terracotta clay part clay tile external finish and then the third is a steel frame system do you see that there yes i do and k-15 had never been tested
02:35:20 yes i do and k-15 had never been tested as at may 2007 as part of an external facade system cladding terracotta clay tile panels had it no i believe this literature does cover
02:35:32 i believe this literature does cover all applications i.e above and below excuse me above and below the 18 meters i see and and kate is right the k15 had
02:35:44 i see and and kate is right the k15 had never been tested in may 07 as part of a a system fixed to a steel frame had it
02:35:51 and not as far as i'm aware now if we go to page six and look in the bottom left-hand corner under the heading fire performance
02:36:04 do you see there in that bottom if we can blow up that bottom of the page and look at the left hand column
02:36:12 we can see an assertion is made about class naught and being low risk in the technical standards in scotland and then below that a number of tests are referred to including
02:36:24 are referred to including we see the bs 8414 test do you see that at the bottom of that table that's correct yes
02:36:32 and we can see it says 8414 2002. it doesn't say whether it's part one or part two
02:36:38 part two by 2002 it infers it is part one because i think 2000 and the part two came out later than 2002. this is
02:36:49 is this is 2007 this product literature march 2007. yes but i'm sorry i'm just referring to where it says bs8414 2002 it can only be part one i see okay
02:37:01 2002 it can only be part one i see okay and then it says successfully tested kingspan cool firm k-15 does not contribute to fire propagation spread within a cladding system do you see that there
02:37:16 yes i do and by this time we've got the new product k15 being sold haven't we the new tech k15 yes we have that description wouldn't be
02:37:29 yes we have that description wouldn't be appropriate for that would it
02:37:36 not entirely no no it is it is uh with hindsight you would use it a different narrative now i agree and then if we look in the paragraph below the table it says kings
02:37:47 paragraph below the table it says kings vancouver k15 meets the criteria within br135
02:37:51 br135 and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with do you see that there i do yes so it's suggesting here that the product k15
02:38:03 k15 meets the criteria within br135 and is acceptable for use you would accept that that's not entirely accurate is it's not a product that meets those standards it's a system
02:38:14 that meets those standards it's a system isn't it it is a system that does meet those standards yes i agree
02:38:20 and then if we go to the eighth issue of the product literature kin409703 dated november 2008
02:38:34 and if we look on the second page we've got the same three diagrams there of the systems including the steel frame system at the bottom of that page
02:38:47 by november 2008 k15 had been tested as part of an external facade system affixed to a steel frame system four times by that stage hasn't it
02:38:59 times by that stage hasn't it twice with with the metsec so tech tests and twice by kingspan offset do you agree
02:39:04 agree i agree yes and then if we go down again and all of those are failures we've already established that and if we go down again to page six we can see the exact same section
02:39:15 exact same section fire performance
02:39:19 and would you agree that um neither of these issues of the product literature either in 2007 or 2008 mentioned what system was actually tested to bs 8414
02:39:30 tested to bs 8414 do you agree i do agree and and also you know with hindsight perhaps the literature should have been in two parts up to 18 meters and above 18 meters yes um that the test
02:39:43 yes um that the test doesn't mention that the test was to eight for one for part one only does it
02:39:53 does it only that it references the 2002 standard
02:40:01 it doesn't say that the results can only apply to systems affixed to masonry substrates does it
02:40:08 it doesn't know no it's not including the narrative but that standard is referenced without putting part one in for whatever reason it doesn't state does it that the
02:40:19 it doesn't state does it that the results wouldn't be relevant to any other system other than that tested does it it doesn't now no or more fundamentally it doesn't mention
02:40:30 mention that the k-15 now being [Music]
02:40:33 [Music] is sold entirely different product to the one that went through that 8414 test you're referencing here in 2008 it is a different
02:40:44 in 2008 it is a different different product not entirely different but it is a different product but we can agree it performed very differently in fire didn't it from what we're seeing yes
02:40:51 yes yeah would you agree agree that this product literature is misleading
02:41:01 on on reflection yes and there should be a number of qualifications in this literature should there not
02:41:08 there not even if the 2005 test is going to be relied on
02:41:12 relied on as i said there should be some more caveats than you know perhaps more differential between
02:41:18 between what you can and can't do above and below 18 meters how can you explain to us how this product literature came to be issued can you explain to us how it came
02:41:29 issued can you explain to us how it came to be issued no again it was you know it would have been done on a collective there was a procedure to to go through the the literature isn't a sign of procedure so and you accept in
02:41:43 a sign of procedure so and you accept in your witness statement that um everyone needed to be happy with the text of the marketing documents and you work together collaboratively to achieve the technical accuracy of it yes
02:41:54 achieve the technical accuracy of it yes yeah absolutely as much as we could absolutely with people who were available at the time yes that was paragraph 4.15 on page 22 of your
02:42:02 your statement for the transcript and the technical accuracy of marketing documents is particularly critical where it relates to fire performance and matters of fire safe life safety would you agree uh it does have its part to play yes
02:42:16 but also the advice of the the technical services as well so the literature we have it's it's fairly standard format and
02:42:28 fairly standard format and hopefully the idea was that it would lead enquirers to the technical services department for further details so but you didn't achieve technical accuracy did you in the way you were
02:42:39 accuracy did you in the way you were describing non-reflection no no
02:42:45 and are you prepared to accept that that was deliberate that kingsbound fully intended the reader of these documents to think that they were suitable for use over 18 meters without qualification
02:42:56 qualification no i don't i don't i don't believe it was deliberate i think the the like i said the literature is a standard format to encourage the reader to ring for further advice to contact us
02:43:08 to ring for further advice to contact us i don't believe it was deliberate at all can we look at an email kin405377 this is an email between you mr meredith and others in february 2009
02:43:27 about the language to be used in nvs specification documents you can blow up the top that top email so from iva meredith to you and to others
02:43:39 and he says i've i've checked the class naught text throughout the call then range please adopt the same text as used in the k-8 literature may o7 and then he says for k-15 i would mention the bs-8414 test but not
02:43:51 i would mention the bs-8414 test but not use the terminology out of the current literature as this is a bit dodgy do you see that there yes i do perhaps state case 15 has been successfully tested to 8414 to assess suitability for its
02:44:03 to 8414 to assess suitability for its use do you see that there yes i do did you agree with mr meredith when you received this that the current literature was a bit dodgy
02:44:16 i can't remember what i would have said to ive at the time but as i mentioned previously i think you know on reflection it could have been written better
02:44:29 now it's right isn't it that many of those who were considering specifying k-15 did
02:44:34 k-15 did in fact contact kingspan for further information and advice that's right isn't it we did get enquiries for k15 obviously yes and we're going to look now at some of
02:44:45 and we're going to look now at some of that correspondence in general is it fair to say that such correspondence was not normally answered by you
02:44:51 by you but that you would provide guidance to your team wherever that was needed i think that's a fair comment yes yeah and is it right that as technical
02:45:02 and is it right that as technical manager you would have the final word on how
02:45:05 how queries were to be responded to particularly where it's talking about its suitability for use over 18 meters would you agree uh yes i would i might have sought
02:45:16 uh yes i would i might have sought further advice from other people if necessary but yes i agree with agree with this statement
02:45:23 i want to pick this up in 2006. you were asked by the inquiry if you had at any stage been made aware of any concerns
02:45:31 concerns um about the k-15 product and you mentioned in your witness statement win tech who were facade consultants they they raised concerns about k-15 didn't they we did have correspondence
02:45:43 didn't they we did have correspondence with
02:45:43 with wintec i think on a particular project whilst i was technical manager yes
02:45:51 and wintec expressed concerns that k15 was not of limited combustibility didn't they uh they did ask that i can't recall if they had concerns but they certainly did ask the questions from
02:46:02 certainly did ask the questions from memory yes let's look first at some 2006 correspondence again about the buxton street project constructed by barris which involved wind tech this is at kin405243
02:46:18 so kingspan had sent the 2005 8414 test report to barris to support the use of k15 on the project project and then on page two james emery on the 13th 30th of november
02:46:30 james emery on the 13th 30th of november 06 at 12.05
02:46:35 sorry sorry could you just go back to the previous letter to barris
02:46:41 or the letter from barris yes that's what i'm taking you to now oh right sorry
02:46:46 sorry so we've looked at this already this morning because barris we're raising concerns sorry wintec we're raising concerns about the test two two zero eight seven six mentioned
02:46:58 two two zero eight seven six mentioned there which is the 2005 test not being a valid test for the system at barris because they needed it to part two do you remember looking at that with me this morning yes
02:47:09 and they're saying um in the third paragraph the build-up of components is not comparable do you see that there yes and therefore in the final paragraph they say
02:47:20 in the final paragraph they say therefore the test report is not relevant and building regulation compliance is still outstanding
02:47:27 and and what he's written there is entirely correct isn't it that in order to use it on a project with a steel frame system it needed to have been tested to part two of 8414 it was a entirely legitimate concern to
02:47:39 it was a entirely legitimate concern to be raising wasn't it it was and then if we go one email down at the top of page one it was sent by steve robinson of barris to ivan
02:47:51 steve robinson of barris to ivan meredith requiring an urgent response do you see that there so they want an urgent response and then at the top of page one he sends it on to you asking for guidance on this mess he's
02:48:03 asking for guidance on this mess he's talking about this mess in the first line do you see that there i do yes
02:48:09 i do yes can you remember what was the response to barris and wintec in 2006 what advice did you give to mr meredith when he asked you for any guidance on this one
02:48:21 this one i can't recall the top of my head
02:48:28 if we go then with to 2008 i want to look at some more examples um and look at a chain of emails from mayo 8 kin
02:48:39 mayo 8 kin 403701
02:48:41 403701 this is an email between kingspan and lscl
02:48:45 lscl yeah lsc limited which discusses two different projects ice developments and in stevenage and wakering road and we look if we can start at page two
02:48:56 and we look if we can start at page two in the middle of the page from malcolm wallace of higgins homes to emily vaughan
02:49:02 vaughan on the 16th of may they ask for the the test results to 8414
02:49:11 and they say we're currently unable to sell units on the site until this matter is resolved will you please forward this information to me as a matter of urgency and then going up to the top of page two in the bottom of page one
02:49:23 in the bottom of page one emily vaughan forwards the email to iva meredith on the 19th of may asking for assistance
02:49:31 about how to respond and then if we go to the bottom of page one ivor meredith forwards the email to you and he says this i'm having big issues with k-15 approval at the moment the
02:49:42 with k-15 approval at the moment the problems are relating to nhbc jobs this causes a lot of concern and then there are some back and forth emails planning a discussion about this and at the very top of page one there's another email
02:49:54 top of page one there's another email from iva meredith to you saying this was the email i'm worried about we simply do not have the information to support the use of k15 above 18 meters with steel frames and this is the one where it says i'm worried the product will be removed from
02:50:06 worried the product will be removed from sight and the ongoing effect of such an action do you see that there yes he says i think
02:50:11 i think getting this sorted should take priority over all other projects as it's causing us to lose work
02:50:18 [Applause] can you remember what advice you gave to mr meredith at this point
02:50:29 you know i can't recall i'm afraid you can't recall no would you agree that this email shows that members of your team were concerned and worried about the justification they were being
02:50:42 about the justification they were being instructed to give as to how k-15 could be used above 18 meters yeah no i agree not only either meredith but emily vaughan also she too expresses concern about how to properly reply
02:50:54 about how to properly reply do you agree i do agree yeah because i i would have been the contact so emily would have did did you take those concerns seriously
02:51:06 seriously uh i would have done at the time yes
02:51:11 can we now go to kin 405363 this is quite a long series of emails from october 2008 if we start on page eight there's an
02:51:23 if we start on page eight there's an email sent by you at 2 25 14 25 on the 15th of october 2008 to matt craig and then also neil brooke
02:51:36 craig and then also neil brooke um i think they're of boma and kirkland and you've attached a copy of a bba certificate you can see that in the second line yes and this email chain to help you relates
02:51:48 and this email chain to help you relates to the city park project which is a building
02:51:51 building over 18 meters to be clad in open jointed ceramic stone can you remember that i i can't recall the the cladding material now
02:52:02 now about halfway down that email you say cool firm although cool phone k15 although not classed as non-combustible it is classified as class naught or low risk as defined by the documents do you see that there
02:52:13 the documents do you see that there yes i do so you're saying that even though you knew it was struggling to pass bs476 part six didn't you by this time uh yes that was
02:52:25 by this time uh yes that was based on the uh on the position had in relation to the uh the kestrel technology yes yes
02:52:35 and then you talk about the bba certificate which i'm going to be asking you about this afternoon um can you help as to why the 2005 test
02:52:47 the 2005 test and the bba certificate meant that k15 was suitable for use on the city park project
02:52:54 project given it was a open jointed ceramic stone system
02:53:00 it was probably just reference to ceramic stone being excuse me ceramic stone being non-combustible and considering the 2005 test was also a
02:53:12 and considering the 2005 test was also a non-combustible cladding so you were extrapolating from that 2005 test uh we were yes even though you're selling new technology k15 by this time
02:53:25 selling new technology k15 by this time that's correct yeah moving up the chain if we look at page six at the bottom of the page and over to page seven neil brooke from boma and kirkland responds on the 16th of october 2008 and
02:53:38 responds on the 16th of october 2008 and he says
02:53:40 he says philip further to my conversation with iva and your email below i would note that to date you've not substantiated as to on what basis the kulthem k-15 is suitable for buildings over 18 meters and appear to be relying wholly on the
02:53:52 and appear to be relying wholly on the bre test result on a mock-up consisting of cement particle board to a height less than this as per the agramond certificate you've provided
02:54:01 provided now he's absolutely right isn't he in what he says there he is yes not sure about the mock-up but the context of his paragraph is correct
02:54:12 the context of his paragraph is correct yes yeah
02:54:14 yes yeah and then if we can go to page one now please
02:54:19 please you send neil brook's response on to keith lynch steve mace and ian clay on the next day 17th of october
02:54:30 at 11 46.
02:54:39 can you see that 17th october
02:54:44 so it's not 11 46. oh sorry yes i can yes
02:54:47 yes ten no
02:54:52 oh sorry there's another document i need to go to now kin four zeros nine zero six six sorry it's another chain but in the same stream right page one
02:55:05 stream right page one [Music]
02:55:09 yes in the middle of that page sorry on the 17th of october 2008 at 11 46 you send neil brook's response on
02:55:16 on to can you see keith lynch steve mace ian clay yeah do you see those people yeah can you help us who are they right firstly i can
02:55:27 firstly i can only apologize for the contents of this email at the time made in in 2008. um keith was a dear friend of mine who was terminally ill at the time
02:55:39 mine who was terminally ill at the time and i was just folding an email just to give him a snapshot of some of the work i was working on um you know there's comments made in that email that's
02:55:51 email that's basically said because i was in a dark place with with keith being terminally ill and addressing the issues of paul mccurtland weren't top of my a priority at that time
02:56:02 priority at that time ian clay and steve mays were also close friends
02:56:06 friends of keith and uh we used to try and keep in touch with what we're doing on a day-to-day basis um so i can only apologize on the contents of that email i see so so what you say is you say i think bowmer and
02:56:17 you say is you say i think bowmer and kirkland multinational blue chip main contractor are getting me confused with someone who gives a damn i'm trying to think of a way out of this one imagine a fire running
02:56:28 one imagine a fire running up this tower and then a series of exclamation marks any ideas fill and then you say ps i don't do technical on a friday yes you see that there yes and as i say i was in it was in a dark place
02:56:41 as i say i was in it was in a dark place you know
02:56:42 you know um say keith was terminally ill and just trying to give him a snapshot of what was happening it was had no reflection on how i felt i was just trying to lighten his load and light might lower a little bit at the time
02:56:53 little bit at the time but was it right that you didn't um give a damn about bowmer and kirkland's concerns
02:56:58 concerns no it's not correct what what i meant there is you know those other priorities you know
02:57:04 you know keith's pending death you know it's it that put everything in perspective that you know
02:57:11 you know keith was more important at that time than me answering a technical question i see and when you say i'm trying to think of a way out of this one imagine a fire running up this tower what did you mean by that i just meant
02:57:23 what did you mean by that i just meant it
02:57:24 it you know it's just making an activity wrong it's just that you know just explain to keith who wasn't in construction just some of the implications and things that the technical we're dealing with just so
02:57:36 the technical we're dealing with just so like i say you could see what was going on in the in the wider world
02:57:44 you had tried to mislead that contractor hadn't you about the test evidence you had and whether it was suitable to support the use of k-15 on that building do you agree
02:57:57 in relation in relation to to which when i misled him by relying on the 2005 test data
02:58:10 i was we were sending him that data to so he could actually you know he could use that to or make an assessment or pass it to other people who could make assessment based on what we tested in 2005.
02:58:21 2005. i don't think he was trying to mislead just providing with information that him and his team could make a uh
02:58:28 make a uh could make a decision about well they're coming back to you and saying you've not substantiated why k-15 is suitable for use on 18 meters and you appear to be relying on
02:58:39 meters and you appear to be relying on the bra test result which you knew from a number of reasons was not supportive of the k-15 you were selling at the time
02:58:51 selling at the time could you put that email up again because obviously it's at the bottom of that page
02:58:54 that page oh right neil brooke is saying to you you've not substantiated as to what basis the k-15 is suitable and you appear to be relying wholly on the bre test report
02:59:05 test report that's correct we were yes if you go to the top of this chain you describe the situation
02:59:11 situation as a nightmare do you see that there i do and that again that was you know keith keith had responded
02:59:19 responded and this was just you know correspondence between myself and and a dear friend who was it was terminal so it was you know
02:59:31 um so if we go back now to kin four zeros five three six three and look at the bottom of page two we can see that neil brooke
02:59:44 we can see that neil brooke of bowmer and kirkland has asked wintec for their view now on this issue yes so windtech become involved and then greg sinclair of wintec responds on the same day
02:59:56 wintec responds on the same day and this is the email on pages two and three sent on the 16th of october 1710 you see that there this is greg sinclair and if we go over the page to page three
03:00:10 and if we go over the page to page three and if you look at the bottom of that page
03:00:13 page he says this kingspan keep repeating that the product has been tested to bs 8414 and therefore is suitable for use in buildings over 18 meters what they failed to say is that it is suitable for use only in the configuration as tested i with cavity
03:00:26 configuration as tested i with cavity barriers
03:00:26 barriers and a cement board out of face do you see that there so again that was an entirely legitimate um
03:00:34 um point for greg sinclair of windtech to be raising wasn't it yes we had tested it with just the cement board outer face that's correct yes
03:00:43 yes and then if we look um two paragraphs on from that if we go down the page he says there in the in the middle there
03:00:54 he says there in the in the middle there the rain screen system being installed at city park and to the hotel development next door exclamation mark is an open jointed system
03:01:02 system therefore external fire breakthrough into the concealed cavity will be easier than the test sample and is being installed without fire barriers as such the installation has no resemblance to the tested sample and
03:01:13 resemblance to the tested sample and therefore the test data is not relevant now again those were entirely legitimate points
03:01:19 points for wind tech to be making at that time were they not
03:01:25 there were there's some points in there that diff yeah without cavity barriers yes
03:01:29 yes i agree yeah and it goes on it's my understanding the test data is only applicable to the system as tested and bre are not proud to offer any opinion on the system designs
03:01:42 and then if we go to the next email up neil brooke of beaumont kirkland writes to kingspan again on the 17th of october 2008 at 807.
03:01:54 october 2008 at 807. he says further to my email of yesterday in the reply i've received from andrew pack i've attached below a response from greg sinclair at win wintec
03:02:04 do you see that there and then if we could go down in his email sorry could you just go back sorry
03:02:17 and so what he's saying is i've got below a detailed response from greg sinclair at wintec and that's forwarded to you either meredith and andrew pack do you see that there
03:02:26 there yes i do
03:02:32 and he says if we go out go
03:02:40 he says in that top paragraph i requested in my email yesterday you give specific guidance with regard to the use of cavity barriers the agro monster certificate that i was forwarded made clear the guidance should be sought from the certificate holder
03:02:51 be sought from the certificate holder and that's why he's coming to you and then he says it's clear that the bre test does not relate to the situation we have
03:02:58 have rain screen's significantly different please clarify on what basis the material is suitable for use and then at the penultimate paragraph your responses to date have failed to
03:03:09 your responses to date have failed to provide any assurances on this matter and have continued to rely on test data from a different system do you see that there yes i do and then if we go up the chain we can see an internal email from you
03:03:21 see an internal email from you on the 17th of october 2008. saying in the event you haven't answered this email either ap and i currently preparing a detailed
03:03:32 ap and i currently preparing a detailed response that will adopt a standard issue
03:03:38 we'll come back to that letter and then iva says i'm having a few issues on my test at the moment would appreciate the help windtech are digging their heels in with a couple of projects and without putting
03:03:50 a couple of projects and without putting ourselves in a legal position it's getting tricky and then you say this win win tech can go
03:03:56 go themselves and if they're not careful we'll see the ass off them do you see that there yes i do can you explain
03:04:04 explain why you wrote that given that wintec were giving entirely accurate advice to their customers why did that warrant that response from you it was totally unprofessional um at that time
03:04:18 totally unprofessional um at that time and
03:04:18 and you know with um on reflection i wouldn't i want to send that i think it was just
03:04:24 was just frustration that we were going around in circles
03:04:27 circles with them so it was totally unprofessional and it was based on the fact that we're going around in circles with them
03:04:34 with them would you agree that this reflected a culture within kingspan as a company at the time in terms of its response to these kind of requests no i don't believe so you know that like in any
03:04:45 in any organizations you you know you you have your good times and your difficult times and i think like say we're just going around in circles with wintec and i think there's just a bit of frustration kept
03:04:57 frustration kept came out there on a on a friday so it was totally unprofessional of me why didn't you take windtech's concerns seriously given the potential impact on life safety why brush them off
03:05:08 life safety why brush them off in this way to your colleagues i think we did we did take life safety seriously we provided the thoughts were provided wintec with the data we had for for
03:05:18 for them to make the appropriate analysis to say whether based on this yes it was acceptable or no it wasn't and we move on was threatening legal action a common way for kingspan to
03:05:29 action a common way for kingspan to respond to those who questioned the suitability of k-15 for use above 18 meters
03:05:34 meters not in my time not at all like i say it was totally unprofessional mr chairman thank you for letting me finish that chain is that a good point it's a good moment thank you right well i think it's time we stopped
03:05:45 right well i think it's time we stopped for some
03:05:45 for some lunch so we'll break there we'll come back and
03:05:48 back and continue at five past two please okay and uh no discussing your evidence please
03:05:54 please all right thank you
03:06:06 thank you five past two please
03:06:50 you