Andrew Peck (Kingspan) continues evidence about obtaining LABC certificate for K15 above 18 meters. Reveals Philip Heath's email asking to get certificate for K15 'above and below 18 meters', describes December 2008 meeting with David Jones where he emphasized 'non-combustible substrate and non-combustible cladding' but brought no fire test reports.
00:00:08 uh we are back with you at least i hope we are are you there yes good afternoon i'm here good afternoon so you can see me and hear me yes i can good thank you very much well
00:00:20 yes i can good thank you very much well we can see you and hear you very clearly so i'm going to invite miss troop then to carry on if you're ready to continue are you i am thank you
00:00:29 thank you very good yes mister thank you listen like i'm going to take you first to the email that i think you were referring to just before we broke for lunch so if we could have a look please at kin3024981
00:00:44 could have a look please at kin3024981 and while that's coming up this is the first of the 21 documents that um was provided very recently to the inquiry and which i now put to you if we can go
00:00:56 i now put to you if we can go to the
00:01:00 to the bottom of that please to the second page
00:01:07 sorry so if we go up again to page one to the very bottom we can see that this is an email sent on the 14th of november 2008 from barry turner of the labc to someone
00:01:18 from barry turner of the labc to someone called chris george at kingspan and if we now go down to page two thank you we can see that tony miller chap is is copied in do you see that yes i do and essentially what is
00:01:31 yes i do and essentially what is attached here this is about an labc document to do with kingspan's tapered
00:01:35 tapered roofing insulation products yes if we go up please to the next email up
00:01:44 we can see that tony minichat forwards barry turner's email to philip heath to you and to gareth mills
00:01:52 mills and he's obviously quite pleased with it do you see that yes i do and if we go now to the top to mr heath's email which is the 16th of november
00:02:03 november is this the email you were referring to it's sent to you mr meredith and mr mills
00:02:11 mills and in it mr heath says please advise if we can get one of these for k-15 in relation to its use above and below 80 meters
00:02:22 above and below 80 meters correct right
00:02:26 if we go to the next new document please that's at kin3024982
00:02:40 in the middle of the page we see the same email from barry turner to chris george and tony milicep from the 14th of november do you have that
00:02:49 that yes i do and if we go up please to the top email
00:02:55 there we see that on the 21st of november
00:02:58 november you have in fact contacted barry turner of the labc yes correct and you say that you've left him a voicemail yes am i right in thinking that that was
00:03:10 yes am i right in thinking that that was you
00:03:10 you essentially taking on this job in response to mr heath's email we've just looked at
00:03:15 looked at yes right and if we move to the next one then please uh going through it briefly it's
00:03:30 kin3024983 halfway down the page we can see barry turner's response to you on the same day the 21st of november
00:03:41 same day the 21st of november quite late in the evening 2059 yes yes sorry i did not get back to you today
00:03:48 today he says that he's been tied up and then at the end of that email we'll hopefully catch up with you on monday
00:03:55 monday yes and
00:03:58 yes and if we go up in that email chain please to the top
00:04:04 there's your email back to him on the 24th of november which is the monday dear barry thank you for your email i have tried you a couple of times this morning
00:04:13 morning i'd be grateful if you could ring me when you were free yes yes so by 12 23 on the 24th of november you'd already tried to ring barry turner a couple of
00:04:26 tried to ring barry turner a couple of times yes
00:04:29 times yes right and then moving on please to kin3024984
00:04:41 just looking at the top email this is the next day the 25th of november you email mr turner again before 10 am barry please can you update me as to the
00:04:52 barry please can you update me as to the business development person that is going to contact me and when this is likely to be how did you know that that was the next stage do you think you had spoken to barry turner before you sent this email
00:05:07 i cannot recall all right i want to ask there are a lot of emails from you here to him from your point of view mr pack was there some urgency
00:05:19 there some urgency to to this project to obtaining this certificate no no urgency um for whatever reason um i've obviously
00:05:30 for whatever reason um i've obviously tried to contact him he's tried to contact me is obviously busy but there was no urgency from my point of view
00:05:40 all right let's go now to the meeting that we've referred to um a few times and you've confirmed i think that david jones of herefordshire building control was present yes yes
00:05:51 building control was present yes yes correct
00:05:52 correct and that your line manager philip heath was also present yes correct now i only know that from uh region
00:06:00 region and also here in the time i couldn't remember who was in the room but it's come out that he was the person that was present
00:06:07 present yes fine in terms of when the meeting took place i don't think we need to go to it but in your witness statement and this is just for the transcript it's
00:06:18 kin408702 page 37 paragraph 7.61 excuse me you say um that you thought david jones was present and that the meeting took
00:06:30 was present and that the meeting took place not long before may 2009 do you remember saying that in your witness statement no right um
00:06:42 in do you think that's right now thinking about it no i didn't say the meeting took place in may 2009. let's go to it so that i don't cause any confusion could we have up please kin
00:06:55 confusion could we have up please kin 408702
00:06:57 408702 and page 37. we're looking at the last two lines of that paragraph 7.61
00:07:09 that paragraph 7.61 i believe that david jones of labc will have been present and that the meeting took place not long before may 2009 correct yes that's not saying it was may 2009
00:07:20 2009 obviously when i did this statement a lot of the information that we've
00:07:26 we've literally had wasn't available but i knew it was before may 2009 because that was when the um certificate was produced so it had to be before
00:07:37 produced so it had to be before may 2009 yes i understand all right well let's have a look um at another email chain which will assist us it's kin three zeros two four nine eight
00:07:48 three zeros two four nine eight seven
00:07:56 i don't think we need to go through it all but if you look at the top email please
00:08:01 please you can see that you are emailing david jones on
00:08:05 jones on november the 27th and that you say there dear david 2pm on friday the 5th is fine ask me at main reception that's friday the 5th of december
00:08:17 the 5th of december and that's the meeting that's been arranged that's correct all right so we know that the meeting
00:08:24 meeting took place on the 5th of december 2008.
00:08:29 we need to go back now i want to talk to you about what occurred at the meeting if we can go please to your witness statement again at kin408702
00:08:40 at kin408702 and to page 37
00:08:51 so if we look at paragraph 7.62 in the first line about halfway along the first line talking about this meeting
00:09:00 meeting you say i don't recall that we specifically discussed the suitability for use of k-15 over 18 meters and you go on from there just stopping there
00:09:13 from there just stopping there is there any reason you would not have discussed with david jones the suitability for use of k15 over 18 meters
00:09:24 i cannot recall the actual discussion that took place around that topic
00:09:33 all right well bearing in mind that when mr heath
00:09:36 mr heath first emailed the three of you yes mr meredith you and mr mills what he had said was we've just looked at it can we get one of these for k-15
00:09:48 at it can we get one of these for k-15 above and below 18 meters bearing in mind that that was his initial purpose if you like do you think there's any reason you wouldn't have discussed the suitability of the product for use
00:10:00 the suitability of the product for use over 18 meters i think it would have gone along the lines of we're looking at uh k-15 as an insulation board and we will be looking at buildings below
00:10:11 we will be looking at buildings below and above 18 meters but whether we actually discuss the suitability of it that was left for lebc to confirm that we were looking for something
00:10:22 something that was similar to what had been done before
00:10:25 before using k15 and i'm sure in that meeting we would have discussed below 80 meters and above 18 meters you're sure you would have done i'm sure we would have discussed above
00:10:36 i'm sure we would have discussed above and below 80 meters yes all right um i want to take you to show you
00:10:43 you david jones's recollections of the meeting those are set out in his witness statement so if we can get that up please it's hbc6029
00:10:55 it's hbc6029 and i'd like to take you to page nine please
00:11:08 do you see that at the bottom of the page he's talking about this meeting and he says
00:11:12 he says from memory the main themes of that meeting were and then if we go over the page to page 10 please
00:11:24 the kingston representatives gave an overview of the product and its properties and how where it was intended to be used in particular the technical representatives were enthusiastic about
00:11:37 representatives were enthusiastic about the fire testing that kingspan had commissioned for k-15 and the fact that it had been shown to be suitable for use in buildings with stories over 18 meters
00:11:48 in buildings with stories over 18 meters do you remember that i don't remember being enthusiastic no he's wrong about that like all i can record is that we had uh
00:11:59 like all i can record is that we had uh brought along to the meeting a copy of our k-15 product literature and we brought along with us our vba certificate we brought no fire testing
00:12:10 certificate we brought no fire testing data
00:12:10 data into the meeting no so i couldn't have been
00:12:15 been very enthusiastic about fire testing data if i had nothing in front of me i do remember that we spoke about the fact that we wanted to be able to look at this product for use above and below 18 meters
00:12:26 18 meters but for us to be enthusiastic about the fire testing from my point of view i don't recall me being enthusiastic about the fire testing well he says
00:12:38 well he says about the fire testing that kingspan had commissioned for k-15 that's in the third line and i mean that might be past or future fire testing do you remember
00:12:50 or future fire testing do you remember talking with david jones about fire testing at all okay i remember um mentioning that we had done a large-scale fire test
00:13:01 large-scale fire test um i remember having the bba certificate yeah i referred to that particular section in the bba certificate um i would have mentioned that we had done a fire test
00:13:13 done a fire test because obviously we wanted to understand how we could take that particular fire test and the bba
00:13:21 bba certificate and the literature and how do we go forward from here yes i see and so when you mentioned that you had done that for particular fire test do i understand correctly that you mentioned that to
00:13:33 correctly that you mentioned that to david jones still without having read that test report
00:13:38 report and still without knowing what the tests have been conducted on so the um when we were sat at the meeting
00:13:48 meeting um i cannot recall exactly the words we discussed
00:13:52 discussed but obviously my line manager was there he
00:13:55 he the technical manager he would have no doubt been able to pick up those questions because he was the person that was directly involved with that side of the business
00:14:07 business and but going back to what you've just told us which is that you mentioned the bs8414 test do i understand correctly that you did
00:14:18 do i understand correctly that you did that and that you went into that meeting with mr jones without having read the 8414 test report and still not knowing what the test had been conducted on
00:14:29 been conducted on as far as i was concerned we had a test that was based on 8414 with a non-combustible substrate and a non-combustible cladding
00:14:40 the the documents you took with you into the meeting were the bba certificate and the product literature k15's product literature yes correct those had they been requested by
00:14:53 correct those had they been requested by david jones or did you and mr heath just bring them along to offer them to him i cannot recall
00:15:02 do you remember telling david jones that k15
00:15:05 k15 was suitable for use over 18 meters
00:15:11 i would have discussed the fact that we were looking to the use of k-15 above 80 meters and how we could move this forward based upon the fact that
00:15:22 upon the fact that we had a fire test based upon a non-combustible background and a non-combustible cladding
00:15:29 all right um i need to take you back to the witness statement actually please so it's
00:15:36 it's hbc6029 and back to page 10.
00:15:46 if we look at the second paragraph he says that i asked what kingspan hoped to achieve from the labc type approval process
00:15:55 process given the supporting information they already had in the form of test results and a bba certificate the response was that it was very much a marketing aim to have the labc brand associated with
00:16:07 to have the labc brand associated with their product and they wanted the opportunity to further emphasize the suitability of k-15
00:16:13 k-15 in buildings over 18 meters again for marketing purposes now before we go to page 20 of this statement please to the first paragraph
00:16:28 at the third line down halfway along do you see the word furthermore yes mr jones says there furthermore they wanted the opportunity to further
00:16:39 wanted the opportunity to further emphasize
00:16:40 emphasize the suitability of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters again for marketing purposes this latter point
00:16:47 point seemed to me to be significant to kingspan who wanted to capitalize on the testing which had been carried out and the very recent issue of bba certificate 084582
00:16:59 certificate 084582 which incorporated details of those tests
00:17:04 tests do you recall emphasizing the suitability for use of k-15 over 18 meters
00:17:12 meters or that being a significant point for you and mr heath during the meeting i think the document was not necessarily just about over 18 meters as i said
00:17:23 just about over 18 meters as i said earlier on in my uh written statement today and i'm not asking about the document
00:17:28 document if you can please just in terms of concentrating on what was said at the meeting and i appreciate it's difficult
00:17:35 difficult do you think he is wrong in his recollection that the suitability for use of the product over 18 meters was significant for you and mr heath
00:17:47 was significant for you and mr heath do you say that miss jones is wrong about that yes do you say that he's wrong in his recollection that you and mr heath wanted to capitalize on the
00:17:58 and mr heath wanted to capitalize on the testing which had been carried out yeah i wouldn't use the word capitalize um sure all right well you might not use that word but build on then no i think um if you look at the actual
00:18:12 no i think um if you look at the actual meeting itself it wasn't solely about above 18 meters for us to capitalize on that no i disagree with that we wanted a document that would cover
00:18:23 we wanted a document that would cover in general above and below 18 meters yes i'm aware of course that you might have discussed other issues at the meeting
00:18:32 meeting i'm just i want to take your comments on mr jones's recollections and his recollection is that a significant point for you and mr heath appeared to be the testing which had been carried out
00:18:44 the testing which had been carried out and capitalizing on that and the recent issue of the bba certificate you don't remember that being a
00:18:54 signature if we can go back to uh page 9 of hbc 6029 please to the penultimate paragraph
00:19:11 penultimate paragraph do you see it begins to the best of my recollection and he says that to the best of my recollection andrew peck led that meeting for kingspan yeah there being at least one other person
00:19:22 there being at least one other person from kingspan in attendance did you lead that meeting i led the meeting and so much i met him at the reception area and i greeted him upstairs to meet my
00:19:33 and i greeted him upstairs to meet my technical manager but as to as i led the meeting i mean it depends on which topics we're referring to here because there was obviously three of us in the meeting
00:19:43 meeting it was not led by myself there was many different
00:19:46 different discussions that we took place in the room so i wouldn't say i actually led the meeting okay i actually met mr jones at reception brought him up to the room brought my technical manager in
00:19:59 the room brought my technical manager in we had the meeting we obviously spoke about different things yeah and then actually i let mr jones down for a reception but i wouldn't say i actually led the
00:20:10 but i wouldn't say i actually led the meeting um i guess it comes back to what you mean by led the meeting do you mean taking minutes um no i'll have to ask mr jones what he means by led the meeting i would assume and i am guessing
00:20:21 meeting i would assume and i am guessing that he means um was in charge of the meeting from king span's side did most of the talking perhaps took the lead i
00:20:30 lead i i don't think he means met him at reception let me put it differently i mean i think your answer is that you disagree with him of you and mr heath as far as you can recall who did most of the talking
00:20:42 the talking i cannot remember did you tell david jones at any time during the course of that meeting that
00:20:53 during the course of that meeting that k-15 was suitable for use over 18 meters without conditional qualification i cannot recall saying that i would have
00:21:04 i cannot recall saying that i would have shown the
00:21:05 shown the information that we had i would have discussed that we have done a fire test and i would have said that the fire test was based upon a non-combustible background and a non-combustible cladding
00:21:19 and a non-combustible cladding why did you not bring the test report to offer to mr jones during the meeting
00:21:25 because i didn't have access to the test reports
00:21:28 reports is it something you discussed with philip heath beforehand no neither of you raised the possibility of offering that test report to david jones
00:21:39 jones no did philip heath at any time during the meeting as far as you can recall tell david jones that k-15 was suitable for use over 18 meters
00:21:50 over 18 meters without conditional qualification i cannot recall
00:22:00 did you tell him at any stage you said that you
00:22:05 that you discussed the fire test that had been carried out well let me ask you this first were you clear with david jones that there was one large-scale fire test and no others
00:22:18 one large-scale fire test and no others i cannot recall the actual word in but we would have shown as we had the documents in the meeting yes you were shown the bba certificate and the product literature yes so that
00:22:29 and the product literature yes so that would have been the reference to what was discussed
00:22:36 did either you or philip heath as far as you can recall tell david jones that k15 in december 2008 when you met him was
00:22:47 in december 2008 when you met him was suitable for use over 18 meters only in one specific configuration i cannot recall the words we actually used
00:22:57 used but i would have emphasized that it was based upon a non-combustible substrate and non-combustible cladding
00:23:06 it would have been quite important during the course of that meeting do you agree
00:23:11 agree that david jones was not misled or led to believe that k-15 could be used in all situations over 18 meters yes i agree and that's why um
00:23:23 yes i agree and that's why um when the course following that meeting if you look at the labc it in the end only covered non-combustible or i should say limited combustible substrate limited
00:23:34 combustible substrate limited combustible cladding we're coming to that during the course of the meeting we don't need to go to it actually but david jones tells us in his witness statement that
00:23:45 tells us in his witness statement that he had
00:23:45 he had no training in relation to the use of materials in buildings over 18 meters and that there are no high-rise buildings in herefordshire so he had no
00:23:56 buildings in herefordshire so he had no experience in that area for the transcript that's at hbc
00:24:01 at hbc 6029 page five in the penultimate paragraph what i want to ask you is this did mr jones's lack of experience
00:24:13 did mr jones's lack of experience in that particular area use the use of materials over 18 meters become apparent to you at any stage during the course of the meeting no
00:24:28 you've talked about the documents you brought to the meeting i want to just uh go to go to that for now
00:24:34 now if we go to
00:24:40 actually yes if we go please to kin30s 2010
00:24:50 this is an email we're going to come back to in a short while but there are just a couple of things i want to ask you about it
00:24:58 now
00:25:02 uh if we can go up a little please so that we can see the top of that
00:25:10 oh there we are if you look um at the third email down in the chain that is the email that philip heath sent to various mailing lists on the
00:25:21 sent to various mailing lists on the afternoon of the 7th of may announcing that the labc certificate had been obtained
00:25:28 obtained have you seen that before yes i have did you see that email at the time
00:25:36 i don't recall the email at the time no would you not have been on kingsman's technical services mailing list i think i was yeah i think i mean
00:25:47 i think i was yeah i think i mean obviously you asked me diary called the time i can't recall at the time but i have seen it since the since the whole uh inquiry and i've been looking through the emails but i couldn't hold
00:25:58 couldn't hold hand enhancing i remember that email but i have read it since yes during the inquiry all right at the next email up in the chain do you see the email from malcolm rochefort to
00:26:09 see the email from malcolm rochefort to philip heath on the same day at 10 past four yes i do he says out of curiosity which fire test results did we use to get this and i appreciate you weren't copied into
00:26:20 and i appreciate you weren't copied into this but i think you have seen these before
00:26:23 before yes i have yeah since the inquiry yes fine and philippe's response at the top of the page is this we can be very convincing when we need to be we threw every bit of fire test data we
00:26:35 we threw every bit of fire test data we could at him we probably blocked his server in the end i think the labc convinced themselves cool firm is the best thing since sliced bread we didn't even have to get any real ale
00:26:46 we didn't even have to get any real ale down him
00:26:49 first of all do you agree that that email
00:26:53 email philip heath's email gives the impression that he was quite surprised at how convincing you and he had been able to be with the labc
00:27:03 labc yes i totally disagree with that email you disagree with his email what do you disagree with but can we have it back up please and say sorry it's
00:27:14 kin3020714 what do you disagree with about it well first of all um we we never actually
00:27:24 actually provided any fire test data as it was in the actual bba certificate and the literature i would have thought during the actual whole process
00:27:36 during the actual whole process and obviously this is where um i guess you need to look at the whole procedure that was at the time we were never asked to provide any fire test data
00:27:47 test data during the whole course of this process no
00:27:50 no i mean at the initial meeting i presented the literature i presented the bba was the only information that i had access to follow that meeting
00:28:01 access to follow that meeting obviously um harry future council went away
00:28:05 away to do their due diligence understand how they could um move this forward yes and then obviously once the new year came
00:28:16 came they came back with what they said was the right way to go forward all right we'll come on to that there was no fire test data given whatsoever so i can't see how we blocked the server no i mean putting it plainly that's
00:28:30 no i mean putting it plainly that's nonsense isn't it yes at the meeting you gave him the bba certificate and kingspan's product literature at the
00:28:41 kingspan's product literature at the time
00:28:42 time and after the meeting so between your meeting on the 5th of december 2008 and the certificate being issued in may 2009
00:28:51 2009 you did not send him anything else did you in terms of data or certificates correct and we would never ask for anything
00:29:02 let's look please at the bba certificate which is the one that you will have presented to him at the meeting on the 5th of december 2008.
00:29:13 the meeting on the 5th of december 2008. we'll come to it um i want to ask you first i think you say we don't need to go to it but you say in your witness statement and for the transcript this is a paragraph 7.1
00:29:24 paragraph 7.1 on page 23 of kin408702 you say that you did not have any direct involvement in the bba simplification process
00:29:34 process is that right that's correct before presenting the bba certificate to david jones at your meeting in december 2008
00:29:44 2008 had you read it
00:29:47 i would have read sections of it yes i would have been um not necessarily no i mean obviously it was a document that contained many
00:29:58 it was a document that contained many different sections not just about fire um you have thermal you have moisture
00:30:04 moisture yeah so i mean to read it before the meeting no i wouldn't have done that i would have been familiar with the sections of the bba and how it was broken up
00:30:14 broken up all right let's take a look at it together that document excuse me is it bba six zeros i think three eight
00:30:37 this is the first bba certificate for k-15 and if you look at the bottom of this page
00:30:43 this page page one it says date of first issue on the left-hand side 27th of october 2008.
00:30:52 2008. so can we agree mr pack that this is the version or the issue that you will have shown
00:30:58 shown to david jones in december 2008 yes all right if we look it's just towards the top of the screen i can see now there's a section
00:31:11 i can see now there's a section uh under the heading key factors assessed
00:31:15 assessed in bold the first section is thermal performance then condensation risk and then we see a section behavior in relation to fire
00:31:26 fire do you have that yes i do
00:31:30 while we're on it it says that the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard had you read that phrase before your
00:31:41 had you read that phrase before your meeting with david jones
00:31:45 no i haven't you hadn't you hadn't read it at all
00:31:51 it at all i can't recall reading it before the meeting no right do you know what it means
00:32:02 it sounds as if it's saying that the boards won't contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke toxic hazard
00:32:12 yes so is this the wording from the bba or is this this is the bba right in this document isn't it so i guess i'm sorry i'm overspeaking you
00:32:24 i guess i'm sorry i'm overspeaking you go ahead
00:32:26 go ahead i'm i'm assuming this is a standard document the bba produces that obviously covered these three or four points and the bba have come up with this word and how they've come up with the word
00:32:37 and how they've come up with the word and i don't know no that's fine i don't intend to ask you about how they've come up with that word and
00:32:42 and i'm just actually interested in your interpretation of what those words mean okay it's it's mentioned that the boards will not contribute to the development stages
00:32:53 not contribute to the development stages of a
00:32:55 of a i mean it sounds would you agree that that it's essentially saying that k-15 boards won't catch fire
00:33:05 will not contribute i mean i guess it's it's how much does it mean contribute um all right well it's not the best word i have to say reading it
00:33:16 say reading it did you say it's not the best word it's not less wording because it says the boards will not contribute but what does it mean by contribute indeed all right let's go on to page five of this certificate please
00:33:28 five of this certificate please and to section seven which i think starts towards the bottom of page five yes so this is the detailed section on behavior in relation to fire
00:33:39 behavior in relation to fire and if we look at the first bullet point there's a description there of the test to bs 8414 part one do you see
00:33:52 to bs 8414 part one do you see that yes i do it's it's quite long and i don't intend to take you through all of that but if if we can just look at the last three lines so if you look at the third light up line up from the
00:34:04 at the third light up line up from the bottom
00:34:05 bottom right to the end of that line at the word within yes within the stated test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees therefore displaying
00:34:17 exceed 600 degrees therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source
00:34:20 source and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre-135 had you seen that before no
00:34:31 had you seen that before no do you agree looking at it now that it is not correct to state that the product meets the criteria within br135
00:34:43 i must admit i'm because i'm not familiar with the workings of br135 i'm not familiar with this
00:34:51 with this sentence no you cannot comment on whether the sentence is right or wrong i'm assuming the bba have wrote this document yeah
00:35:03 document yeah go ahead yeah i'm assuming the bbas wrote this document so they must follow a procedure where they've come up with this
00:35:09 this word in um i don't want you to worry too much about the authorship of it really what i'm trying to get is is your understanding of the meaning of it now you've told us a number of times
00:35:21 it now you've told us a number of times that you understand bs8414 to be a system test and the system tested is assessed against the criteria in br135 yes
00:35:32 against the criteria in br135 yes correct all i'm asking you in very simple terms is um whether you agree with me that it is incorrect to state that a product as a standalone product
00:35:45 a product as a standalone product one component meets the criteria in br135
00:35:50 br135 yes i agree right i just want to take you please to an email chain in 2009 it's kin409103
00:36:12 it's kin409103 if you look at the top of that page we can see that this is an email from philip heath to you and again to mr meredith and mr mills
00:36:20 mills copy to gwen davis on the 5th of march 2009
00:36:27 2009 and then if we can go down please to the bottom of the page the bottom of page one rather
00:36:35 do you see that there's an email there from george lee of the bba sent on christmas eve 2008 to gareth mills
00:36:43 mills and someone else at the bba yes i can and then just say that it's clear and i'm setting it in context if we go back up to the top of page one
00:36:54 up to the top of page one i should have said this
00:36:57 the entire chain is in fact forwarded to you
00:37:00 you by philip heath do you see that yes i do all right so with apologies back down to the bottom of page one please
00:37:10 so this is just a couple of months after the first certificate the first bba certificate for k-15 has been issued because that was the 27th of october 2008
00:37:21 2008 yes yes and here we are in december 2008.
00:37:26 2008. in his opening paragraph mr lee says this
00:37:29 this hi gareth we've recently received a number of comments on the k15 certificate in relation to the clarity of the wording used as part of this certificate's fire section do you see that yes
00:37:42 fire section do you see that yes i do and he then goes on to make some proposals some proposed amendments in relation to improving the clarity of the wording
00:37:53 the wording and if you could look please at his second bullet point key factors assessed
00:38:02 do you see that yes i do yes that's the section we've just looked at on page one of the bba certificate which you said was not the best wording
00:38:13 was not the best wording about the boards not contributing to the development stages of a fire do you remember that yes and do you see that here at his second bullet point what mr lee is suggesting
00:38:24 suggesting is an additional sentence the product has been tested to bs84141 for a specific construction on masonry walls
00:38:35 walls so that's the new proposal he's making to add into the certificate all right okay do you remember reading this email george lee's
00:38:46 remember reading this email george lee's email
00:38:47 email at the time no and i'm wondering why i'm even copied on the email because i had no involvement with
00:38:54 with george lee at bba i see all right let's go up please to mr heath's response
00:39:04 so if we just go up to the next email thank you
00:39:08 thank you mr heath doesn't appear to respond until the 5th of march 2009.
00:39:15 2009. and just taking it quickly essentially he says there
00:39:21 gareth mills has brought it to my attention
00:39:25 attention he registers some concern there in the third line about amendments being proposed so soon after issue do you see that yes i do and then he essentially goes on to say your request is receiving our attention
00:39:39 yes now that email was sent to george lee
00:39:43 lee at 14 47
00:39:46 at 14 47 and if you look up please to the top email in the plane do you see that two minutes later at 2 49
00:39:55 49 philip heath emails to you mr meredith and mr mills the instruction let the file gather dust guys yes i can
00:40:06 can you remember receiving that instruction from philip heath no it's quite an unusual instruction would you agree
00:40:17 would you agree it is um i don't recall the email again it's interesting how i've been brought into the loop again on these emails
00:40:27 emails i mean you raised it earlier about you're trying to understand my role at kingspan
00:40:33 kingspan and it's interesting again it's a clear example of uh if you look at the names in the two list um
00:40:43 um you have a meredith and gareth mills um it's obviously come out of the inquiry that these two individuals um which we won't go into now but obviously
00:40:54 obviously as a department head of the time i was obviously always available in the office i sometimes wonder if i was just sent these emails because i was a department head that
00:41:05 because i was a department head that reported
00:41:05 reported into philippe as to say oh andrew um just in case these other two are not around here's an email but why i
00:41:16 are not around here's an email but why i keep getting copied in on these emails when i have never had involvement with the bba
00:41:20 the bba or the word in i do not know other than that
00:41:24 well the upshot of it is that you you don't remember receiving it or reading it
00:41:29 it correct i mean this is an email again it isn't copied to no i agree lots of mailing lists and hundreds of people it is to you mr meredith and mr mills
00:41:40 it is to you mr meredith and mr mills again
00:41:41 again did you i've asked you this already but i mean this is 2009 now did you think of saying
00:41:48 saying to philip heath you've misunderstood my role i don't have anything to do with the bba
00:41:53 the bba please would you stop sending me emails about it
00:41:58 yeah i mean at the time 2009 i was getting involved in emerging markets so um the time i was transitioning to other roles i was receiving so many emails i
00:42:09 roles i was receiving so many emails i mean
00:42:09 mean whether i said to philip at the time i cannot recall but i mean looking at the emails you've pulled up to today um it is quite clear that i'm being brought in on these emails
00:42:21 in on these emails as a 2 or a cc yes but hardly any background on the um the inquiry
00:42:28 inquiry i mean i'd heard of this chap called george lee at bba yes i've never met the guy who had any involvement with him and yet um again yeah my name's been put on an
00:42:39 um again yeah my name's been put on an email
00:42:39 email and has brought me into this uh chain of events
00:42:43 events um but i know at the time in 2009 i was transitioning into emerging markets i was traveling a fair bit so a long time
00:42:52 time when you're receiving the number of emails i did on a daily basis a lot of the time
00:42:57 the time as i said earlier in the inquiry k15 was not
00:43:00 not a big product for me i'm afraid i had many other products in my portfolio that i actually had my remit to deal with
00:43:08 with um and a lot of the time my my workload was in other areas of the business so yes um i can only apologize for not being able to to provide any more information behind
00:43:20 to provide any more information behind no that's fine i want to ask a few moments ago when we were talking about the individuals who are in the to list from the email we just looked at
00:43:30 looked at and in fact those two individuals appear in a lot of the emails that you say you were wrongly copied into or nothing to do with you i don't know if i interrupted you but or perhaps you moved on but you said
00:43:43 perhaps you moved on but you said it's obviously come out of the inquiry that these two individuals which we won't go into now what was it that you wanted to say mr peck
00:43:53 peck about those two individuals i think it's a case of um um their worth that their work ethic their availability during the working
00:44:04 their availability during the working day
00:44:05 day um was it in question at the time obviously it's come out in the inquiry now that um yes it is i mean there was obviously a lot of um talk at the time
00:44:16 of um talk at the time about these uh individuals where their presence was what were they up to i can only think that i was copied on these emails was because i was in the office nine till seven and it was a means of
00:44:29 nine till seven and it was a means of at least the person sending the email would know that it went to somebody that might pick it up but the fact that i was actually not dealing with that type of work with the bba i can't understand why
00:44:41 work with the bba i can't understand why i'd be copied in all right just thank you just thinking more basically about the words that philip heath used in that let the file gather dust guys do you agree that that is a clear
00:44:54 guys do you agree that that is a clear instruction to delay the matter of the proposed amendments yes
00:45:02 one of the projects that you did pick up obviously was the labc certificate and i want to go back to that now please and to in particular david jones's understanding of limited
00:45:14 understanding of limited stability because that is an important part of that certificate so if we can go please back to david jones's witness statement hbc 6029 and to page
00:45:30 37.
00:45:40 just wait for that to come up hbc thank you page 37 and it's the second sentence
00:45:52 is it
00:45:58 yes in the second sentence of the last paragraph at the bottom of that page we'll just read it all uh he's asked about whether or not he was told that k-15 was a material of
00:46:10 was told that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility and his answer is this if this happened it would have been in my initial meeting with kingspan at the start of the heritage council assessment
00:46:21 assessment however i cannot from memory recall exact wording or who said what and so on that basis it would be wrong with me to say that anybody used this specific phrase limited combustibility i can say with
00:46:34 limited combustibility i can say with some certainty however that i left that meeting with the clear impression that this is what k-15 was and he goes on to say that he
00:46:46 was and he goes on to say that he recalls that that was consistent with a general opinion among building control surveyors
00:46:55 seeing that and actually i need to ask you have you seen this witness statement previously david jones statement
00:47:03 briefly saw it yes um right a number of months ago it was circulated i absolutely disagree with the comment that he left that meeting
00:47:15 that he left that meeting and the understanding that our product was limited combustibility well i know i understand i'm not sure you can you can disagree with his imp his recollection that he left
00:47:26 his imp his recollection that he left the meeting with that impression i think what you're trying to say is that you didn't give that impression are you
00:47:31 you absolutely did either you or mr heath say that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility i can only comment on myself and i did
00:47:42 i can only comment on myself and i did not say the product was limited combustibility or infer that it was of limited combustibility you didn't say it or infer
00:47:49 infer it yes why can you only comment on yourself
00:47:53 yourself do you miss sorry i simply cannot recall to what was actually said in that meeting in 2008. fine um talking for yourself then did
00:48:05 fine um talking for yourself then did you tell david jones that k-15 could be considered to be a material of limited combustibility
00:48:18 did you uh tell david jones at that meeting or at any other time that
00:48:30 the system tested in may 2005 was on uh it was a masonry back system not a steel frame system
00:48:41 yes it would have been based upon a masonry background yes told him that yes however the literature we had i believe showed masonry
00:48:52 masonry and steel frame with a non-combustible backing
00:48:55 backing and i believe it's from that the ledc was wrote
00:49:02 was wrote well
00:49:06 did you discuss with david jones the consensus
00:49:10 consensus you described to us earlier that you understood to have been reached which was that and you must tell me if i have this wrong from you which was that there was no need to test
00:49:21 which was that there was no need to test to 84142
00:49:24 to 84142 you could just put in a non-combustible liner
00:49:30 liner and have tested to 84141 did you discuss that consensus with him i cannot recall
00:49:45 i cannot recall do you recall whether or not philip heath mentioned to david jones that after king spans one successful test to 8414 in may 2005 the product
00:49:59 in may 2005 the product underwent a significant change in september 2006
00:50:07 i did not know that myself and i do not recall that being said in the meeting right i want to ask this was your objective
00:50:19 this was your objective in going into the meeting to obtain as broad and as wide an approval 4k 15 from the labc as you could
00:50:34 i would say we will look into their advice as to how we could take this product forward yes to give us whatever scope we could
00:50:45 yes to give us whatever scope we could for using this product in behind rain screen claddings at the time and that obviously during the discussion would have covered below and above 18 meters
00:50:58 and above 18 meters yes all right can we look please at another of the new documents um which has come to us and this is at
00:51:06 kin3024989
00:51:23 if we can look please halfway down the page we need that loan up a little bit to david jones's email to you on the 26th of january 2009. do you have
00:51:34 on the 26th of january 2009. do you have it
00:51:35 it yes i think this is an email that obviously came to you after your meeting in december yes and he says there apologies for
00:51:46 yes and he says there apologies for being a while getting back to you it's all been a bit hectic i'm going to read the second paragraph with you and i want to ask you about that he says there i have now done the research necessary
00:51:57 i have now done the research necessary and come up with what i think will be a usable certificate for acceptance by labc
00:52:03 labc across the uk what i have tried to do as we discussed is to get away from just assessing k-15 as a product in isolation
00:52:14 assessing k-15 as a product in isolation and extend the certificate to represent a system approval for the whole external wall arrangement of course with the other components being undefined
00:52:25 being undefined and with various options available this does present some problems as we established when we met what i have done though is to refer to the three standard
00:52:36 is to refer to the three standard details
00:52:37 details contained within the kingspan literature unless you have any other standard detailed drawings that you think may be more appropriate and instead of applying a manufacturer's
00:52:48 and instead of applying a manufacturer's reference to the undefined elements i have specified a generic standard for each
00:52:55 each using british standard references
00:53:01 the conclusion being that k-15 can be accepted in all locations provided the other parts of the wall construction meet the standards stated
00:53:12 meet the standards stated and reflect the kingspan standard details
00:53:16 details inevitably most mainstream products will have been manufactured to the appropriate british standard and so the system in each case should be fairly easy to pin down and the contribution of k15 to the
00:53:28 and the contribution of k15 to the relevant parts of the regulations obvious and then he goes to ask for payment
00:53:35 payment i'm going to ask for help with that larger paragraph first of all is that what you were talking about earlier you had discussed with him extending the
00:53:47 you had discussed with him extending the certificate to make it into a system approval even though it was in fact for a product no that wasn't there wasn't kingspan
00:53:59 no that wasn't there wasn't kingspan that came up with that idea um we talked to him about we we talked to hayfish accounts about the product he went away discussed with labc
00:54:13 he went away discussed with labc and came back and his conclusion was that we should treat it as a system approval well no but hang on what he says here
00:54:21 says here is if you look at the second line of that larger paragraph what i have tried to do as we discussed is to get away from just assessing k-15 as a product
00:54:32 as a product so that must have been discussed at the meeting he didn't come away from the meeting come up with the idea that he would extend the certificate into a system approval and then announce it to you here he's
00:54:45 and then announce it to you here he's saying to you here isn't he we discussed that idea at the meeting and
00:54:50 and here's how i'm going to go about it do you see
00:54:54 you see that's what i'm saying so at the meeting we discussed just the product in isolation
00:54:59 isolation yes he then went away and said actually i've now discussed it and i have another solution which is to treat as a system approval so yes i agree
00:55:13 so in in the in the meeting we had we were looking at the product it was just a product in isolation on its own just like we did with the tapered insulation he was talking about the insulation
00:55:25 he was talking about the insulation obviously he's now gone away yes actually um i've now come up with a proposal and the proposal is that we look at it as a system approval
00:55:36 system approval but it doesn't say that forgive me it may be that i'm confused what i think you're trying to say is that you went into the meeting and your only idea was that k-15 had to
00:55:47 and your only idea was that k-15 had to be assessed as a standalone product and quite separately david jones went away
00:55:53 away and all by himself or with whoever he discussed it with he came up with the idea of extending it to make it into a system approval and then announce
00:56:04 a system approval and then announce that to you in this email and sorry we do need that back up please that's how i see it k i n three zeros two four nine eight nine that's the way you see it that's the way i understood it yes all
00:56:16 that's the way i understood it yes all right i'm just going to have one last go at this that's not what it says is it if you look at the second line it says what i have tried to do as we discussed is to get away from just
00:56:28 as we discussed is to get away from just assessing k-15 as a product in isolation that does not say
00:56:34 say i've had an idea let's not assess it as a product in isolation let's extend it to a system that's something you'd already plainly discussed with him
00:56:45 discussed with him okay well i see this i see the uh i see as a system i'm not as a product on isolation i mean when you read the certificate it is very much a system approval
00:56:56 is very much a system approval come to the certificate i'm just trying to concentrate on sure whose idea it was to extend it into a system approval that would have been hopeful to counsel in conjunction with labc
00:57:07 in conjunction with labc not king spam
00:57:10 you're quite definite about that despite the content of this email yes yes that was my understanding at the time um
00:57:19 time um they came with the idea of creating a system approval all right so this email when it came to you on the 26th of january was a complete surprise to you
00:57:30 january was a complete surprise to you it was the first you had heard that you were going to move away from assessing a standalone product into extending it to system approval yes as far as i recall i can recall
00:57:43 yes as far as i recall i can recall it was very much about the product at the time
00:57:46 the time um and then obviously this emails come through to confirm we can we've now had a discussion about it to extend it to represent a system approval rather than a product in
00:57:58 approval rather than a product in isolation
00:58:00 isolation and that's of course when you read the certificate you could see that it's clearly written around non-justification certificate i'm sorry i just
00:58:07 i just all right so this this came up well could you help me with this
00:58:15 this there's a great deal that you can't recall about what was said during your only meeting with david jones
00:58:23 jones but you're absolutely clear are you that at no
00:58:26 at no time did you and he or philip heath and he
00:58:30 he discuss the idea at the meeting of extending the certificate into a system approval
00:58:35 approval this is the first you heard of it on the 26th of january to my recollection yes
00:58:44 can you just go down please to the fifth line
00:58:49 line well fourth line going into the fifth actually just look at the fourth line at the start of the word the start of the sentence which we of course and then we're going to move on he says that of course with the other
00:59:02 he says that of course with the other components being undefined and with various options available he means the other components of the external wall arrangement yes yes and with various options available
00:59:16 yes and with various options available this does present some problems as we established when we met now clearly he's talking about a discussion you had about that during your meeting isn't he
00:59:29 i cannot recall what that is in relation to
00:59:34 to well what else could it be in relation with you
00:59:37 with you it couldn't well have spoken about something that i cannot recall as my understanding was that we were discussing it about the product in isolation and then it was only when
00:59:51 in isolation and then it was only when um they'd obviously gone away and done their due diligence that they realized that actually they could pull it into a system i cannot recall what we actually said in the meeting um in terms of system approval
01:00:04 um in terms of system approval product isolation but my understanding um
01:00:07 um was that we were solely looking at the insulation you can't recall what was said at the meeting other than that you took no pass in extending this certificate to cover
01:00:18 certificate to cover the whole external wall arrangement no i didn't take the decision to extend it to cover the whole wall arrangement no all right um i'm so sorry we're gonna
01:00:29 no all right um i'm so sorry we're gonna go back to that email again please um and move on within it uh it's kin to yes remember the number uh i just i want to
01:00:41 remember the number uh i just i want to look please in particular
01:00:46 at
01:00:49 it's the fifth line up from the bottom of the second paragraph the conclusion being
01:00:54 being that k-15 do you have that yes the conclusion being that k-15 can be accepted in all locations provided the other parts of the wall
01:01:05 provided the other parts of the wall meet the standard stated and so on that is not accurate in relation to external wall connections for buildings over 18 meters is it
01:01:20 you'd have to ask refugee council as to what they're actually referring to there well i'm asking you what he says is the conclusion being that k-15 can be accepted in
01:01:32 that k-15 can be accepted in all locations provided the other parts of the wall construction meet the standards stated and reflect the kingspan standard details
01:01:43 the kingspan standard details so what he is saying is that as long as all the other component products in the external wall arrangement meet various british standards and your marketing literature's design
01:01:56 and your marketing literature's design details
01:01:57 details k15 can be accepted in all locations that is what that sentence plainly means isn't it
01:02:05 isn't it yes but if you look at the um uh what we would um the actual system approved here it didn't just cover buildings above 18 meters
01:02:15 meters no yes i mean you could take that word and
01:02:18 and that was referring to below 18 meters if you look at the actual um system approval it was covering below and above 18 meters and it was stated in
01:02:29 and above 18 meters and it was stated in there
01:02:30 there that you had to refer to the wall construction meet in particular standards
01:02:35 standards so yes i agree with that and then also it did have footnotes in the actual standard
01:02:42 standard uh or sorry in the approval that said that the back substrate and the cladding had to be of limited combustibility so you can't just take this sentence um
01:02:54 you can't just take this sentence um and look at it on its isolation on its own well i am looking at it on its own mr
01:02:59 mr because what yes i'm aware that the certificate and we will come to it contains various caveats um and i'm aware that it applied to the use of k15 both above and below 18 meters i'm sorry
01:03:12 both above and below 18 meters i'm sorry we need it back up please
01:03:18 but i'm asking you about this particular sentence
01:03:22 sentence the conclusion being that k-15 can be accepted in all locations provided the following two things occur it doesn't say in all locations below 18
01:03:33 it doesn't say in all locations below 18 meters
01:03:34 meters and all i'm asking is whether you are prepared to agree with me that that sentence is not accurate in relation to buildings over 18 meters
01:03:46 in relation to buildings over 18 meters correct i agree thank you
01:03:55 did you think of correcting david jones about that
01:04:00 this obviously is an email so um we haven't got all of the rest of what went on from this email no we have we'll come to that
01:04:12 email no we have we'll come to that okay but i can tell you that you didn't go back in correction okay um i mean i think i think that the um even though i agreed that word in that
01:04:25 even though i agreed that word in that he put in this paragraph is not correct i believe that what came off the back of this in terms of the um document clearly covered a lot of what you've
01:04:36 clearly covered a lot of what you've been asking me in regards to this paragraph
01:04:41 paragraph let's have a look at the email above this one please
01:04:46 if you can move up the page we can see that you actually send it on to philip heath the next day on the 30th of january 2009. do you see that yes and what you in fact
01:04:58 do you see that yes and what you in fact say to mr heath is this phil we have had the following come back from labc
01:05:04 from labc i think this looks okay what do you think i am thinking of sending him the above renders though just to highlight the approval will need to cover
01:05:15 will need to cover not only behind terracotta rain screen as per the three standard details contained within our literature which he refers to which is obviously fine
01:05:25 fine but also for metal zinc cassettes and ceramic
01:05:28 ceramic granites rain screens as the latter two types of rain screen are popular too do you see that yes so you did read it at the time and you did understand it at
01:05:39 at the time and you did understand it at the time
01:05:41 the time okay so um i guess what i'm now saying is that um i feel this looks okay um i'm now obviously mentioning let's look at other um metals in
01:05:54 let's look at other um metals in cassettes granites etc but i think what we're missing here is that
01:05:59 that the document wasn't just for buildings above 18.
01:06:03 above 18. understand so i understand that but what you absolutely do not do is go back to mr jones and say come on all this is correct but we must make the distinction this is not correct or accurate above 18
01:06:15 this is not correct or accurate above 18 meters
01:06:16 meters for buildings above 18 meters you don't do that do you but we do in the final um i can't remember if we actually spoke about it but i know in the fight
01:06:27 spoke about it but i know in the fight document that was produced it does clearly cover um non-combustible cladding so where i've asked can we also include metals in cassettes
01:06:38 cassettes we also must have discussed this because no that actually didn't get into the actual
01:06:42 actual approval
01:06:45 um above lenders that you're referring to at the second paragraph is there an attack i'm so sorry at the second line of your email is there an attachment that i can't see
01:06:57 is there an attachment that i can't see sending him the above renders
01:07:03 yeah so i'm guessing that will have come out of our standard product literature right because that would be the sorry would that be the um the design drawings from within the
01:07:15 um the design drawings from within the product literature fine see i think because that's the thing with emails you can't always see what other discussions are going on i mean
01:07:24 i mean it sounds to me reading through this email trail that david has gone away he's come back with an idea that we could do this to a system approval
01:07:33 approval and obviously as we've seen in that email i've then obviously forwarded it to my line manager who's obviously where i've said i think this looks okay what you think also thinking could we extend this to
01:07:45 also thinking could we extend this to other cladding types i know that that was another chain of events that happened and i know that that didn't get covered in the document but the final document um
01:07:57 um it clearly did cover the fact that you had to have a substrate and a cladding of limited combustibility so it did answer a lot of the questions down below where um it was a little bit ambiguous yeah we
01:08:09 um it was a little bit ambiguous yeah we are going to come on to that i realize i keep saying it but i really i do just want you to try i know it's difficult but just to concentrate on these emails there aren't any others that have been provided to us
01:08:21 provided to us it is quite clear i'm going to suggest to you that what you are trying to do and you're running it past philip heath first is to extend the certificate even further to include
01:08:34 even further to include other kinds of popular rains clean rain screen cladding materials correct yes because most of the inquiries the team used to get were below 18 meters so
01:08:45 below 18 meters so all right buildings um that do have and as i keep referring this was not just above 18 meters this document i'm aware of that um thank you philip heath's response to you
01:08:57 heath's response to you on the same day at the top of this email chain
01:09:02 chain is simply hi worth a try and i'm going to suggest to you that he used that wording because that's what you were doing wasn't it trying
01:09:13 what you were doing wasn't it trying your luck to see how far and how wide you could get the labc scope of approval i would disagree with that i
01:09:24 approval i would disagree with that i mean the lebc or in this case harry future council who we were dealing through they had a um a system in place and we're only following the system that they had
01:09:36 following the system that they had i i can only go by what i understand this system had been in place we were following the route to market
01:09:45 market we had a meeting we did they did their due diligence we're only following what was given to us through this um course of proceedings i mean um we looked to the labc in here council
01:09:58 um we looked to the labc in here council to assist us with this yes i understand that and i understand that you say that there was a system in place and
01:10:05 place and that they did their own checks or due diligence
01:10:09 diligence but this email in which you're running past your own line manager the idea of extending the scope of the certificate even further yes is no part of that
01:10:20 even further yes is no part of that system
01:10:22 system and further it's it's certainly not an admin role is it what you're doing there you're right into the substantive detail of what is going to go into the certificate
01:10:33 going to go into the certificate correct i'm i'm actually asking the question
01:10:36 question i mean i still class it as an admin role well i was involved with this procedure and i'm simply asking the question because i know for a fact that there was cladding types
01:10:47 cladding types like the ones i listed that we wanted to be able to cover our insulation below 18 meters only below 18 meters that's for lebc to determine whether it
01:10:58 that's for lebc to determine whether it can go above 80 meters i was simply asking you have to remember this document was to cover rain screen cloud in lower than 18 above 18 it was for range screen cladding
01:11:09 18 it was for range screen cladding it was up to labc and herefordshire council to do the due diligence to determine
01:11:15 determine which cladding types can be used above and below and subsequently it might have been an idea to make clear to david jones so as not to mislead him which were appropriate for use with k-15
01:11:29 which were appropriate for use with k-15 over 18 meters and which were not i cannot recall what was discussed in the meeting in terms of particular question
01:11:38 question all right but the reason you gave to mr heath in
01:11:42 heath in making that suggestion and running it past him is that those were popular rain screens yes yes k-15 just completely clear had never been
01:11:53 completely clear had never been incorporated into your system tested to bs8414 meeting the criteria in bl-135 with any kind of metal cladding had it
01:12:06 no correct it was only non-combustible cladding or limited combustion i think it never been tested with zinc outer cladding or terracotta
01:12:18 it um all i knew was it was a non-combustible cladding so is whether the terracotta gets pulled into that non-combustible cladding as far as you were aware had k15 ever
01:12:29 as far as you were aware had k15 ever been tested in a system to 8414 with terracotta
01:12:34 cladding all i knew that there was a fire test done um
01:12:39 done um but i i'm not 100 sure it's terracotta it was a non-combustible claddin
01:12:48 i'm going to pause there for a moment mr peck and just ask the chairman whether
01:12:55 whether this might be an appropriate time for a pause i've come to a slightly natural break
01:13:06 mr chairman i think you might be on mute
01:13:12 you're quite right thank you very much well what i said was this is a good time if it's suitable as far as you're concerned yes all right good well we'll have a
01:13:23 yes all right good well we'll have a break now um mr back we'll come back at half past three
01:13:28 three that's hot past three hour time of course and uh please remember not to speak to anyone about your evidence or anything
01:13:36 anything relating to it while you're out of the room
01:13:39 room all right thank you good thank you very much help us through them please
01:29:53 uh we're back with you at least i hope we are can you hear me and see me yes good afternoon yes i can good afternoon yes thank you very much and uh are you ready to carry on yes i
01:30:04 and uh are you ready to carry on yes i am thank you thank you very much then ms troop if you're ready off you go
01:30:10 thank you mr pack i'm going to ask you to look at the next of the new emails that have been provided to us quite recently and it's in fact your response to david
01:30:21 it's in fact your response to david jones's email of the 26th of january so can we go please to kin30s2496
01:30:43 if you look halfway down the page you can see the same email from mr jones that we've just been looking at sent on the 26th of january yes and then if we go up please to your
01:30:55 and then if we go up please to your email which is dated the 18th of february
01:30:58 february that's your response and you say this dear david thank you for the update on the application and then in your second paragraph you say that you're sending a check
01:31:09 say that you're sending a check on the third paragraph you say this finally just picking up on your point below
01:31:14 below referring to the three standard details contained within the kingspan call firm k-15 literature is acceptable just one small point although we show terracotta clay tile panels
01:31:25 panels there are many other generic cladding types
01:31:29 types all of which are commonly used and these include
01:31:33 include zinc aluminium stainless steel ceramic granite and high pressure laminate which i'm thinking will be covered
01:31:41 covered by the idea of having this generic standard
01:31:44 standard for each using british standard references yes yes correct so there after your email
01:31:55 there after your email running your idea of extending into additional cladding types past mr heath
01:32:02 heath you've actually added a few haven't you including high pressure laminate yes
01:32:11 and i think in fact you've added aluminium stainless steel none of those had been tested with k15 to bs8414 had they this is in relation to below 18 meters
01:32:24 this is in relation to below 18 meters um
01:32:24 um don't forget the um stand this this system approval that was now being talked about was not only covering above 18 meters so
01:32:35 was not only covering above 18 meters so these extra additional ones would have obviously been passed to me i would have been asked to look up those specific
01:32:43 specific types as those are the typical types that the team would have been receiving but you have to remember this is not solely in relation to above 18 meters this is also for below 18 and then when
01:32:55 this is also for below 18 and then when the following corresponds after this kicks in
01:32:58 kicks in you'll see that when we eventually do create this document that once it does go above 18 obviously these these don't get covered all right um in any event at this stage
01:33:13 all right um in any event at this stage neither he in his email to you of the 26th of january or you in your email of the 18th of february
01:33:20 february say this is only in relation to use under 18 meters do you correct not in the email no
01:33:31 correct not in the email no all right if we can go um now please to kin30s kin3024997
01:33:39 this is actually the signed application form which you attach to your email
01:33:46 on the 18th of february if you look at the bottom of that document do you see that it's dated the 18th of february
01:33:55 february is that your signature is the handwriting in the body of the form yours yes
01:34:03 and if we look at section four please description of system house type what you've written is this kingspan call firm k-15 rain screen insulation board
01:34:14 insulation board for use behind rain screen cladding systems for buildings both less than and more than 18 meters in height yes correct yes there's no indication there
01:34:27 correct yes there's no indication there that the way in which k-15 can be used above 80 meters or below 80 meters is different
01:34:34 different is there no because this is a i mean you're limited to what you can put in this form this is simply a a description of what we were looking at in terms of the subject matter
01:34:46 in terms of the subject matter it wasn't going to any depth other than to just
01:34:50 to just explain that we wanted to look at k-15 for behind green screen claddings for those buildings above and below 18 meters
01:34:58 meters indeed and where you went into more depth was in the emails that you just looked at yes yes i want to take you back to your witness statement please so kin
01:35:10 witness statement please so kin 408702
01:35:13 408702 and to paragraph 7.60
01:35:23 this is i think your summary of your role which you've described now as an admin role my role was contacting the labc for an initial meeting attending that initial meeting sending them the two documents they had
01:35:34 them the two documents they had requested
01:35:35 requested and then receiving the certificate in 2009
01:35:39 2009 yes yes at the time when i wrote this witness statement correct so at the time when you wrote this witness statement you had forgotten about the correspondence we've just looked at
01:35:50 looked at yes and you had forgotten about your suggestions to include additional popular types of rain screen cladding
01:35:57 cladding yes
01:36:01 uh if we can look also please at paragraph 7.54 of your witness statement which is on page 35.
01:36:13 there you say the initial discussions involved us saying here are our documents which included the k-15 marketing literature and the bba certificate and off the back of that the labc would
01:36:24 and off the back of that the labc would issue a certificate which contained a number of conditions and we're going to come back to the end of that it's not quite right is it that that's all you did having looked through the correspondence from the time
01:36:37 through the correspondence from the time there was a bit more to it than that yes i mean when i wrote this witness statement um a lot of the emails which you've pulled up today were not available
01:36:48 up today were not available trying to record something back in 2008 in my mind i just remembered it being a very simplified process
01:36:58 if i was to draw a diagram of how it went forward i remember having a meeting i then remember presenting two documents i remember then break for the end of the year we came back in the new year
01:37:11 back in the new year perry future council and labc had obviously discussed the route forward yeah today we've seen as a couple of emails which obviously we've highlighted today but following that
01:37:22 that um yeah i think the the procedure i mean obviously i was a stand-in to do this it was not my remit to be a project manager on certification i was obviously called in to do this as
01:37:33 i was obviously called in to do this as we mentioned earlier to me i didn't know anything different but it just felt very much like an admin role did it feel like an admin role when you were making suggestions to
01:37:46 when you were making suggestions to david jones in the emails we've seen as to the technical content and what should be included never mind what went into the end certificate for now did that feel to you like an admin role
01:37:57 that feel to you like an admin role making suggestions as to the actual technical content of the certificate well those were passed to me but as i said earlier by colleagues so they would have said look can we look to maybe look at these types
01:38:08 can we look to maybe look at these types of cladding as part of this approval which colleague colleagues in the department was that by email no no i mean like for example
01:38:18 example we all knew within the team like the different types of cladding that you have on buildings above and below 18 meters so what i can think of is that generally when you're in a team and
01:38:29 generally when you're in a team and you're working on inquiries people get to know
01:38:31 to know about the types of cladding that are being used and i can only think that personnel would have said andrew can you please look to maybe include these on this approval and as you've seen
01:38:42 on this approval and as you've seen there was an extra two added on so obviously again somebody's come to me and said
01:38:45 and said what about adding these um not obvious is it because i mean you've just told us that but all right so that's your evidence that you made those suggestions because and you can only think that it's
01:38:57 because and you can only think that it's because someone else told you to do so i think that's your evidence yes i mean at the time we were obviously um looking for this document to be able to
01:39:09 looking for this document to be able to cover many different cladding types and those would have been the typical ones that the team would have been receiving on a
01:39:17 on a daily basis yes and it's right isn't it that you were looking for the certificate to include a number of popular rain screen cladding types because that would be of benefit to
01:39:28 because that would be of benefit to kingspan in terms of the sales of k-15 yes but at the same time making sure that labc and heritage council do their due diligence and make sure the
01:39:39 do their due diligence and make sure the certificate covered appropriate the use of those claddings above and below 18 meters
01:39:43 meters all right can we go now please to another of the new documents
01:39:52 kin302490
01:40:01 if we go um to the second email down on the 27th of february 2009 david jones to you
01:40:09 to you can you see that yes have you seen this email now
01:40:13 email now yes
01:40:16 he says in the opening paragraph i've now had the formal registration through so we'd just like to run the attached past you before i send it off to them and then he goes on the draft of his
01:40:27 and then he goes on the draft of his type approval summary is actually attached to this email do you accept that
01:40:32 that yes do you remember receiving the draft
01:40:38 i actually don't remember this email until i
01:40:41 until i i in fact when i did my witness statement i don't remember this email but i have seen this email in the last number of months i don't record this email coming to me but it's obviously come to me on the 27th of
01:40:53 it's obviously come to me on the 27th of february
01:40:54 february yes and it does state that my summary of findings has attached so i'm assuming there must have been something attached to this email there was we'll come to that um can you
01:41:05 there was we'll come to that um can you just help me with something that you just said when did you first see this email
01:41:09 email um i think it was during the uh is definitely after my witness statement
01:41:17 statement well that's the 19th of september 2019 yeah so it was when all the emails were starting to be found on the system when was that do you know um
01:41:29 when was that do you know um well i tend to get emails every whenever they find emails in the system they they will highlight them to me i see all right um can we go back to that email please 302490
01:41:47 that email please 302490 in the third paragraph there david jones says i think i've covered your last comments with regard to the standard detail details although the type of approval
01:41:59 details although the type of approval refers to the three design details this is just to establish the overall form of construction to be employed the choice of inner substrate and rain screen cladding system are left
01:42:10 screen cladding system are left open to choice subject to each of them meeting the standards listed further down do you see that yes i appreciate you said you don't remember receiving it but he's essentially just
01:42:22 receiving it but he's essentially just repeating there what he said to you in his email of the 26th of january isn't he yes
01:42:33 it's obvious from that paragraph that david jones had taken your comments into account isn't it yes and it's clear that um he has
01:42:44 yes and it's clear that um he has um decided not to run with my comments well or he's decided that the summary as it is
01:42:51 it is already deals with and covers the comments you've made yes yes i think it must have got too complicated in the end that they've obviously
01:43:01 obviously decided to um they obviously took on board what we were trying to say about the fact that the team wanted other claddings to be considered but reason this
01:43:13 considered but reason this paragraph and how the eventual document came out
01:43:17 came out looks to be as if they decided not to run with those cladding types and clearly i know that the actual system approval in the end only covered non-combustible clouding in
01:43:28 only covered non-combustible clouding in the end
01:43:29 the end right going up to the top email in this chain please
01:43:35 do you say that you respond to david jones on the second of march thank you we're happy with the content and for you to proceed with formal issue yes yes you did not propose
01:43:49 yes yes you did not propose any changes to the type approval summary draft that he attached to his email did you
01:43:55 you i cannot recall all right well we certainly haven't found any evidence of that i want to show you a different email this is kin3024991
01:44:14 and this is before you go back
01:44:19 to david jones to say that you're content for him to issue the certificate do you see that at the bottom of page one
01:44:27 one there is the 27th of february 2009 email from mr jones to you attaching the draft yes and if we go up please
01:44:35 please you forward it do you see that at 11 35 to philip heath
01:44:44 but there's no message just that you forwarded yes because that was my goal was um sorry that was my role to um to feed it
01:44:55 sorry that was my role to um to feed it back to the technical manager great his response to you comes on the 1st of march 2009 and he says hi andy well done make no mistake this document could be gold not just for
01:45:08 this document could be gold not just for k15 but potentially the cool firm range please progress this asap to the next stage
01:45:15 stage once we get a final draft sorted we can then circulate to a select few pedal to the floor regards phil it seems would you agree that there was
01:45:29 it seems would you agree that there was some urgency to obtaining this from that email
01:45:35 yeah i cannot comment on what phil heath was
01:45:38 was insinuating a pedal to the floor you'd have to ask philip what the background to this text was well
01:45:45 well we didn't have this email unfortunately when he came to give his evidence but what i'm asking you is what well first of all do you remember receiving it do you remember him congratulating you in this way
01:45:59 him congratulating you in this way i don't remember the email but i do remember him saying um uh congratulations uh on uh getting the labc approval by not sure if it was around this date um i
01:46:13 not sure if it was around this date um i think it was more later on i believe do you remember this email or not i no right what do you think recollection anyway
01:46:24 what do you think recollection anyway fine
01:46:26 fine looking at it now what do you think he might have meant by saying that this document could be gold in capital letters
01:46:35 i do not know what he was meaning by gold
01:46:41 gold well we can presume i think that he means that it's valuable that it's something that's very beneficial to kingspan are you saying that you were unaware that that's how it was
01:46:52 that that's how it was received yes you were unaware of that yes right so you don't know what might have led philipp heath to congratulate you on obtaining it
01:47:05 no because actually it hasn't been um because this is first of march i don't think we actually got the certificate so he's just seen from you that the
01:47:16 so he's just seen from you that the draft has come through that's um what you just said then um i disagree with that because this is still a draft so it's not the final
01:47:28 so it's not the final document so i do not know what philip meant by gold and um
01:47:36 and um can we just go back to your witness statement briefly please it's kin-408702 at page 38.
01:47:50 at page 38. and if we look please at paragraph 7.65 i'll just read it with you we had provided the labc with the documents they had requested and they had drafted the certificate
01:48:01 and they had drafted the certificate based on those documents we relied on their approval and due diligence process and so had no reason to be concerned about the wording or content
01:48:09 content as far as i can recall we were not provided with a draft copy of the certificate which we were offered the opportunity to comment upon or review and so i consider that the labc were
01:48:21 and so i consider that the labc were entirely responsible for the contents of the certificate
01:48:26 mr peck i think you accept now or you must do that a draft was sent to you because we've just looked at that email correct um but that question was
01:48:37 correct um but that question was done prior to that email which i just said i didn't remember and also the question was did labc send me a draft and no they didn't send me a draft from labc i see but you received it from
01:48:49 labc i see but you received it from hereford
01:48:51 hereford yes now that we've seen the um email they sent us those three um for bullet points listed in those documents
01:49:01 documents yes all right um well can we have that back up please paragraph 7.65 of your witness statement
01:49:13 so it's four zeros thank you do you see um that you say that as far as i can recall we weren't provided with a draft
01:49:24 provided with a draft that's what i recalled at the time when i wrote this statement yes i understand and that's fine and you say there
01:49:31 there and so i consider that the labc were entirely responsible for the contents my question to you is this having now seen that you did receive a draft do you consider that kingspan bore any
01:49:44 do you consider that kingspan bore any responsibility for the content
01:49:48 i guess in hindsight when we come to look at the document in a moment there is some instances where there was a responsibility from kingspan to
01:49:59 was a responsibility from kingspan to possibly be more uh engaged in making sure the wording was more accurate however we will look to labc and heritage council
01:50:10 heritage council for their understanding and responsible as they were the third party doing this and when you do read the certificate um it does state on there and we'll go
01:50:22 it does state on there and we'll go through that in a moment that um it wasn't a clear sign off of the use of this product on projects across the uk and there's a clear statement on the actual certificate
01:50:33 statement on the actual certificate and there's also clear wording in the actual um
01:50:36 actual um approval so yes i agree um we did have some responsibility in in making sure that we're doing was correct but we relied upon labc and harry potter council
01:50:47 upon labc and harry potter council as they were the bodies that we look to to help us with regards to this approval understood can we go now please to kin-4024993
01:51:09 if we scroll to the very
01:51:12 end of the page please i think
01:51:18 and in fact onto page two
01:51:22 we can see that on the 7th of may you are sending the final formal confirmation of the system approval certificate and other documents that other associated documents to philip heath
01:51:36 associated documents to philip heath yes correct and then there is a bit of admin if we go up please to the next email in the chain philip heath asks you whether in fact the summary can be provided on headed paper
01:51:48 summary can be provided on headed paper i'm going up again please
01:51:53 if you look at the
01:51:57 well you say there on the 7th of may at 11 53
01:52:00 11 53 yes david is working on that and then if we go up again please to your email to philipp heath at 14 29 all on the same day
01:52:11 29 all on the same day you say this looks better and i think you must tell me if i'm wrong that's because the summary on headed paper has been received as philip heath requested
01:52:23 as philip heath requested yes and
01:52:26 yes and mr heath's response if we go to the top of the chain is fan bloody tastic
01:52:33 yes do you remember that
01:52:36 i don't um but now you show me it i i um i can see that he's obviously replied to me after i've said this looks better yes
01:52:47 after i've said this looks better yes and he's obviously pretty pleased isn't he
01:52:50 he yes do you say that you don't know why i guess because we're now into may 2005 and the system approval certificate has
01:53:02 and the system approval certificate has been issued he's obviously very happy with that
01:53:08 he's obviously seen that we've we've got an approval system on the tapered system and now we have one on k15 um but again you'd have to ask philip
01:53:19 um but again you'd have to ask philip heath why he was so um no i'm asking about your understanding as to why he was so very pleased about it i cannot comment
01:53:30 comment so excited let's look please at the final issued version of the certificate and the approval summary can we go please to kin405705
01:53:49 this is the actual certificate on the first page yes yes do you have it mr peck yes and it's dated the 1st of may 2009 in the top
01:54:01 dated the 1st of may 2009 in the top right hand corner yes and then looking at the top of the first page we see the certificate holders details obviously that's kingspan
01:54:10 kingspan and it's section two the description and it says system title description kingspan call them k15 rain screen board
01:54:22 kingspan call them k15 rain screen board yes and then we see section three documents and then a section about documents relied on to carry out the assessment and various other details i want to take you
01:54:34 various other details i want to take you over please to page three there's a blank page at page two so on to page three please we see a section there at the top called overview
01:54:46 yes describes k15 and a section called the system
01:54:54 yes that yes and essentially that section the system says the
01:55:01 says the overall wall construction must reflect standard design details as shown in the eighth issue of kingspan's marketing literature
01:55:12 marketing literature yes and those were that is the marketing literature you provided to him at your meeting yes yes can we go on to the fourth page
01:55:23 yes can we go on to the fourth page please
01:55:24 please under the heading requirement b fire safety considerations it's about halfway down the page and there this the uh summary reads k15
01:55:37 and there this the uh summary reads k15 has been tested in accordance with and then lists four tests bs8414 part one en13641
01:55:48 part one en13641 and then 476 parts 6 and 7 and under that we see these words from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility
01:56:00 as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame moving on to page five please
01:56:13 under the heading requirement b4 external fire spread we see this since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations
01:56:25 it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of adb volume 2 including those parts of the building more than 18 meters above the ground in the latter circumstances the cladding
01:56:36 in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility where the substrate is a metal frame wall system rather than masonry or
01:56:48 wall system rather than masonry or concrete
01:56:49 concrete a non-combustible lining board must be specified
01:56:52 specified to the external face of the metal wall frame
01:56:57 frame i want to ask you this first please you knew
01:57:00 knew at the time this certificate was issued and had i think always known that k-15 is not a material of limited combustibility is it yes correct do you accept that the most natural
01:57:13 do you accept that the most natural reading
01:57:14 reading of the two sections on friar in this certificate we have just looked at is that k-15 can be considered to be a material of limited combustibility
01:57:26 material of limited combustibility yes the way it's wrote the way it's read the way it's read
01:57:35 my only understanding is that is this because it was classed as a system
01:57:41 system that somehow the word in has been um moved away from just k-15 and is treating it as an overall system the problem is
01:57:52 the problem is k-15 is not a system is it no i agree but i'm thinking is um i'm just trying to think why that wording was put in um the way it is um mr pacquiao has seen
01:58:04 um the way it is um mr pacquiao has seen that wording in the draft sorry you had seen that wording in the draft
01:58:12 draft i would have seen that word in the draft yes
01:58:16 yes i can only think that why was that word in use was it because it was based upon a substrate of limited combustibility and
01:58:28 substrate of limited combustibility and the masonry wall of non-combustibility and therefore you go to diagram 40 and you test an insulation
01:58:39 to diagram 40 and you test an insulation above
01:58:40 above 18 meters
01:58:43 it can be read that is that material following
01:58:47 following the fact that it could be classed as limited combustibility i'm sorry i don't follow can we just be a bit simpler about this do you accept that the overall effect of this is to suggest to a reader
01:58:59 this is to suggest to a reader that k15 is a material of limited combustibility
01:59:05 yes and that is absolutely not correct is it correct you didn't notice that in the draft you didn't think to correct it
01:59:17 didn't think to correct it i guess we um relied upon the advice of the labc the average council this wording would have been pulled together because it's not just one sentence there
01:59:30 because it's not just one sentence there it's
01:59:31 it's it's it's referencing the cladding it's re-referencing the substrate in diagram 40 the reference improved document b i mean when you look at it it's not just isolating the installation on its own so
01:59:44 isolating the installation on its own so that's what i'm trying to say has it been written in a way that it's considering the whole construction it's not just taking insulation on its own however i do agree in hindsight
01:59:55 do agree in hindsight that could have been reworded slightly better
01:59:59 better well when you say it could have been reworded slightly better do you mean the words since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility or to have been removed
02:00:13 combustibility or to have been removed yes i agree that limited combustibility in the same sentence as since k-15 could have been only misleading isn't it it is misleading um but you've got to
02:00:25 it is misleading um but you've got to read the rest of the paragraph that follows it well let's do that
02:00:31 that it says there since it can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of adb including
02:00:42 shown on diagram 40 of adb including those parts of a building more than 18 meters above the ground there's absolutely no restriction qualification or caveat there on the use of k-15 on buildings more
02:00:55 on the use of k-15 on buildings more than 18 meters above the ground is there it says all situations it does it says where the substrate is a metal wall system
02:01:08 is a metal wall system rather than masonry or concrete a non-combustible board must be specified and i think if you move further into the document it actually refers to the fact that the
02:01:20 it actually refers to the fact that the um
02:01:21 um claddin has to be limited combustibility in fact it's the sentence above actually it says the cladding system and the substrate to which the installation is applied
02:01:32 applied must also meet the requirements for limited combustibility so that makes me think that if the cladding is of limited combustibility and the masonry
02:01:43 combustibility and the masonry substrates of limited combustibility k15 can be considered to be used in those parts of the building more than 18 meters
02:01:54 18 meters it's incredibly confusing isn't it it is um i agree it's not really the best but our understanding was that as long as the substrate was non-com
02:02:05 the substrate was non-com was of limited combustibility the cladding was a limited combustibility which is what i go back to previously in my in my statements and today that was the understanding clearly you
02:02:16 that was the understanding clearly you can see that the other types of cladding that we discussed earlier not being included i'm sorry to interrupt you um miss troop but mr pat can you help me with this
02:02:27 but mr pat can you help me with this um you were at least certainly are now familiar with the relevant provisions of adb
02:02:36 adb i think that's right isn't it sorry can you say it again you are familiar with the relevant provisions of adb which deal with insulation
02:02:47 which deal with insulation now back in 2008 well both but in 2008 you knew that adb required insulation to
02:02:59 you knew that adb required insulation to be
02:02:59 be of limited combustibility yes above 18 meters
02:03:04 meters adb does not say that that requirement has any is in any sense dependent on the substrate
02:03:12 substrate or the rain screen does it i cannot recall what the actual paragraph says well i'm curious to know why you think that k15 could be used
02:03:26 that k15 could be used as insulation uh in a case where the substrate and the cladding were of limited combustibility if that didn't appear in adb okay
02:03:38 if that didn't appear in adb okay so as i mentioned earlier today our understanding was that from the advice of
02:03:45 advice of labc through this document they were clearly
02:03:48 clearly telling us that it can be so you preferred their advice to the provisions of the guidance did you well i guess
02:03:58 i guess um we just relied upon the labc as they were the third party that were involved with this type of process and approval so they were the one that
02:04:09 and approval so they were the one that came
02:04:09 came up with this particular text and the fact that um they worded it in a way that it could be used behind a cladding of limited combustibility and
02:04:21 cladding of limited combustibility and the substrate of limited combustibility all right thank you very much yes ms troop thank you i want to take you back please to uh david jones's evidence
02:04:34 david jones's evidence hbc6029 at page 36.
02:04:51 looking at the penultimate paragraph of his evidence on that page he says this on the basis of my knowledge at that time the range of evidence in a2h above
02:05:02 time the range of evidence in a2h above that's from his own witness statement was sufficient for me to make a judgment that k-15 could be considered a material of limited combustibility
02:05:13 of limited combustibility do you see that his understanding the author of the certificate appears to have been
02:05:19 exactly as it reads that k-15 was to be considered to be a material of limited combustibility
02:05:29 i cannot comment on how david jones made the judgment that k-15 could be considered material limited combustibility i'm not asking you to comment on how he
02:05:40 i'm not asking you to comment on how he made the judgment mr peck i'm just asking you well let me put it differently does it surprise you to learn that in fact he meant the certificate to be read
02:05:52 he meant the certificate to be read exactly as it does read on an actual reading
02:05:56 reading that k15 could be considered to be a material of limited combustibility it would read that way yes and that is utterly wrong isn't it correct right
02:06:08 isn't it correct right is it genuinely your evidence that you did not know that is what he meant to say in his type approval summary document yes correct
02:06:19 document yes correct you did not know he was that under the under that impression when you saw the draft
02:06:24 draft correct do you think you should have noticed this when you saw the draft in hindsight yes but i at the time when i received this
02:06:37 at the time when i received this i passed it to the technical team that are involved with this side of the business
02:06:44 business for them to check over but in hindsight i agree
02:06:48 i agree the wording could be seen as indicating that the k-15 was of a material limited combustibility can we go please to kin-405385
02:07:10 this is an email into which you and gareth mills again are copied and it's an email from iva meredith to mark swift
02:07:21 in it he says this personally well let's look at the subject title approved document be as discussed
02:07:30 and you can tell me in a moment whether you remember it personally i would just say that now we have the labc document and as long as the guidance within it is followed there are no limitations of use
02:07:42 followed there are no limitations of use for k-15
02:07:43 for k-15 in high-rise external ventilated facades this document will be available to all labc
02:07:50 labc therefore we will not get any problems in the future when seeking approval for use
02:07:55 use from local authority building control officers from now on when i'm challenged i'm simply going to send the labc document and let that do the talking i have
02:08:06 and let that do the talking i have copied ap
02:08:07 copied ap and gm to allow them to comment do you remember reading that email mr pack no
02:08:16 do you know whether or not you offered any comments
02:08:21 i do not recall the email and i do not recall any comments he has i'm sorry go ahead and um i would disagree with what's written in that email
02:08:34 what would you disagree with in it that the labc document didn't give um
02:08:45 didn't didn't state that there are no limitations there were limitations to the use of k15
02:08:53 so i don't agree with that sentence where it says labc document and as long as the guidance within it is followed there are no limitations there were limitations within the um in
02:09:04 there were limitations within the um in the document
02:09:08 what limitations were there within the document
02:09:11 document um in terms of the uh masonry back uh sorry in terms of the substrate in terms of the cladding and there was also if you refer to the
02:09:23 and there was also if you refer to the certificate if we could bring it up on screen please of course it's kin405705
02:09:34 so if you go to where it says conditions of the certification yes number four yes it says this certificate should not be regarded as a formal approval under the building regulations
02:09:48 i'm so sorry i don't follow the relevance of course it's not a formal approval it's a certificate how is that a restriction on the use of k-15 over 18 meters
02:09:59 k-15 over 18 meters so what i'm saying is that um if you go back to
02:10:02 back to the email that was just wrote to say that um
02:10:06 that um so i can go back to the yes of course i'm so sorry it's um kin fawzi that there it is
02:10:17 so we're where we're talking about there being no limitations there are limitations because we have to still prove that the construction we're using meets the building regulations
02:10:30 the building regulations yes and bearing in mind that k15 is a combustible material that could be done through testing to 8414 and a system meeting the criteria in
02:10:41 and a system meeting the criteria in br135 yes
02:10:43 br135 yes yes all right you say that you don't remember receiving this email were you aware that iva meredith as technical project leader was of the
02:10:54 as technical project leader was of the view
02:10:55 view that what this certificate granted or gave to kingspan was the ability to say that there were no further limitations on the use of k-15 on high-rise buildings no i disagree
02:11:09 on high-rise buildings no i disagree with that you might disagree with it were you aware that that was the strategy
02:11:13 strategy no nobody discussed that with you you heard no one talking about it did you ever hear anyone saying that the labc document
02:11:24 labc document would do the talking or anything of that nature
02:11:27 nature no do you accept having looked at the fire sections of the certificate that that would only work the labc
02:11:40 that that would only work the labc statistic
02:11:40 statistic certificate could only give kingsfan the opportunity to say that there were no further limitations for the use of k15 over 18 meters if
02:11:51 for the use of k15 over 18 meters if it was read as meaning that k-15 is a material of limited combustibility sorry see that question again please it was far too long the question
02:12:02 was far too long the question the only situation in which there could be no limitation for the use of an insulation material above 80 meters would be if it was non-combustible or a material of limited combustibility
02:12:15 material of limited combustibility correct that yes so the only way in which mr meredith and others within king's
02:12:22 king's kingspan could be thinking that this certificate gave them license to say there are no further limitations is if it was being understood to mean
02:12:34 is if it was being understood to mean k-15
02:12:35 k-15 is a material of limited combustibility or can be considered to be one
02:12:42 okay i understand your point i cannot comment on what um ivan meredith has taken from this certificate and this approval um i can only comment on what
02:12:52 on what my recollection at the time and then my recollection at the time was that um it was worded in a way that it didn't give us
02:13:01 give us free license it did limit us and it did only allow us to be used behind a non-combustible cladding but the limitations you say are the fact that it doesn't constitute
02:13:12 are the fact that it doesn't constitute a formal approval under the building regulations which forgive me is just obvious from the fact that it's a certificate and that it contains the sentence about putting a non-combustible liner
02:13:24 putting a non-combustible liner onto still framed systems yes those are the limitations yeah and it also mentions that the um the substrate and the cladding must be of
02:13:33 of limited combustibility yeah i know it breaks down the masonry and the steel frame but it also says that the substrate
02:13:41 substrate must be of limited combustibility now that can either well at the time as i said earlier today my understanding was that was either a masonry background or a steel stud with a non-combustible
02:13:52 or a steel stud with a non-combustible lining that was my terminology in my head that i thought was what it meant so therefore the certificate said you had to have a substrate of limited combustibility it also mentions that the cladding had to be a
02:14:03 mentions that the cladding had to be a limited combustibility too can we go back uh please to philip heath's
02:14:10 heath's great news email at kin405383
02:14:26 great news email at kin405383 i understand you've already told us that you've seen this before i just want to look at it again he says there great news please find attached labc approval for
02:14:37 please find attached labc approval for k15
02:14:39 k15 and then he goes on to give a summary i suppose of um what labc approval is and what the certificate does what the benefits are
02:14:52 does what the benefits are i'm going to ask again at this stage did you understand what it was that philip heath saw as cause for celebration
02:15:05 only the fact that um we've got um another labc approval following the um previous with the tapered insulation i didn't see it other than anything more
02:15:16 didn't see it other than anything more than
02:15:16 than it was a nice to have but i would certainly not use it as a cart blanche approach to go out there to say that you can use k15 behind all
02:15:28 to say that you can use k15 behind all types of cladding and forget doing fire testing that is not how i
02:15:33 not how i read this at the time well if we look at the third paragraph of his email please he says this the highlight of this certificate and supporting documentation is the requirement under b4 of adb
02:15:46 is the requirement under b4 of adb external fire spread and then he sets it out verbatim from the approval since k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility and do you see that he's even used bold
02:15:59 and do you see that he's even used bold font there for the words material of limited combustibility yes that is the particular section which is the focus of his celebration isn't it clearly
02:16:10 clearly if clearly with yes but i can i can't understand what was going through philip's mind when you wrote it but you're right he has highlighted the material limited combustibility but if you carry on
02:16:22 combustibility but if you carry on reading that paragraph yeah what he could have highlighted was
02:16:29 in the latter circumstances the cladding system
02:16:32 system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirements for limited combustion that should have been highlighted in his email
02:16:38 email well forgive me that's the second time you've referred to that that sentence and i'm trying to understand how you think
02:16:44 think that assists in in making the situation clearer what it says is in the latter circumstances now that is a reference to those parts
02:16:55 now that is a reference to those parts of a building more than 18 meters above ground isn't it in the previous sentence
02:17:02 so in the latter circumstances meaning over 18 meters the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirement for
02:17:13 must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility the word also mean meaning in ordinary language
02:17:19 language as well as so the cladding system the outer panels and the substrate must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility
02:17:31 requirement for limited combustibility as in as well as k-15 as though k-15 meets that requirement that's in fact what that says isn't it yes um what i don't know is is that a
02:17:43 yes um what i don't know is is that a mirror image of what was written or is that philip text that's being used there but all i remember is a mirror image i can confirm that
02:17:52 that okay thank you all i can record is that i do not know why he highlighted it in bold
02:18:02 and all i can recall is that as far as i was aware
02:18:06 was aware the cladding had to be of limited combustibility and so did the substrate before our product could be considered
02:18:16 right he also uses uh i think if we can go down
02:18:20 go down to the next page please perhaps to the top of the next page he also uses bold font for your name there do you see that special thanks go to andrew pacquiao's consistent
02:18:31 go to andrew pacquiao's consistent endeavors driving this forward with the labc
02:18:36 what what what were your thoughts on that at the time
02:18:43 i guess he was just thanking me for the um small amount of work that i did on the um
02:18:52 the um system approval i i other than just saying thank you i do not recall what was behind highlighting my name in bold no but he's not thanking you for your
02:19:03 no but he's not thanking you for your small admin role is he he's thanking you for your consistent endeavors driving this forward i'm not quite sure what the indus the consistent endeavors driving us forward entails
02:19:14 entails um because there certainly wasn't consistent endeavors from my side so is it fair for me to put it in this way
02:19:22 way from this email it looks as though this is a pretty important moment in the story or the life of k15 and your evidence is that you don't
02:19:33 and your evidence is that you don't really know why that is it was a nice to have and you don't know why
02:19:39 why he's focused on the words material of limited combustibility yes all right can we look very quickly please at a press release it's kin-408748
02:20:03 press release it's kin-408748 the date on the top left hand side is the third of july 2009 yes
02:20:10 and we see this kingspan first to make the grade with labc
02:20:19 all right do you know who kingspan would routinely send their press releases to no do you remember ever seeing this one no right
02:20:34 can we just go no we'll leave that there i think we'll leave that one there i'm going to take you now uh to
02:20:44 uh to i'm going to talk a little about uh what happened after the labc certificate was obtained in may 2009
02:20:52 2009 we don't need to go to it but mr heath has given evidence to this inquiry to the effect that following that certificate being obtained he gave instructions that no further large-scale fire testing
02:21:05 no further large-scale fire testing should be carried out on k-15 did he give that instruction to you
02:21:13 you no not as far as i recall were you aware of that instruction or that that was the effect of having obtained the labc certificate no i was not aware
02:21:27 can we just go back please to kin40s
02:21:38 5383
02:21:43 and to the second page please
02:21:49 we've already seen there that's where he offers special thanks to you yes and then in in the second part of that sentence he says so this is towards the end of the first line
02:22:00 the end of the first line and for the time being this should complete the toolkit for k-15 rain screen board do you see that yes what does that mean
02:22:11 i do not know
02:22:16 do you remember seeing that at the time no
02:22:20 no do you remember the technical advisors being told that their toolkit for selling k-15 was now complete now
02:22:36 was now complete now and then last line in the event you require further information on this please contact either andrew or myself
02:22:46 myself do you see that yes do you remember seeing that
02:22:54 no why was he directing queries to you
02:23:00 i can only think because i was obviously the person that was um involved with the um the labc type approval
02:23:14 so i can only think that he put me on that email because of that um yeah obviously this system type approval um
02:23:24 um this obviously only had a um a three-year shelf life i believe as well and um
02:23:29 and um the appropriate people were involved in the certification following on from this uh document um i believe it was around 2009 just after this
02:23:41 it was around 2009 just after this happened that i actually moved into emerging markets and um the uh pre uh the subsequent uh document i believe
02:23:51 believe changed to some other format um which i was never involved with from the mo so from the moment that that email was sent out from phil
02:24:02 that email was sent out from phil heath saying about this labc document i've never been involved with labc since that date um the appropriate people have now been involved over the last 12 years i believe it has
02:24:14 over the last 12 years i believe it has been updated every three years it's not called an lbc type approval anymore
02:24:19 anymore we've got a registered details document and we've had um the technical projects team working on that every three years to update it i have no idea what the new approvals look like
02:24:31 idea what the new approvals look like these days but as to why he put my name on that document i could only think it was because of my involvement with obtaining that lebc yes and did you receive any queries or
02:24:42 yes and did you receive any queries or inquiries about it can you remember when the document came through in may 2009
02:24:49 2009 um i was then starting to look into australia
02:24:53 australia new zealand and asia so my remit changed and
02:24:57 and my focus turned away from the uk so i never had
02:25:01 never had any um email correspondence any sort of further communication in regards to this certification so i never got any feedback or
02:25:12 so i never got any feedback or what was the outcome of this document um so
02:25:16 so all i can say is at the moment that that was issued that was the last that i had involvement with it mr peck those are the end of my questions for you for now but i'm going to um hand over back to
02:25:29 but i'm going to um hand over back to the chairman because it may be that there are questions from others at this stage so if you could wait for a moment please yes well mr packet when council's got to the end of her questions we
02:25:40 the end of her questions we always have a short break because there are other people following the inquiry who need an opportunity to consider whether there should be further questions asked so
02:25:51 questions asked so we're going to take another short break now until
02:25:54 now until i think 20 to 5 our time i'm sorry this is going on into the evening a bit for you and i apologize for that but um i don't think we'll be taking too long and we'll come back at 20 to 5 and
02:26:07 long and we'll come back at 20 to 5 and see whether there are any more questions for you
02:26:10 for you all right and please remember don't talk to anyone else about your evidence during the break all right thank you thank you very much thank you
02:40:00 we're back with you are you with us yes good afternoon oh hello again so you can hear me and see me yes i can thank you thank you well now we'll find out from ms troop whether there
02:40:11 out from ms troop whether there are any more questions for you ms troop thank you
02:40:15 thank you there are no further questions for this witness right um thank you very much well mr pack i'm sorry we kept you for the extra quarter now but sometimes
02:40:26 the extra quarter now but sometimes there are for further questions so uh it just remains really for me to thank you very much indeed for making yourself available to give evidence it's been very useful to
02:40:37 evidence it's been very useful to hear what you had to tell us and i'm grateful to you for making yourself available at a rather odd time of day because it must now be what coming up to nine
02:40:48 it must now be what coming up to nine o'clock in your local time yes it is yes we ruined your evening but i'm sorry about that we are grateful too so thank you and there's no more questions and now you are
02:40:59 questions and now you are free so to speak to go and talk to anyone you like all right thank you very much indeed thank you goodbye
02:41:14 goodbye
02:41:40 that's it for the day we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you very much
02:42:04 you