Cross-examination of Tony Milner from Kingspan regarding the company's BBA certificates, testing regime, and marketing of K15 insulation products for high-rise buildings despite test failures.
00:00:14 so
00:00:18 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:21 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr tony miniature so would you ask mr milica to come in please
00:00:39 good morning good morning mr miller chap good morning all right all ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes it's strange yes good morning good morning mr military
00:00:50 morning mr military um so when we broke off yesterday we were in the middle of discussing the uh updated bba certificate from december 2013 if you recall we looked at that
00:01:01 if you recall we looked at that certificate um and i just want to remind you
00:01:04 you of a couple of passages in the transcript before we pick up that topic again if we could go to the transcript from yesterday day 81 page 192
00:01:17 and i want to look at lines 9 to 22. so i asked you now do you accept that this is the first time a bba certificate for k15 made clear that the test data from the mayo 5 test
00:01:29 from the mayo 5 test is only applicable to the specific tested system and that further testing will be required for any other combination of materials and you said yes it's clearer and then i say where you were made aware of this
00:01:41 say where you were made aware of this significant change to the content of the behavior in relation to fire section of the certificate yes i was aware it was evolving and i asked
00:01:49 asked was that something that kingspan had been attempting to avoid something quite that clear and straightforward and you say
00:01:56 you say i don't believe that's the case i believe this is a probably a growing understanding with the bba and you also told us um earlier in your evidence yesterday if we look at
00:02:08 in your evidence yesterday if we look at page 77
00:02:11 page 77 that there'd been a degree of frustration about delays to issuing bba certificates do you recall that yes so at the top of that page
00:02:24 yes so at the top of that page i put a question i say two bba employees have told the inquiry that this certificate was not published till july 2013. that was the april 2010 version and you say that
00:02:35 april 2010 version and you say that would seem like a very long delay even in the context of the bba i say yes and you say we for some time we were very frustrated around the turnaround of these types of certificates with quite a few of them it was always
00:02:47 with quite a few of them it was always frustrating to try and progress getting them released it would often take over a year and then i asked in your experience did kingspan always get back to the bba quickly when suggested amendments were
00:02:58 quickly when suggested amendments were proposed to certificates and the answer was yes so that was your evidence there and you also tell us in your witness statement for the transcript this is at paragraph 7 17 on page 32
00:03:11 7 17 on page 32 that in your view the bba were incapable of being influenced against their will and it was an organization of integrity and their assessment criteria were black and white is that right yes that was your evidence now
00:03:26 yes that was your evidence now i then want to look at some correspondence that occurred in the run-up to that december 13
00:03:33 13 certificate were you aware that the bba had been writing to kingspan since november 2012 seeking approval on a new draft certificate for k-15 to be issued
00:03:49 not specifically let's look at some correspondence on this kin409353
00:04:00 correspondence on this kin409353 this is an email chain between mr meredith
00:04:03 meredith mr clark and mr mills in november um 2012. if we look at the bottom of the chain page five
00:04:14 chain page five what we see is an email from mandy osman of the bba attaching a draft proposed certificate for k15
00:04:23 for k15 we attach for your approval a draft of the proposed certificates which to be sent to the regulatory authorities now technical assessors for comment yes and then she explains what
00:04:34 comment yes and then she explains what the purpose is of you seeing it and in the second sentence of that second paragraph she said this is also your opportunity to comment and request revisions if we move up the chain so that's 5th of
00:04:47 if we move up the chain so that's 5th of november 2012 there's then a chaser email
00:04:49 email sent on the 29th of november
00:04:54 2012. in the next on page four
00:05:01 she chases again further to my email i know we've not yet reviewed received your approval of the certificate we'd like to maintain progress if we've not heard from you by the 6th of december we'll assume you're
00:05:12 the 6th of december we'll assume you're happy
00:05:15 so she says that to mr mills at that point there's then some further discussion on the same day and then if we go up to page 2 there's an email on 29th of november 2012 at 14 29 at the
00:05:27 29th of november 2012 at 14 29 at the bottom of page two
00:05:31 and mr meredith goes back to the bba copying and joel clark and said okay i've copied my colleague joel who'll probably be leading the way with this work in the
00:05:42 leading the way with this work in the future
00:05:42 future however we shall come back to you as soon as possible and then if we go up the chain still on page two to the next email we can see the bba are chasing again
00:05:55 we can see the bba are chasing again on the 3rd of january 2013. dear mr meredith please when we have your approval of the draft certificate to maintain
00:06:04 progress yes you see you see that and then the question that i want to ask you at this point is during november and december 2012 did any of
00:06:16 december 2012 did any of your team show you the bba's draft certificate do you remember receiving it at that early stage i would have been aware of
00:06:24 aware of of the draft and trying to progress it to something that that team were comfortable with i don't recall
00:06:34 recall getting involved in in the detail of of um what it was was that they were hoping um to get into the certificate right um it does
00:06:48 um it does seem like it it's not happening quickly enough
00:06:51 enough um from our side in this instance yes yes we can see that um and then if we go to the very top email in the chain on page one this is sent by
00:07:02 in the chain on page one this is sent by mr meredith to joel clark and gareth mills he says this
00:07:08 this as gareth has the experience on what we can and cannot get away with we need to take the lead from him and perhaps sit down and work out our approach asap gareth have you drafted anything to the bba
00:07:20 drafted anything to the bba reference this draft that can be circulated now did you know at the time that that was the approach being taken by members of your team i what we can
00:07:31 members of your team i what we can and cannot get away with with the bba no um i think that's quite loose language
00:07:38 language um it was always a um
00:07:45 a um a feedback loop if you like in that we were able to comment on um what we saw as uh the most appropriate content certificate from our point of view um but
00:07:56 but there was always uh you know a strong point of view from the bba as well um so i i don't think it was ever um a coercive or or negative in in that
00:08:08 a coercive or or negative in in that regard i think it was just a to and fro i see so you wouldn't accept that there was a culture of kingspan trying to minimize the limitations on
00:08:19 trying to minimize the limitations on the use of k-15 rather than being transparent and accurate
00:08:25 accurate in in terms of what's in these certificates
00:08:34 i think at all times we were keen uh that the product could be seen in in the most positive light um so we would always do our best to
00:08:45 so we would always do our best to um extend the scope of relevance of the product um in a in a way that was accurate um
00:09:00 but possibly looking at this whether you know
00:09:04 know we are pushing a little bit too far on this occasion it's obviously trying to achieve a balance i see yep let's look at another email chain now on this topic kin405572
00:09:20 it's a long chain that runs from november 2012 to 14th of january 2013. it starts on page 11 with the same emails we've just been looking at from mandy osman of the bba
00:09:34 from mandy osman of the bba asking about comments on the draft and if we go up and then i want to move up to page six there's an email from mr meredith at 16 55 on the
00:09:45 email from mr meredith at 16 55 on the 7th
00:09:46 7th of january 2013. that's it
00:09:52 and he says
00:09:56 we won't be able to get into the detail about the certificate during tomorrow's bba
00:10:02 bba review meeting however we should consider doing asap so it looks like there's going to be some kind of meeting do you remember attending a meeting about the wording of this certificate
00:10:17 no and then if we look on page four when we go up the string there's an email um of the 9th of
00:10:28 there's an email um of the 9th of january 2013 at 1606. and this is from joel clark to mr meredith but you're copied in here so you've become copied in on this string yeah
00:10:40 string yeah and i just want to ask you about this email mr clark says sorry perhaps i wasn't clear i'm fully aware we want it as open and delimiting as possible that's blindingly obvious is it not
00:10:52 that's blindingly obvious is it not however on the basis of some of the comments flying around yesterday my first thoughts are that we're not going to have have it put back to how it was by butting heads i
00:11:03 back to how it was by butting heads i don't even think they'll give us the get out of contact the manufacturer the phrase used more than once yesterday was there on to us even if being used in a tongue-in-cheek
00:11:14 tongue-in-cheek way we're not doing anything immoral or illegal after all it does perhaps reflect the position we are in and then he says if worst case we have to let them say in small letters that anything other than 60 millimeters
00:11:26 anything other than 60 millimeters should be assessed then we need an assessment of suitable weight etc he says he then ends this email i'd love it back to how it was but feel it unlikely
00:11:37 was but feel it unlikely that's all now do you remember receiving that email and reading it i have seen that email yes and was it blindingly obvious that kingspan wanted the certificate as open and delimiting as possible
00:11:50 and delimiting as possible within the realms of what was right and correct yes what do you think is meant by there on to us did anyone ever report back to you after the meeting with the bba and say
00:12:02 with the bba and say by the way they they've realized that there's been problems with the past certificates and they're on to us now did anyone say that to you no not specifically i i think that is
00:12:13 specifically i i think that is what joel is um alluding to in this um again i i think we would always promote our position
00:12:25 we would always promote our position where we could i think it does actually also from the flip side state that the bba didn't let us get away with things you know that weren't accurate and true well we've looked at
00:12:36 accurate and true well we've looked at some earlier versions of the bba certificate where you've accepted already that there were passages in those that weren't strictly accurate um
00:12:50 are you saying that you never pushed for wording that was anything other than accurate is that your evidence yes i see and it's right isn't it that
00:13:01 yes i see and it's right isn't it that they've
00:13:01 they've decided to put an end to the use of the words contact the manufacturer uh joel clark calls that the get out clause there yes um
00:13:12 clause there yes um and that phrase didn't appear anymore in the the
00:13:15 the the the behavior in relation to fire certificate that's right isn't it after that yes now let's look at some correspondence from near at the time the amended
00:13:26 from near at the time the amended certificate was issued now on the same subject kin405870 and if we go down to the second page
00:13:37 and if we go down to the second page there's an email from mandy osmond um on the 6th of december at 14 48 attaching a revised copy of the final draft
00:13:47 draft and and saying that they would welcome your approval
00:13:53 and then moving up to the next email we see that gareth mills has forward the final
00:13:58 final draft to joel clark and to mr meredith
00:14:04 copy of the updated draft of the k15 certificate which came through on friday i've not had a chance to look over it yet
00:14:11 yet and then if we look the next email in the chain we see their 10th of december 2013 joel clark then
00:14:19 then sets out his thoughts to mr mills and mr meredith
00:14:23 meredith and he says just been going through this the first paragraph is now exactly as it used to be which is very good news both versions attached for easy reference
00:14:32 reference there's a mention of some potential restrictions at 8.2 and 8.3 as per the following
00:14:38 following and he says what they are 8.2 note 1 that was a footnote this test result relates only to this specific construction etc and then 8.3 the product
00:14:51 and then 8.3 the product incorporated in the construction defined at section 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level fire breaks should be used at every floor level after the first floor
00:15:02 floor level after the first floor and mr clark goes on given that the note 8.2 is in the smallest possible font and buried deep in the certificate itself we have made significant progress when compared with the last draft the wording at 8.3 could be read
00:15:15 draft the wording at 8.3 could be read as a restriction but logically speaking it does not preclude the use of other thicknesses and then personally i believe this certificate is now acceptable at least insofar as it's much less restrictive than it was and i do not
00:15:27 restrictive than it was and i do not believe we'll get any joy in trying to have this last restriction removed happy to take on board comments though before going back to the bba
00:15:37 and that that footnote at 8.2 we looked at that do you remember yesterday in this much smaller um font
00:15:47 can you explain to us why kingspan would consider it significant progress that the accurate limitation about the test result was in the smallest possible font and buried deep
00:15:58 smallest possible font and buried deep in the certificate no um i i don't agree with joel's comments on that occasion um i i think it's it's internal
00:16:10 i i think it's it's internal communication it's
00:16:14 i still believe that the process of um getting to the content of these certificates was robustly
00:16:25 was robustly monitored and managed by the bba um that there is evidence there that you know that that team were i think pushing a little bit harder than they should have been
00:16:37 they should have been but they were trying to get to the best wording
00:16:41 wording by compromise with the bba can we look at the top email in this
00:16:48 chain we can see there that um this has been copied to you this chain your cc'd onto mr meredith's response
00:17:02 your cc'd onto mr meredith's response to mr clark
00:17:07 yes mr meredith said thanks for your persistence with this next week we could have some new test results
00:17:16 results now do you remember seeing joel clark's email at the time i i will have yes i don't recall it specifically now
00:17:27 specifically now and you say you didn't agree with his comments on that occasion or you don't agree with his comments on that occasion did you say anything to him about this you're one of his managers did you
00:17:38 you're one of his managers did you say joel that's simply not acceptable that can't be the approach that we take did you ever say that i don't recall that i did specifically to joel
00:17:49 that i did specifically to joel um he would have reported directly to iva
00:17:53 iva um there were constant um interventions with the team about
00:18:00 about what what is and isn't appropriate um it it absolutely isn't an excuse but this is internal correspondence these guys
00:18:09 guys work closely together and i think the language is is a bit loose honestly see was this behavior condoned by you at the time
00:18:20 time looking back on it no no
00:18:25 now if we can go back to your witness statement
00:18:28 statement and look at what you tell us at paragraph 7.34 on page 36 of your statement
00:18:39 this is where you're dealing with the this issue of the certificate on the 17th of december 2013 we can see that from the top of the page
00:18:50 and you're asked why was a second issue of this certificate produced at this stage and you say i can't recall from memory however for the purpose of preparing this witness statement i've been shown internal email correspondent
00:19:02 been shown internal email correspondent which leads me to believe that kingspan requested that the bba make changes to the bba certificates for all of the cool phone products to reflect
00:19:10 reflect new agreed lambda values and subsequent to this the bba made the decision to fully reissue the bba certificate for k-15
00:19:19 k-15 to reflect these new lambda values but also to upgrade regulations and add a new acoustic section within the certificate the amendments were to do with thermal efficiency rather than
00:19:30 efficiency rather than fire performance now that's simply not correct
00:19:33 correct is it no not on the evidence of that chain
00:19:36 chain it looks like they did a complete review of the certificate um given that there were other changes that needed to be brought in yeah now
00:19:50 just staying with the bba certificate but moving on to to the nhbc and what they were told
00:20:00 if we look at paragraph 7.39 of your witness statement on page 38 now
00:20:10 actually we should pick it up the question before so if we look at the bottom of page 37 you're asked the question were you ever aware
00:20:18 aware were you aware prior to the issue of the certificate of any issues raised with kingspan by the nhbc in relation to the use of k15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters if so please describe the issue or
00:20:29 if so please describe the issue or issues please explain when and how these were raised by and with whom and any action kingspan took and you say no i was not aware
00:20:40 and then but in fact what we know is that
00:20:44 that the nhbc wrote to kingspan regarding the change to the bba certificate and raising concerns that it was not mentioned to them at a meeting that was had on the 17th of
00:20:56 at a meeting that was had on the 17th of january 2014. if we can look at nhb 506
00:21:08 this is an email from dave white of the nhbc
00:21:12 nhbc to richard bromwich and mr meredith you're not copied into this and the subject is fire performance of k-15 over 18 meters
00:21:23 over 18 meters and in the second paragraph of this email he says i think we that we established and agreed at our meeting in january that the k-15 insulation product had only been tested for five performance to bs 8414 where k-15 boards
00:21:36 performance to bs 8414 where k-15 boards are installed using direct mechanical fixing onto solid masonry block work backing wall now did you know that that had been established at the january meeting with
00:21:47 established at the january meeting with the nhbc
00:21:51 i don't i don't ever recall seeing this email
00:21:54 email um that doesn't mean to say i wouldn't have reviewed it once i got involved with the nhbc discussions later i see and then in that last paragraph he says um or the next
00:22:07 last paragraph he says um or the next paragraph down please could you read the attached memo which explains our concerns with regard to the recent re-issue of bba certificate 084582 we would very much appreciate
00:22:18 084582 we would very much appreciate your response to these concerns and any update that you can provide on further accredited testing that may be underway and if we can then go to that memorandum so they attach a memo
00:22:29 so they attach a memo that's a nhb 50675 [Applause] if we could look at the top of the page first
00:22:41 first it's headed bba certificate for our performance of kingspan k15 and they say in the top paragraph since our last meeting on 17th of january 2014 we have become aware that a newly issued
00:22:53 we have become aware that a newly issued version of bba certificate has been issued for kingspan call for k-15 insulation board i second issue 17 december 2013 the re-issue of this bba
00:23:04 december 2013 the re-issue of this bba certificate was not part of the discussion at the previous meeting to discuss
00:23:08 discuss fire performance of kingspan k15 insulation on external walls over 18 meters however from this meeting nhbc had understood that further testing would be scheduled by kingspan
00:23:19 would be scheduled by kingspan to test the k15 product in compliance with bre-135 recommendations including typical representative types of wall buildup for framed multi-storey buildings
00:23:32 for framed multi-storey buildings and then they go on following the january meeting no further test reports have been forwarded to nhbc standards and technical to show how the k15 insulation board product can perform within typical framed wall
00:23:44 can perform within typical framed wall building structures under the testing divine
00:23:46 divine defined by bl-135 and 8414 for five performance of multi-story building envelopes now um can you help us as to why that
00:23:57 now um can you help us as to why that amended bba certificate for k-15 had not been mentioned to the nhbc at the meeting in january 2014. uh my conclusion would be that it hadn't
00:24:10 uh my conclusion would be that it hadn't been
00:24:10 been actually issued at that point or it hadn't been passed through to um the sales representatives of the company
00:24:22 the sales representatives of the company if it were it was an issue on the 17th of december i don't know when we would have
00:24:27 have received physical copies that we were then
00:24:31 then able to distribute
00:24:35 what mr white does in the re in the passage of the memo after the bit we've read is he goes through and he looks at the differences between the
00:24:46 differences between the the bba certificates he says looking at the reissued version of the certificate amendments now exclude important information on fire resistance testing that's been carried out in terms of the
00:24:58 that's been carried out in terms of the following
00:25:00 following and he sets out some passages and he says the above information has been removed and then if we can look at the last three paragraphs you can go down
00:25:15 three paragraphs you can go down he says this in the last three paragraphs i hope that you can appreciate that it is important for us to understand under what technical basis the changes were made to bba certificate 08452
00:25:28 to bba certificate 08452 in reading through the new certificate it now appears less clear than before in providing key information relating to fire performance in design we are very much aware that key aspects in fire performance of building products
00:25:40 in fire performance of building products are very important in making correct design decisions for safe construction particularly of tall residential buildings over 18 meters high where design related information on fire performance is ambiguous this will
00:25:51 performance is ambiguous this will increase the possibility of misinterpretation and may create greater risk in terms of the decision making needed to provide adequately designed fire resistant buildings clarification
00:26:02 fire resistant buildings clarification on the above would be much appreciated as well
00:26:04 as well as well as any updated information that you can provide on the additional fire performance testing that either has been carried out or is currently in progress since our meeting in january
00:26:15 in january so um it's clear isn't it that the nhbc were very concerned about aspects of this new 2013 certificate
00:26:26 aspects of this new 2013 certificate yes from that yes and were you aware at the time
00:26:29 the time of those concerns not at the time this was issued i don't recall seeing that letter actually at this stage i
00:26:38 stage i i understood that iva along with richard bromwich were managing the the nhbc query
00:26:47 mr white specifically asks for any information about testing that's recently been carried out or was undertaken or was being undertaken
00:26:59 we can see that in this uh email he's asking
00:27:02 asking in this memo he's asking for any in that last paragraph any updated information that you can provide on the additional file performance testing that either has been carried out or is currently in
00:27:13 has been carried out or is currently in progress
00:27:15 progress can you help us why had kingspan not already told the nhbc about a test to bs 8414 part 2 carried out on the 7th of january 2014
00:27:26 carried out on the 7th of january 2014 which could not be classified to br 135 no um at that time we didn't see um any value either way in issuing
00:27:37 see um any value either way in issuing um those failed um tests um i think we we did change a position on that
00:27:43 on that um somewhat later in in the correspondence with the nhbc and actually did disclose um those tests as well
00:27:56 if we could go now to kin 402169
00:28:07 this is a letter almost a month later on the 20th of march 2014 from mr meredith to mr white and it appears to be his
00:28:18 appears to be his mr meredith's response to dave white's memo that we just looked at and if we go to the bottom of page two of the letter
00:28:28 we can see you are copied in to this letter
00:28:32 letter yes now does that help you recall whether you were aware of dave white's
00:28:40 white's uh email and memo as well as this response
00:28:44 response at the time i would likely have reviewed that
00:28:47 that in yes and probably supported either in creating a response yes and did you discuss do you remember discussing this response with mr meredith before
00:28:58 meredith before this letter was drafted and sent i can't recall a specific conversation no
00:29:05 no if we go up to the top of the letter
00:29:14 if we could look more at the content of the letter um in summary what he says is that the bba certificate was
00:29:24 was reissued due to its age do you see that at the beginning of the second paragraph yes the revised bba agramond certificate was reissued due to its age the revised
00:29:35 was reissued due to its age the revised content was agreed with the bba as being representative and appropriate at the time it went to print and then he carries on about the testing um he says that the omission of the test
00:29:47 um he says that the omission of the test report number from the certificate for the may 2005 test to 8414 was an oversight that's in the seventh line of paragraph two
00:30:00 of paragraph two three lines up from that in that paragraph the omission of the actual test report number is an oversight by the bba
00:30:07 the bba however we would trust that the fact that we have tested to 84141 is apparent and shall address the emission during the next certificate review and then he goes on in the next paragraph to say that the
00:30:19 paragraph to say that the en 13651 testing is a about fire resistance and not of direct relevance to k15 at height now the bba certificate was not renewed
00:30:31 now the bba certificate was not renewed simply due to its age was it
00:30:34 no no that's um not strictly accurate it may have been part of the reason and kingspan had fought to keep its content regarding fire performance as
00:30:46 content regarding fire performance as unrestricted and broad as possible do you agree yes that was the approach whilst maintaining it was still accurate
00:30:57 whilst maintaining it was still accurate and then if we go to the penultimate paragraph of this letter on page two
00:31:07 so sorry let's just look at the top of this page first before we get to that we can see he says for clarity our opinion is it is our opinion that
00:31:18 opinion is it is our opinion that our cool 70k 15 product would be fit for purpose if installed onto a non-combustible substrate horizontal cavity barriers and then it's talking about the labc
00:31:30 and then it's talking about the labc registered detail certificate there do you see that yes that's wording that we've seen many times before um and then he goes on about kingspan
00:31:41 um and then he goes on about kingspan installation have tested it to 84141 in the next paragraph fitted to a non-combustible substrate behind a non-combustible cladding system and then if we look in the next
00:31:54 and then if we look in the next paragraph
00:31:56 paragraph he says as discussed at our meeting in january kingsville insulation limited do have an ongoing test regime around facade test standards to increase the applicability of cool therm k-15 used in
00:32:07 applicability of cool therm k-15 used in high-rise
00:32:07 high-rise above 18 meters and hope to be able to bring some further evidence to our meeting in april at your offices in milton keynes so it would appear doesn't it that that
00:32:18 so it would appear doesn't it that that failed test on the 7th of january 2014 had still not been mentioned to the nhbc by this time it would appear that yes
00:32:31 and the day before this letter this letter is the 20th of march um on the 19th of march a second test to 8414 part two had been carried out on a
00:32:42 part two had been carried out on a system
00:32:43 system incorporating k-15 hadn't it yes why is that not included in mr meredith's letter
00:32:51 i don't know what stage we would have been at in in understanding uh the outcome of that test um i i don't know and that tested system
00:33:02 i i don't know and that tested system could not in the end be classified to bl-135
00:33:06 bl-135 could it no no now you were specifically asked in your witness statement whether you were ever made aware of any concerns raised in respect of the
00:33:17 concerns raised in respect of the content or wording of any bba certificate and your response was no i was not can you explain why that was your answer given the documents that we've just looked at
00:33:29 looked at yes purely that i hadn't recalled this early correspondence with the nhbc uh front mind was the the correspondence lately with them
00:33:44 i see and you accept now that there are aspects of this response which are not entirely satisfactory would you agree
00:33:58 in terms that it doesn't fully disclose the
00:34:01 the the ongoing testing that and that it says that the bba certificate was updated due to its age yes i'd accept it on those two yes
00:34:12 let's move to a different topic now which is the the testing to 8414 part two that was carried out on systems incorporating k15 during your time as head of technical we've already touched on some of these
00:34:23 we've already touched on some of these tests from january and march 2014 and i want to now ask you a little bit more about this and for now i just want to ask you why was that program of testing started at that time
00:34:34 at that time in early 2014 [Music]
00:34:38 [Music] from memory we were looking to do some additional tests around obviously broadening what information we were able to use
00:34:48 to use to support the inquiries we were getting as the discussion with the nhbc developed we accepted
00:35:00 developed we accepted their concerns and actually conceded that we would allow them to um help
00:35:07 help formulate that testing regime going forward
00:35:11 forward [Applause] it's right isn't it that by january 2014 the nhbc had requested evidence of compliance for any systems other than the one tested from may 2005. we've seen that
00:35:25 tested from may 2005. we've seen that do you agree and it's case that they'd also been an ultimatum from wintec in october 2013 hadn't there that they were going to express their
00:35:37 that they were going to express their concerns publicly about k-15 did those two matters have something to do with the decision to start testing again
00:35:45 again yes all of those matters yes
00:35:50 now i want to look at this point at a spreadsheet that kingspan have provided to the inquiry this is kin3z0
00:36:04 so this is a spreadsheet where they've provided details of all the 8414 tests carried out on k-15 commissioned at the bre prior to the 14th of june 2017
00:36:17 14th of june 2017 and if we look on page 3 we can see the january the 7th of january 2014 test and that was the first test after after some time there'd been tests in
00:36:29 after some time there'd been tests in 2007 and 2008 but then a gap in testing that's right isn't it yes
00:36:36 yes and we can see that on the 7th of january 2014 the system that was tested three columns along was eight millimeter trespa
00:36:44 trespa fr hpl which is high pressure laminate yes
00:36:48 yes yes and the test result was a fail it was terminated early and it's right isn't it that it also failed the thermocouple requirement on the temperatures
00:37:01 temperatures um i don't know off the top of my head um and it says that um if you look in the middle of that page under the column properties of the
00:37:12 page under the column properties of the tested insulation product that they're unknown are you able to help us with precisely what the insulation product
00:37:23 precisely what the insulation product was that was tested in that january 14
00:37:34 test [Applause] [Music]
00:37:42 my investigations um since or getting up to speed with the issue documents since the inquiry was known i was
00:37:56 the inquiry was known i was under the understanding that that was a
00:38:01 a modified product a trial product if you like
00:38:05 you like [Music]
00:38:06 [Music] the the only reference that i could find was um
00:38:09 was um something in the lamination meeting minutes
00:38:13 minutes i i believed it could have been a phosphoric acid modified product
00:38:21 um but i'm not a hundred percent confident on that this test must have required quite careful planning given that there'd been no tests
00:38:34 given that there'd been no tests up to that point and it they were clearly these were important tests weren't they yes so did you were you aware at the time that it was a modified version of k15 that was being
00:38:46 modified version of k15 that was being trialled in this test
00:38:51 yes and why did you think that was
00:38:57 because of the experience on on not being able to get a result to the part to test
00:39:01 to test with the the claddings that we tried previously
00:39:07 so does it follow that you were aware by this point that there had been problems with the k-15 itself either k-15 you're selling the new technology k-15
00:39:18 technology k-15 in terms of how it performed in those 2007-2008 tests yes in terms of trying to achieve a pass with those systems yes no that's not the
00:39:29 with those systems yes no that's not the question i asked does it follow that you were aware by this point that there had been problems with the k-15 itself in those earlier tests no
00:39:39 so you're saying that you you knew that there was going to be a modified product for this first test yes why
00:39:50 yes why why didn't you think that you should be just testing k-15 you're selling why did you think it was appropriate to test a modified product at this point because of the experience of of trying
00:40:01 because of the experience of of trying to
00:40:02 to broaden the scope of applicability with a wider test program [Music]
00:40:09 [Music] the experience had been in trying to get a
00:40:13 a system approval with the um new technology k15 had been negative we hadn't been able to do that
00:40:24 able to do that the the result we had got in the 2005 test was
00:40:28 test was with what was contrived at the time to be the least onerous condition clearly to extend the scope you would have to test something more onerous
00:40:40 test something more onerous and the experience had been that the product we'd use previously um wasn't given us those results i see so does it follow from that answer
00:40:51 i see so does it follow from that answer that you were aware that there'd been issues with the k-15 itself in terms of its performance in those 2007 and 2008 tests
00:41:02 in terms that it will have a contribution to the outcome of the result yes and that's why you were testing a modified version of k15 in these tests is that right yes yes
00:41:18 this test this january test is not one that you mentioned in your witness statement at all the january 2014 test
00:41:27 okay is that because you just forgotten about it at the time or can you help us as to why that is
00:41:38 i can't i i in my mind i met i may have actually
00:41:42 actually conflated this test with the one that preceded it they were both a similar construction and i may have got the two i see okay so the next test if we look down on this
00:41:54 so the next test if we look down on this schedule was the 19th of march in the next row
00:41:58 next row this was a test again these are all tests to eight four one four part two it was terminated early because flames breached the top of the test rig that's right isn't it it is and
00:42:10 that's right isn't it it is and in this spreadsheet what we see is it was carried out on trespa decorative rain screen board so a different trespa product yes fail for early termination
00:42:21 for early termination and then we can see there it says trial product
00:42:25 product thickness 80 millimeters foil unperforated now just looking at that foil there was it your understanding that the january test had also been carried out on an
00:42:36 test had also been carried out on an unperforated foil
00:42:41 i think that's most likely yes and it's most likely isn't it because concerns had been raised by mr meredith and others about what the perforations were doing to the fire
00:42:53 perforations were doing to the fire performance that's right isn't it that was one of iva's considerations yes yes and we can see so it's an unperforated foil
00:43:05 unperforated foil it's either 50 micron or 100 micron so that's significantly thicker than the normal k15 the new tech k15 foil which is 25 micron
00:43:18 the new tech k15 foil which is 25 micron yes
00:43:18 yes yes and we can also see that the core it says it's r 330 uf calcium carbonate and polyol blended add it blend added and then we've got alternative
00:43:30 and then we've got alternative blowing agent and would you agree that that alternative blowing agent was something called solstice yes
00:43:41 solstice yes and it's right isn't it that you you were aware at the time that this test was not being carried out on the k-15 product actually being sold to market it is right yes
00:43:57 and are you aware now that that test has been withdrawn as at october 2020 yes as a the opening statement from kingspan yes
00:44:08 the opening statement from kingspan yes because i think we touched on it yesterday
00:44:10 yesterday i think despite the fact it was a fail some of that test data did make its way into desktop assessments were you aware of that
00:44:19 i think i have seen correspondence to that effect yes yes and then while we well we're on this spreadsheet just looking at the landscape here we've got then the july the 7th of july 2014
00:44:34 test we can see that that is on a terracotta tile
00:44:39 tile taylor maxwell standard classico terracotta tile and we can see that that's a pass this time
00:44:48 time and then in the properties of the untested insulation product that's also a trial product yes and again were you aware of that at the time yes and the foil says perforated and
00:45:00 and the foil says perforated and unperforated 50 micron foil so it's a thicker foil yes it's 50 microns yes and is it is your understanding at the time that
00:45:11 is your understanding at the time that it had one side that was perforated one side unperforated i don't recall but i have no reason to doubt that at all can you help that test that july test
00:45:25 can you help that test that july test did adrian pardita have any involvement in the planning of that test
00:45:37 uh it's difficult i i don't recall at what stage adrian became more involved he would have been in a a
00:45:48 more involved he would have been in a a marketing role at this point marketing and product development in which case yes i believe i believe he would have had some involvement the fire focus group was steering the
00:45:59 the fire focus group was steering the direction of these tests um there was obviously growing concern that we we wanted to extend
00:46:08 extend the body of evidence and therefore naturally
00:46:11 naturally more people have got involved in making those decisions yeah and can i just ask you you probably don't
00:46:19 don't find it possible to help with this but
00:46:23 as i understand it you're saying that the board that was used for this test had one
00:46:28 had one side with perforated foil on one side with unperforated yes do you happen to know which way around it was fixed onto the substrate
00:46:40 i i would assume given iva's concerns that the perforated side would be against the structure so the unperforated side activates
00:46:53 but that's you can't actually remember um how it was done i assume it was no i can't it may appear from the
00:47:01 from the report yes definitely um there may be photography as well as the the sample being erected dismantled right thank you i'm afraid the test report doesn't help us on that is it not
00:47:12 report doesn't help us on that is it not no
00:47:13 no okay well the test report says is k15 you don't see from the test report that it was an alternative k15 and what the differences were
00:47:24 differences were thank you um and and just on that july test we can see
00:47:31 see in that middle column it says alternative blowing agent and again this was a solstice blown product wasn't it it was yes yeah now i'm going to ask you some more questions specifically now about that
00:47:43 questions specifically now about that test carried out on the march um in march 2014 to 8414 part two if we can go to
00:47:54 kin3021907
00:47:58 and we start on page three
00:48:02 and what we see here is an email in the middle of that page from stephen howard 25th of march 1044 and he says i've discussed the test with
00:48:14 and he says i've discussed the test with phil
00:48:15 phil and the current status is that you do not have a clear pass and then on the same day if we go to the email above that that email is forwarded to you
00:48:28 that email is forwarded to you to mr rochford
00:48:31 and a number of others on the 31st of march
00:48:36 march yes
00:48:39 um and then if we go up again on page two mr meredith's emails on the 31st of
00:48:48 31st of march at 13 23 he says to you and others initial feedback from the bre is that this test did not meet the requirements of br135 third edition
00:49:00 of br135 third edition this is by no means the end of this as we will be challenging this opinion and doing everything possible to get something usable out of the testing whether this be an assessment for a different cladding or a
00:49:12 assessment for a different cladding or a shorter build or we try and get them to issue a report based on the earlier version of the standard
00:49:20 the test is being dismantled this week so hopefully we can demonstrate very little
00:49:24 little flame spread on the k15 and this will support the counter arguments that we are preparing and he says as mentioned we have a meeting with tennos arab ifc and trespa plan to analyze what
00:49:35 ifc and trespa plan to analyze what we've learned so far as limiting the use of k-15 to just non-combustible cladding types would be a big loss i spoke to malcolm on friday and he advised we should proceed with the non-combustible
00:49:46 proceed with the non-combustible terracotta cladding so that was the next test in july to terra cotta following this news from the bre are we still in agreement about this i shall know the end of the week when i
00:49:57 i shall know the end of the week when i need the insulation for the next test buy
00:50:00 buy however the question remains about the insulation we choose to use is it possible to share the calorimeter results of the solstice versus standard versus phosphoric that we performed at ftt last week
00:50:12 that we performed at ftt last week what would be ftt can you help us
00:50:22 anyway it doesn't matter he goes on does this support our views on the flammability calorific content of the different
00:50:30 different phenolic foams this would be good to look at alongside the video now taking this in stages um were you aware of what the counter
00:50:43 um were you aware of what the counter arguments were that were being prepared yes
00:50:52 ftt i can only assume will have been a test laboratory yes thank you yes now you tell us in your witness statement for the transcript that's at paragraph
00:51:03 for the transcript that's at paragraph 11.3 on page 53 you say this about the bre you say well we're keen we were keen to receive feedback with respect to tests i strongly believe that our interactions
00:51:14 strongly believe that our interactions with the testers did not influence them yes that's your evidence
00:51:19 evidence but do you accept that you did try to influence them by your interactions with regards to this test in particular this test in particular yes i had quite
00:51:30 this test in particular yes i had quite a strong view um on my interpretation of the br 135 criteria
00:51:40 if we look at paragraph 11.6 of your statement on page 54
00:51:48 in the third line of 11.6
00:51:55 starting on the right hand side you say this kingspan was not able to suggest amendments to the content relating to the observations and results of the test either product's performance as this was
00:52:06 either product's performance as this was entirely within the bre's remit and expertise the types of comments that kingspan could make were restricted to the physical description of the product tested
00:52:17 of the product tested now that's simply not right is it
00:52:22 it's not happened with it's not what happened with this march 2014 test is it well actually the outcome was we we accepted their decision and our protest didn't change anything [Applause]
00:52:36 yes but you say kingspan was not able to suggest amendments to the content relating to the observations and results the types of comments that kingspan could make were restricted
00:52:48 could make were restricted to the physical description of the product tested sorry yes i i think what i'm saying there is is that obviously we couldn't influence
00:52:57 influence the wording of the outcome of the actual test um it isn't strictly true in that we were able to obviously have some
00:53:08 some uh feedback with them but the actual um results or the the outcome of a test was the bre's remit
00:53:20 was the bre's remit isn't it right that for this test you did actually get a test report out of them and then used it for desktop assessments uh i believe that was the case yes yes
00:53:31 uh i believe that was the case yes yes let's go back to mr meredith's email that we were looking at kin3021907 on page two
00:53:44 in the second line he says that uh we'll be challenging this opinion and doing everything possible to get something usable out of the testing what did you understand him to mean by that
00:53:55 at this point it wasn't an official result
00:53:59 result um based on [Applause] predominantly it was my view that um there was some ambiguity in in whether the the
00:54:09 the the fail mechanism was um valid or not i believe at this point we we were hoping that we we may actually um
00:54:20 actually um get the bre to reconsider that their position
00:54:23 position at that time um i was keen to you know ensure that we had that conversation in a timely way that we we weren't issued
00:54:33 issued um with an official fail before possibly that we'd then have to challenge and get taken back and reissued i'd hoped that we might be able to get
00:54:44 we might be able to get our point of view considered before the actual result was
00:54:51 but you issued end up getting something usable out of this didn't you in the end that test report we've just discussed that was then used in desktop assessments yeah i i believe yes uh around this time
00:55:02 yeah i i believe yes uh around this time um
00:55:04 um we be we were actually um given feedback that there was value in in all test reports whether they were a pass or a fail um and an assessor could use that
00:55:16 um and an assessor could use that information and what you're trying to do here aren't you is
00:55:21 you is to say you can see it from the second paragraph say that they demonstrate there's very little flame spread on the k15
00:55:28 k15 so
00:55:31 you're trying to use this test to demonstrate that the k-15 is performing okay even though you've kept telling us again and again that you did know it's a
00:55:42 and again that you did know it's a system test yes yes because that information is is valuable to an assessment
00:55:52 if we go up the chain on page one there's an email from gwen davis at the bottom of that page he says surely we risk making fools of ourselves trying to
00:56:03 risk making fools of ourselves trying to quarrel with them based on an earlier edition of br135 now that's what you were doing wasn't it you were by this point there was a new edition of bl-135 from 2013 that made it clear that it was the whole
00:56:15 that made it clear that it was the whole test duration of 60 minutes that counted not just the first 30 minutes that's right isn't it i'm not a hundred percent on the um chronology of
00:56:27 the um chronology of the various br135s that were released in relation to this test but you can take it from me that there was a third edition of br135 in 2013
00:56:39 in 2013 right yes and that and that does seem to make sense in terms of why gwyn davis is saying we're going to make fools of ourselves trying to quarrel with them based on an early edition of bl-135
00:56:50 bl-135 because it was in that third edition that it made it clear that the full duration 60 minutes was relevant i didn't feel that that was clear that that was the basis of the
00:57:01 clear that that was the basis of the um our position that we presented to the bre
00:57:06 bre yeah i believe there was a um proposal to actually
00:57:14 better confirm the test duration in the actual standard as well that was proposed after this right and then mr davis goes on in that first paragraph i feel we need
00:57:26 in that first paragraph i feel we need to understand why they're terminating terming this is a fail and how they've come to this decision and then discuss internally the counter to this and meet with phil
00:57:34 with phil and stephen so that would be phil clark and stephen howard yes of course it would have been and then if we go to the top email in the chain you write on the same day
00:57:47 you say sorry it's not the topic it's the next one along you say let's not forget we're carefully pushing bre for the results typically this is not issued without the full report after four to five weeks
00:57:58 full report after four to five weeks in the short term we're just trying to understand our options whilst waiting for the full data and trying to sow some seeds to influence that result in the event we do not get what we aim for stronger tactics will be employed
00:58:11 for stronger tactics will be employed and then obviously lindsay's welcome to attend a dismantle we must be careful not to be too forceful at this stage i will concurrently employ our solicitor to ensure they are fully briefed to
00:58:22 to ensure they are fully briefed to support a challenge or defend any ongoing contracts
00:58:28 now can you help us what do you mean by we're trying to sow some seeds to influence that result yes just that i wanted to ensure that
00:58:40 yes just that i wanted to ensure that our point of view was understood um prior to the result being issued my interpretation of that classification was that
00:58:53 that classification was that the second half hour of the
00:58:59 test wasn't actually um considered within the past fail criteria i think there there is wording to that effect um they did give us their point of view and and their
00:59:10 their point of view and and their clarification on that which um ultimately we were obliged to accept um but as i said that there was then a proposal to put an amendment
00:59:23 a proposal to put an amendment in the actual standard itself to further clarify the 60 minute duration and i felt that at least demonstrated that there was some ambiguity at as a minimum
00:59:37 ambiguity at as a minimum but it's more than that isn't it you say it was to ensure that our point of view was understood prior to the result being issued you're actually wanting to try and influence the result aren't you by putting pressure on the bre
00:59:49 putting pressure on the bre but based on our understanding of the pass fail criteria yes and then what were the stronger tactics that will be employed if you don't get what you're aimed for what did you mean by that we'd consider
01:00:01 what did you mean by that we'd consider that this stage that we we could uh formally challenge um we'd had raised a uh official complaint with bre
01:00:12 raised a uh official complaint with bre just to ensure that it did get considered properly
01:00:18 and so did one of those tactics involve threatening litigation and bringing lawyers involved i i don't know whether that was was was
01:00:30 i i don't know whether that was was was ever
01:00:32 ever said to the bre it was just something that we considered to make sure that our point of view was properly
01:00:40 considered
01:00:44 if we then go to the email at the top of this chain
01:00:50 at the top of page one actually sorry let's it's a look in a different email chain now kin3010461
01:01:04 this is an email from you to stephen howard at the bre on the 7th of may 2014
01:01:13 and you copy in to this email you cc toby randall of fennick elliott solicitors do you see that
01:01:22 that yes and then you say we write further to our ongoing correspondence and prior to our meeting later this week and then we would confirm the following having just
01:01:34 confirm the following having just received the full thermocouple data and video footage of the part 2 test 19th of march it is clear the past failed criteria for the first stage of the test was met all as per the original indications on
01:01:45 all as per the original indications on the test day does our firm believe the second section of this test does not have a pass-fail criteria this being confirmed within bl 135
01:01:54 135 b24 and is for recording observations only
01:01:57 only it should also be noted it was confirmed immediately after the test by your mr phil clark that the test ran to a full one-hour duration and was not terminated we do accept that some transient flaming was evident above the
01:02:09 transient flaming was evident above the full rig height although would not classify this as flame spread as referenced in the standard
01:02:14 standard the insulation fire barrier at this point was not compromised in any way and the test ran full duration and then for clarity based on data we received we would interpret this as a positive result against the bl 135
01:02:26 positive result against the bl 135 assessment criteria and should this be interpreted any other way by yourselves we would intend to appeal the result formally and then you look forward to
01:02:38 exploring it further with them and you refer to a meeting later this week yes if we can go briefly now to bre four
01:02:49 if we can go briefly now to bre four zeros
01:02:51 zeros three five seven six
01:02:55 we can see
01:02:59 that just from these emails that in fact a complaint was lodged if we look at the email at the bottom of that page a complaint was lodged with the bre about this test
01:03:10 about this test yes and she this lady mariambodian is responding in her capacity as complaints coordinator i've taken this to mean that you intend to lodge a formal complaint she says
01:03:21 to lodge a formal complaint she says that at the end of that first paragraph and then your response the in the top email of the chain is hello murray and many thanks for acknowledging our position my
01:03:32 acknowledging our position my interpretation of the current situation is that we do not yet have the formal results
01:03:37 results my comments were based on stephen's initial assessment which we are to discuss further tomorrow and that tomorrow was the 9th of may 2014.
01:03:47 2014. um now you refer to that meeting in your witness statement if we can go to that at page 54 paragraph 11.7
01:04:02 you tell us there i recall one significant meeting in which i was involved with iva meredith and two individuals from the bre i do not recall the date of this meeting we were very keen to understand the parameters of a test result that had
01:04:13 parameters of a test result that had been interpreted as a failure based on observations from the second half of a bs 8414 test now given what we've just been looking at is it likely that the meeting you're describing here was that meeting on the 9th of may yes
01:04:26 was that meeting on the 9th of may yes about the march test yes
01:04:30 and then
01:04:35 you can you go on i believe that subsequent to this meeting they clarified their understanding of the test and if we go over the page
01:04:51 so if we could go to page 55 of the witness statement yes um thus lending credence to the necessity for clarification
01:05:03 necessity for clarification um and if you if we pick it up again four lines down on the right hand side beginning we you say we had interpreted from the available guidance documents
01:05:14 available guidance documents and approved document b that the observations from the second half of a bs-8414 test did not factor into whether a test is a pass fail now can you help us you refer to approved document b there we can't find
01:05:28 approved document b there we can't find anything
01:05:28 anything in a pre-document b that gives you any details about the pass-fail criteria in bl-135 it merely just refers to br135 as an alternative route
01:05:40 to br135 as an alternative route yes can you help us as to what you mean there we had interpreted from the available guidance and approved document b that the observations from the second half hour didn't factor into the pass fail i think
01:05:51 didn't factor into the pass fail i think that should read br135 right thank you
01:05:57 and did the bre explain this to you at the meeting that you then had that their their interpretation of the latest version of br135 was that that second
01:06:08 version of br135 was that that second half hour
01:06:09 half hour did factor into whether it was a pass fail
01:06:14 yes they did explain um i believe their explanation was on the basis and i can't recall the wording from br135 but there is um wording that talks about um
01:06:28 um wording that talks about um without any early termination of the full fire load yeah um their their justification was that the full fire load included um the system components on the
01:06:42 included um the system components on the rig
01:06:43 rig and not just the uh the um i'd interpreted it as as the crib and therefore any
01:06:52 early termination of the full fire load would have to have been before the 30 minutes
01:06:57 minutes which led me to believe that the past failed criteria was in the first 30 minutes and not the second 30 minutes that being supported by the second half of the test being
01:07:08 of the test being for observations right our understanding is that their explanation was based on clause 8.5 of the test standard itself so they actually referred you to a paragraph in the test standard itself
01:07:20 paragraph in the test standard itself yes in 8414 yes and and the upshot was that the bre did not agree with you did they they they stood first they did stanford yeah
01:07:33 if we can go to bre three zeros one five five
01:07:36 five nine two this is an email you sent to the bre on the 21st of may if we go third email down at the bottom of page one and on to page two you send to the bre on the 21st of may
01:07:50 you send to the bre on the 21st of may you say dear marion we write further to our ongoing correspondence in respect of the above testing in order to clarify the specific details of our claims and then you say at the top of that page
01:08:03 and then you say at the top of that page at a recent meeting friday the 9th of may between you mr stephen howard and mr tony baker out either meredith and myself we confirm we still wish to receive the test report according to the test standard
01:08:15 according to the test standard and would also like a classification against br135 and and then you say points verified at the meeting include full-time test report to be supplied at
01:08:26 full-time test report to be supplied at the earliest opportunity the test was valid and accorded to all needs of the standard video evidence from the real world camera was requested now that second bullet point
01:08:39 now that second bullet point you say this is a point verified at the meeting
01:08:42 meeting that's not what the bre said to you at the meeting was it that's what you wanted
01:08:47 wanted no no valid meaning that the test was undertaken in accordance with the standard not that it was a positive result i see
01:08:57 but you also wanted i see you're saying it was agreed at the meeting was it that interpretation against the criteria is not limited to the bre
01:09:08 criteria is not limited to the bre yes i see
01:09:11 yes i see [Applause]
01:09:16 now the bre had not agreed to provide a classification report to br 135 have they
01:09:27 no no not according to that if we could look at this point at 6.8 of your witness statement on page 25
01:09:40 and i want to look at the second part of that paragraph fourth line from the
01:09:46 bottom actually if we pick up five lines from the bottom you say the test criteria was very important in understanding the performance in future tests however such criteria are completely
01:09:57 however such criteria are completely within the domain of the bre it was important to understand this at a high level to help inform the test regime
01:10:04 regime those who understood it had read the document itself openly available to read and through experience
01:10:13 now did you believe in may 2014 that it was open to kingspan simply to interpret the 8414 test data itself to br 135 and reach a different
01:10:24 itself to br 135 and reach a different conclusion from the bre no that would have had to have been via another
01:10:29 another independent body
01:10:32 using the br135 criteria they agreed that that
01:10:36 that that was possible and you say that such criteria are completely within the domain of the bre do you see that there yes in that they wrote the the classification standard
01:10:47 classification standard yes so they understood how those systems should be interpreted and they understood full well the pass fail criteria yes yes if we go back to your email
01:10:58 yes if we go back to your email to the bre of the 21st of may bre 3015592
01:11:03 3015592 on page two and look at the penultimate paragraph on page two you say this this issue is of such
01:11:14 you say this this issue is of such significance to kingspan's business that we've consulted with our lawyers who've confirmed that in their view bre's current position cannot be justified
01:11:22 justified we recognize the influential position bre hold and do not wish to contradict its views
01:11:27 its views however our conviction is such that we may have no other option now that was a clear attempt to put pressure on the bre to change their decision on the matter do you accept that
01:11:38 that yes we setting out our position yes
01:11:43 if we can go now to an internal bre chain
01:11:52 bre3015594 and the third email from the top um what we can see is that
01:12:03 your email has been forwarded to debbie smith by stephen howard
01:12:12 and she says please see the bit in yellow
01:12:18 and then going one email we can see that debbie smith asks stephen howard for the background she says obviously i'm unaware of the background to this it appears as if
01:12:30 background to this it appears as if kingspan are challenging a test failure based on our interpreter interpretation of br135 is this correct if so what's the specific problem and then if we can go
01:12:45 up again in this chain stephen howard says there were flames over the top of the rig at about 43 minutes this in our view means that the test at that point is terminated and if you do
01:12:56 that point is terminated and if you do not run for the full 60 minutes you cannot be classified against bl-135 kingspan insulation are contesting the interpretation this email was sent for info really i suspect that they will get
01:13:07 info really i suspect that they will get a
01:13:07 a an other to offer a classification against the test report now did kingspan ever approach any other organization or individual to try to obtain a br 135 classification for that
01:13:20 obtain a br 135 classification for that march
01:13:20 march test i don't recall that we did know no and it follows therefore that nobody else ever classified that to bl-135 did they
01:13:30 they no
01:13:33 no [Applause] mr chairman i think that's a good moment for a a break yes at this point right that's okay i'll take a break at this point mr minichat we're going to have a short
01:13:45 mr minichat we're going to have a short break we'll come back at half past 11 please
01:13:48 please and please talk to anyone about your evidence
01:13:52 evidence thank you all right thank you very much
01:14:01 right how fast you level please
01:30:28 you ask mr miller chap to come back in
01:30:32 please
01:30:44 all right ready to carry on mr yes thank you thank you very much yes we're strange
01:30:48 strange yes now moving forward with the chronology um and just thinking back to the nhbc situation now there was a meeting with the nhbc um involving mr meredith
01:31:00 involving mr meredith in april 2014. do you remember that yes and can you remember what mr meredith told you after that meeting about what the nhbc's position had been
01:31:13 no not from memory no now um prior to the july 2014 test which we're going to come and
01:31:24 2014 test which we're going to come and look at in more detail in a moment were you aware that another ultimatum had been issued on the 16th of june by the nhbc about the need for test data
01:31:36 by the nhbc about the need for test data and mr meredith had managed to get a reprieve by saying that there was upcoming testing still to be done are you aware of that yes i was included in all that correspondence i believe yeah so now in terms of the
01:31:49 yeah so now in terms of the we've looked at the march 2014 test in some detail i'm now going to ask you some questions about um what happened from july 2014 onwards and that test first on the 7th of july
01:32:01 and that test first on the 7th of july 2014
01:32:04 if we can look at an email that we looked at already um kin3021907
01:32:15 and if we look on page two
01:32:21 there's an email sent to you by mr meredith
01:32:28 now and this was predominantly about the march 2014 test but in that last paragraph we looked at it before mr meredith is saying picking it up at
01:32:40 mr meredith is saying picking it up at the end of the first line however the question remains about the insulation we choose to use is it possible to share the calorimeter results of the solstice versus standard versus phosphoric that we performed at the ftt last week
01:32:54 that we performed at the ftt last week and that next test would be the test in july 2014 yes yes and it appears to be being decided between you precisely what
01:33:08 being decided between you precisely what the foam would be for that test do you agree
01:33:13 agree yes
01:33:19 and those are references not to the foil facer but to the composition of the phenolic foam itself aren't they the blowing agent essentially yes and
01:33:30 the blowing agent essentially yes and the reference to standard solstice versus standard versus phosphoric was that was standard the ad sold being sold to market k-15 yes it would be
01:33:41 market k-15 yes it would be and phosphoric was that the one you said might have been used in january 20 yes yeah
01:33:49 that's a catalyst change actually i believe phosphoric i'm no chemist but it's not a blowing agent strictly yeah so these were all different types of foam at the time that what all fell
01:34:01 foam at the time that what all fell within the potential k-15 banner yes yes modifications
01:34:13 now if we can look at your witness statement kin zeros two o eight two two one page six and i want to look at paragraph three point nine
01:34:26 and i want to read the last eight lines with you
01:34:36 um and i'm going to read from the july 2014
01:34:39 2014 test was successful it's about eight lines up about two thirds of the way down that so you say the july 2014 test was successful and did meet the br135
01:34:51 successful and did meet the br135 criteria
01:34:52 criteria for the purposes of preparing this witness statement i've been shown documents which suggest that there were uncertainties around whether the product that was tested in these tests might have had a 25 micron or 50 micron four facer
01:35:05 micron or 50 micron four facer i can't remember which of the two four face of thicknesses was the standard thickness of full facer on k15 at the time
01:35:11 time however i do not consider that the difference in thickness between 25 micron and 50 micron is significant enough to make the tested product a different product to the standard k15
01:35:24 so you're telling us in your statement about the
01:35:28 about the change to the thickness of the foil facer
01:35:31 facer you don't tell us to about any changes to the foam itself can you help us on that why was that
01:35:41 purely this this is to address um this this disagreement which it definitely was a disagreement internally between
01:35:50 between what the actual um foil facer was on those tests either had a very strong opinion it was a 50 micron foil um
01:36:02 a 50 micron foil um based on his physical interaction with the product
01:36:08 production insisted almost as vehemently that it it was a 25 micron so akin to the the standard foil
01:36:19 i see and i want to ask you about what you say right at the end of that paragraph you say however i do not consider that the difference in thickness between 25 micron and 50 micron
01:36:29 micron is significant enough to make the tested product a different product to the standard k15 what do you mean by that by that um i think there was a consensus between
01:36:42 i think there was a consensus between myself
01:36:42 myself iva and malcolm at the time that it it was
01:36:46 was a 50 micron foil that was tested it was insisted by production and specifically gwyn davis um that it were at 25 micron
01:36:57 gwyn davis um that it were at 25 micron given it were his responsibility to supply the product um at the time i believe it was agreed that
01:37:05 that it was a 25 micron foil that was tested was was the official position so that statement really is that
01:37:17 in that we believed it was a 50 micron foil if it had been a 25 micron foil it would have had a negative impact on the result rather than a positive one so it
01:37:28 rather than a positive one so it shouldn't have detracted from the end result that we got okay i understand that there's this dispute going on but i just want to understand how you can say how you're saying there
01:37:41 how you can say how you're saying there that the difference in thickness the doubling and thickness between 25 and 50 micron
01:37:46 micron isn't significant to make it a different product
01:37:49 product isn't that actually a very significant change
01:37:52 change it's a significant change in itself but with respect to the test um given it was agreed that there was a thicker
01:38:03 it was agreed that there was a thicker foil that was supplied it wouldn't have had an impact on the outcome of the result
01:38:12 so you say it's a significant change but then you say given it was agreed that a thicker full was supplied what's supplied for the test
01:38:20 test yes yes
01:38:24 and you're saying it wouldn't have had an impact on the outcome of the results that's right was mr meredith contending that from a fire point of view 50 microns was what you needed to try
01:38:35 50 microns was what you needed to try and pass the test
01:38:39 i i'm not sure that was his contention this was purely over what had actually been supplied for the test itself i see
01:38:50 for the test itself i see can i just ask isn't the real question here
01:38:53 here whether the foil on the test sample was the same as that which was put on the ordinary production run what you say
01:39:04 ordinary production run what you say here is you can't remember which thickness of foil was the standard at the time
01:39:10 the time yeah that was definitely 25. was was standard
01:39:13 standard yes so if 25 was on the test sample that clearly was um reflective of the actual product yes but if it was 50 it clearly wasn't
01:39:25 yes but if it was 50 it clearly wasn't correct um and would tend to give a better result this was a uh a trial product anyway so it was never intended to be um the same as the product that was being supplied
01:39:36 as the product that was being supplied but the but the heavier foil would i think you've said tend to give a better outcome than the lighter potentially yes potentially yes
01:39:47 yes yes thank you yes we just remind ourselves what the spreadsheet says about this k-i-n-30
01:39:57 on page three
01:40:01 it says foil perforated and unperforated 50 micron
01:40:08 50 micron and then over the page
01:40:13 foil do you see that there so yes we've seen we appear to have been told by kingspan in its formal position that it was 50 micron 4 that was actually tested which was our understanding at the time
01:40:24 which was our understanding at the time i see
01:40:24 i see generally however it was definitely disputed
01:40:30 disputed i see
01:40:34 did you consider there to be any difference between the fire performance of the standard k-15 and the solstice blown k-15 prior to that test
01:40:46 we wouldn't have understood that prior to that test even though the march 2014 test had been on the solstice blown product sorry yes um
01:41:02 i don't think we'd we tested an exactly similar system with the standard product um according to that earlier test
01:41:12 but i think that there was a feeling yes that it was adding to the success of the test so it was better performing yes had any other tests been carried out
01:41:23 yes had any other tests been carried out to assess the difference in fire performance between standard assault k-15 and solstice blown k-15 there will have been some um smaller scale tests i believe
01:41:34 scale tests i believe around this time we'd actually uh invested in a calorimeter internally um to aid with um qc but also to
01:41:46 um to aid with um qc but also to look at variations between these phones and were you told about what the results of those tests showed i don't think they were available at the time but were you subsequently told about what they showed
01:41:59 what they showed i will have been yes i can't recall the outcome
01:42:02 outcome you can't recall what what what difference there was between the two you can't recall not from the calorimetry no now
01:42:13 if we go now to an email chain from october going into november 2014 kin3021904
01:42:23 and i want to start on the top of page four
01:42:28 four there's an email sent by mr meredith to you gwen davis lindsey hobbs adrian parjita
01:42:38 parjita and it says he tells you i've been advised that the 150 millimeter k15 trial is not usable this is very bad news do we have qc data on the 100 millimeter and 50 millimeter and is it
01:42:50 millimeter and 50 millimeter and is it the same as the 80 and 85 meter products millimeter products previously tested do you know what he means there by what did you understand him to mean by
01:43:01 did you understand him to mean by the k-15 trial in the first line i believe this will have been trying to source a
01:43:09 source a product for the next test
01:43:13 i see um and then if we go to the next email up and the chain page three this is sent by lindsay hobbs at 1923
01:43:25 at 1923 she says this hi iva the 150 millimeter made by
01:43:28 made by teal was crystallized as can happen with solstice blown foam and it was always a risk she says we've looked at the boards
01:43:39 she says we've looked at the boards carried out lab fire testing and cone calorimetry the lab fire tests indicate that the more friable the phone the quicker it burns and the more material is lost through foam being propelled from the sample whilst burning
01:43:50 sample whilst burning the friable foam however did seem to extinguish sooner the initial cone results suggest 150 millimeter ignites much quicker and releases more heat 150 millimeter cracked open more readily
01:44:03 150 millimeter cracked open more readily allowing more sample to burn now going back to that first um paragraph that first line she says the 150 millimeter made by teal
01:44:15 she says the 150 millimeter made by teal who was teal teal is a production site in holland in the netherlands a kingspan site in the netherlands yes and it would appear that what's happened is the solstice blown foam
01:44:27 is the solstice blown foam that you tested in march and july 2014 has crystallized do you see that i think that yes this
01:44:39 do you see that i think that yes this was materially intended to that trial i'm not sure that it actually made it onto that test
01:44:50 sorry you say you think that yes this was material intended to that trial i'm not sure it actually made it onto that test what do you mean made it onto which test the the next um
01:45:01 made it onto which test the the next um large-scale fire test uh after october 2014 yes
01:45:05 2014 yes right yes but what you can see here can't you
01:45:09 can't you is that you can't produce the solstice blown
01:45:12 blown foam can you it's crystallizing um on this instance yes yes yes so the product you've trialled and you've managed to successfully get a
01:45:23 and you've managed to successfully get a pass in july 2014 you know can't be produced for general manufacturing circulation yes no that's
01:45:35 manufacturing circulation yes no that's not my understanding um i believe it was a struggle in this instance to make it at that thickness uh production of these foams is is always more challenging the thicker you
01:45:46 always more challenging the thicker you get
01:45:47 get um i believe ivor had requested as thick apostle
01:45:51 apostle as possible a product um for an upcoming test
01:45:55 test and therefore they had pitched at where they they felt they could get um a good production trial um at the thickest that they possibly could but in this case it had obviously not come
01:46:10 off but this was confirmation wasn't it that it couldn't be produced commercially and you knew that didn't you no it's not confirmation of that at all
01:46:22 no it's not confirmation of that at all this is
01:46:24 this is trying to uh produce some boards for an actual test at um as greater thickness as possible and that production trial has has failed i see it it doesn't translate that we
01:46:37 i see it it doesn't translate that we can't make that product did well did you ever make that source displaying product and and sell it for wider
01:46:43 wider distribution not as k15 but yes in other product ranges i believe so not not during my tenure i believe it was around that time that it there was some transition to
01:46:55 transition to a k um i think there was an additional number one at the beginning of the product description so just to be absolutely clear the product that you tested in july 2014
01:47:07 the product that you tested in july 2014 and that 8414 test during your time as head of technical was never sold for general circulation was it correct and you knew that yeah that's my understanding
01:47:18 understanding yeah did you also know at this time that kingspan was using that july 2014 8414 test
01:47:27 8414 test to support and promote the use of standard k-15 on high-rise buildings
01:47:38 no that well i don't know that i didn't know that but that wouldn't have been appropriate obviously because it's not the same product well precisely
01:47:51 not the same product well precisely you say i don't know that i didn't know that can we can we be absolutely clear did you know that the product that you tested
01:48:02 in the july test the july 2014 test was not then sold in general circulation you've said yes
01:48:14 in general circulation you've said yes yes that's my understanding and then did you know
01:48:18 you know nevertheless that kingspan was seeking to rely upon that july test to support the use of standard k-15 for use above 18 meters
01:48:32 use above 18 meters i i don't recall that i did know that um that this is something actually that uh i know is is referenced in um communications i've since reviewed um
01:48:45 communications i've since reviewed um the move to a new product is is a very significant one um and i i pointed that out at the time that
01:48:52 that clearly if you if you decide that you are then
01:48:55 are then moving to a new product um you have to make that clear i believe i don't believe the product was supplied prior to me finishing at kingspan i
01:49:06 prior to me finishing at kingspan i think it
01:49:08 think it was intended that was the case from this point onwards i believe the product was even named k115 um i think after the fact i don't
01:49:19 um i think after the fact i don't believe it ever got to market um but it it was a different product and it should not have been used to support supply of the standard product did you
01:49:31 supply of the standard product did you ever make it clear to your team that they couldn't use the july 14 test for that reason because that's not what you were selling did you ever make that clear to them
01:49:42 clear to them yes i'd like to hope that i would i don't believe from the test in july um i believe the test report was available
01:49:53 i believe the test report was available from
01:49:53 from december that year well we're going to come on and look at some correspondence but i'm trying to ascertain what your general understanding was and i
01:50:04 general understanding was and i asked you the question which you've not answered did you ever make clear to your team that they couldn't use the july test
01:50:10 test for that reason i they couldn't use it to sell standard k15 i don't know that i did that deliberately in writing but i i feel that would have been obvious because it
01:50:22 that would have been obvious because it was understood it was a different product
01:50:24 product yeah and and you've already said it would be wholly inappropriate to be selling a different product from the one you've tested yes and relying on that different test
01:50:35 yes and relying on that different test correct
01:50:37 correct well let's keep going
01:50:41 it's right isn't it that someone reading a bre test report including that july 2014 test report would just see k-15 wouldn't they they wouldn't be told that it was a solstice blown k-15 with a
01:50:54 it was a solstice blown k-15 with a one side that was perforated one side unperforated thicker foil that was never said was it about the product
01:51:04 i'm not aware how it was labeled in the test it should have been identified as a trial i don't believe at the time it was tested it had a different name um
01:51:15 a different name um but it should have had well the july test report does not say trial it does not say k115 it does not say solstice blowing k15 with a thicker foil face it it just says
01:51:28 with a thicker foil face it it just says standard k15 or it refers to what everyone would have understood as the k15 you're selling to markets yes and you agree that that's inappropriate yes
01:51:41 let's look at some correspondence now um kin30s 20736
01:51:52 this is an email from mr meredith to you and a number of others on the 21st of august 2014. and the subject is comment required by
01:52:05 and the subject is comment required by monday 5 p.m please k15 update and essentially what mr meredith's doing is seeking to update you and others about the events on that product since the last meeting a
01:52:17 on that product since the last meeting a month ago
01:52:18 month ago so he says that in the first lines as the key stakeholders for k-15 i've taken five to update you all on the current situation since our last meeting a month ago
01:52:29 a month ago and you were one of those key stakeholders weren't you because yes you're a recipient um it's also gone to someone called
01:52:45 um it's also gone to someone called actually no that's an error sorry yes so um
01:52:52 looking at the i want to start with the very end of his email on at point six on page two
01:53:02 he says this we've we have issued a couple of standard letters to the larger contractors praters lake smear and confirming our good news confirming pending reports
01:53:13 pending reports and a more general letter confirming test success these are being used by technical and sales for job-specific queries which we are targeting handling within 48 hours of receipt
01:53:25 48 hours of receipt tony malcolm i've not written to stuart taylor at win tech has this been done do you see that there yes so mr meredith is saying that on the back
01:53:37 mr meredith is saying that on the back of the good news and that can only be the july 2014 test can't it yes what kingspan are doing is writing standard letters to the larger contractors praters late mere
01:53:51 and then and confirming test success and these are being used by technical and sales for job-specific queries which we are
01:53:59 we are targeting handling within 48 hours of receipt
01:54:03 receipt so you're using that july test for technical and sales query purposes that's right isn't it yes and you knew that at the time yeah i must have known that at the time yes
01:54:15 must have known that at the time yes and you also must have known that the k-15 that you're selling in august 2014 is not the same k-15 is that which you've tested in july 2014 yes yes um
01:54:29 yes yes um i believe it was fully the intention that the product would change over this was clearly a transition period um
01:54:40 a transition period um but yes it would seem that that's been used to support the existing material can you explain to us how you allowed that to occur
01:54:51 no um it's it's been missed i i was very clear on the fact and i know it's it's it's in correspondence that if if we were to you know make this
01:55:03 if if we were to you know make this significant a change then um it's a very significant change that would signal um a move from the old product to
01:55:15 signal um a move from the old product to a new product and that would need to be clear uh clearly in a transition that this has got missed and overlooked well mr military i'd suggest to you that
01:55:27 well mr military i'd suggest to you that um
01:55:28 um this is not just something that's been missed or overlooked this the way this is written and as the other correspondents will come to it was absolutely deliberate by kingspan
01:55:41 it was absolutely deliberate by kingspan wasn't it it was absolutely our intention
01:55:44 intention to transition to a new product at that time
01:55:48 time i know that didn't happen um and you know that that time step scale got
01:55:54 got it extended but as far as i recall at the point um
01:56:03 when i left kingspan i believe that was still the intention that we would move to that new product and that would be the supplied product but how could you justify that interim
01:56:15 but how could you justify that interim period of carrying on selling standard k-15
01:56:22 only on the basis that you know we would be supporting new specifications that would be satisfied with the new product but i appreciate that there is a risk that that wouldn't be the case
01:56:34 a risk that that wouldn't be the case well clearly here there are projects that you're recommending k15 for and and no one is telling i mean we can't find any correspondence where anybody's told by the way this test was on a new
01:56:46 by the way this test was on a new product that we haven't yet produced so you do need to be aware of that yes yes if we go and look at point one of this email now
01:57:03 mr meredith uh under the heading nhbc bca
01:57:07 bca says a meeting's been held with the nhbc who are who are still pushing for someone to provide job-specific test data they are still sanctioning the use of k-15 as long as they get a bespoke
01:57:18 k-15 as long as they get a bespoke letter
01:57:19 letter off kingspan which technical projects are turning around in 48 hours on receipt of the drawings and confirmation of the fire barrier dimensions now just pausing there you can't have
01:57:32 now just pausing there you can't have thought at the time can you that what he's referring to there is them having explained that there was a new product they're just carrying on selling k-15 as
01:57:44 they're just carrying on selling k-15 as before that's right isn't it that does seem to be the case but again it was fully the intention to move to the new product at that time
01:57:57 move to the new product at that time he carries on they've also given us an extra three months to get some further assessments on the test data to meet their needs we have also requested two weeks notification if they decide to change their stance
01:58:08 their stance steve evans was also involved in the bca publication attached which has been driven by them following the confusion into interpretation of our high-rise regulations i've highlighted some parts of this
01:58:19 i've highlighted some parts of this document as it clearly singles out polyurethane as not being suitable but doesn't mention pf you see that there yes now did you
01:58:31 yes now did you authorize those bespoke letters that were being turned around in 48 hours
01:58:38 yes i believe that was came out of the discussions with the nhbc to support them going forward
01:58:47 at the end of mr meredith's email this email he
01:58:51 email he includes the minutes of an earlier meeting on this these issues held on the 15th of july 2014. if we can see that from page 3 of this document
01:59:03 this document can you see date of meeting tuesday the 15th of july and we can see you were present at that meeting
01:59:14 and if we go to action point un under test reports letters under action point two it says tm would that be you tony military yes assume so
01:59:25 military yes assume so to write reports letters to be used as a marketing commercial tool to announce the result of the test and get on the front foot in the market action tm so it would appear that you
01:59:39 action tm so it would appear that you were to be actively involved in using that july test as a marketing and commercial tool do you agree yes and that's what you did isn't isn't
01:59:50 yes and that's what you did isn't isn't it you went on and did that i believe so yes
02:00:00 and then under the heading market launch which is towards the bottom of page three
02:00:06 three it says there and i think this might be what you were referring to earlier consideration needs to be given as to either launching this product with a new code k20 at and then some figures are given or
02:00:19 at and then some figures are given or keep k15 brand and use across all heights
02:00:22 heights decision will be taken on on this after further testing so some consideration does seem to be given at this point as to whether to launch this product
02:00:33 as to whether to launch this product with a new code with a k20 code but there was certainly no there's no indication in these minutes that anyone was going to stop selling
02:00:46 anyone was going to stop selling the current version of k15 is there no but that that was fully the intention well why isn't that minuted in this meeting you're present at it
02:00:57 at it it's a meeting held on the 15th of july so a week or so after that successful test why don't we see anybody saying well we can't market this
02:01:09 anybody saying well we can't market this yet because it's not the product we're selling
02:01:11 selling we must transfer over to that trial product
02:01:15 product and then we can market it yes i i can only assume that we we planned that this would happen uh quicker than it did at the time
02:01:27 quicker than it did at the time i know that there were um
02:01:31 additional concerns with uh the the solstice
02:01:35 solstice product being commercially viable um that weren't considered at an early enough
02:01:41 enough point can you help us as to why none of that's mentioned in your witness statement to the inquiry
02:01:54 no i i was answering the the specific questions
02:02:00 if we can now go to kin301082
02:02:06 now this is a series of internal emails sent
02:02:09 sent just after that july 2014 test that that successful test on terracotta tiles and if we go to the very first email in the chain at page two
02:02:22 the chain at page two we see that mr meredith at 1607
02:02:27 so on the 7th of july so later that in that afternoon and he's announcing it to you malcolm rochford gwen davis etc bs8414 part two news
02:02:40 bs8414 part two news and he announces the result between 11 30 and 12 30 today we tested cool third k-15 behind a ventilated terracotta rain screen at bre garston we've just had the data provisionally
02:02:52 we've just had the data provisionally verified and it meets the criteria for the full test duration no flaming above the second fire barrier and he attaches pictures so he announces that to the team and then if we
02:03:04 that to the team and then if we move up the chain and just to be clear you're not copied into the emails that then follow but i nevertheless want to ask you about them okay
02:03:12 them okay at 7 34 the next morning the next email in the chain richard bromwich writes to alistair lambie and david collier
02:03:23 lambie and david collier with good news lads
02:03:27 now aleister lambie was the head of business development at kingspan is that right
02:03:33 i'm not sure he would have been at this time i believe richard bromwich would have been
02:03:38 have been in that role at that time i believe alistair
02:03:41 alistair did take that role yeah and who is david collier that was his role he's i believe
02:03:48 believe would have been another business development manager yeah and then we can see a response from aleister lambie ten minutes later you can see at the bottom of that page
02:04:00 bottom of that page so this is very early the next morning 7 45
02:04:03 45 he says effing happy days i think we've just pissed over now extratherm and rockwool marketing campaign
02:04:12 campaign question mark ali
02:04:15 and then what i want to ask you about is richard bromwich's immediate response just a few minutes later
02:04:23 later or almost immediately richard bromwich responds
02:04:28 responds on it mate despite the attempts of slap head miller chap saying we shouldn't because it's not a compelling story guru now
02:04:40 guru now [Music]
02:04:41 [Music] in fairness to you we want to put this to you were you saying that you shouldn't have a marketing campaign because it wasn't a compelling story
02:04:53 compelling story i had pointed out that if if we were moving to that product which was fully the intention then obviously that that product needs to be
02:05:04 obviously that that product needs to be identified as a different product and who would you point that out to uh i've i've seen that in a couple of definitely the fire focus group i think
02:05:16 definitely the fire focus group i think predominantly so the the senior team responsible
02:05:22 right [Applause]
02:05:29 did any of these men know that the test that had been carried out was actually on a research and development product do you know how how widely was that information known within kingspan
02:05:42 that information known within kingspan yes i believe it it would have been i mean
02:05:46 mean richard bromwich was the um most senior representing the the sales
02:05:53 sales efforts um he he would have been kept abreast of those developments um i i don't recall but it
02:06:02 but it i believe he would have been invited to the fire focus group i'm not sure if he attended right what about adrian parjita did he know that it was a trial product
02:06:14 that it was a trial product that was different to that that you were selling
02:06:18 yes i believe it was common knowledge right
02:06:23 right did you disagree in the event with the plan to promote and market standard k-15 on the basis of the test that you knew not to have been on that k-15
02:06:39 i it's difficult to recall the the exact chronology at the time this was written and the the test was being um discussed and and put out there i know
02:06:52 discussed and and put out there i know it was clearly the intention that that would
02:06:54 would be the product that was being supplied and in in that case yes there will have been
02:07:01 been a transition where there was a potential risk
02:07:04 risk of crossover but that that should have been
02:07:07 been a minimal risk as it transpired i i know
02:07:14 the production side of the business weren't able to deliver that product when you know clearly it had previously been
02:07:22 been considered we were able to deliver that product giving it a name and talking about marketing campaigns means you've got a product that we can put to market
02:07:32 market it didn't um obviously transpire that way and i don't believe that product ever ever got supplied no to my knowledge did you ever communicate to anybody
02:07:44 communicate to anybody concerns about public safety or life safety
02:07:48 safety involved with just carrying on selling the standard k15 at this time not specifically in those terms but
02:08:01 no can we go now to another email kin3021
02:08:12 and the second email in this chain is from you
02:08:15 from you to richard burnley on the 12th of november 2014 and the subject is k-15 testing direction
02:08:23 direction and you say further to our meeting of earlier today i've set out our understanding of the published celetex rs 5000 result and its current impact
02:08:34 you go on initially having sourced a copy of celetex marketing blurb we were not surprised of the vagueness surrounding the specifics of this of the test construction notably around provision of fire breaks
02:08:46 provision of fire breaks further efforts finally secured a copy of the actual test report albeit this was missing the relevant pages relating to the test construction upon receipt of the actual construction designs these were reduced to photo
02:08:58 designs these were reduced to photo copies again lacking clarity the reports text references four horizontal fire breaks however the sketch is unclear where how these are positioned i do suspect from their construction designs that a critical panel joint
02:09:09 designs that a critical panel joint that's essential to the test and influence as the result is missing from the celetex design i'm not confident we have enough clarity to challenge this officially with bre we will raise it in any case and then
02:09:21 we will raise it in any case and then you say
02:09:22 you say you're only aware of one project where celetex products products been adopted which involve the same supply chain as their test program we've yet to be asked to defend specification against the product we are
02:09:34 specification against the product we are actively involved in supporting 60 plus projects
02:09:37 projects specifically on the over 18 meter issue whilst we had to financially support the project at first street manchester this specification held and we have not lost a specification since
02:09:49 lost a specification since feedback from specialist subcontractors specifiers and consultants all raised doubts
02:09:53 doubts over the celetex solution in light of the fact we cannot produce k-1500
02:10:00 k-1500 solstice either commercially or from a production perspective i would advocate we test the blended product once lambda and costs are acceptable i've included malcolm's cost
02:10:11 acceptable i've included malcolm's cost assessment to revert to testing standard nt new technology k15 will not support the strategy
02:10:20 strategy we are pursuing with arabs and nhbc but will signal a backward step with significant consequence the above approach assumes we continue to acknowledge differences between the tested products both blowing agent
02:10:32 tested products both blowing agent facing thickness have significant impact all testing has been referenced back to precise batches with control samples as is a requirement of the bre however this does not include a description of the physical differences
02:10:45 description of the physical differences the next test is scheduled for the end of november so in this email 12th of november 2014 far
02:10:56 12th of november 2014 far from being reticent about carrying on selling standard k-15 you're positively pushing it aren't you you're saying to colleagues
02:11:08 you're saying to colleagues we've got to go to head with celetex and we've got to maintain our position in the marketplace that's the thrust of what you're saying i'm supporting at this point we we had committed to that product and and
02:11:20 committed to that product and and that was what we needed to to carry forward with because that's where the test evidence lay
02:11:30 if we go back up and look at the top of the email chain sorry the top of this email you say you'd obtained a copy of the
02:11:41 you say you'd obtained a copy of the bre's test report for celetex on a system incorporating rs 5000. can you help us how did you obtain a copy of that report i understand it was um either supplied
02:11:52 i understand it was um either supplied that to me but i believe it was sourced via the sales team i don't know where they would have got it from right and when you say in the third paragraph i do suspect from their
02:12:03 paragraph i do suspect from their construction design that a critical panel joint that's essential to the test and influences the result is missing from the celetex design how did you come to say that
02:12:15 to say that it was a conclusion that um either had shared with me from from what we could see of the test there was um a panel joint is is expected to be
02:12:27 um a panel joint is is expected to be created um centrally above the crib um to to create a worst-case scenario a weak point if you like in the cladding um i i believe
02:12:40 in the cladding um i i believe i i've suggested that was one way uh by avoiding that joint that um celetex could have been successful right did you ever challenge that
02:12:52 right did you ever challenge that you you float in this email the possibility that you might challenge the celetex result officially with the bre was that ever challenged with the bre
02:13:00 bre not not to my knowledge it may have either may have said something verbally but not that i recall was recorded
02:13:09 and then in that fifth
02:13:14 fifth paragraph down
02:13:18 sorry fourth paragraph down we're only aware of one project where celetex has been adopted you then go on and explain in the second and third lines we are actively involved in supporting 60 plus projects
02:13:30 in supporting 60 plus projects specifically on the over 18 meter issue what do you mean by actively involved in supporting 60 plus projects that would be projects that were specifically flagged
02:13:43 projects that were specifically flagged to be
02:13:44 to be above 18 meters and had had some support from the technical department right and then you you talk about the first street manchester project that was the
02:13:55 street manchester project that was the project where we saw the credit note being issued yes and i think you're referring to that here is that right when you say we had to financially support the project yes but what do you mean then when you
02:14:08 yes but what do you mean then when you say
02:14:09 say um whilst we had to financially support that project this specification held what does that mean there from memory there were um two phases or two separate
02:14:21 two separate buildings on that project and i believe the um the first phase there may have even been
02:14:29 even been different project teams i i'm not sure there may have been some consistency with different subcontractors um i don't recall but i believe one of the specifications held on one of the buildings the um
02:14:42 on one of the buildings the um the monetary support was obviously a contribution towards them having to replace the project on the other phase i see so when you say it held iek 15 did get installed onto that particular
02:14:53 get installed onto that particular building
02:14:53 building in that project on one of those buildings yes i believe there was more than one
02:14:57 than one or a different phase of that same building
02:15:01 building and that was a high-rise project i believe it was yes yeah and you go on and say um in light of the fact we cannot produce k-1500 solstice either commercially or from a
02:15:13 solstice either commercially or from a production perspective so contrary to what you said earlier today by this point you clearly know that you can't produce that solstice commercially or from a production
02:15:25 commercially or from a production perspective that's clear in this email isn't it
02:15:27 isn't it yes and when had you learnt that was that because it was crystallizing was that because of what you were told by lindsay hobbs that we
02:15:38 by lindsay hobbs that we previously looked at no this would have been via ongoing meetings with with production whereby they were um
02:15:46 um now suggesting that to make the the product didn't make um commercial sense i believe
02:15:53 i believe the solstice blowing agent itself um there was some uncertainty on whether it were available in the quantities that would have been
02:16:04 would have been required i believe it was a um a completely new product um again that these things were dealt with by production but as i understood it
02:16:15 production but as i understood it um there was obviously efforts for um to be able to source
02:16:22 source that blowing agent in in volumes that would be able to support the production and i believe that whether there were some early arrangements that couldn't be followed through
02:16:33 followed through um but at this point if it can't if you know it can't be produced then there cannot have been any further intention
02:16:42 intention to transition to supplying that product to market can there i believe there was yes there was still an intention to um move the product to a solstice product
02:16:54 product but using a a blended um i don't know what the percentages would be but a mixture essentially of solstice and another blowing agent why do you not say
02:17:06 why do you not say here in this email in light of the fact we can't produce solstice commercially or from a production perspective we cannot rely on that july 14 8414 test
02:17:18 on that july 14 8414 test to market the k-15 we're currently selling
02:17:23 i i i think i reference it albeit tentatively when i talk about as backwards step with significant consequence um i think that should be plainly
02:17:35 um i think that should be plainly understood that the test is on on a different product and therefore it doesn't support can't continue to support what's being supplied into the market that that sentence you've just
02:17:47 that that sentence you've just highlighted where you say to revert to testing standard new technology k15 will not support the strategy wasn't that because so you can't produce the solstice commercially or from a production
02:17:58 production perspective that's the one you've successfully tested and you can't revert back to testing standard new technology k-15 because you know that that performs badly in fire
02:18:08 fire that's right isn't it no my reading of that
02:18:12 that is that to revert to testing standard new technology k-15 will then signal another u-turn with those people that we are
02:18:23 that we are trying to to give additional assurance to
02:18:28 at this point i i believe it was still the intention that we we would move to the new product but how does that signal a backwards step to those individuals when none of them know
02:18:41 those individuals when none of them know anything about these trial products they don't know anything about the new technology performing badly they don't know anything about solstice blown or thicker foils
02:18:51 foils how does it signal a backward step to them
02:18:54 them i i appreciate it it wouldn't of at that time but that the intention still was to to move to a new product launch that new product and at that time um
02:19:06 new product and at that time um that the test evidence would support the product that was being supplied right well i'd suggest to you that a more natural reading of that given everything we know up to this point when you're writing this is that what you're saying is we
02:19:17 this is that what you're saying is we can't revert to testing standard need technology k15 because you knew full well that that couldn't pass in an 8414 test given what had happened in 2007 and 2008
02:19:32 i suppose it could be read that way i don't believe that was my intention at the time
02:19:37 the time yeah i we were fully committed to moving forward with this new product at this point
02:19:43 point right and just to be clear the blended product would be a different product again
02:19:49 again is that right so it would be what part solstice part part what i i don't know that that would have to be a question for production they were at this point
02:20:02 for production they were at this point given
02:20:04 given they were now saying you know that that wasn't a viable way forward they were obviously
02:20:08 obviously look at looking at alternates well you've you referred to you say i would advocate we test the blended product what was the blended product as you understood it
02:20:19 product as you understood it at that point it was a potential route forward that production had identified i see
02:20:41 [Applause] so
02:20:45 so now we can also see if we look at the bottom of this email
02:20:57 that in in the paragraph third up from the bottom you say the above approach assumes we continue to acknowledge differences between the tested products and you say this both blowing agent and
02:21:08 and you say this both blowing agent and facing thickness have significant impact so can we take it that at this time
02:21:15 time you did understand that both the blowing agent and the facing thickness did have a significant impact on the products fire performance yes
02:21:33 and you also tell us that all testing has been referenced back to precise batches with control samples as it's a requirement of bre however this does not include a description of
02:21:44 this does not include a description of the physical differences so is it right that at this time you knew exactly what k-15 product had been tested on every occasion from january march july onwards yes
02:21:58 from january march july onwards yes i believe that was the case i believe production um we're required to confirm that directly to the bre um due to intellectual property i i wasn't
02:22:11 due to intellectual property i i wasn't aware of the the sops for the product
02:22:17 so you accept that you knew that the k-15
02:22:21 k-15 product being sold could not on the basis of
02:22:25 basis of the test data you had be supplied
02:22:32 sorry did you yourself at any stage give any consideration to whether or not this course of action was appropriate and responsible
02:22:44 and responsible yes i i was concerned um we were in a position where we had um committed
02:22:52 committed to supplying another product um and that was getting pulled from andres that that product was now being said it couldn't be produced
02:23:03 produced did you ever have any discussions with adrian parjita richard burnley or malcolm rochford about the
02:23:12 about the appropriateness of carrying on selling standard
02:23:16 standard technology k15 in these circumstances
02:23:27 i will have had but i not that i i can bring attention to or or that was put into writing
02:23:36 now i want to go back now and look at the situation between kingspan and the nhbc again
02:23:44 now it's it's right isn't it that discussions between kingspan and the nhbc
02:23:49 nhbc about the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters
02:23:53 18 meters continued throughout july 2014 and through to the end of that year and into the early part of 2015. yes during that time
02:24:04 yes during that time in any correspondence or meetings with the nhbc
02:24:07 the nhbc in which you were involved did you ever inform the nhbc that the test to 8414 part 2 carried out in july 2014 had been carried out not on as sold k-15
02:24:19 had been carried out not on as sold k-15 but on a research and development product
02:24:23 product i wouldn't have done that personally no um
02:24:27 um that would have been the intention uh and and
02:24:30 and and that would have been something that iva should have done um but i think the position with the transition to a new product not not getting resolve has clearly
02:24:43 not not getting resolve has clearly mudded the waters around them
02:24:47 you say that would have been the intention you mean it would have been the intention to tell the nhbc that absolutely at the point that we knew that the new product could be launched
02:24:59 that the new product could be launched unfortunately that didn't come
02:25:05 what about before that
02:25:08 what about while you're still selling standard k-15 on the back of that july test
02:25:15 would there have been an intention to tell the nhbc about it at that time yes at that time when the new product became
02:25:26 at that time when the new product became available it would have been launched as that
02:25:30 that and been obvious in the market and you said
02:25:33 said iva should have done either should have done what
02:25:37 done what it would have been ivor's job to to communicate that at the point that we were able to supply um i believe his announcement was
02:25:49 um i believe his announcement was intending at informing the direction of travel
02:25:53 travel um and at that time we collectively i believe there was enough confidence that that is what would happen
02:26:01 happen um but that didn't transpire to come to be mr meredith's evidence when he gave oral evidence to us was that he would have been out on his ear had he said anything
02:26:12 out on his ear had he said anything about this to the nhbc do you agree
02:26:19 no i i don't um this to my recollection this was the direction of travel we we were moving from the standard product we were supplying
02:26:31 the standard product we were supplying to a new product the difficulty comes in that the confidence we had in in removing to that new product disappeared um because
02:26:42 um because you know it wasn't able to be made commercially or from a production perspective lately from a production point of view right
02:26:54 from a production point of view right can i just ask the question i'm rather puzzled by this as i understand it your sales team were selling the what we'll call from him the old product the existing product
02:27:05 the existing product yes on the back of or using as a basis the new test result [Music]
02:27:14 [Music] i believe the the new test result had been um announced to the the market um and potentially it was used to support new
02:27:27 potentially it was used to support new specifications on the premise that well you hadn't got a new specification yet had you that's correct but at the time that the information was put to the sales team it was intended
02:27:40 put to the sales team it was intended that
02:27:40 that that would be the case i understand that part of your evidence what's puzzling means how do you launch a new product on the basis of a test that's just been used to sell an old product
02:27:56 i don't believe the intention at the time was that the the test would be selling the old product this would have been writing new specifications um that had not come to be and i thought
02:28:08 um that had not come to be and i thought we'd establish that the july test was being used in support of sales of the existing product i i think that there was a risk that
02:28:19 i i think that there was a risk that that could have happened in in that transition which ended up being
02:28:24 being longer than it should have it was intended or should have been well then my question remains how do you sell a new product let's say you called it k20 how do you sell k20 uh
02:28:36 how do you sell k20 uh using as your support a test which has been used to sell k-15 aren't people going to be a bit puzzled yes and
02:28:44 yes and this is why it would need at the point it could have been supplied to market it would have had to have been identified separately um
02:28:55 um honestly i at the time you're right i i don't
02:28:59 don't think enough thought was given to how that would be identified um that that announcement retrospect was premature
02:29:10 retrospect was premature all right thank you yes
02:29:15 yeah i mean you've said there that there was a risk that you could have been selling k-15 standard k-15 in that transition period on the back of that test which was a
02:29:26 on the back of that test which was a different test but what i'm going to put to you is that that was the deliberate strategy of kingspan at the time and all the documentation supports that it wasn't
02:29:38 supports that it wasn't just a risk that might arise that's what you intended the moment you got that successful test wasn't it that that was never my deliberate intention it was always intended that a
02:29:49 intention it was always intended that a new product would be released um as i say that the fact that
02:29:55 fact that that new product could then not be produced
02:29:58 produced as it was intended meant that that launch got delayed indefinitely in the end
02:30:07 the end um and obviously yes put us in in that dubious position you say that was my never my deliberate intention
02:30:14 intention but were you aware at the time i'd suggest you must have been from the correspondence we've just looked at that others around you were using that test straight away to justify
02:30:25 justify the use of standard k-15 being sold on high-rise buildings
02:30:34 yes i think that information was released prematurely yes and they were doing that deliberately weren't they knowing that it had been tested on a different product you agree
02:30:47 product you agree my only
02:30:50 counter to that is that it wasn't deliberate given that it was our intention that the product would change right let's look at some other
02:31:01 right let's look at some other correspondence now kin406074
02:31:08 we go down um page one from the third email from the top we can see that steve evans from the nhbc on the 14th of july 2014 at 9 49
02:31:23 he says to iva meredith did either please find attached copies of recent communications that nhbc have had with dclg so that's department
02:31:35 have had with dclg so that's department for communities and local government in respect of the fire safety and facades
02:31:41 facades i've also been keeping colleagues at the building control alliance labc and the fire brigade up to date with the progress of our discussions as i think he means stated in the
02:31:52 as i think he means stated in the communication with dclg at our meeting on the 6th of august 2014 nhbc will be looking for evidence from kingspan
02:31:59 kingspan that supports the use of k15 above 18 meters
02:32:02 meters outside of the constraints of the current bba certificate and then he looks forward to seeing you in august
02:32:11 in august and then in the email above mr meredith forwards that to you
02:32:20 he says the attached can be used to justify our need for a meeting why would he say that why would he say to you this can be used to justify our need for a meeting
02:32:31 need for a meeting was there not a desire to have a meeting about this um i i think it's on first reading and i think it's it's the opposite there was a
02:32:42 think it's it's the opposite there was a desire to have a meeting with the nhpc did you read the attachment to steve evans's email i.e the correspondence that he'd forwarded
02:32:53 correspondence that he'd forwarded from the between the nhbc and mr brian martin at dclg [Applause] i don't recall without seeing it well let's look at it now
02:33:04 let's look at it now kin four zeros 6071
02:33:10 and if we go to the bottom of page one we can see that on
02:33:18 yes so this is what he attached so on the 2nd of july 2014 at 11 42 from brian martin to neil smith at the nhbc and mr martin says this hi
02:33:31 at the nhbc and mr martin says this hi neil i've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently allegedly several buildings have been erected where pir insulation has been
02:33:42 erected where pir insulation has been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height apparently people are under the impression that pir is a material of limited combustibility which it isn't again allegedly
02:33:53 which it isn't again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats
02:33:57 flats i have no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively reliable sources the purpose of my email is a friendly warning you might want to double check with your
02:34:08 you might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are
02:34:10 are on top of this happy to discuss regards brian
02:34:15 brian now does this help as to whether you did look at that correspondence that mr meredith had forwarded on to you yes it doesn't bring a recollection but
02:34:27 yes it doesn't bring a recollection but if if it were attached on the email forwarded to me then i would have read it do you remember being aware that there'd been discussions between the nhbc
02:34:38 been discussions between the nhbc and dclg about insulation being used over 18 meters in height in
02:34:45 height in inappropriate circumstances
02:34:49 no you don't remember being aware of that no
02:34:55 if we go to the next email up in the chain this is mr evans's response to brian martin she were also sent you were sent this whole chain
02:35:05 and steve evans says to brian martin dear brian i hope that you're well neil smith has discussed your email with me below and asked me to respond as i have
02:35:16 below and asked me to respond as i have been dealing with this on behalf of nhbc this is an issue that nhbc are well aware of and have been in discussions with industry about it for some time the issue is in respect of the use of
02:35:28 the issue is in respect of the use of kingspan cool them k15 range screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen from kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use in buildings over 18
02:35:39 acceptable for use in buildings over 18 meters
02:35:40 meters however the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible however since 27th of october 2008 the product held a bba certificate
02:35:51 product held a bba certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with the pre-document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 subject to advice being sought
02:36:02 12.7 subject to advice being sought should be sought from the certificate holder
02:36:05 holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height
02:36:11 height it was on this basis that nhbc building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats we understand that labc
02:36:22 that labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters
02:36:29 meters in january of this year we were made aware of a revised bba certificate for k-15 issued on the 17th of december 2013 also attached the new certificate removed the passage which indicated that
02:36:41 removed the passage which indicated that it was acceptable for use in accordance with the pre-document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire
02:36:51 of a fire but that it has only been tested and therefore is only suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls we had a number of projects under construction and in advanced stages of
02:37:02 construction and in advanced stages of design
02:37:03 design utilizing k15 nhbc approached kingspan and made them aware of our concerns as a result of this dialogue kingspan are currently undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments
02:37:15 facade treatments in accordance with eight four one four part two the results from the test are expected by the end of this month and nhbc are meeting with kingspan at the beginning of august at which time kingspan will be asked to provide evidence
02:37:26 evidence that their product can be used in an alternative construction types other than that specified in the current bba certificate there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15
02:37:38 kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material
02:37:49 suitability of the material for use over 18 meters if they are not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters
02:38:00 for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as bca and the fire and rescue service
02:38:05 service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions i trust that this addresses your immediate concerns and i will keep you informed
02:38:14 informed further developments in the meantime if you have any queries please feel free to get in touch now i've read that out in full do you remember
02:38:25 remember reading that and being aware of that yes i would have read that
02:38:32 [Applause]
02:38:36 is it fair to say that dcld's awareness of the situation in july 2014 increased the pressure on kingspan
02:38:45 kingspan to provide the evidence that the nhbc had been seeking
02:38:51 i i don't recall that specifically that there was definitely increased
02:38:59 urgency or you know a need to assist nhbc with their concerns did it give you any pause for thought at all
02:39:09 all in terms of what you were doing at the time that the dclg had now been alerted to these issues and had been told this
02:39:21 issues and had been told this by nhbc did that in any way make you question
02:39:25 question what you were carrying on doing yes we we constantly questioned ourselves and we were being um as collaborative with nhbc
02:39:36 were being um as collaborative with nhbc as we could but what action did you take as a result you say you were constantly questioning did you actually do anything as a result of being aware of this
02:39:49 of being aware of this yes we we continued with a test program to to help satisfy their concerns
02:39:57 did it make you think carefully about whether to keep relying on the july 2014 test
02:40:11 i don't i don't recall whether um that test was identified to the nhbc
02:40:22 identified to the nhbc i know there was a discussion between myself and iva about that test being identified as as not representing the current product that was supplied
02:40:33 the current product that was supplied i don't know how that report was represented to the nhbc
02:40:42 did it give you any pause for thought that the fire and rescue service were said to be aware of these ongoing discussions
02:40:56 absolutely i i never you know took took light of the implications of of a product used in in this scenario
02:41:10 if we can go to your response internally to this it's a kin406075
02:41:21 internally to this it's a kin406075 and if we look at the second email down from the top
02:41:27 of the page so mr meredith said to you below this the attacks can be used to justify our need for a meeting we looked at that earlier and then you
02:41:38 we looked at that earlier and then you respond to mr meredith either firstly please let richard mark and karen know they are not to respond in any way as we have received this directly we will likely need to rebut some of the
02:41:49 will likely need to rebut some of the claims which are inaccurate whilst keeping them on side we do not need to action anything ahead of tomorrow's meeting but i will inform toby randall now
02:42:01 toby randall now toby randall was kings band solicitor is that right yes
02:42:07 now other than steve evans having said in his email to brian martin that k15 was a polyurethane foam as opposed to a phenolic foam which
02:42:18 foam as opposed to a phenolic foam which was clearly an error which claims did you consider inaccurate in what was said in steve evans's email to mr martin
02:42:38 could we go back to the of course so it's at
02:42:47 kin406071
02:42:50 that's steve evans back to brian martin
02:42:57 please take time to read that if you if you need thank you
02:43:34 i believe i was referring to the polyurethane phone i i don't see anything else in there that
02:43:42 that i would question no
02:43:47 and did you have a meeting on the back of receiving this it looks in the emails like you were planning an internal meeting to discuss this did that take place you go back to that kin 406075
02:44:05 you go back to that kin 406075 you talk about don't action anything ahead of tomorrow's meeting what was discussed at that meeting
02:44:14 [Applause] this will have been a a senior team meeting
02:44:19 meeting um to agree on on how we continue to progress the discussions and and
02:44:25 and and hopefully a resolution with the nhbc and would adrian cardita have been at that meeting
02:44:38 quite likely but not necessarily his role was still market and product development i believe this would have been the senior team so the managing director malcolm
02:44:53 did you draw this um correspondence between nhbc and the dcld to the attention of your superiors and if so who
02:45:01 who yes um the i believe from this point uh forward the the entire um content of
02:45:12 um content of of the correspondence and everything that was relayed back and forth with the nhbc
02:45:18 nhbc um was relayed uh via toby randall to keep a watching brief
02:45:26 brief and all correspondence was was copied through
02:45:29 through uh the managing director malcolm roachford
02:45:33 roachford um amongst others i believe uh legal as well at group when you refer to the managing director who you're referring to there peter wilson at that time yeah and what about higher up than that
02:45:46 yeah and what about higher up than that did it go
02:45:47 did it go up any further than that i know latterly um particularly when we were working under toby randall's
02:45:58 we were working under toby randall's direction that was being tracked via lorcan dowd and tommy riley at group right now after this correspondence
02:46:09 right now after this correspondence kingspan sent a letter to the nhbc on the 3rd of august 2014. if we go to that letter kin 402186 sorry sorry yes could i just i believe
02:46:23 sorry sorry yes could i just i believe the managing director at that time was likely richard burnley right um he would have been involved but also peter wilson would have been involved as divisional uh managing director yes
02:46:37 as divisional uh managing director yes thank you
02:46:41 so if we can go to kingspan's letter back to the nhvc on the 3rd of august 2014 kin 402186
02:46:55 if we look at the bottom of page two this letter is signed by mr meredith but it's copied to if we look on the bottom of page two
02:47:07 bottom of page two it's copied to richard bromwich richard burnley and to you yes and do you remember who drafted this letter
02:47:16 i believe that would have been drafted between
02:47:20 between um or all of those there would have been input
02:47:24 input um that could i could i just have a look at some of the content oh of course sorry
02:47:32 so let let's read it um we write further to your correspondence and the use of cool thumb k15 in building facades above 18 meters
02:47:39 18 meters we note your comments it would take this opportunity to correct a number of points
02:47:44 points and in that first paragraph mr meredith corrects the nhbc about the type of insulation kingspan are producing making clear it's not a polyurethane but it's a phenolic yes and then in paragraph two
02:47:58 yes and then in paragraph two he carries on our significant test portfolio
02:48:01 portfolio alongside many precedents in gaining approval standards lobbying and extended involvement with fire consultants over many years has afforded kingspan with a deep understanding of the regulatory
02:48:12 understanding of the regulatory framework in this area given kingspan's confidence the product is fit for purpose and working within this framework our only practical option to demonstrate compliance is via a fire safety
02:48:23 compliance is via a fire safety engineering approach the prohibitive cost and recognized lack of scope of approval within 8414 and br135 demands this now just pausing there
02:48:37 now just pausing there do you know what's being referred to by this significant test portfolio yes there was um a significant amount of information
02:48:48 information um logged with um nhbc at this time it will have included um obviously the the 8414 test result
02:48:59 um obviously the the 8414 test result it will have included the labc registered details bba certificates small scale tests um assessments um i believe even some fire resistance
02:49:10 um i believe even some fire resistance testing
02:49:14 in terms of 8414 testing that was in that portfolio can we agree that that
02:49:20 that that could have only been the 2005 test which was not carried out on the k-15 product actually sold after september 2006
02:49:32 2006 and the july 2014 test which was carried out
02:49:36 out on the research and development product do you agree that's all you had at that time
02:49:40 time that is all we had at that time yeah [Applause]
02:49:47 and what standards lobbying and extended involvement with fire consultants are being referred to in that second line of that second paragraph
02:49:58 paragraph that that will have been ivor's work um in
02:50:02 in british standard committees um and obviously you know over his extended career
02:50:13 and the extended involvement with fire consultants over many years what's that referring to again it would have been um predominantly iva's involvement with um
02:50:27 iva's involvement with um various fire consultants
02:50:39 and and who were those fire consultants did you know when this letter was written
02:50:46 yes um i i believe an awful lot of work was done
02:50:49 was done via x over um we
02:50:56 had also used the names aren't coming to mind but
02:51:04 mind but there was a significant amount of work done around fire resistance in other applications such as
02:51:11 such as um timber frame that either would have been involved with that would have um involved fire consultants uh there was a business based in bristol that i know i ever had a good
02:51:24 bristol that i know i ever had a good working relationship with just to be clear none of that work was on 8414 testing was it some of that work would have been on 8414 testing with uh not sorry not
02:51:36 8414 testing with uh not sorry not testing but assessments i see desktop assessments extrapolations yes i see had the significant test portfolio
02:51:47 had the significant test portfolio actually been sent to the nhbc at this time
02:51:50 time you're talking about before kingspan are talking about a significant test portfolio
02:51:55 portfolio to your knowledge had that actually been sent to the nhbc so they could see that yes
02:52:04 and then if we go on to paragraph um so just to finish off that this page you then say at the bottom for absolute clarity
02:52:15 clarity kingspan insulation a confident call for the
02:52:18 the cool firm k15 can be appropriate for use in the application and would be deeply concerned by the implication nhbc may choose to advise industry to the country
02:52:29 choose to advise industry to the country what did that mean can be appropriate for use in the application does that just mean
02:52:34 just mean over 18 meters yes essentially all uses of the product were referred to as applications whether that was using a wall
02:52:43 wall roof or a floor
02:52:47 and then in the second half of that paragraph it says in the event nhbc were to offer country advice to the wide industry we would request 14 days prior notice
02:52:56 notice in order that we may consider our position further this is particularly pertinent given the number of bodies you've have undertaken to keep informed and then if we can go over the page and
02:53:07 and then if we can go over the page and look at the top paragraph it said as part of the test portfolio we have completed two further successful tests to bs 8414 part 2
02:53:19 tests to bs 8414 part 2 this year and currently await their interpretation to bl 135 now what were those two successful tests to bs
02:53:28 bs 8414 they would have to have been the 2014 tests yes but which ones oh sorry um this letter is being sent in august 2014
02:53:40 august 2014 so you've got the january 14 test the march 14 test and the july 14 test it would have been the march and july tests
02:53:49 tests so you're saying in this letter that that's a successful test even though you knew full well that the bre did not think so
02:54:06 think so yes it was our interpretation that there was some value to be taken from that test
02:54:13 you carry on these tests have been commissioned to demonstrate a range of approval
02:54:17 approval and include scope for insulation thickness and cladding finish type we've also reached some agreement with regards to extending the scope of this testing in line with comments from your dave white with regards to the possibility to put flexible insulation
02:54:29 possibility to put flexible insulation fill between the steel frame stud work now nowhere in this letter is there any mention of the fact that both of those tests march 14 and july 15 were on a trial
02:54:42 14 and july 15 were on a trial product that you weren't actually selling that's not said in this letter is it
02:54:46 is it no
02:54:56 and then you go on as with all large and complex buildings the fire safety engineering approach is recommended as the only practical way of achieving fire safety
02:55:04 safety our test information and its assessment is intended to best inform building control professionals in order that a decision can be made to its appropriateness or as evidence towards compliance via a fire safety
02:55:15 towards compliance via a fire safety engineering approach as allowed by our regulations ultimately the success of the specification depends on acceptance of building control and the wider project team
02:55:25 team and then you say the bs 8414 part 2 report that's attached is a draft that does require some slight adjustments prudent to give you a copy of this document however request this is not circulated
02:55:37 circulated which test report was that that was being provided was that the july i believe that's the terracotta pass pass
02:55:45 and it carries on on receipt of the final test information and arab and bre assessments this will be introduced into the bba certificate and labc registered details
02:55:56 labc registered details however it is the intention of kingspan installation limited to share this information with the nhbc prior to this we trust the above meteor approval should you have any further questions
02:56:07 should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact myself or richard can you explain how that letter came to be written serious concerns have been raised by the nhbc
02:56:19 nhbc you know that the dclg are now involved can you explain how kingspan have come to write a letter in those terms key pieces of information omitted
02:56:33 at the time it was this was all what we believe to be the position
02:56:41 position um as we discussed earlier the the the change in in the in the product for these
02:56:47 for these two tests um was was fully committed to at that time it didn't
02:56:54 didn't come off in that way but for my entire um
02:57:02 the time i worked at kingspan it it was my belief that that product was to be launched and we were working on on that basis that those tests would
02:57:13 on that basis that those tests would represent product that was being
02:57:19 [Music] supplied
02:57:22 supplied well what i'm going to suggest to you is that actually it was a deliberate lie all of this it it wasn't just inadvertent
02:57:34 it was a deliberate strategy on the part of kingspan to deceive not only the nhbc and other professionals but by now potentially dclg
02:57:47 but by now potentially dclg in giving the response you've just given that that was never my intention
02:57:54 mr chairman is that a good moment yes i think it is thank you very much mr minichat we're going to have a break now for some lunch so we'll return at two o'clock please and usual requests please don't talk to anyone
02:58:06 requests please don't talk to anyone about your evidence thank you thank you very much
02:58:18 very much thank you very much two o'clock please