Andrew Peck, Kingspan's Technical Services Manager, gives evidence about his knowledge of fire testing and regulations for K15 insulation. He admits to limited understanding of fire risks, no involvement in BS8414 testing, and an inability to explain emails suggesting test reports were kept 'under wraps'.
00:00:03 everyone welcome to today's hearing which is taking a rather different form from those
00:00:08 those we were holding before the present lockdown was imposed because of the current restrictions it's not possible for the inquiry to continue taking evidence at the hearing room in london even on
00:00:20 at the hearing room in london even on the basis of limited attendance among other things we've had to take into consideration the risk that that would have imposed on essential staff
00:00:31 essential staff and of course the witnesses some of whom would have had to travel a considerable distance to attend the hearing our work is however urgent and we have therefore made arrangements to conduct
00:00:42 therefore made arrangements to conduct our hearings remotely while the current restrictions remain in place
00:00:47 place how long that may be we don't know but we're determined to resume normal working arrangements as soon as it is safe to do so i'm sorry it's taken a little while for
00:00:59 i'm sorry it's taken a little while for us to put in place these arrangements but they're much more complex than you might think and we're very grateful to the technical support team for enabling us to resume in this way
00:01:12 for enabling us to resume in this way you should know that each member of the inquiry team taking part in the hearings is working from a separate location but with the help of our technical support staff from rts
00:01:23 staff from rts and opus we're all able to see and hear what is going on and to take part in the proceedings just as we did
00:01:30 as we did when we were all together in the hearing room
00:01:34 room we all understand that taking evidence in this way lacks some of the important qualities
00:01:40 qualities of the hearing at which the witnesses and council are physically present and face each other across the room however the style of questioning will remain the same
00:01:51 remain the same and we shall expect the witnesses to help the inquiry to the best of their ability we also recognize that there may be technical problems from time to time we hope that there won't be but if there
00:02:04 we hope that there won't be but if there are we ask those attending the hearings and those watching them to bear with us while they're resolved we are greatly a debt indebted to rts and opus
00:02:14 and opus making it possible for us to continue our work in this way enabling us thereby to avoid an even longer delay
00:02:24 well as usual i'm joined here by my fellow panel members miss thuria istafan and mr ali akbar good morning good morning
00:02:38 as i'm sure you're all aware conducting a vertical hearing poses certain technical challenges for everyone involved including those on whom we depend for our support
00:02:50 our support i shall be grateful therefore if those of you who are not active participants which in normal circumstances will include the witnesses legal representatives would keep your cameras and microphones
00:03:02 would keep your cameras and microphones switched off at all times unless of course for some reason
00:03:07 reason you think it necessary to intervene well with that preamble we can now meet today's witnesses uh today's witness who is mr andrew pack an employee
00:03:18 an employee of kingspan and i'm going to ask mr pack are you there good morning yes i am hello good morning can you
00:03:27 can you hear me and can you see me clearly yes i can
00:03:30 can good thank you very much now can i ask you do you have the words of the affirmation on the screen in front of you no well if we wait a little bit i think
00:03:42 well if we wait a little bit i think they'll
00:03:43 they'll come up you're giving evidence from dubai
00:03:46 dubai aren't you and so there may be very short time delay so the affirmation i think is now on the screen is it yes correct it has appeared now good would you please make the affirmation by
00:03:58 would you please make the affirmation by reading the words you see there i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare
00:04:06 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give
00:04:10 give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth very good thank you very much now yes one or two things i need to deal with before you actually start giving your evidence can you confirm
00:04:23 giving your evidence can you confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence
00:04:27 evidence thank you uh can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials with you
00:04:33 with you correct thank you and can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and you have no other electronic device in the room which is capable of receiving messages
00:04:46 which is capable of receiving messages correct
00:04:46 correct thank you very much now for your own peace of mind you might like to know that your legal representatives are in the virtual hearing room and we'll be following your evidence
00:04:58 we'll be following your evidence they can intervene if they consider it necessary to do so but otherwise as i think you've heard i've asked them to keep their microphones and cameras switched off all right um i hope we shan't have
00:05:11 all right um i hope we shan't have problems with sound or vision but if we do we'll take a short break while the technical team resolves them and i'll make that clear to you if for any other reason you need to attract my
00:05:23 any other reason you need to attract my attention will you please indicate in some appropriate way yes all right um we're planning to have a short break roughly halfway through the morning at
00:05:35 roughly halfway through the morning at about 11
00:05:36 about 11 15 if you need any an additional break at any time please indicate and we'll we'll do what we can to accommodate you okay while i mention that can i mention
00:05:49 okay while i mention that can i mention something else once you've started giving your evidence it's very important that you don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else until you've completely finished
00:06:01 else until you've completely finished i'll try to remember to remind you of that when we have a break but if i fail to do so please bear it in mind
00:06:08 mind nonetheless now before we actually start the questions do you have any questions yourself
00:06:14 yourself or is there anything you wish to bring to my attention at one time thank you good thank you very much well at that point therefore i'm going to invite miss troop to ask you some questions
00:06:26 you some questions all right yes ms troop good morning mr pack
00:06:30 pack before i start could you confirm please that you can see and hear me clearly yes i can thank you can i start then by thanking you for attending the public
00:06:41 by thanking you for attending the public inquiry to give your evidence it is very much appreciated
00:06:47 during the course of the day if you have any difficulty at all understanding any of the questions that i ask you
00:06:54 i ask you please just say so and i'll repeat the question
00:06:57 question or put it in a different way okay the other thing i'm going to ask you to do is try to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who is also on
00:07:09 so that the transcriber who is also on the call
00:07:10 the call can take down all of your evidence as you speak
00:07:13 you speak does that make sense yes it does and then last just again so that the transcriber can record all of your answers please try to ensure
00:07:24 all of your answers please try to ensure that you don't nod or shake your head in response to questions but instead say yes or no okay was all of that clear yes it is right mr peck you have provided
00:07:37 right mr peck you have provided a witness statement to the inquiry and your statement if we can get that up on the screen please is it kin408702
00:07:54 if we could go to page 53 of that statement
00:07:57 statement please
00:08:03 we can see that the date of the statement at the very bottom is the 19th of september 2019 yes
00:08:11 2019 yes yes and there's a signature there too is that your signature yes it is have you read your witness statement recently
00:08:22 statement recently yes i have and can you confirm that the content of your witness statement is true and accurate yes i can have you discussed your statement
00:08:32 statement or your evidence with anyone before attending today no i haven't thank you to start i'm going to ask you some
00:08:43 to start i'm going to ask you some questions about your background so staying with your witness statement if we can go back up to page one please
00:08:56 in fact down to page two i think
00:09:00 thank you i'm paraphrasing but from your witness statement i understand that you have been working for kingspan since 1992 is that right that's correct
00:09:12 1992 is that right that's correct and your current role is as global technical
00:09:16 technical support manager yes that's correct in terms of reporting structure i think you report now to the middle east division
00:09:26 division yes looking at page two of your witness statement and in particular at paragraph 2.1 you mentioned there that you have a
00:09:37 2.1 you mentioned there that you have a higher national diploma in building studies is that right yes do you have any qualifications relating to fire engineering
00:09:49 relating to fire engineering no you also say if we go down to paragraph 2.3 it's on the same page and again i'm paraphrasing that
00:10:02 and again i'm paraphrasing that technical roles such as yours are very much learned on the job and and that that was the case for you is that right
00:10:10 right that is correct and then if we move over to page three and look at paragraph 2.4
00:10:22 looking there at the first and second lines we understand from that that your very first role for kingspan in 1992 was as a technical advisor yes
00:10:34 was as a technical advisor yes yes and then that at some point prior to 2001
00:10:40 2001 you were promoted into the role of senior technical advisor yes is it correct for me to say that throughout that period so from 1992 to 2001
00:10:54 so from 1992 to 2001 you reported directly to philip heath
00:10:58 yes if we go down then to page 4 of your witness statement and to paragraph 2.8
00:11:09 you say in the first line then from 2001 to 2010 forgive me i was classed as the technical services manager
00:11:21 technical services manager was that a promotion from your previous role as senior technical advisor yes it was and you remained in that role until
00:11:30 until sometime in 2010 is that right yes again throughout that period so in fact overall from 1992 until 2010 you reported throughout
00:11:44 until 2010 you reported throughout directly to philip heath is that right yes
00:11:48 yes yes going over now please to page five and to paragraph 2.15 towards the bottom of the page
00:12:01 you say that in 2010 your focus moved away from the uk into emerging markets although you retained the title
00:12:12 retained the title of technical services manager until 2014.
00:12:16 2014. yes that's correct yes
00:12:20 and then looking at the third line of paragraph 2.15 just about halfway through that line you say
00:12:28 say i did not get involved in uk inquiries relating to k-15 from 2010 onwards is that correct that's correct yes
00:12:41 moving on i want to ask you now about any training you received during the period 2001 to 2010. and about your understanding
00:12:54 to 2010. and about your understanding of the regulatory framework relating to the use of phenolic foam in the building industry so thinking about that period from 2001 to 2010
00:13:07 2001 to 2010 did you ever attend any training on the building regulations
00:13:14 i'm sorry i didn't catch that answer no thank you did you attend any training during the same period 2001 to 2010 on the practical guidance
00:13:25 2001 to 2010 on the practical guidance in approved document b no formal training no no formal training thank you if we can go
00:13:36 thank you if we can go uh please to page 14 of your witness statement which should still be up on your screen and to paragraph 4.23 i just want to read from that with you
00:13:49 i just want to read from that with you from about halfway through the second line
00:13:52 line beginning the whole department do you see it
00:13:55 see it yes i do and you say there the whole department was aware that once you've got over
00:14:01 got over 18 meters you had to look to the appropriate sections of adb at the time which obviously gave alternative routes to compliance for
00:14:12 alternative routes to compliance for example
00:14:13 example bs8414 testing everyone was aware that the use of combustible insulation above that height was subject to further guidance it was always something i have been aware of
00:14:25 always something i have been aware of and that the technical advisors at the front line were aware of is that all correct yes moving down you go on to say at the next
00:14:38 moving down you go on to say at the next paragraph paragraph 4.24 towards the end of the first line i did not know what specific risks were
00:14:49 i did not know what specific risks were involved
00:14:50 involved with using combustible materials materials on buildings with a floor over 18 meters
00:14:56 18 meters however i was aware that there was clear guidance
00:15:00 guidance in adb that additional requirements needed to be met in order to use combustible materials on buildings with a floor over 18 meters and assumed that
00:15:11 over 18 meters and assumed that these additional requirements were there because there was some risk involved approved document b did not did not set out
00:15:20 out what the risks were
00:15:24 do you mean there that you didn't know what the risks were because those risks were not set out in adb
00:15:35 i believe that approved document b didn't actually state what the risks are approved document b told you the route to compliance
00:15:48 route to compliance yes and other than from approved document b is it your evidence that you didn't learn or understand what the risks were from any other
00:15:59 what the risks were from any other source
00:16:02 i mean if we go back to the question you asked a moment about about what formal training what training we had
00:16:09 had as far as my training was concerned it was mainly involved with at the time um understanding the document itself approved document b
00:16:22 document itself approved document b it was a guidance document at the time there was no as far as i'm aware
00:16:28 aware there was no formal training courses in the uk
00:16:31 the uk that you could go to to learn about approved document b so therefore it was left to individuals to
00:16:38 to understand approved document b and then you would refer to the local authority building control in the region that had the project so a
00:16:49 in the region that had the project so a typical example would be if we took harry ford where queensland is based
00:16:54 is based they would have had a local authority building control and then the idea was that as an individual we would consult approved document be and then
00:17:05 and then we would then refer that particular customer to that local authority to get further advice so as far as the risks are concerned we understood that if you had a building over 18 meters there was an appropriate
00:17:18 over 18 meters there was an appropriate section we went to that section and we looked at what the guidance was and we followed that guidance for further advice on that guidance you had these local authority building controls set up throughout the uk
00:17:30 controls set up throughout the uk that would give further support yes what about within kingspan did you ever learn
00:17:38 learn from within kingspan what the risks were associated with the use of combustible insulation and which dates are we talking about
00:17:49 and which dates are we talking about 2001 to 2010 or the entire period 2001 to 2010. okay so i would say in 2001
00:18:00 okay so i would say in 2001 we were still fairly small departments we were setting up a technical projects team up to that point as far as i can recall
00:18:13 up to that point as far as i can recall there wasn't that many inquiries for buildings above 18 meters the majority of inquiries we used to receive were below 18 meters i would say that between 2000 and 2010
00:18:26 i would say that between 2000 and 2010 once the
00:18:27 once the technical projects team have been set up the technical projects team then started doing internal
00:18:38 started doing internal training sessions for people this is where for example you may have read in my witness statement that we had um team leaders these team leaders were
00:18:49 um team leaders these team leaders were put in place to look after a team of technical advisors and those technical advisors along with their team leader would sit down with the technical projects team to understand more about approved document b
00:19:01 approved document b and the reason we did that was because i believe the inquiries coming into the technical department were starting to show more inquiries
00:19:12 were starting to show more inquiries about 18 meters so therefore there was needed to have more understanding of what was required yes myself at the time um i didn't attend those technical meetings
00:19:25 i didn't attend those technical meetings k15 was to me
00:19:29 a small product within a bigger basket of products so my time was dealt with dealing with other products dealing with a team of around i think at the time i was managing 14
00:19:40 i think at the time i was managing 14 people
00:19:41 people so my involvement with k-15 at the time was very small but i did put in place along with the technical manager at the time a training program whereby the technical
00:19:54 a training program whereby the technical advisors at the time could through their team leaders sit down with the technical projects team that specialized in the subject all right thank you that is all very
00:20:05 all right thank you that is all very helpful we're going to take this quite slowly
00:20:08 slowly and in stages so just winding back um to basics really during the entire period from 2001 to 2010 did you at any time
00:20:22 to 2010 did you at any time read the guidance which is set out in adb
00:20:25 adb on fire safety yes i did we did and did that include b4 the section relating to external fire spread
00:20:36 i'm not familiar with b4 um i do recall a section
00:20:41 a section to do with buildings above 80 meters right
00:20:46 do you think that in your role as technical services manager apart from having an awareness of the content of adb you ought to have had some awareness
00:20:58 you ought to have had some awareness of what the risks were the risks associated with the use of combustible insulation over 18 meters
00:21:09 in terms of my role as technical services manager the department's broken down into various different sectors my
00:21:20 sectors my sector was obviously managing a team of 14 people
00:21:25 14 people it dealt with a number of different project products sorry a number of different applications every day
00:21:33 day as far as approved document be and what i foresaw as being the specific risks involved my understanding is that as far as
00:21:44 my understanding is that as far as combustible materials are concerned they must pass a fire test in accordance with the approved document b so i was aware of the risk of the fact that you had to follow the guidance within the pre-document b
00:21:59 guidance within the pre-document b can we go now briefly to kin four zeros five four one zero
00:22:10 please you can see at the top these are the minutes in fact of a sales meeting held at pembridge on the 6th of october 2009. do you see that yes i do
00:22:23 2009. do you see that yes i do yes and looking
00:22:28 at that list that appears to be a meeting that you attended do you see your name yes i do and also tony milicha
00:22:39 yes i do and also tony milicha was present
00:22:42 if we can scroll down to page two to the top of page two please under the heading k15 i'm just going to read this section to you
00:22:54 read this section to you andy peck talked briefly about k-15 and how it is fixed there are three main documents for this product standard literature bba certificate and lca building control
00:23:06 bba certificate and lca building control certificate for england and wales only not scotland k-15 product staying with structural team action asms to discuss
00:23:17 team action asms to discuss k-15 with envelope contractors and then at the next paragraph question to ask when discussing k-15 is the building less than 18 meters in
00:23:28 is the building less than 18 meters in height
00:23:29 height over 18 meters becomes an issue as the height of
00:23:33 height of of fireman's ladder is 18 meters what is the construction of the building action mark swift to issue k-15 information pack
00:23:44 information pack labc documents etc
00:23:48 just looking at that section that i've read to you can you remember what it was that you explained
00:23:55 explained at that meeting about how k15 was fixed
00:24:02 looking at the document and i have obviously seen this email or i should say a gender item before
00:24:10 before the reason i used to get called into meetings such as this was to talk more about the site work application of the product so at the time we had a business
00:24:22 so at the time we had a business development manager which as you can clearly see was mark swift he was obviously dealing with this product at the time the reason i came in as a technical representative
00:24:33 representative was to discuss about the site work application of the product that would have involved how to install the boards in terms of laying the material fixing the material
00:24:44 the material use the mechanical fixings the use of tapes
00:24:47 tapes so it was more of a case of talking about the
00:24:50 about the application of the product in terms of site work
00:24:55 site work yes and was it part of your role at the time to explain to the sales team what literature was available to support the use of k-15
00:25:08 it wouldn't have been my remit to do that
00:25:12 that whether i said that at the meeting i cannot remember but it was definitely not my
00:25:16 not my remit to advise the sales team as to what we have available all right but on this occasion that's what the minutes appear to record yes i believe there's a number of items here
00:25:28 i believe there's a number of items here listed under k-15 yes um referring to fixing referring to the main documents um but for my recollection of this meeting
00:25:39 but for my recollection of this meeting the only reason i was present was to talk about the installation of the product i see can you help us with this the three main documents
00:25:48 documents for the products that are referred to in the second line uh there's the standard literature is that a reference to the product literature for k-15 the marketing literature
00:26:01 marketing literature i would take that as yes i believe so and then the bba certificate and then in the third line lca building control certificate is that
00:26:12 lca building control certificate is that an
00:26:12 an error there should that be the labc certificate the one that was issued in may 2009
00:26:22 i cannot comment it looks there's a possibility it is referring to that document um i didn't write these minutes so unfortunately
00:26:33 unfortunately is there anything else that you can think that would be a reference to i mean it it looks to be a spelling mistake yeah because when it says at the end not scotland that does make me think that
00:26:44 scotland that does make me think that could reference back to to the um labc document and and not something to do with lca and um
00:26:53 um environmental side of things because we also have lca certificates all right just looking at the heading in bold question to ask
00:27:05 at the heading in bold question to ask when discussing k15 and i appreciate i think what you're saying is that this section of the minutes may not be a reference to you speaking um but you can you can tell me
00:27:18 um but you can you can tell me it appears that it was common knowledge that over 18 meters becomes an issue in relation to the use of k-15
00:27:29 in relation to the use of k-15 do you agree yes and this comment about the height of a fireman's ladder do you think you made that comment did you give that explanation
00:27:42 you give that explanation as to the reason for 18 meters i'm so sorry i think i spoke over you did you say no no right do you remember that because you were obviously present at the meeting
00:27:54 were obviously present at the meeting no i don't remember were you aware at any time
00:27:59 any time that the figure of 18 meters was something to do with the height of a fireman's ladder
00:28:08 i i do recall occasionally in the office people mentioning from the project's team reference to a fireman's ladder but there was never anything ever documented
00:28:19 there was never anything ever documented or referenced in any document
00:28:25 i want to ask you now about the particular phrase limited combustibility and your understanding of that phrase and you were asked about this by the inquiry
00:28:36 this by the inquiry if we can go back to your witness statement which is
00:28:41 kin408702 and to page 18
00:28:50 yes the inquiry question is above paragraph 5.10 what was your own understanding the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility and your answer i'll read it was this all i knew
00:29:04 i'll read it was this all i knew was that at the back of approved document b there was a table which listed all of the definitions and included what limited combustibility was
00:29:15 was i cannot remember specifically where this was
00:29:18 this was but if anyone wanted to know the definition they could go to the back of approved document b which would list tests for and materials which are deemed to be of limited combustibility i relied on
00:29:31 of limited combustibility i relied on approved document b and other key guidance documents for information that i did not know off the top of my head i did not know the definition of limited combustibility
00:29:42 the definition of limited combustibility off the top of my head because i knew that kingspan's products were not of limited combustibility and so it was not a term i had to refer to often is that right
00:29:57 refer to often is that right correct yes did you actually look at that table that you're referring to in the back of adb yes
00:30:08 in the back of adb yes are you able to say how frequently you would have done that and we're talking again
00:30:13 again just to put it into context about the period between 2001 and 2010
00:30:21 a handful of times very rarely
00:30:27 if we can go now to page 17 of your witness statement and to paragraph
00:30:34 5.5 you've referred to this already in one of your earlier answers but here you set out your understanding of the bs8414
00:30:45 of the bs8414 test series and again i'll read that you say this
00:30:49 say this my understanding is that you would have to test either bs8414 part one or part two depending on whether the system was to be built on a concrete or metal frame
00:31:02 be built on a concrete or metal frame once you have done a bs8414 test you would then need to make sure that it met the criteria within br135 to allow you to use your system tested
00:31:14 to allow you to use your system tested on a building with a floor over 18 meters yes yes so can i take it looking really at the end of that paragraph that i've just read to you
00:31:27 paragraph that i've just read to you that you understood that meeting the criteria in br135 by testing one system to bs8414
00:31:39 one system to bs8414 allowed you to use that system the same system you had tested on a building
00:31:46 building over 18 meters
00:31:49 yes and not any other untested system
00:32:00 yes where did that understanding come from
00:32:07 to my recollection that would have been fed to us
00:32:11 fed to us by the technical projects team that we set up
00:32:15 set up i believe we um i think it was around 2004 2005 from memory we started to obviously
00:32:26 from memory we started to obviously receive
00:32:28 receive a few inquiries above 18 meters it was around that time that the technical project team was set up they would have been the people involved with
00:32:39 with doing bs8414 their remit was to understand the testing and the requirements to be able to use our product above 18 meters following
00:32:52 our product above 18 meters following this criteria of making sure it met with br135
00:32:56 br135 so that information would have been fed to us by the technical projects team at the time
00:33:02 the time yes is it right for me to see to say that the technical projects team was led by iva meredith yes throughout that period all the way
00:33:13 yes throughout that period all the way up to 2010 yes just moving down from the paragraph we've just looked at if you look now please at paragraph 5.6
00:33:24 please at paragraph 5.6 you say in the first line there i do not know the br135 criteria and cannot comment on the appropriateness
00:33:36 yes correct did you know i just want to be clear
00:33:40 be clear about the time period you're talking about
00:33:43 about did you know at any stage between 2001 and 2010 what the criteria in br135 were no
00:33:56 and i think this links back to your last answer
00:33:59 answer you say uh in the second half of that paragraph 5.6 starting at the end of the first line as i say above the technical projects
00:34:11 i say above the technical projects team dealt with queries relating to the use of k15 over 18 meters and then you say at the end so
00:34:19 end so essentially i'm paraphrasing it but it was that team that dealt with compliance to br 135
00:34:25 to br 135 yes yes that is correct
00:34:30 did that team which you've confirmed was led by over meredith is it right for me to say that that team also reported to philip heath
00:34:40 yes they would have reported to iva meredith and either meredith would have reported to philippe thank you
00:34:49 thank you going on from there i'm going to move on to some questions now about large-scale fire testing to bs8414 on k15 and we need to go
00:35:00 on k15 and we need to go to page 7 of your witness statement to paragraph
00:35:03 paragraph 3.6
00:35:14 you say in the first line there you've been asked about um
00:35:21 i think you've been asked above
00:35:25 about large-scale fire testing and you say in the first line i cannot remember the date but i know that at some stage large large-scale fire tests were undertaken
00:35:36 large-scale fire tests were undertaken with k-15 and then looking at the last line of that paragraph starting halfway through i think it was somewhere in the mid
00:35:47 i think it was somewhere in the mid 2000s
00:35:48 2000s going over to page eight please that a large-scale fire test was undertaken by the technical projects team but i was not directly involved in that
00:35:57 that is that correct yes that's correct just for clarity you say there that you were not directly involved did you have any involvement in that large-scale fire test at all
00:36:10 large-scale fire test at all no
00:36:14 and then moving uh down now to page 21 of your statement
00:36:25 of your statement if you can look at the very bottom of the page at inquiry question 27 you were asked the following question were you aware that between 2005 and 2014
00:36:38 that between 2005 and 2014 no br 135 classification report existed for a system incorporating k15 if so what significance did you attach to this and if we go
00:36:49 to this and if we go on to the next page please to your answer
00:36:53 answer say at 6.14 if this is the case i was not aware and then obviously you didn't attach any significance to it because
00:37:04 significance to it because you weren't aware of it i think you have confirmed this but you did understand in the mid 2000s that following a test
00:37:16 in the mid 2000s that following a test to bs 8414 the results of that test all the test data would have to be assessed against the criteria in br135 didn't you that's correct yes
00:37:32 can we go now uh to an email please it's at kin405166
00:37:47 we can maybe thank you this is an email you can see at the top from iva meredith to you
00:37:55 to you with gareth mills copied in and it was sent on april the 7th 2006. looking at the first line mr meredith says andy please find in
00:38:07 mr meredith says andy please find in close the bs 8414 report do you see that in that email mr meredith is actually sending to you a copy of the bs8414 test report
00:38:19 to you a copy of the bs8414 test report yes it does say that
00:38:23 either meredith writes there and this is halfway through the first line i'm going to read it with you unfortunately the lady that is assessing this at the
00:38:34 the lady that is assessing this at the bre
00:38:34 bre is unwell at the moment and not expected back to work until later this month i suggest at the moment we keep this report under wraps like our itchy friends do with their acoustic report
00:38:47 friends do with their acoustic report as the pictures within it are not very good
00:38:51 good the assessment letter will contain a picture of the facade with the crib burning and a statement which confirms its ability to be used above 18 meters
00:39:02 its ability to be used above 18 meters it is this assessment that will be freely available to be sent out to our customers
00:39:11 do you accept that what will do you agree that what mr meredith is explaining to you in that email is that it is the assessment that will be sent out to customers not
00:39:22 that will be sent out to customers not the bs8414 test report itself i've i've read this email um it was forwarded me to me during the inquiry
00:39:34 me to me during the inquiry i have no recollection of this email um i do not understand what it means and i do not know why i have a meredith sent it to me
00:39:44 what part of it do you not understand
00:39:49 can we look at the second paragraph that i'm sorry to interrupt that i've just read to you starting i suggest at the moment we keep this report under wraps
00:39:59 i accept you have no recollection of it it was in 2006 but looking at that paragraph now what part of that paragraph do you not understand the report i don't know which report
00:40:12 the report i don't know which report he's referring to
00:40:15 he would be referring to the report that he has attached to the email would he not
00:40:21 not yes correct um i do not recall the report
00:40:24 report or the reason why he centered me right i mean looking at the first line it suggests that he sent me an 8414 report yes why he's sending me
00:40:36 yes why he's sending me an email listing this information i have no
00:40:40 no recollection at the time as to why he would do this
00:40:45 i've tried to recall during the process as to why he'd be sending me an assessment and then discussing um pictures of the burning crib and so forth but
00:40:57 forth but um and answer to your question i cannot recall what this is in relation to right if you didn't understand it at the time and you may not remember did you ask mr meredith why he had sent
00:41:09 did you ask mr meredith why he had sent you
00:41:10 you this email and what it meant
00:41:13 i cannot recall right so can i take it from what you've just told us that you well no you must answer did you read that test report when it was sent to you
00:41:26 no did you look at the pictures within it that he refers to in his email
00:41:36 i cannot recall if i read if i saw the pictures
00:41:43 i guess what's going through my mind is that sometimes these reports would come through in other emails so i guess what you gotta remember is that this was dated in 2006
00:41:55 remember is that this was dated in 2006 yes
00:41:56 yes did i see something in another email that makes me now think that i saw some information in the 841 for
00:42:02 841 for but i can't recall back to this particular email reading the report seeing the pictures so i don't know why i ever sent me that document
00:42:15 document there's no i mean looking at the email there's no there's no um uh no trail to the email so why did he send me that that rip that report
00:42:26 me that that rip that report no that's what i can i mean you're taking a snapshot in time there on the document but why why was i sent that why was i why was he even mentioning this to me
00:42:37 was he even mentioning this to me that i cannot recall i'm afraid because you say do you that the 8414 test report was nothing to do with you
00:42:45 with you correct all right looking at the uh so it's the i mean i guess as far as the 8414 side of things is concerned
00:42:57 of things is concerned whatever reason either sent me this email i cannot recall but as a technical services manager i did not get involved in the understanding of 8414
00:43:08 understanding of 8414 in terms of the content of the report the pictures in the report then having to do a br 135 classification yes all basically what would happen is
00:43:19 yes all basically what would happen is kingspan would undertake such a test if it passed an 8414 test and it met the classification of br135 then
00:43:30 br135 then as a team we would be told of that success but up until that point as a technical services frontline team we had no involvement with 8414
00:43:42 we had no involvement with 8414 understanding reports understanding br135 classification i see all right well i'm going to come on to some further questions about the way in which you learnt about tests which have been
00:43:54 you learnt about tests which have been carried out i just want to ask you at the fourth paragraph of this email uh the one that begins i'm working on the possibility do you see that
00:44:05 the possibility do you see that yes i do he says i'm working on the possibility of some more testing which will cover the use of k-15 with steel frame ventilated cavities above or below
00:44:15 below 40 millimeters and alternative cladding types
00:44:19 types now i appreciate that you say you don't recollect receiving this but i want to ask this other than this test report which i can tell you is a report of a
00:44:30 which i can tell you is a report of a test
00:44:31 test from may 2005 to bs 8414 part one do you know anything about any further testing
00:44:40 testing to bs 8414 on systems incorporating k15 after this date after april 2006. no do you know anything about any tests
00:44:54 no do you know anything about any tests on systems incorporating k15 to bs 8414 part
00:44:58 part two after this date no
00:45:07 can i take it then that you have no awareness of four tests carried out on systems incorporating k15
00:45:19 carried out on systems incorporating k15 to bs8414
00:45:20 to bs8414 part 2 in december 2007 april 2008 and june 2008. no
00:45:33 no we're going to look at another email this one
00:45:37 this one is from a little later and it's at
00:45:44 kin409262
00:45:54 if we can go please uh to page two
00:46:02 just to set it in context about halfway down page two we can see an email from rachel bannum and it's dated
00:46:10 dated the 9th of september 2011 and it's sent to joel clark
00:46:17 we don't need to go through it all but she's asking some questions there about k-15 and surface spread of flame requirements that's in the subject title of the email
00:46:29 that's in the subject title of the email in fact do you see that yes i do and at the second paragraph just above the drawing there she says this the location of the insulation is within a rain screen cavity
00:46:41 within a rain screen cavity see detail below the project is in doha is primarily a residential development with some areas of retail and hotel
00:46:51 and hotel as far as i am aware we are to comply with the british requirements as outlined previously so keeping that in mind if we go up please to page one
00:47:04 we can see um at the second email from the top
00:47:08 the top that it's you that responds and that's on the 16th of september 2011 at 11 13. yes yes correct it's quite a long email
00:47:19 correct it's quite a long email i want to ask you in fact about the
00:47:29 third paragraph down beginning cool firm k-15 rain screen board do you have it yes i'm going to read that you say their cool firm k-15 rain screen board
00:47:41 cool firm k-15 rain screen board carries third-party british board of aggramar
00:47:44 aggramar approval certificate number reads 084582 for use as an external thermal insulation on new and existing masonry or steel
00:47:55 on new and existing masonry or steel frame
00:47:55 frame walls used in domestic and non-domestic buildings
00:48:00 buildings in conjunction with masonry or weather-type ventilated cladding systems and then going down to the fourth paragraph starting alongside the bba
00:48:12 paragraph starting alongside the bba approval
00:48:13 approval just looking at that you say alongside the bba approval the cool firm k-15 rain screen boards were the first insulation boards to achieve local authority building
00:48:25 to achieve local authority building control system approval as a thermal insulation layer in rain screen cladding systems an labc system approval can significantly reduce the time and costs
00:48:37 significantly reduce the time and costs associated with a construction project as part of this approval kingspan insulation limited undertook large-scale fire tests meeting the performance
00:48:48 fire tests meeting the performance criteria given in bre 135 for cladding systems using full scale test data from bs 84141 and the s84142
00:49:02 and the s84142 so in fact focusing on on that paragraph that i've just read to you can you explain how the bba certificate that you're referring to
00:49:13 that you're referring to showed that k-15 can be used or could be used
00:49:17 used on steel frame structures okay so our understanding was that um following the success
00:49:28 um following the success of the believe it was 2005 test yes we took that test and we approached the
00:49:42 labc at the time we'd only done a test on a masonry background yes through the advice of the
00:49:53 yes through the advice of the technical projects team and labc there was this consensus that if he had a non-combustible background
00:50:04 if he had a non-combustible background for example masonry block work or a steel frame that was lined with a non-combustible substrate that we deemed as a route to market
00:50:18 that we deemed as a route to market so the technical projects team and obviously that was also picked up through the ledc at the time um
00:50:26 um the consensus we had within the industry was that if your substrate was non-combustible and the steel frame with the lining on the outside could be deemed as non-combustible
00:50:38 non-combustible that was your route to market to then put the insulation on the outside to then be used with a cladding that was of limited combustibility so what i was trying to sort of say in
00:50:49 so what i was trying to sort of say in this email is that through the k-15 labc approval and the fact that the bba were also i believe
00:51:00 were also i believe um looking at this similar approach and the approach that the technical projects team at kingsbury looking at it was seen as a a route to market without having to do a
00:51:12 a route to market without having to do a test on an eight four one four part two if you could claim that your substrate was built
00:51:18 was built to be non-combustible with a non-combustible line over the steel frame that was how it was being portrayed to us as front line um
00:51:29 to us as front line um advisors in the industry yes it's it's that last part of your answer that i i want to focus on please just to ensure that i'm completely clear i think what you said is that that was
00:51:41 i think what you said is that that was the consensus through industry and that it came to you from the technical projects team and through the advice of the labc that
00:51:53 of the labc that instead of testing to part two you could use a non-combustible liner is that your evidence yes and then i further
00:52:03 further sort of support that with obviously the technical projects team they would have been getting that information from somebody too so that makes me think that you know that is how the industry were looking at
00:52:14 that is how the industry were looking at it at the time yes well hang on just breaking that down i'll come back to the technical projects team
00:52:22 team you said labc advice somehow contributed to that consensus that there was this sort of way round testing
00:52:32 testing to april one for part two who at the labc
00:52:35 labc gave that advice as far as you're aware i did not recall was it given to you
00:52:46 i did not recall was it given to you i believe within the labc document that lebc
00:52:49 lebc published it referenced and if we can maybe bring that document up we can look in a bit more detail we're going to go to that one in a lot of detail but just
00:53:00 of detail but just in more basic terms for now aside from the terms of that certificate the 2009 labc certificate which we will go through thinking about this consensus you've
00:53:11 thinking about this consensus you've been talking about i understand your evidence that that information came to you from the technical projects team and i'll come to that but in terms of actual advice from the
00:53:23 but in terms of actual advice from the labc
00:53:24 labc that it was appropriate to get around having no test evidence to part two of 8414 by using
00:53:35 two of 8414 by using some sort of non-combustible liner do you know when or to whom that advice came to kingspan from the abc
00:53:49 all i can recall is it's listed in the lebc document yes all right in terms of what you were told or what was communicated to you by the technical projects team
00:54:00 the technical projects team who are you talking about in terms of individuals
00:54:06 over what time period i'm so sorry so in relation to the information you picked up from the technical projects team that instead of testing 28414.2
00:54:18 that instead of testing 28414.2 you could use a non-combustible liner who was it that told you that from the technical projects team
00:54:29 very early on from when this first became a
00:54:33 became a question that would have been either meredith i see and was that information also communicated to all of the frontline technical advisors
00:54:44 as far as i recall yes by whom
00:54:49 that i cannot recall right
00:54:55 as far as you are aware mr pack in 2011 which is the date of this email what tests to bs two had been conducted on any system
00:55:08 two had been conducted on any system incorporating k-15
00:55:12 to my recollection um i would have in 2011 only been aware of the one fire test that was undertaken to which
00:55:23 this email would have been wrote and that would have been referring back to 2005 i believe i see and the information you've just told us about
00:55:35 told us about that you and the frontline technical advisors were given that there was some consensus that it was appropriate uh to use a non-combustible liner
00:55:47 uh to use a non-combustible liner instead of testing to bs 841 for part two
00:55:51 two is that contained in an email anywhere do you think that was communicated to you
00:55:57 you and or to the technical advisors in writing
00:56:03 writing i do not remember
00:56:06 because they're quite separate tests aren't they part one is for masonry structures and part two is for steel framed structures
00:56:17 is for steel framed structures you were aware of the difference so sorry i spoke over you again
00:56:24 yes they are two different tests and as i recall this was raised and the consensus was that if your steel
00:56:35 and the consensus was that if your steel structure is lined with a non-combustible material
00:56:42 yes and you could go forward with as a route to compliance if that steel structure is protected by a non-combustible substrate
00:56:53 non-combustible substrate then you could rely upon the test data that you had before the part one because the only difference was the substrate behind yes just i know correct i know for
00:57:04 yes just i know correct i know for example
00:57:05 example um the american fire test um they don't have two fire tests they have one fire test i understand yes but don't mind that this is england and wales
00:57:15 and wales of course and that there are two tests just thinking through what you've said what would be the point in having a test to part two what would
00:57:26 in having a test to part two what would be the point in that test existing if in fact all you needed to do was test to part one and put in a non-combustible liner well that was the question it was being
00:57:37 well that was the question it was being asked at the time um these two tests so obviously industry were aware of these two tests why was the
00:57:47 the tests not being done on a part two the consensus was that because if you're lining it with a non-combustible backing board
00:57:59 yes i understand your evidence is that about this consensus you are talking i think i'm right about consensus within kingspan are you not no
00:58:10 within kingspan are you not no as i say the labc also recognized this and also how did the technical projects team they obviously dealt with external bodies on this so yes but in
00:58:22 external bodies on this so yes but in terms of
00:58:24 terms of go ahead my thought would be that you know
00:58:27 know the technical project team would be taking advice from external bodies so what was the what was the um what was ever coming back to the technical projects team um
00:58:40 the technical projects team um well all right you say that the consensus was not within kingston the technical projects team just so we're completely clear is a team within kingspan awards in kingspan yes yes
00:58:53 in kingspan yes yes and just in terms of what you can actually
00:58:56 actually say about how that consensus was reached i think what you're saying is that you were not party to any depart let's put aside
00:59:07 to any depart let's put aside the labc certificate for 2009 because we're going to come back to that in some detail so aside from that as far as i can tell what you're saying
00:59:19 as far as i can tell what you're saying is that
00:59:20 is that you yourself were not party to any of those discussions with outside bodies that you assumed took place to allow the technical projects team to say in your understanding that there
00:59:33 to say in your understanding that there was this consensus that you didn't need to test to part two and you could just use a non-combustible liner yes yes going back to the email that we were
00:59:45 going back to the email that we were looking at and thinking about the paragraph that i read to you the fourth paragraph which starts alongside the bba approval do you still have it up yes
00:59:59 do you still have it up yes you agree looking at it in general terms that k15 is being portrayed in this email
01:00:08 email by you to be suitable for use over 18 meters in general on both masonry and steel frame buildings
01:00:21 correct provided it met the criteria of br135
01:00:27 br135 yes all right
01:00:33 just going back just for a moment to the advice
01:00:37 advice that we were talking about in terms of this consensus
01:00:44 i wonder if mr peck could help me with one question that's been troubling me mr pack if you look at that paragraph that council's just been referring you to
01:00:56 to you say in the last sentence as part of this approval kingspan undertook
01:01:02 undertook large-scale fire tests in the plural you see that yes meeting the performance criteria
01:01:10 criteria given in br135 for cladding systems using full scale test data from eight four one four one and eight four one four two
01:01:22 one four two now that certainly could give the impression couldn't it that you test it to both eight four one four one and eight four one four two is that a
01:01:33 and eight four one four two is that a fair reading
01:01:41 yes correct um can you explain why you said that
01:01:46 said that if there'd only been one test of which you were aware i cannot recall
01:02:00 mr peck following on from that that really is my question you've described in a lot of detail the recollections you have about the consensus that you say was reached
01:02:12 consensus that you say was reached and the advice you understood the technical projects team to have taken from outside bodies why then
01:02:23 outside bodies why then if you're if you are clear about that as you seem to be does this email that we happen to have picked to rachel banham not explain that why does it not say
01:02:34 not explain that why does it not say a consensus has been reached and you can check that with some of the outside bodies that the technical projects team have been discussing it with it doesn't say anything of the kind does
01:02:46 it doesn't say anything of the kind does it
01:02:51 correct i do not remember i see instead you say as has been pointed out you refer to
01:02:59 refer to tests in the plural to bs8414 and you specifically refer to tests carried out to bs841 for part two there's nothing there about an
01:03:10 two there's nothing there about an alternative method of somehow passing part two by testing to part one and putting in a non-combustible liner is there not in this email
01:03:22 is there not in this email um obviously again this is a snapshot of some text what we don't know is behind this is what the construction is no sure and we could spend
01:03:33 no sure and we could spend a long time talking about that but in plain and simple terms what you have written here that tests in the plural have been carried
01:03:45 tests in the plural have been carried out
01:03:46 out and that those include tests to bs8414 part two
01:03:50 part two it is not true is it it's not accurate
01:03:56 correct
01:04:06 i'm going to move on to some questions now
01:04:10 now i was just looking at the time but i'm going to move on to some questions now um
01:04:13 um a little bit more about your understanding of the properties of k15 as a product and also the processes within kingspan for handling technical queries about it
01:04:25 for handling technical queries about it all right
01:04:28 we're going to go back to your witness statement
01:04:31 statement which is kin408702 and to page 9 please
01:04:43 and if we look at page and say sorry paragraph 4.3 in the second line well let's read from from the start of it you stay there i
01:04:56 from the start of it you stay there i was not involved in the marketing and promotion
01:04:58 promotion and testing of k15 as i say at paragraph 2.8 above
01:05:04 2.8 above i generally only got involved in providing technical advice to customers in response to queries relating to k-15 in very limited circumstances is that right
01:05:16 circumstances is that right yes correct in terms of what those limited circumstances were if we look in fact at paragraph 2.8 of your witness statement on page 4 please
01:05:34 you say there and this is at the fifth line down towards the end of the fifth line fifth line down you give an example of circumstances in
01:05:45 you give an example of circumstances in which you would get involved in technical advice and you say there this is at the sixth line
01:05:53 line i would get involved would be when there was not enough capacity at technical advisor level and later also at technical team leader level
01:06:02 level to respond to customer inquiries and so i would be required to get involved as additional resource do you see that yes i do
01:06:13 do you see that yes i do how often would you say that that occurred that you were required to become involved as additional resource
01:06:23 i do not remember the actual amount of times
01:06:26 times no fine just in general terms was that something that happened frequently would you say i think generally only when um people
01:06:37 um people due to a shortage of staff i may get rolled in to um to help out but it was a very rare occasions
01:06:44 occasions i mean we had the team set up in a way that we had a team dealing with this side of the business so um yeah it was very limited it was only when there was a
01:06:56 shortness in staff or for whatever reason that i would get pulled in but generally because of uh um uh yeah generally dying
01:07:10 did that happen throughout the period from 2001 to 2010
01:07:18 i would say yes i was occasionally pulled in as i say to to help when for example there was a short staff and i was pulled into to assist but it was on very rare occasions we had
01:07:32 it was on very rare occasions we had a large team that generally dealt with it so
01:07:35 it so fine were there any other circumstances apart from where there was some sort of staff shortage where you gave technical advice in relation to
01:07:47 gave technical advice in relation to k-15 in its use
01:07:51 i would say that between 2001 and 2010 the only time that i was pulled in to deal with inquiries is if there was because of a shortage of staff or somebody wasn't available to deal with
01:08:02 somebody wasn't available to deal with the inquiry that was on very rare occasions
01:08:08 if we can go to page 8 of your witness statement please at paragraph 3.7
01:08:16 i think you're addressing there the development of the product k15 and you say in that paragraph as far as i am aware i was never involved in any discussions regarding the development of
01:08:27 discussions regarding the development of the product i just knew the outline facts set out above
01:08:33 above that it was a class naught product phenolic
01:08:36 phenolic etcetera could you tell us first when was it that you learned of those outline facts you give about k-15 as a product
01:08:48 that would have been when we uh brought the rights to the phenolic insulation material when was that
01:08:57 that would have been mid to late eight 1990s
01:09:04 where would you have learnt that from can you remember yes that would have been in the product literature that um would have been within the actual um information when we bought the company
01:09:17 information when we bought the company or brought the rights to the phenolic insulation
01:09:22 and you've said as your outline facts that it was a class naught product and that it was a phenolic foam other than those two things were there any other outline facts or
01:09:33 were there any other outline facts or properties which were specifically communicated to you about k-15
01:09:41 which yeah no sorry at any time so um i think this section here is in relation to classo so this would have been as i say
01:09:53 classo so this would have been as i say when we took over the rights to sell the phenolic insulation in the mid to late 1990s
01:09:59 1990s and then i believe we would have carried that classo all the way until we did our very first large-scale fire test and i guess that's then when the um
01:10:10 then when the um additional fire information would start to come into the
01:10:15 product literature yes all right as a new product when when k15 was a new product on which your technical advisors or the technical
01:10:26 your technical advisors or the technical advisors you supervised would be taking calls answering email queries
01:10:34 how was k15 described to you how was it presented to you so it was never really um
01:10:45 so it was never really um more than maybe a couple of things the first thing was obviously the thermal performance of the product thermal conductivity was the main driver for the material
01:10:57 for the material and then alongside that um we had the uh the fire classification of classo yes obviously as a product um
01:11:08 obviously as a product um k15 was a very small product in the basket of materials i dealt with
01:11:15 but the two characteristics i recall from the class from the k15 was low thermal conductivity and the fact it was class so and then it
01:11:26 and the fact it was class so and then it wasn't until say getting on to the mid to late 2000s that they did a fire test and that then enabled um
01:11:38 and that then enabled um the use of this product above 18 meters when there's a specific construction to be used yeah but until then it was mainly the thermal conductivity in the class so
01:11:49 conductivity in the class so the two key points you also understood though and i think you've confirmed this that it was a combustible material it was a combustible material
01:12:00 combustible material yes let's move on to talk a little about the way in which you and the technical advisors you supervised became aware of
01:12:11 advisors you supervised became aware of fire tests which have been carried out on k15
01:12:14 on k15 you referred to this a little earlier in one of your previous answers but i want to
01:12:19 to take you through it now if we can look please at page 22 of your witness statement
01:12:26 statement and at paragraph 6.17
01:12:33 you've been asked there
01:12:38 in particular well the question you've been asked it's inquiry question 29 is during the period 2005 to the 28th of september 2015
01:12:49 september 2015 on what basis did kingspan take the position that k15 had been tested successfully to 8414.1 and your answer is as follows the
01:13:00 and your answer is as follows the technical services team took this position based on what it had been told by the technical projects team we were told that a large-scale fire test had been carried out using k-15 on a particular construction
01:13:13 using k-15 on a particular construction and that construction had been tested successfully to bs8414 as it had met the criteria of br135
01:13:22 br135 in accordance with approved document b
01:13:27 and then going on this is more general the technical projects team would regularly feed down information to the technical services team
01:13:35 team about successful product tests so that we could take these successful tests into account when we were answering customers inquiries
01:13:45 inquiries we would not necessarily be told the date on which the successful tests had been carried out and the detail of the tests we would just be told which tests we could say that a product
01:13:56 which tests we could say that a product had passed yes yes correct now you've explained to us that you were certainly aware that bs 8414 was a system test
01:14:08 that bs 8414 was a system test not a product test yes yes correct when the technical advisors you supervised were given information about that
01:14:20 were given information about that large-scale fire test to bs 8414 part one the test we've been discussing that was carried out in may 2005
01:14:31 carried out in may 2005 was it communicated to them that 8414 it is not a test which a product can pass it is a test which only a whole system can pass
01:14:46 i can only comment on what i was told i mean i guess whatever was told to the rest of the team would have been similar to myself but my understanding was that we did a
01:14:57 but my understanding was that we did a fire test
01:14:58 fire test to bs8414 and from that particular test it was fed down to myself and i'm assuming the same would be for the rest of the team
01:15:09 same would be for the rest of the team is that provided the substrate was of limited to non-combustible and the cladding was of limited non-combustible then the product could be used within that build up
01:15:21 that build up yes we'll come back to that i just want to pick up on something that you said just know in your answer you said that you assumed that the understanding of your technical advisors the technical
01:15:32 technical advisors the technical advisors
01:15:33 advisors you supervised would have been similar to your own in understanding bs 8414 was a system test yes putting it mainly
01:15:45 test yes putting it mainly the frontline technical advisors would need to understand that would they not that it wasn't a product test it was a system test
01:15:56 they they would have known that it was a system test yes how do you know that they knew that what i'm asking mr pack is this
01:16:06 is this was it part of your role to ensure that they had
01:16:10 they had the technical advisors had that basic understanding about 8414 as a system test no it wasn't my role it was the technical
01:16:21 technical leader at the time he was so the team was split up into teams so if you look at it as a group there was the technical manager which
01:16:33 there was the technical manager which then split down into the technical projects team the technical services team and then we had another team i was in charge of the technical services team but underneath me
01:16:44 but underneath me we had two technical project leaders their job
01:16:48 their job was to make sure that the advice given out by the technical advisors was correct so that's where the training came in those technical leaders would sit down with their team and the
01:16:59 sit down with their team and the technical projects and discuss all about the requirements of k-15 and how to bring it to market in terms of the technical support all right just before we pause who who were those technical leaders
01:17:10 who who were those technical leaders that you're talking about what are their names
01:17:13 names so they would have changed names over a period of time because you're looking at a period of time now i'm guessing again between
01:17:19 between 2001 and 2015 yeah yeah so i mean over that course of 10 to 12 years those technical project leaders changed so when we first
01:17:32 project leaders changed so when we first put the technical project leaders in charge
01:17:35 charge um they had like four or five advisors underneath of them yes but those technical services so those technical project leaders they would change because they would leave the company or move to a different role
01:17:46 the company or move to a different role so
01:17:47 so you would have had many different names all right
01:17:51 all right in any event it's your evidence that it wasn't part of your role to ensure that the frontline advisors knew that 8414 was a system test
01:18:02 8414 was a system test but you're nonetheless able to say that they would have known that yes yes all right mr peck if you wait there for a moment i'm just
01:18:13 if you wait there for a moment i'm just uh
01:18:14 uh looking at the time i'm going to ask the chairman whether in fact this might be a good time for us to take a short break yes ms troop is that convenient to you yes it is
01:18:23 yes it is right well mr pack i think it's a good idea that we have a short break now um i must remind you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence while we are out of the hearing room uh
01:18:35 while we are out of the hearing room uh and we'll come back at 11 35 our time i'm not gonna i can't remember what it is your time because four hours ahead here in dubai yes right 11 35 hour time um
01:18:49 yes right 11 35 hour time um 15 35 correct your time yes and uh we'll look forward to seeing you again then to continue okay all right thank you thank you thank you very much
01:19:00 you very much thank you
01:35:29 we should be back with you can you see me and can you hear me yes i can thank you thank you very much are you ready to carry on yes i am thank you very much and i'm going to invite this troop to
01:35:41 going to invite this troop to some more questions yes ms troop thank you
01:35:45 you mr pack we're going to move on to some questions around kingspan's policy as to the use of k15 so if we can go back first to your witness statement please at kin408702
01:35:59 witness statement please at kin408702 and to page 12.
01:36:09 if we look at the middle of the page at inquiry question 12 you asked there the following question
01:36:20 you asked there the following question please describe in detail how kingspan formed policy as to technical advice to be given to customers making inquiries as to the use of k15
01:36:29 of k15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters at any stage in which you were involved in any aspect of the product and your answer
01:36:39 answer is at
01:36:43 is at below it at 4.16 where you say i was not involved in forming the policy i'm not going to read the rest of it if
01:36:55 i'm not going to read the rest of it if we can go over now please to page 13 of your witness statement and to paragraph 4.18
01:37:06 and to paragraph 4.18 there you say this other than overseeing a team
01:37:10 a team dealing with these policies and being generally aware of the policy with regard to inquiries over 18 meters i had no other role in directing any strategy
01:37:21 strategy on dealing with these sorts of inquiries is that right that is correct yes so can you tell us this what was kingspan's policy
01:37:32 kingspan's policy with regard to inquiries over 18 meters the policy of which you say you were generally aware what was it in terms of handling the inquiry yes
01:37:45 in terms of handling the inquiry yes technical inquiry yes so the policy was that when we received an inquiry
01:37:53 inquiry this would obviously come through the technical advisor the technical advisor then would deal with that inquiry if that inquiry was of a nature that that technical advisor couldn't deal
01:38:04 that technical advisor couldn't deal with
01:38:05 with then the technical team leader would be involved
01:38:10 involved the technical team leader then would support that technical advisor and if the technical team leader couldn't help the technical advisor it would then get forwarded up the chain to the technical
01:38:21 to the technical projects team and the technical projects team
01:38:25 team would then deal with the inquiry with the
01:38:28 the technical team leader and the technical advisor
01:38:32 advisor yes i i think what you very helpfully described there is the process by which those inquiries were handled rather than the policy itself let me put it in a different way if
01:38:43 let me put it in a different way if a customer were to get in contact with a technical advisor on the front line at kingspan and say hello can k-15 be used on buildings over
01:38:54 hello can k-15 be used on buildings over 18 meters
01:38:56 18 meters as far as you are aware what would kingspan's answer to that be what was kingspan's policy on the use of the product over 18 meters so they were generally
01:39:09 over 18 meters so they were generally i would say take down the details of the inquiry
01:39:12 inquiry yes and they would discuss it with their team leader and then as i say if for example that team leader couldn't help them it would then go back to the technical projects team
01:39:23 projects team yes i'm sorry again i'll put it differently if you had been asked at some stage during the period that you were technical services manager
01:39:34 were technical services manager the question is k15 a product which can be used over 18 meters what do you think your answer would have been
01:39:44 been so first of all we would have taken down the details of the construction yes details of the project the height of the building we have taken down all of the irrelevant information
01:39:56 the irrelevant information and then we would have referred that then to
01:39:59 then to the technical projects team i see do you have any idea in what situations so with what buildups
01:40:11 in what situations so with what buildups k-15 could be suitable for use over 18 meters
01:40:17 meters during the period 2001 to 2010 so the understanding was that if the cladding was of limited combustibility or
01:40:29 of limited combustibility or non-combustibility yeah and likewise the inner substrate was
01:40:33 was limited combustibly to non-combustibility then the consideration of the caulsium k15 could be put forward where did that understanding on your
01:40:44 where did that understanding on your part come from that the outer cladding i think you're saying simply had to be of limited combustibility or non-combustible how did you come to learn that
01:40:55 learn that so that came down from the technical projects
01:40:59 projects team yes who in particular that would have come from over meredith to you directly to the department
01:41:10 to you directly to the department in writing or verbally that i cannot remember
01:41:14 remember i see
01:41:18 i see we're going to go back to your witness statement now to page 51. the witness statement i'm sorry is
01:41:25 kin408702 and we want page 51.
01:41:39 if we look please at paragraph 10.36 you say in the first line this as far as i am aware
01:41:48 i was not appraised of the specific details of this test at the relevant time in fact i should have made clear you are being asked there about the bs-8414 part one
01:42:01 about the bs-8414 part one test we have been discussing which took place
01:42:04 place in may 2005 all right okay and what you say is that you were not afraid of the specific details of that test
01:42:14 that test can you help me with this what were you told if anything about the system build up in relation to that test
01:42:21 that test what did you understand were the materials that had been tested i understood that the substrate to which the insulation was fixed was limited
01:42:32 the insulation was fixed was limited combustibility or non-combustibility and then the cladding on the outside also had to be of limited combustibility stroke non-combustibility yes i understand that you were given to
01:42:45 yes i understand that you were given to understand that the cladding on the outside
01:42:47 outside had to be combustibility or non-combustible what i'm asking now instead really is do you know
01:42:55 you know what the outer cladding material used in that test in may 2005 actually was or did you know at the relevant time
01:43:06 relevant time i cannot remember do you know now
01:43:13 no right
01:43:17 if we can look at the paragraph below which is 10.37 i want to ask you about the test report for that 8414.1 test and you say that as far as i can
01:43:29 and you say that as far as i can remember
01:43:30 remember i did not really have visibility of test reports
01:43:35 reports and then you go on to say i may have seen a report or two in the early days when kingspan carried out its first large-scale tests but this would have been purely this would have purely just been for my
01:43:46 this would have purely just been for my information to the best of my knowledge i would not have seen any in late 2005 onwards i was never expected to understand the content of or to comment upon test reports
01:43:58 to comment upon test reports and they were generally kept within the project the technical projects team
01:44:06 team what do you mean i think my question is this when you say i did not really have visibility of test reports did you ever during the period from 2001 to 2010
01:44:16 to 2010 actually read any bs 8414 test report for a system incorporating k-15 no so we saw um
01:44:27 no so we saw um earlier today that one was sent to you but you said that you you couldn't recollect that and you didn't read it yes that's correct right um i want to ask you now if we can go
01:44:39 um i want to ask you now if we can go please to page 22 of your witness statement and to paragraph 6.17
01:44:56 yes this is about the same fire test and you say here the technical services team took this position that is relating to the question above the position that
01:45:07 the question above the position that that test had been successful based on what it had been told by the technical project team we were told that a large-scale fire test had been carried out using k-15 on a particular construction
01:45:20 using k-15 on a particular construction and that construction had been tested successfully to bs8414 as it had met the criteria of 135
01:45:27 135 in accordance with approved document b i think we might speak to that already actually
01:45:31 actually so what i want to try to find out from you is this were you told at the time when you're talking here we about we were told that a fire test had
01:45:43 about we were told that a fire test had been carried out that it had been successful because it had met the criteria you use the words there on a particular construction that's in line three of that paragraph
01:45:55 that's in line three of that paragraph were you in fact told what the particular construction was
01:46:02 this is what i cannot recall my understanding was they did a particular construction but i cannot recall what that construction was i still cannot recall what that construction was all i know was that the
01:46:15 construction was all i know was that the materials they used would allow the use of a cladding that was classed as limited to non-combustibility but as to actually what that material
01:46:26 what that material type is i cannot remember and i cannot recall now fine in terms of the test reports um what i'm
01:46:34 what i'm trying to say here is that you have a team that
01:46:37 team that do fire testing and those fire tests were very much kept within that small team they they were not something that were released out um on a daily basis so when you showed
01:46:50 um on a daily basis so when you showed me that email earlier um where either meredith has sent me that report um to me that that was um very strange because we very rarely got the report sent to us we didn't know
01:47:01 the report sent to us we didn't know when we
01:47:01 when we failed we didn't know when we passed until it was disclosed to us so um it was very rare to see a test report sometimes you might see a test report on a desk and sometimes if i was in
01:47:15 on a desk and sometimes if i was in either's office or one of my other colleagues office i'd see a test report so the visibilities these test reports was very very small it was kept within a small team yes i understand
01:47:26 yes i understand the impression you seem to be giving and you must correct me if i'm wrong about this is that the test reports were almost kept secret to within the technical projects team is that fair
01:47:39 team is that fair yes correct why why was that i believe that culture is still today within many businesses um i mean you have to ask the question
01:47:52 um i mean you have to ask the question of the
01:47:52 of the people that do these tests why why are the tests kept where they are throughout my career at kingspan
01:48:01 kingspan when people do fire testing it has been a case that those test reports have been kept within the people that do that testing
01:48:09 testing you'd have to ask the people to do that testing why that is i don't know well have you ever asked that question i have asked the question in the past
01:48:21 i have asked the question in the past and
01:48:22 and what was the answer i cannot recall the answer from that time do you know who you asked i cannot recall
01:48:29 recall right going back to um what we looked at and your description of being told that a particular construction had passed to 8414. i appreciate that you're saying that you can't recall what it was but
01:48:40 that you can't recall what it was but just to be clear you're not saying are you in terms of this secrecy that your teams were simply told a particular construction
01:48:52 told a particular construction has been tested to 8414 and has passed without being told what the construction was or are you saying that no what i'm saying is they did a fire
01:49:03 no what i'm saying is they did a fire test yes
01:49:04 test yes obviously on whatever construction was built but the information that was fed to us
01:49:09 to us was that the cladding that was used in that fire test was a material that allowed our material to be used behind a material of limited combustibility of
01:49:21 a material of limited combustibility of non-combustibility what i cannot recall is what that material was fine so you you were told immediately um on learning of the successful fire
01:49:33 um on learning of the successful fire test in may 2005 that whatever the outer cladding material was and whatever the inner structure was that successful test meant that k15
01:49:45 that successful test meant that k15 could be used with any cladding material which was non-combustible or of limited combustibility correct yes
01:49:58 that was your understanding did you ever question
01:50:01 question that i guess we looked to this technical projects team as
01:50:08 team as they were the um people that we looked up to um they had the knowledge the expertise um they had a uh i would say an aura about them within
01:50:20 uh i would say an aura about them within the business but they were certainly put into that position
01:50:25 position for their credibility for their technical knowledge so we as a front line team would have looked to those or that team i should say to be providing us with the accurate information and tools to be able to go
01:50:37 information and tools to be able to go into the market that was setting up that team in the first place yes i understand it essentially what you're saying is that your you and your team place reliance on what you were told
01:50:48 what you were told by the technical projects team isn't it absolutely yes mr pat you understood what what a bs 8414 test was and that it was a system test yes
01:51:01 and that it was a system test yes yes correct you therefore understood that if you wanted to use a combustible insulation material such as k15 on a building over 18 meters
01:51:13 building over 18 meters you would need to replicate exactly the system which had been tested to eight four one four and had met the criteria in one three five
01:51:23 five surely correct and as i say um the information that was fed to us was that provided the materials of limited combustibility or non-combustibility
01:51:36 non-combustibility regardless whether it was terracotta stone
01:51:40 stone concrete provided that material was classed as limited combustible non-combustibility then it could be used behind that cladding mr pack we've looked at i need to push
01:51:51 mr pack we've looked at i need to push on this we've looked at some sections of your witness statement in which you've explained your understanding of 8414 and that meeting the criteria in br135 allows you to use your system tested on a building over 18
01:52:04 system tested on a building over 18 meters
01:52:05 meters how in your mind does one successful test
01:52:09 test 28414 part 1 translate and extend into being able to use all manner of materials
01:52:18 materials as the outer cladding when those did not form part
01:52:23 form part of the tested system i those manner of materials you refer to if they were classed as combustible then no you wouldn't be able to use it
01:52:34 then no you wouldn't be able to use it what i'm saying is if the cladding on the outside was classed as limited combustibility or non-combustibility and represented that classification of what limited combustible
01:52:46 what limited combustible non-combustibility then it could be used i'm not saying it can be used behind all types of cladding that are not in that classification for example many of these aluminium cladding panels yes
01:53:00 but mr all right is that the basis on which
01:53:04 which your frontline technical advisors were told to advise customers that any or limited combustibility outer cladding could be used with k15 over 80 meters
01:53:18 could be used with k15 over 80 meters i cannot comment on my team but as far as i'm concerned that was my understanding did you not supervise those technical advisors
01:53:26 advisors as i mentioned earlier when it came to k-15
01:53:30 k-15 we had a procedure in place where the inquiry came into the technical advisor that then went to the technical team leader
01:53:40 leader and the technical team leader to the technical projects manager so you can see from my point of view
01:53:47 the loop where i came in was actually outside of what i was dealing with did you at any time receive information from the technical projects team
01:53:59 from the technical projects team to the effect that the test data from the may 2005 tester 8414 part 1 was applicable only to the specific configuration
01:54:11 only to the specific configuration tested
01:54:11 tested and to no other sorry can you repeat that again please of course did you at any time receive from the technical projects team
01:54:22 receive from the technical projects team any information to the effect that the test data from the 8414.1 test in may 2005 could only relate
01:54:36 in may 2005 could only relate to the specific system tested and not to any other
01:54:41 any other no
01:54:48 the test we've been discussing just now the bs8414 part one test in may 2005 was in fact the only successful test to 8414 carried out on any system
01:55:00 to 8414 carried out on any system incorporating k15 during the entire period from 2001 to 2010 wasn't it
01:55:10 until you just told me that no i did not know that
01:55:13 know that i see you thought there were others i assume there'd be other fire tests yes but uh if that's what you're saying then well i am
01:55:26 then well i am um
01:55:30 just trying to be clear on that do you during the time that you were technical services manager is it your evidence that you thought throughout that there may have been other
01:55:42 that there may have been other successful 8414 tests which you simply were never told about so which timeline does this now until 2021 to 2010. i think you were asking questions
01:55:56 okay so up to 2010 yes that was the only fire test i was aware of yes that had been successful the only fire test correct yes yes
01:56:07 the only fire test correct yes yes all right but i guess there's been fight sorry i'm getting confused with the dates again so 2010 just to reconfirm that was the only test i was aware of that we've done and
01:56:18 i was aware of that we've done and passed
01:56:19 passed correct yes yes all right we're going to go back to your witness statement please kin 408702 at page 23
01:56:38 and if we can look at paragraph 6.18 at the top you say this as far as i am aware in the normal course of things i was not told about tests that were not
01:56:50 i was not told about tests that were not successful there may have been occasions on which through casual conversation with other kingspan personnel an unsuccessful test might have been mentioned to me but normally i would not expect to be made aware of
01:57:01 i would not expect to be made aware of those tests is that right yes correct can you explain why you would not normally have expected to be made aware
01:57:13 normally have expected to be made aware of tests which kingspan considered to have been
01:57:16 have been unsuccessful
01:57:19 i do not know why the testing was dealt with as
01:57:23 with as i mentioned within a small team it was um something that obviously they formed policy on
01:57:31 policy on um it was very much a team that was set up to deal with this but as to why we were not told you'd have to speak to the technical projects team on that yes all right
01:57:42 projects team on that yes all right in your mind why would it be that only the test information which could support the use of k-15 so successful test information would be
01:57:53 so successful test information would be shared
01:57:58 i guess to allow us to utilize our product on projects yes did you ever question that did you ever think
01:58:08 think actually we ought to hear about unsuccessful testing as well
01:58:13 um i guess because my remitted kingspan in terms of k-15 is a very small percentage of what i did on a daily basis
01:58:22 basis i mean i could go for months without being involved with with k15 so it was never a big part of my daily working routine so my involvement with k15 as a product
01:58:35 so my involvement with k15 as a product um testing certification is very small so
01:58:40 so in the basket of products i dealt with i never thought to question it because k15 was not my product on a daily basis that i dealt with even so did you not ever think that it
01:58:53 even so did you not ever think that it might be important for the frontline technical advisors at least to have some awareness of situations um in which the use of k-15 could not be
01:59:05 in which the use of k-15 could not be supported
01:59:06 supported or where the use of that product had been shown to be dangerous did that occur to you i guess what went through my mind was when the inquiry came through to the technical
01:59:18 inquiry came through to the technical advisor and then they flagged it up to their team leader and then that team leader flagged it up to the technical projects
01:59:23 projects manager or team they would have sat down within that group um as i saw on many occasions they could sit in the one end of the office discussing their projects so
01:59:34 discussing their projects so i would have thought if anything that would have come up during the discussion of the inquiry that they were dealing with i see
01:59:42 let's move on now to uh your role in terms of
01:59:46 terms of kingspan's marketing material and product literature again i'm afraid concentrating on k15 we can go back to your witness statement at game
01:59:56 kin408702 and to page 8 please
02:00:12 and to page 8 please so to page 8 please at paragraph 3.9
02:00:17 you're asked about marketing there and you say
02:00:22 you say i was not involved in the decision to first market k-15 for use in external cladding systems on buildings with a floor
02:00:29 floor over 18 meters in england and wales i've seen the relevant product literature and understand this was in around 2007. yes yes correct can you help us as to who
02:00:41 yes correct can you help us as to who would have made the decision to market k15
02:00:44 k15 as suitable for use over 18 meters
02:00:49 i do not know right are you able to say from your
02:00:54 from your own knowledge of the operation of the relevant teams at the time who it might have been that made that decision i would have thought it would have been a joint decision between a number of different
02:01:05 decision between a number of different departments i think what i can only surmise here but i would have thought it would have been a joint decision between technical marketing and business development those would be the three
02:01:17 development those would be the three um departments that would have if anything
02:01:21 anything yes yeah all right and going now please back to your witness statement it's kin 408702 at page 10.
02:01:33 if we look at paragraph 4.6 this again is in relation to marketing material
02:01:40 material product literature and the like you say there at the top i used to have a good eye for any discrepancy in figures for example thermal values lambda values physical properties
02:01:51 lambda values physical properties section drawings and typographical errors
02:01:53 errors so i did have some involvement in checking
02:01:57 checking marketing literature what time period are you referring to there
02:02:03 there do you mean this was throughout your time as technical services manager yes it would have been very much in the early times of kingspan
02:02:17 in the early times of kingspan and then i would say that as we got into the uh into the 2000s um we used to have a um like a group team um so for example
02:02:28 like a group team um so for example i would say prior to 2001 it would be myself
02:02:32 myself and maybe two colleagues with a smaller team then as the team grew and went past 2001 we would have had a team um maybe six seven people checking his literature
02:02:44 seven people checking his literature where it used to go through each individual to be checked i see can you remember which pieces of marketing literature you checked
02:02:56 involved with um a lot of the roof in literature because that was quite technical
02:03:01 technical um mainly to do with more i would say more technical applications rather than um probably the k15
02:03:12 um probably the k15 so there's a lot of other product literature that we used to have to deal with
02:03:15 with um as far as the k15 i do remember looking at items such as the more conductivity checking the density checking the water vape resistance and things to do with
02:03:26 things to do with uh the more sort of general physical properties when it came to the fire side of things not just on the k-15 but on all of the brochures
02:03:37 brochures we used to tend to leave that to our technical projects team because they were that was the reason it was set up was to
02:03:45 up was to purely get involved with the fire side of things so they would check the literature in terms of what we were writing and referencing right mr heath
02:03:56 right mr heath philip heath in his witness statement i don't think we need to go to it but for the transcript it's at kin3020709 page 20 paragraph 4.4
02:04:09 page 20 paragraph 4.4 his evidence is that the main review of the technical content of marketing documents was carried out by you do you say that he's wrong about that i
02:04:20 do you say that he's wrong about that i would say that between uh throughout the 90s up to 2000 yes because there was only probably a small number of us in the department i agree with that but i do not agree with that going
02:04:32 but i do not agree with that going through the 2000s we actually had five or six people reviewing literature at the time i see or i i should correct myself in fact he says you and iva meredith not just you okay but thank
02:04:45 iva meredith not just you okay but thank you
02:04:46 you disagree with that you would or you would disagree i would disagree with that all right let's go back to your witness statement please kin406702
02:04:58 please kin406702 at page 10
02:05:02 and it's 4.6 again
02:05:08 this is four lines up from the bottom of the paragraph starting my proof reading capacity do you see it yes you say that my proofreading capacity did not extend to checking
02:05:20 capacity did not extend to checking that tests that were listed had been successful and were accurately described however i did always flag that these sections of the literature needed to be checked
02:05:30 checked by those who were directly involved in testing the products yes correct who was it that you would flag that to
02:05:41 flag that to so as i mentioned a moment ago that would have been the technical projects team
02:05:45 team i see and when you're describing that process
02:05:49 process you use the word always however i did always flag how often did you do that so when a piece of literature came up for renewal and
02:06:00 for renewal and it went into the system and then six or seven people that were involved in checking the literature um once it came to me i would always put a note on there to check this section of
02:06:11 a note on there to check this section of the literature through the technical projects
02:06:21 just thinking about some of the k-15 product literature of which there were several issues over the years
02:06:28 the years i want to ask you about the entire period so again we're looking at 2001 to 2010
02:06:34 2010 before you moved to focus on different jurisdictions did you ever notice that none of the marketing material in fact
02:06:45 none of the marketing material in fact again i'm going to correct myself i'm sorry thinking about the period from 2007
02:06:49 2007 onwards actually so k-15 product literature produced from 2007 onwards did you ever notice that none of it explained
02:07:02 none of it explained that k-15 had been tested to bs-8414 part one only in one specific configure
02:07:13 only in one specific configure configuration only and could therefore comply for use over 18 meters only in that specific configuration
02:07:24 yeah i do not recall what the marketing literature read then in 2007. wow yeah do you know anything about any changes to the k-15 product itself
02:07:39 any changes to the k-15 product itself over the years
02:07:42 apart from the thermal conductivity no right were you unaware that after the may 2005 test
02:07:53 that after the may 2005 test to 8414.1 there had been quite a significant change to the phenolic foam itself no i didn't know that
02:08:05 were you also unaware that in around about september 2006 at the same time there had been a change to the foil faces of the product
02:08:17 faces of the product to introduce perforations to those faces yes i heard that there was a change in the perforation but not necessarily in the facing um
02:08:28 but not necessarily in the facing um as far as i can recall there was a change in the thermal conductivity yes i understand the facing was perforated but i didn't did not know that the faces
02:08:39 but i didn't did not know that the faces had been changed um i do recall there was um
02:08:46 something about a change in um i'm trying to remember what it was to do with now um
02:08:56 there was some working groups that were set up yeah and i remember being called to maybe one or two of them to talk about the more conductivity and the effect he
02:09:07 more conductivity and the effect he would have on the thickness so i would say that there was obviously something at the time because i remember going along to this particular meeting because they asked me about what effect
02:09:19 because they asked me about what effect the
02:09:20 the change in landlord would have on fitness but
02:09:23 but i was that was my only knowledge of anything all right when was that do you know
02:09:30 know i'm thinking that was um i i did not remember i if i had to say it was
02:09:37 it was it was yeah i cannot recall without referring back to to and i know that the inquiry has shown me some meetings minutes where i was on one of those
02:09:48 minutes where i was on one of those meeting minutes it's whatever date is on that
02:09:50 that meetings yeah yeah all right uh thinking back again to the marketing material specifically for k-15 did you ever notice that all of the k-15
02:10:02 did you ever notice that all of the k-15 product literature or marketing literature which refers to use over 18 meters talks about k-15 as a product which
02:10:13 talks about k-15 as a product which meets the criteria in br135 as though that is something that a product by itself can do i cannot recall i'm sorry no
02:10:25 i cannot recall i'm sorry no i know that um 2008
02:10:30 was when i started moving away from the uk 2009 i was moving away from the uk to deal with other bits and projects around the world so i cannot recall i'm afraid no fine we're
02:10:43 i cannot recall i'm afraid no fine we're going to come on to it but one of the pieces of the product literature it's the eighth issue dated november 2008 one which you gave to david jones in preparation
02:10:56 gave to david jones in preparation for the issue of the labc certificate do you remember that
02:11:01 remember the date or the version no i i remember presenting a piece of literature to that meeting correct and before
02:11:13 that meeting correct and before presenting it i'm so sorry go ahead as to what date or issue
02:11:17 issue i i cannot recall no that's fine before presenting it to mr jones did you read it
02:11:26 i would have no doubt if it was a published piece of literature from kingspan
02:11:32 kingspan i would have no doubt have uh seen our literature and read through the literature you would have seen it and that piece of literature as i said we're going to come on to it
02:11:41 on to it um describes k-15 as a product which meets the criteria in br135 now you know that 8414 is a system test
02:11:52 now you know that 8414 is a system test and it is wrong to say it's simply inaccurate to say that a product can meet the criteria in br135 is that fair
02:12:03 fair based upon a system test yes yes um i guess that's the question you'd have to pose to the marketing department who controlled this literature yes of course but i'm at the moment
02:12:14 yes of course but i'm at the moment asking you about your thoughts did you ever raise any concerns at any stage
02:12:21 stage to anyone within kingspan about the clarity
02:12:24 clarity accuracy or adequacy of any of kingspan's marketing material 4k15 i would say that based on the time
02:12:36 i would say that based on the time period
02:12:37 period and the fact that our marketing department and our technical projects department we're producing this text and format for the literature i would
02:12:48 and format for the literature i would have assumed that what they were putting in there was technically correct yeah so your answer is no you never raised any concerns no it didn't no thank you
02:13:01 we're going to look now back at your witness statement please kin 408702 and
02:13:14 32
02:13:19 if we can look at paragraph 7.4 it's at the top you've been asked there about your own awareness of any concerns which might have been
02:13:30 of any concerns which might have been raised about the use of k-15 on buildings and rated meters all right
02:13:37 your answer reads uh no i cannot really remember
02:13:41 remember being aware of any concerns i was often copied into emails relating to matters in which i was not really involved
02:13:49 involved either just for my information or because people knew i was in a managerial position if a query was outside of my remix i would pass it on to the appropriate person within king plan to deal with it
02:14:01 person within king plan to deal with it i do not remember seeing emails about concerns around the use of k15 over 18 meters but it is possible that i was copied in on emails relating to this
02:14:12 was copied in on emails relating to this which i did not read is that right yes correct what do you what do you mean by that why would you not have read
02:14:23 not have read those emails if you were copying them
02:14:29 i guess end of the day i cannot control who sends me an email there was a culture at the time that
02:14:39 um emails seem to be just sent to department heads um for whatever reason um but i looked through these emails
02:14:50 um but i looked through these emails and the majority of them i can't understand why i was sent these emails i've tried to understand why was i sent the emails that um where where i was copied on i can only
02:15:01 where where i was copied on i can only think of the time that i reported into the same department head as the technical projects manager and i sometimes think that i was copied on emails
02:15:11 on emails as a means to show visibility for that particular individual and i felt that nine times out of ten the only reason i was being sent these emails was
02:15:22 emails was to show that this particular individual was
02:15:25 was was doing their job i see
02:15:33 would i would i be right then in thinking that you're not simply saying that you would not have read emails on this particular subject k15 over 18 meters
02:15:48 particular subject k15 over 18 meters there are other objects yeah other subjects too yeah i mean um there's when when you when i was in this particular position and i was obviously in charge of um a team as we had that
02:16:01 in charge of um a team as we had that we didn't just have k15 as a product there was a multitude of products in our basket
02:16:06 basket i used to receive emails on a daily basis which i could physically not read a lot of those emails as i say were from a particular department head to justify his reason for working that day who are
02:16:18 his reason for working that day who are you talking about there are the technical projects manager at the time mr meredith yes thank you just in terms of um emails which may have related to
02:16:29 um emails which may have related to concerns about the use of k15 over 18 meters
02:16:33 meters i appreciate that you've told us that you
02:16:36 you only gave technical advice about the use of k-15 over 18 meters on rare occasions but even so wasn't it a risk not to read those
02:16:47 wasn't it a risk not to read those emails
02:16:48 emails in that you might be unaware of something you needed to know in giving technical advice so on the occasion where i did have an inquiry
02:16:58 inquiry bef when i was to deal with it the first thing i would do is before i would send it out because i didn't have the knowledge
02:17:05 knowledge i would then go to the technical projects manager and the technical manager at the time and show them what i drafted for them to check
02:17:13 check before it was sent so i always had somebody check in the work before it went down
02:17:18 went down you said that on the occasion do you mean to suggest that there was only one occasion on which you answered a query i just want to be clear i cannot remember how many occasions but
02:17:29 i cannot remember how many occasions but it was a very small number of occasions as i mentioned earlier on in the inquiry where for example the team was short-staffed if i had to um
02:17:38 um deal with the inquiry because there wasn't enough personnel but it was on a very small scale um over the course of the of the years that we had k-15 right do you remember a period
02:17:51 right do you remember a period uh perhaps in 2007 or 2008 during which concerns about the use of k-15 over 18 meters were being raised so frequently
02:18:03 were being raised so frequently that kingspan had started to send out letters of suitability on a project-by-project basis no let's see can we go please to kin
02:18:15 no let's see can we go please to kin four zeros five three zero eight
02:18:31 this is quite a long email chain uh between
02:18:34 between alistair lambie you and iva meredith and it all arises uh from a query from a firm of architects as to the use of k-15
02:18:45 of k-15 um in in a 10-story project and it's in 2007
02:18:49 2007 all right for context just looking um at this section do you remember
02:18:56 remember this at all you may not and we're going to go so don't worry
02:19:02 no i do not recall all right if we can go down please to page four of this chain to the bottom of page four
02:19:11 page four um yeah thank you at the very bottom of page four we can see that there's an email from someone called beatrice brian that's the client sent to alistair lambie on the 27th of july 2007.
02:19:23 lambie on the 27th of july 2007. do you see that yes if we go down to page five
02:19:28 page five she has said to mr lambie [Music]
02:19:37 [Music] at the top of the page there we are considering specifying this for a ten-story project residential and our fire consultant has asked me to ask you to send us a copy of the assessment that
02:19:48 to send us a copy of the assessment that was carried out in accordance with br135 do you see that yes if we go uh up the chain please to the next email timed at 0823 on the 8th of
02:20:00 next email timed at 0823 on the 8th of august
02:20:01 august 2007 mr lambie sends that email on to you and only to you do you see that yes and he says that the
02:20:13 do you see that yes and he says that the suitability andy the suitability of k-15 in a ventilated cavity over 18 meters is being questioned more and more in scotland excuse me can you forward all the
02:20:24 excuse me can you forward all the relevant fire assessments certificates documents to the architect below and to myself and then he goes on to talk about making a k15
02:20:34 a k15 pack yes yes can we go up again then please um to your response so the next email up in the chain which was timed at 1651
02:20:48 yeah and that's your response to aleister lambie and you didn't either and you say there that you're looking into it and you'll come back to him
02:20:59 into it and you'll come back to him yes we are currently looking into this yes
02:21:02 yes yes do you remember any of this now no go up now please to page two
02:21:11 um and to iva meredith's email at 1751. there it is if you look in the middle of the page we can see
02:21:19 can see that's it that it's either meredith who responds
02:21:23 responds on the 14th of august 2007 at 1751 and he copies you in um well no he sends it to you with mr lambie
02:21:32 lambie he says this in the first paragraph we are a little reluctant to go public with the actual test information at the moment
02:21:39 moment as this is only to bs 84141 and i suspect this job would be a bs 84142
02:21:47 84142 project at the moment i'm doing vast amounts of work to try to produce a very robust situation where call firm k15 can be used in
02:21:58 used in all on all substrates and with most types of cladding uh and he goes on and then looking please at paragraph two he says this until that time
02:22:10 this until that time we have the bs-8414 flyer we will write letters of suitability and for larger projects i can come and do a specific
02:22:19 specific k-15 technical fire presentation which details
02:22:23 details our compliance with br135 and then he says a common misconception is that the bre have to write an assessment to be r135
02:22:34 have to write an assessment to be r135 when actually all you have to do is pass the test and therefore you meet the criteria
02:22:41 going on anyway i was hoping by this time i would have something better on paper
02:22:45 paper that we could address the scottish situation with however this is a little way off
02:22:53 until then most projects are dealt with on a job for job basis as although k15 is suitable the surrounding cladding may mean you can't use k15
02:23:02 use k15 that's the last thing we want to tell our customers so if you can get the following information i will write a letter specifically for this job
02:23:10 this job that hopefully provides enough confidence in our product just stopping there do you remember reading this or receiving it no i don't right
02:23:21 it no i don't right by 2007 you were aware i think that part two of bs8414 had been published
02:23:32 two of bs8414 had been published sorry can we pick that of course i'll put it differently were you aware by 2007 which is the date of these emails
02:23:39 emails that part two of bs8414 had been published
02:23:43 published hadn't been published had been published
02:23:49 i just recall there being an approved document b that's stated in there part one and part two
02:23:56 two yes so i'm going to ask for that really quick understand the question so yeah fine i'm just all i'm asking is whether by 2007 you were aware of the existence of bs 8414.2
02:24:10 yes yes yes yes um i'm going to ask for that
02:24:13 that email to come back up please it's kin405308 if we could leave it there for a moment
02:24:22 and go to page two of it please yeah uh
02:24:31 yeah uh do you see that in the first two lines mr meredith makes clear that he's we he is reluctant to go public with the actual test information
02:24:45 yes i could see that
02:24:49 and that the reason for that is that the only test information is to bs8414 part one
02:24:56 part one and this particular job that is being dealt with in this email is probably a part two job so a steel framed system rather than masonry yes i can see that
02:25:08 rather than masonry yes i can see that yes he certainly doesn't say that's fine because we can just put in you can tell them that there's a consensus we can put in an uncomfortable liner does he
02:25:19 in an uncomfortable liner does he no no all right do you think it is the case that if the test report for the may 2005 test 8414.1
02:25:31 8414.1 had been actually sent out to customers it would have alerted them to the fact that it only covered masonry structures not steel frame structures and only one
02:25:43 not steel frame structures and only one specific configuration
02:25:46 i guess it depends how the 8414 report lists the construction i'm not familiar with how it lists the construction but if it listed the construction
02:25:57 construction and said masonry in a skin then yes people would would say where do i now sit with a steel frame
02:26:05 frame yes and if indeed the test report said that it related only to the system tested that would also raise
02:26:12 raise questions in customers minds wouldn't it yes if the if depend on how the test report was listed in terms of the cladding as well um yes
02:26:23 in terms of the cladding as well um yes that would also um give customers an idea then as to what
02:26:28 what was tested correct yes all right so instead
02:26:31 instead as mr meredith explains in this email when we're writing what he calls letters of suitability for each specific project yes
02:26:41 so we say that again sorry instead of sending out the test report what mr meredith explains in this email is that kingspan were sending out suitability for each specific project yes
02:26:55 for each specific project yes in the second paragraph yes correct he does say that yes do you now remember anything at all about those letters having looked at this email no sorry
02:27:07 having looked at this email no sorry mr meredith was asked about this when he gave
02:27:10 gave evidence to the inquiry uh before christmas
02:27:14 christmas and we don't need to go to it but for the transcript it's at day 76 81 lines 15 to 25. mr meredith was specifically asked about
02:27:25 mr meredith was specifically asked about the letters of suitability which were being written during this period and mr pakit was his evidence
02:27:32 evidence that those letters were predominantly written by senior technical advisers including you do you say that he's wrong about that it depends as to what the letter of
02:27:44 it depends as to what the letter of suitability is in regards to um if it's in regards to saying it's complying with bs8414 yes then i would need to see the evidence to suggest that
02:27:55 evidence to suggest that depends how he how he means writing letters of suitability i i don't understand what talking about letters of suitability the exact type we're looking at in this email
02:28:05 email where instead of sending out the test report kingspan was sending out letters essentially confirming to a client that the proposed build-up
02:28:16 that the proposed build-up okay was suitable and that k-15 was suitable
02:28:21 suitable okay does that make sense yes it does and if i
02:28:24 and if i did write a letter then it would have been very much on the basis that the cladding being news was limited combustible or non-combustible and the inner skin was
02:28:34 was non-combustible all right let's have a look
02:28:38 look [Music]
02:28:39 [Music] actually it's one of mr it's a letter written or signed by philip heath it's at kin403726
02:28:52 please
02:29:02 so the letter is dated the 29th of october 2008 and it's a letter uh to simon hepworth at aztec
02:29:10 at aztec project about a residential development called grover waterside do you see that yes
02:29:21 do you think you've seen this letter before take your time to look through it do you remember it at all
02:29:32 i do not remember it all right it's a fairly dense letter and we don't need to go through it line by line although we can do it at any stage you need
02:29:43 as an overview mr heath does confirm init this is at the fourth paragraph on page one
02:29:51 page one beginning section 12 and i'm paraphrasing but he does confirm that k15 is not a material of limited combustibility and that in order to be used over 18 meters the designer can
02:30:03 meters the designer can follow the br135 route to compliance and then if we can look at his final paragraph
02:30:11 paragraph on page one he says this as you will appreciate it is not practically or financially feasible for a component manufacturer such as kingspan to test in accordance with eight four one four f
02:30:22 with eight four one four f with every rain screen cladding material and component currently available however tests undertaken by ourselves with and without a generic cladding system
02:30:33 a generic cladding system showed the requirements of br135 via bs8414 test method were achieved and then going over onto page two please
02:30:46 page two please based on above route to compliance together with bba approval 084582 kingspan insulation limited can confirm the product is fit for the intended purpose
02:30:57 for the intended purpose and is suitable for your development and he then writes that the final paragraph in the second line or starting in the first line i'm sorry
02:31:08 first line i'm sorry in the event you should require further information please contact i think he means please contact either andrew pack technical services manager or myself
02:31:17 or myself do you see that yes i do why is it you that's named as the alternative contact for philip heath in this type of letter i do not know why were you
02:31:30 i do not know why were you i can only think because i was a um a close contact for philip heath he's put me in that uh letter but i do not recall why he's put me in there
02:31:43 put me in there i can only think that because i was a unit head uh he's put me in there in case
02:31:47 case somebody couldn't get hold of him by telephone call to to come through myself because i used to obviously report straight into philippi
02:31:55 philippi yeah you should put over meredith's in there yes
02:31:59 there yes because on your evidence if this customer simon hepworth had contacted you
02:32:05 you you wouldn't have been able to assist him would you correct were you aware that philip heath was naming you as the alternative contact in this way
02:32:12 this way in his letters of suitability no do you say that it's an error
02:32:20 i can't comment on why he put my name in there than the fact that i was always available in the office as as if somebody was to ring up so maybe he thought that by putting my name
02:32:31 maybe he thought that by putting my name in there as a department head but from the contents of the material within this letter i was the wrong name i see all right
02:32:40 right can we go now to kin40s 5365 please
02:32:55 this is a series of emails also in fact dating from october 2008 into which you're copied uh do you see that at the top yes i do
02:33:07 uh do you see that at the top yes i do i i don't intend to take you through all of these
02:33:10 of these but again for context we can go through them if you need to these emails are between uh
02:33:18 wintec bowman kirkland and kingston in relation to the project called city park does that ring any bells can you no it's this project i think in fact
02:33:31 no it's this project i think in fact that you refer to in your witness statement
02:33:36 statement uh we're going to need to go to that i'm afraid so kin 408702
02:33:43 408702 just very briefly and to page 32 of your witness statement please
02:33:52 uh it's yep paragraph seven point four four we need to go to the seventh line down which starts the first part of it is not read and then it says i have been shown do
02:34:03 and then it says i have been shown do you see that yes you say that i have been shown an email chain in which i prepared a response to a customer regarding the use of k15 above 18 meters whilst i do not specifically recall this
02:34:15 whilst i do not specifically recall this email it is likely that it was after asked to draft a response to a customer as a one-off because other members of the team were indisposed and unable to respond quickly
02:34:27 indisposed and unable to respond quickly yes yes and you go on to say just as you've explained that you you ran it past philipp heath and iva meredith in draft before sending it out
02:34:40 do you remember that yes i recalled um at the time when i did my original draft statement i didn't recall it then they showed me an email i still didn't recall the email
02:34:51 the email but obviously it shows i have drafted some
02:34:54 some response which then i ran past philippe and either meredith yeah so i guess what to recap
02:35:02 to recap i don't recall the email then i was shown the email i still didn't recall the email but the proof is that i wrote the draft text which was then passed through philippines and either meredith to check
02:35:13 philippines and either meredith to check yes i understand all right so if we can go back now please to the email we have previously at kin405365
02:35:26 previously at kin405365 i want to go please to page five and it's to an email you sent at 1302 there it is on the 16th of october 2008.
02:35:39 there it is on the 16th of october 2008. i think that is the email you've just been referring to isn't it the one-off that you drafted and ran past
02:35:46 past philip heath and iva meredith
02:35:51 okay um take your time to look at it i mean it
02:35:55 mean it i think that's right sorry yes i can see my name on the top now yeah so that's the email then that's referring to my witness statement and the fact that i drafted an email
02:36:06 the fact that i drafted an email yes okay yeah all right um and and you say i think you just confirmed that this would have been a one-off
02:36:15 one-off yes all right can we go up to page one please of this chain
02:36:24 um at the fourth email down so it's it's a little bit dense but can you see sort of two-thirds of the way down the page there's an email from philip heath to you and gareth mills and
02:36:37 philip heath to you and gareth mills and iva meredith and it sent 1105 that one yeah yes see that one and he says there in the event you haven't answered this am email either ap and i
02:36:50 answered this am email either ap and i are currently preparing a detailed response that we will then adopt as standard issue do you see that yes the ap there is you isn't it yes
02:37:04 the ap there is you isn't it yes did you with philip heath prepare a detailed letter of response to these clients
02:37:11 i cannot remember right if we just move up this page please to the top
02:37:26 you're still copied in there
02:37:30 along with philip heath in either meredith's email where he says before i go back up north today can we agree the strategy for rain
02:37:41 can we agree the strategy for rain screens and wind tech i think we should consider a slight amendment to the lit that means literature presumably does it
02:37:50 does it yes i would read that as being literature to mention fire barriers i'm available in the office between 10 30 and 1.
02:37:58 30 and 1. do you see that yes what can you remember if anything about the firm wintec
02:38:09 nothing i'm afraid sorry you don't remember
02:38:12 remember that particular firm raising issues as to the suitability for use of k-15 over 18 meters my understanding the wind tech is there
02:38:23 my understanding the wind tech is there a
02:38:26 consultant or a third party consultant that look at firearm buildings yes i've heard of the name
02:38:34 name um i've actually heard of the name probably
02:38:37 probably more in my latter career over here in the middle east than i did in the uk i see um i i do know the name but i do not
02:38:45 not know as to what context this email is in relation to wintec and the fact that um this email that philippe is referring to yes
02:38:58 philippe is referring to yes did you take any part in agreeing a strategy for rain screens and wind tech as mr meredith mentions there in his first line no i see is this mr peck another
02:39:09 no i see is this mr peck another email which you were copied into for for no good reason at all absolutely i see did you think ever forgive me but did you think ever
02:39:20 forgive me but did you think ever of saying to someone stop copying me into these emails i'm not reading them they're nothing to do with me i guess at the time um i mean looking
02:39:31 i guess at the time um i mean looking back in hindsight yes you do refer to people to say please you know why do you keep copying me in on these emails i mean i've bound to have had conversations over the time the culture very much was
02:39:44 over the time the culture very much was was an email culture of cc and everybody and sending emails to everybody i'm sure at some stage i would have said please but i cannot recall on what
02:39:55 please but i cannot recall on what subjects and topics no i understand i just the reason i ask i mean the emails we've looked at are not copying in huge mailing lists or huge numbers of
02:40:06 in huge mailing lists or huge numbers of people
02:40:07 people they're generally copying in you and mr meredith or you and mr heath and in relation to the letter that we looked at about grosvenor waterside it's you alone that's named as the
02:40:18 it's you alone that's named as the alternative contact for mr heath it's not really a situation of a culture of just
02:40:23 of just copying in everyone is it it seems to be a sort of ongoing error as to what your role is and your remit is that fair no i would say that uh
02:40:35 is that fair no i would say that uh there is a culture i mean obviously you picked on a couple of emails there yes i mean every day i received probably in excess of
02:40:42 excess of 120 to 150 emails a day coming into my i can't physically read every email that comes in um a lot of the time i was cc whether it was just two people or
02:40:54 cc whether it was just two people or whether it was 10 people those emails would come in the only reason i was on majority of emails is because i was a department head and at the time why i've used to copy
02:41:07 and at the time why i've used to copy in on emails and why failure to copy me in emails i could only think was because i was a department head at the time and for whatever reason they had it in their mind to send it to me i do not know all right can you think of any reason
02:41:19 all right can you think of any reason why in the emails we just looked at about the um project with bowmer and kirkland
02:41:26 kirkland mr heath would have told iva meredith that you
02:41:29 that you and he were preparing a detailed response which was to become standard that's not an issue of you being
02:41:36 being inadvertently copied in is it
02:41:40 that you and he were doing that work together it does yes and i don't recall doing that work or putting that in motion great
02:41:52 we're going to move on now to look at the
02:41:55 the labc system or type approval certificate which was obtained for k-15 in may 2009
02:42:06 and i want to talk to you first about your own role in that philip heath was your line manager in 2009
02:42:13 2009 yes yes
02:42:17 yes yes philip heath has confirmed for us in his evidence to the inquiry and again there's no need to go to it but for the transcript it's at day 79 164 lines 17-23 he confirmed
02:42:31 17-23 he confirmed there that the decision to approach the labc
02:42:34 labc to try to obtain a certificate for k-15 was his decision do you agree with that sorry repeat that last bit again please he told us that the decision to approach
02:42:45 he told us that the decision to approach the labc to obtain a certificate for k-15
02:42:49 k-15 was his decision and my question was whether you agree with that yes i agree right he also told us uh in his witness statement
02:43:01 told us uh in his witness statement and again we don't need to go to it but it's at
02:43:06 kin3020709 page 21 paragraph 4.9 there he told us that you were the person who managed the process of obtaining
02:43:17 obtaining the labc system approval certificate and that while he had overall responsibility for it you ran the project do you think that's right
02:43:28 right yes i wouldn't say i managed it and run the project i think i was more of an admin role between kingspan and the authorities that were doing the
02:43:39 authorities that were doing the certification what do you mean by an admin more of an admin role what do you mean by that so basically um i'd never done a a certification before
02:43:51 i'd never done a a certification before in kingspan um i'm not a project manager the reason i call it an admin role is because that's how it felt when i did the um
02:44:03 this course of work at the time i see can you tell us how how you came to be involved in that role whatever it was
02:44:14 whatever it was how was it why was it you that came to be involved in it that's a very good question um somebody showed me an email recently where philipp heath had actually sent the email to
02:44:26 actually sent the email to three people and actually my name was on the list
02:44:29 the list yes i can only think at the time and and i guess philippe will be able to answer this question but um i wasn't the project manager was not part of the projects team but it
02:44:41 part of the projects team but it ended up on my plate i don't know why that is
02:44:45 that is i can only think that the other two individuals were busy at the time yes that's all i can think of but anyway my name was given to
02:44:56 but anyway my name was given to um labc as the person that they should contact to take this up yes all right um we're going to come on to the email that you're talking about where mr heath asked three people
02:45:08 where mr heath asked three people including you about um the labc certification and whether one could be achieved for k-15 i i should say that is an email that has only been
02:45:19 that is an email that has only been provided to this inquiry very recently on the 22nd of january i think so we didn't have the opportunity uh to put it to mr heath but we can uh nonetheless put it to you
02:45:32 uh nonetheless put it to you all right let's go to your witness statement please kin408702 at page 33.
02:45:44 mr peck can you hear that there's a yes i can yeah sorry i don't know what that is
02:45:52 it appears to have stopped for now so can i sorry just to interrupt you i i suggest you carry on for the moment i will um if if it continues or occurs very often then we
02:46:03 very often then we may have to take uh other measures but uh
02:46:06 uh we'll carry on for the time being all right i'll be brave and continue for now it appears to have stopped
02:46:15 about that mr peck we're going to look at page yep page 33 please and paragraph
02:46:22 7.47 yes and at the second line towards the end of the second line there do you see that you say i was involved in initial discussions with labc
02:46:36 do you see that i'm just trying to um i'm so sorry yes 7.47 yes 7.47 the second line towards the end i was involved in initial discussions
02:46:48 was involved in initial discussions with labc just thinking now about initial discussions so we're going to come on later i know that there was a meeting but in terms of initial discussions that you refer to there
02:46:59 refer to there can you remember when those began
02:47:05 november 2008 and who were they with so um my name was obviously given
02:47:16 um my name was obviously given by philipp heath to labc yes and then i believe um i then spoke to or they either contacted me or i contacted them
02:47:29 i contacted them and spoke to labc and said i believe that my line manager has been in conversation with you with regards to creating an abc
02:47:41 with you with regards to creating an abc similar to what we did on a previous project
02:47:45 project another product and that was the initial discussions and they said yes that's correct um and how much do you want to enlarge here
02:47:56 and how much do you want to enlarge here that's fine all right can you remember whether during those initial discussions uh well first of all actually who who who was the first person you just
02:48:10 who who was the first person you just not philip he said outside of kingspan that you had an initial discussion with either from the labc or herefordshire okay so when i wrote my witness statement i couldn't remember the name
02:48:22 statement i couldn't remember the name of the person and i couldn't remember if the person was from labc or herefordshire council since then um i wrote my witness statement i've now determined to obviously further emails
02:48:35 determined to obviously further emails and so forth that the person i spoke to at lebc
02:48:42 was uh i believe barry turner yes and there was another chap i can't remember his name
02:48:52 his name but the conversation um basically revolved around the fact that they were going to appoint somebody else to do this certification not them
02:49:03 to do this certification not them yes that pointed to herefordshire council
02:49:07 council and then the person that heritage council that would be contacting me to set up a meeting at pembridge
02:49:13 pembridge was david jones yes all right and that was all in november 2008 wasn't it
02:49:21 it this would have been november december 2008
02:49:24 2008 yes right in those initial discussions either with barry turner or with david jones
02:49:30 jones did you tell the labc or herefordshire anything about k-15 as a product so labc were not involved in their
02:49:41 so labc were not involved in their initial meeting no there was one meeting that occurred um and that was in november ah now hang on i'm going to come to the meeting i'm asking just for now because we need
02:49:53 i'm asking just for now because we need to talk through that but what i'm asking just for now is prior to that meeting okay did you share any information either with barry turner or david jones about k-15
02:50:04 about k-15 no what did you come to understand during those initial discussions so again before the meeting that you've referred to about the labc
02:50:16 that you've referred to about the labc system approval process and how it would work for example um we had to wait till the meeting to find that out oh i see so it's a mystery until then correct all right what did you
02:50:30 correct all right what did you understand when you went into this project
02:50:33 project to be the purpose of obtaining a certificate for k-15 from the labc
02:50:40 so my understanding was that labc was seen as an industry body that had good influence throughout the
02:50:51 that had good influence throughout the local authority building control departments i had a database of products that had been
02:50:57 been through their vetting system to show that you could use this product or consider this part not to use it but to consider this product so in other words it was a database set up by labc
02:51:09 up by labc that if i was a local authority building control officer working in a particular county in the uk if i had an inquiry come across my desk with a particular product on it they could look to this system to say oh
02:51:22 they could look to this system to say oh okay
02:51:22 okay labc what is this product on their system yes it is they've obviously looked at it but it was never a sign off for good and regs approval it was more of a case of um
02:51:35 it was more of a case of um this is a an industry body that gave some credence to consider your product to be used on a project but it was never a sign-off for building regulations
02:51:46 regulations the idea was that then once you were on this database or this approval system the idea then is that when somebody had a project
02:51:54 a project they could see that they're being checked by labc but you still have to do your due diligence in terms of making sure it complied with all the relevant approved documents i.e part b
02:52:05 part b patel etc yes all right where did you learn all of that from about the labc that would have been um i remember a
02:52:16 that would have been um i remember a article in a magazine i remember a book coming through in the post there was a lot of advertising going on around at the time years before before this that sort of mentioned that
02:52:28 mentioned that at abc are here to help local authorities around the country because a lot of local authorities in the uk they used to receive an inquiry and not always with the local authority
02:52:40 and not always with the local authority up to speed on a lot of the information so they used to use the labc to update their knowledge and technical knowledge
02:52:48 knowledge so the labc started putting out flyers and articles and books to say look we are this
02:52:54 are this industry body that you can come to for advice and it wasn't just the local authorities i mean i used to remember inquiries i used to deal with i used to ring at abc direct um over the course of my time at kingspan
02:53:05 course of my time at kingspan [Music]
02:53:07 [Music] right i want to take you just very briefly to your witness statement where you cover some of that action there's just something i want to ask you about it so back to kin408702 please and to page 35.
02:53:29 if we look at paragraph 7.52 this is really what you've just explained we have the initial discussion with the labc because we wanted to ask them how we could
02:53:41 them how we could when we received queries say that our product had been vetted and checked out by the labc and so on that that's essentially what you've just explained
02:53:50 yes
02:53:54 secondly just um yes of course yes correct yes yes vetted and checked out by the labc as a product that could be considered correct and it says in the third line as
02:54:05 correct and it says in the third line as a product
02:54:06 a product which could be considered for use both above and below 18 meters do you see that yes and then you go on to say of course this was subject to the system buildup
02:54:17 this was subject to the system buildup in which it was proposed to be used on a project
02:54:20 project complying with approved document b yes
02:54:27 do you see that yes i just want to ask you
02:54:31 you you stay there it's the fourth line down of course
02:54:35 of course this was subject to the system complying with adb
02:54:39 with adb why do you say that do you say that because it's something obvious
02:54:46 i didn't all right
02:54:51 was it let me put it differently was it obvious to you i'm sorry i need that back actually we just go back to kin cause heroes 8702 into the same page
02:55:04 yeah thank you was it obvious to you that the labc's approval system or system
02:55:11 system vetting and checking and allowing people to look products up on their database in the case of k-15 was all subject to the whole system build up complying with adb
02:55:26 initially no actually i believe that and we'll get into this later on but i believe that the labs we we went to the lebc just on our product to start with
02:55:37 product to start with i see and it was yeah it in fact it was during the course of that that it came out that we could do as a system how did it come out during the course of
02:55:48 how did it come out during the course of that
02:55:49 that that was um so when we approached um i was skipping a bit here but when we went with lepc and then obviously it was during because we haven't discussed about the meeting
02:56:01 we haven't discussed about the meeting at pembridge yet so i wanted to sort so it was during the meeting well when when we originally when we eventually got the meeting in pembridge with not lebc perry future council
02:56:12 with not lebc perry future council yes um when we sat down and discussed it there was myself uh i believe also the technical manager philippe was in that meeting too yes and uh david jones from harry for
02:56:24 yes and uh david jones from harry for councils in that meeting and we explained to him that we wanted to look at our product above and below 18 meters and understand how we could look at the product it was only when
02:56:36 look at the product it was only when harry fisher council went away and then they obviously must have spoken to labc
02:56:42 to labc that they came back and said actually we have another approach now we can approach this as a system approval
02:56:51 approval so that's how it went from us just looking at as a product to move into a system approval so just say that i'm clear and you're quite right we are going to come back to the new thing
02:57:02 the new thing but just so that i'm clear for now you and
02:57:05 and philip heath had approached it from the point of view of trying to obtain an labc certificate for k-15 above and below 18 meters as a standalone product
02:57:16 standalone product that was your initial thinking yes yes it was to get the product to be looked at as a product yes but then at the meeting
02:57:27 yes but then at the meeting is this right at the meeting that's what you
02:57:30 you suggested and david jones suggested that in fact
02:57:34 in fact it needed to be or could be rather on a system
02:57:38 system basis correct yes so that all happened during the meeting or afterwards no this was so he went away and did his due diligence because we we wanted the product just
02:57:49 because we we wanted the product just like we'd done with the previous one for our tapered insulation we wanted to do looked at just as an insulation yes he then went away did his due diligence came back in the new year i think it was around about january and
02:58:00 i think it was around about january and said i've gotta i've come up with a way we can look at this that will enable us to go forward to look at it as a system rather than just an individual
02:58:11 just an individual and that's why they called it system type approval yes i see and um there was only one meeting wasn't there
02:58:18 there correct so when he came back to you you think in january that was in writing yes yes yes all right we're going we are going to come come on today can you just help me with
02:58:29 come on today can you just help me with this um very briefly when you say initially you had intended to approach the labc for the certificate for k-15 as a stand-alone product for use above and below 18
02:58:41 product for use above and below 18 meters
02:58:44 meters just help me to understand how how could a certificate be given for k15 as a standalone product to be used over 18 meters given what you knew about 8414 as a
02:58:57 given what you knew about 8414 as a system
02:58:57 system test yeah well that's why obviously i mean you've got to go back now to 2008 um and we're obviously discussing how do how do we as an industry look at this i
02:59:08 how do we as an industry look at this i mean
02:59:09 mean we were looking that's exactly why we had the meeting i i mean we had a team behind us that obviously wanted to put this product out into the marketplace but before we can do that we need to understand what can we do
02:59:21 need to understand what can we do so um obviously one of the first things i said to
02:59:26 i said to presented what we wanted with our product we looked to labc because they were the
02:59:31 were the industry body they knew what they were doing but actually it was hay for the council that was doing the meeting not labc um hey future council looked at what we were trying to do
02:59:42 were trying to do they obviously um for what looked at the due diligence came back and said look we can't take this on as a product on its own which i agreed
02:59:54 which i agreed and everybody agreed with so we stopped it as a standalone product because if you go back to the original question where you're asking what was my idea about labc it wasn't really to do with fire in my mind
03:00:05 mind labc was an industry body that covered many different topics not just fire so when we were looking at this product and at the initial meeting my initial meeting was not
03:00:16 meeting was not about fire it's more about this system that they had that allowed architects and consultants to first of all see the product
03:00:22 product to see that had been flagged up as a material let alone getting into the detail of fire and thermal and moisture so when we mentioned that we had this product we wanted to be able to use it
03:00:33 product we wanted to be able to use it on buildings above and below 80 meters i wasn't saying we have all the certification in place to say we can do that
03:00:39 do that it was more of a question of we have this product we want to bring it to market we want to be able to use it on below 18 meters and obviously above 18 meters
03:00:47 meters although most of the projects that we mostly had were below 80 meters in the uk
03:00:52 uk and then they went away did their due diligence
03:00:55 diligence they then came back and said i think the best way forward for this to be able to comply with various obviously
03:01:02 obviously what have they been looking at was the system approval yes all right thank you mr peck i'm gonna pause there for a moment because i see that it's just after one and uh hand over to ask the chairman
03:01:15 and uh hand over to ask the chairman whether
03:01:16 whether this might be uh a good time to stop for lunch
03:01:20 lunch yes well i thank you very much you i think it would wouldn't it um we will make now so that we can have some lunch and you mr pack can also have some refreshment if you so wish
03:01:31 refreshment if you so wish um and we'll start again at two o'clock our time please and please remember not to talk to anyone
03:01:38 anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it uh while we're in the break all right thank you see you later on thank you very much indeed thank you