Kingspan Evidence - Thursday 3rd December 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:13 yes would you ask mr milichap to come back in please thank you

00:00:30 right mr miller yes thank you carry on yes thank you yes mr strange yes thank you

00:00:35 you so just one follow-up question from this morning you mentioned at one point that you had some feedback that all data from test reports whether or not that was a pass or a fail

00:00:46 whether or not that was a pass or a fail that all data was useful data can you remember who did you get that feedback from yes it would have been through um consultants that were

00:00:57 consultants that were working on um assessments for the product

00:01:01 product i don't know specifically but it was some feedback that ivor had fed into the mix that um you know there was positives that could come out of um

00:01:12 positives that could come out of um tests that hadn't passed right and you can't remember who the consultants were that you're referring to there

00:01:20 to there no not specifically i it was relayed to me through either so right um i want to move on now to ask you some questions about the involvement of external consultants so on that same

00:01:31 of external consultants so on that same topic

00:01:32 topic um and start starting with um the involvement of arab in issues around the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters in height if we go to your first go to your

00:01:43 if we go to your first go to your witness statement first it's on page 6 paragraph 3.9

00:01:53 if we start from the second line down from the top you say we were also liaising with arab and the nhbc regarding the most efficient testing strategy for k-15

00:02:04 strategy for k-15 it was not practicable in terms of time and cost

00:02:07 and cost to test every single possible variation on a cladding system buildup and so we were exploring the possibility of testing the two ends of a realistic scale

00:02:16 scale so that subject to both ends testing successfully nhbc and arab would be satisfied that any variations in between would also test successfully

00:02:27 would also test successfully now is the time period you're talking about there in 2014 yes it appears to be the case yes and if we can look at also at your

00:02:40 and if we can look at also at your witness statement page 56 paragraph 11. 12.

00:02:48 you say in your statement we also had a meeting with barbara lane and charlotte robin at arab on 20th of october 2014 in an attempt to get an academic perspective

00:02:59 perspective on what the most efficient test regime to conduct would be going forward they had sympathy for the difficulty in gathering a large amount of test data but they did not commit to an answer so the outcome was

00:03:10 commit to an answer so the outcome was unsatisfactory from our perspective so that was the the end result yes you didn't get any assistance from arab is that right yes not not on the larger project

00:03:21 larger project i believe at the time they had

00:03:25 concerns over supporting one particular manufacturer as well and i want to ask now about what you were telling the nhbc about the involvement of arab um

00:03:38 about the involvement of arab um did you tell the nhbc at any stage that they were unable to commit to an answer and that the outcome had been unsatisfactory from your point of view

00:03:49 no i don't believe i did

00:03:53 if we can look at this point there's there's an nhbc report at nhb 50890

00:04:07 this is a report that we've been provided with from the nhbc report on the use of combustible insulation materials within external wall constructions of high-rise buildings and within it are various records of

00:04:18 and within it are various records of meetings that they had with kingspan if we can look on page 14 first first of all and look at the very bottom of the page

00:04:30 it says meeting with kingspan 10th of october

00:04:33 october 2014 mk office is that milton keynes office do you know i assume so yeah and then and it shows that the attendees you weren't

00:04:44 that the attendees you weren't in attendance but mr meredith was and mark swift together with steve evans graham perrier and others of the nhbc john lewis dave

00:04:55 and others of the nhbc john lewis dave white other names that we've seen in the correspondence and then if we go over the page to the next page

00:05:04 next page in the middle of the third bullet

00:05:08 we can look at the third bullet let's bring that up

00:05:16 we can see it says nhbc queried whether the results of both tests together with any other similar tests which nhb has nhbc has not seen had been viewed by a third party fire

00:05:27 had been viewed by a third party fire engineering consultancy at previous meetings kingspan had stated their intention to have results assessed by arab fire with a view to extracting key data kingspan stated that arab fire had been

00:05:39 kingspan stated that arab fire had been approached but at the current time do not hold the expertise in-house to undertake such a review but would consider utilizing a phd student to carry out this work nhbc stated

00:05:52 this work nhbc stated that the time frame for this is unlikely to assist with the current situation on numerous buildings now as far as you were aware you're aware was that true that arab fire had been approached

00:06:04 true that arab fire had been approached it was yes uh as a result of the meeting with um barbara and charlotte there a second meeting was um scheduled a london office i believe um

00:06:17 scheduled a london office i believe um with the view to meeting some um junior staff i believe to

00:06:24 to explore the potential of a phd but as it says there that was never going to be a short term so that's your recollection of the meeting that you had on the 22nd of october 2014 is it so after this time

00:06:37 2014 is it so after this time that we're looking at now sorry my recollection of yes you talked about that you say that there was a meeting with barbara and charlotte in london is that the meeting on the 22nd of october 2014

00:06:50 2014 i'm not sure on the date it would have been obviously after the first meeting um i didn't think there was that much time between the meetings right and did you attend that meeting i

00:07:02 right and did you attend that meeting i did in the london office yes and is that your recollection of it that you discussed whether there might be a phd student available to assist with some work and

00:07:13 assist with some work and yes it wasn't satisfactory because there wasn't is that right oh i don't believe it was dismissed at the time i thought it was there was potential in it for the longer term right and in the fourth bullet point

00:07:27 right and in the fourth bullet point down on the same page we can see that the nhbc asked what the instruction was from kingspan to arab in requesting their appointment for a fire engineering scoping study

00:07:40 fire engineering scoping study the actual brief as given to arab had not been cleared to the nhpc and was not fully explained at this meeting

00:07:50 there was no actual brief that had been given to arab was there at this time not a formulated brief no no it was an initial um scoping exercise i suppose

00:08:01 an initial um scoping exercise i suppose so no such brief uh was ever provided was it because there was no such scoping brief

00:08:08 brief that's right they they weren't able to assist was this just another delaying tactic to try and keep the nhbc happy to try and engage with the likes of arab

00:08:18 of arab and and tell the nhsbc that's what you were doing absolutely not we we hoped that they could

00:08:24 could add some value um we made a similar approach previously to this to the bre as to whether um they could consider

00:08:36 um they could consider you know some form of being able to release

00:08:40 release information generically across their understanding of 8414 testing to help advise industry um again that they weren't able to help

00:08:52 um again that they weren't able to help right let's just look up a couple of emails

00:08:55 emails that were exchanged between mr meredith and um

00:08:59 and um dr lane we go kin403915 and look at page four there's an email on page four sent on the 14th of october 2014

00:09:12 sent on the 14th of october 2014 which you're copied into

00:09:17 and dr lane says either i understand you need to meet us urgently i'm not clear why so we won't be sending you a letter and then she gives some contact details

00:09:28 and then she gives some contact details [Applause]

00:09:33 now given that this meeting had not yet taken place with arab as at the 14th of october can you help us understand why the nhbc had been told

00:09:43 been told four days earlier on the 10th of october that arab do not hold the expertise in-house to help to undertake such a review where did that come from

00:09:55 that come from [Music]

00:09:56 [Music] i don't know i can only assume sorry i can only assume it would have been uh conversations between iva and either charlotte or barbara i see

00:10:08 and either charlotte or barbara i see and then on page three we can see that mr meredith responds to dr lane just under an hour later on the 14th of october and at the second paragraph we can see

00:10:19 and at the second paragraph we can see at the beginning he says having met with the nhbc last week and presented recent eight four one four part two day to test data that meets the requirements of br135 they desire a third party review our

00:10:31 they desire a third party review our test information help justify use of our insulation material in high rise even though if you followed the building regulations and copied the construction tested

00:10:40 tested exactly its use would be acceptable what the nhbc would like is evidence that we're entering into a commitment with a recognized fire engineer to assess the limitations of our test

00:10:52 assess the limitations of our test information against different building types and uses now is that right that it was the nhbc looking for a third party review

00:11:04 i don't think it was necessarily one of the other i think at this stage we were working together to try and find a resolution wasn't it kingspan who'd first raised with the nhbc

00:11:15 with the nhbc the potential involvement of external consultants including arab that's quite possible and then if we

00:11:26 look

00:11:30 within that email in the middle of the second paragraph at line 11 sorry it's quite a dense

00:11:40 there's a sentence that begins we appreciate it would be very unreasonable to expect arab to write a letter of comfort just below the halfway point yes so he

00:11:53 just below the halfway point yes so he says we appreciate it would be very unreasonable to expect arab to write a letter of comfort until you've had a proper chance to review the test information we have collated to date however if we could have something to satisfy the nhbc that we are meeting and

00:12:06 satisfy the nhbc that we are meeting and trying to move towards a situation where we can jointly put together a set of rules for the safe use of our material at height hopefully this would go some way to appeasing their concerns and then we can

00:12:17 appeasing their concerns and then we can see on page two on the same evening dr lane responds and she says as follows who are you dealing with at nhbc i'm very happy for you to say we're meeting but i do not want you to be

00:12:29 meeting but i do not want you to be under any impression we may agree or support anything you may have on the table

00:12:34 table we will be very honest with you when we meet and we're very happy to help so don't take my statement as a deliberate attempt to be unhelpful but it does mean we probably have to agree various actions items before we

00:12:45 agree various actions items before we can be in agreement i'll check in with adam on your conversations but i did discuss this with charlotte and express concern about arab being used in some kind of certification or proof capacity

00:12:56 certification or proof capacity as we will not be associated with products for obvious commercial reasons as i'm sure you can understand i don't want you to be disappointed do you see that and were you aware that that was what dr lane was saying even

00:13:07 that was what dr lane was saying even before the meeting

00:13:20 before the meeting i believe i will have seen um this correspondence i was copied into it um but honestly this is a very early stage and

00:13:31 stage and we hope that they may be able to add some value i see we can see at the bottom of page one in this string that mr meredith responds

00:13:46 he says sorry but by the way you mentioned that we needed a letter i assumed you'd spoken to steve evans and graham perry for the nhbc whom have specifically asked for this although this is perhaps a little unfair

00:14:00 although this is perhaps a little unfair and then he says let's just only discuss this between arab and kingspan and only involve nhbc on job-specific assessment if there's a need

00:14:10 and then it appears that you are then copied in

00:14:13 copied in to these emails because if we go to the very top email in the chain page one you then say to richard burnley for your information ivor has managed to

00:14:25 for your information ivor has managed to accelerate this meeting which was not due until november i'm unsure of the outcome but fear we have no option but to pursue this to a conclusion either way nhbc are close to being very obstructive

00:14:39 nhbc are close to being very obstructive now what did you mean by that in what way were the nhbc close to being very obstructive i think this was um a way of saying that uh nhbc were

00:14:53 saying that uh nhbc were becoming increasingly impatient um and were going to go out to market suggesting that k15 uh wasn't appropriate

00:15:04 appropriate right yes let's look at the notes of the next meeting with the nhbc which was uh in november

00:15:15 sorry the next meeting was on the 22nd of october 2014. if we go to nhb 50890 back to that same document

00:15:28 and then we go to page 17.

00:15:34 we can see there was a meeting with kingspan again on the 22nd of october 2014 and you were in attendance at that meeting

00:15:43 meeting yes

00:15:47 and you're there you're you're said to be there as the european sales director for kingspan was was that right or is that an error that's an absolute error right yeah and then

00:15:59 yeah and then there are bullet points which record nhbc's note of the meeting and if we could start with the second bullet point we can see nhbc expressed

00:16:11 bullet point we can see nhbc expressed its frustration at lack of movement no letter of comfort from bre no involvement from arab and no confirmation that the bs 8414 part 2 tests are acceptable

00:16:22 part 2 tests are acceptable given the amount of ongoing burning and system collapse and then you can see in the third bullet nhbc stated that in its view kingspan had given no additional evidence to support the use of k-15

00:16:36 evidence to support the use of k-15 and then tm is would that be you tony militare

00:16:39 militare yes stated that as the reports showed that the required level two temperatures were not reached this shows that the test was satisfactory tm stated that although the early

00:16:50 tm stated that although the early termination criteria of the 8414 part 2 test were reached during bre test 293940 in kingspan's view the wording of the bs doesn't

00:17:01 doesn't stated that this indicates that the test has failed and then it says subsequent meeting with bre confirmed that an early termination of a test does indeed indicate that the test has failed

00:17:13 indeed indicate that the test has failed now it would appear that you're still referring that that test number 293940 that's the march 2014 test yes isn't it so at this meeting you appear to be

00:17:26 so at this meeting you appear to be arguing the case by reference to that test is that right yes

00:17:35 and then in the penultimate bullet on page 17 if we can look right at the bottom of that page we can see it said tm stated that in their view satisfactory

00:17:48 stated that in their view satisfactory performance of cladding systems using k-15 has been demonstrated and so kingspan saw no reason to progress this matter further

00:17:58 now did you actually consider that to be the case at the time that satisfactory performance of cladding system had been demonstrated no i i'm not sure in in exactly

00:18:10 no i i'm not sure in in exactly what contact context that's being said um kingsponsor no reason oh it was it was clear we were ongoing

00:18:22 oh it was it was clear we were ongoing committed to the product and and demonstrating um its performance so i i don't really understand that comment

00:18:31 comment sorry the comment seems to say that you're saying satisfactory performance of cladding systems has been demonstrated yes but these aren't my words um

00:18:44 yes but these aren't my words um they're as they've been transcribed i suppose

00:18:47 suppose in in an open meeting i see so are you saying you didn't say words to that effect at the meeting i can't recall specifically but it wasn't my view at that time um our

00:18:59 it wasn't my view at that time um our development and you know further support of k-15 and its appropriateness was was absolutely ongoing

00:19:11 absolutely ongoing right and then the final bullet point nhbc stated that must now seek to reject the use of k15 except within the configuration of the first 8414 part one

00:19:22 configuration of the first 8414 part one test using a masonry backing but we'll accept justification from kingspan's fire engineer on a case-by-case basis who was that fire engineer can you help us i don't

00:19:33 us i don't believe that was anybody that was appointed

00:19:37 appointed at that point i think that was an intention moving forward

00:19:42 so what kingsfan said at the meeting that there was an intention to appoint a fire engineer in the future

00:19:59 yes i believe that was an intention that you know if if we were given um information concerning specific projects

00:20:10 information concerning specific projects then

00:20:11 then we could look into an assessment for that

00:20:15 that case i see but you can see the way it reads it sounds like you have got a fire engineer who can justify using it on a case-by-case basis yes that wasn't the case right

00:20:26 yes that wasn't the case right we go now to kin-402188

00:20:32 this is an email

00:20:36 from the nhbc steve evans to you and mr meredith 24th of october 2014. so two days after that meeting it's a long email it's exhibited to your

00:20:47 long email it's exhibited to your witness statement so can i take it that you

00:20:52 you've read it and you recall this email yes and did you read it at the time in october 2014 when it was sent to you i believe it would have done and i'm

00:21:04 i believe it would have done and i'm just going to summarize the first parts of the

00:21:06 of the email because it's quite long what what happens is the nhbc set out their own detailed analysis of the two tests carried out in march

00:21:17 of the two tests carried out in march and july

00:21:21 they take note of the particular way in which the test rig had been designed and arranged

00:21:26 arranged and their analysis does include some criticisms of the systems tested so if you if you look if we could go down the page

00:21:37 if you look if we could go down the page a little bit

00:21:41 just above paragraph three if you just read the words above paragraph three they say for example whilst this arrangement was resistant to early temperature rise within upper story levels the overall fire behavior

00:21:53 levels the overall fire behavior indicated that the facade had only limited fire resistance and continued to burn

00:21:57 burn extensively in excess of 30 minutes so they're making observations on the basis of those two test reports yes and they considered the march 2014

00:22:09 yes and they considered the march 2014 test to have been a fail as they put it yes and then if we could go to the bottom of the second page of his email

00:22:20 bottom of the second page of his email it's a long email i want to ask you about this this part right at the road bottom

00:22:31 right at the road bottom he says our interpretation of this is that an overall risk assessment needs to consider

00:22:36 consider all fire related risk factors within the building

00:22:39 building whilst we would consider this to fall within the role of a fire engineer and as such an assessment to be made on a job-by-job basis the majority of our affected schemes are high-rise

00:22:49 high-rise multiple occupancy residential buildings and so in our view already pose high risks due to and then he sets out some of those risks occupants asleep

00:23:00 occupants asleep defending place fire strategy no simultaneous evacuation of the building no management control of persons entering the building no management control over ignition risks no management control over

00:23:11 risks no management control over occupancy type no fire suppression no common detection and alarm system other than within the flat of fire origin

00:23:21 origin and he continues as such whilst we are happy to continue our efforts towards reaching an agreed view on what the performance reported from these fire tests

00:23:29 tests truly represent we request further justification be supplied by your fire engineer on a generic basis as to how the ongoing burning of the cladding materials up the building

00:23:41 cladding materials up the building as demonstrated in the above tests can be reconciled against the risks posed by a tall residential building

00:23:52 and then he goes on nhbc have technically engaged in discussions with kingspan on this issue since 2013 and then he goes on and sets out some of the exchanges

00:24:05 the exchanges and it goes on four lines down a significant period of time has now been allowed for this by the nhbc we had a reasonable expectation that you would provide a proactive method statement at wednesday's conference call

00:24:16 statement at wednesday's conference call detailing how exactly kingspan intended to resolve the above matters but disappointingly that did not occur which i'm sure you'll appreciate now introduces a very difficult position that cannot be left unresolved we've now been informed that

00:24:27 unresolved we've now been informed that a recognized expert in fire engineering consultancy has indicated that they cannot positively review the k-15 product fire performance data this is understandably given nhbc calls for real

00:24:39 understandably given nhbc calls for real concern as we were assured quite some time ago

00:24:41 time ago that an independent experts review would be undertaken we will now review all aspects of this matter and advise you in due course of the actions we intend to take now that

00:24:54 to take now that that section there [Applause] where they're saying we've now been informed

00:25:01 informed and recognized expert in fire engineering consultancy has indicated they can't positively review the k-15 product information was that arab and dr lane

00:25:11 lane as far as you understood it as far as i understood it yes

00:25:18 and

00:25:22 they refer to that were you aware that dr lane had in fact been contacted by the nhbc

00:25:29 the nhbc following your meeting with her on the 20th of october 2014. no

00:25:38 we'll go to that in a moment those risk factors that are set out there so clearly

00:25:45 clearly by the nhbc about the types of buildings that they're dealing with and that they're concerned about did that not prompt any reconsideration

00:25:56 did that not prompt any reconsideration by you about whether it was appropriate to carry on selling k-15 into the market knowing what you knew about the test data

00:26:08 yes i mean the concerns were there and we

00:26:11 we we understood and shared their concerns and we're trying to work towards um satisfying those concerns with them uh

00:26:23 satisfying those concerns with them uh clearly

00:26:23 clearly it was providing uh proving difficult at this time

00:26:28 this time we were exploring a number of options

00:26:35 but you hadn't told them that you had not even tested the standard product had you

00:26:42 you so they're expressing these concerns and in fact the situation is far worse than than they realize isn't it i was still of the opinion at this time that we were uh intending

00:26:55 at this time that we were uh intending to launch

00:26:56 to launch this new product uh and therefore for projects moving forward those tests would have been relevant to the new project uh new products sorry yes but what about all those buildings

00:27:08 yes but what about all those buildings with these risk factors in them that the nhbc have so clearly spelt out in this email to you what about all those buildings existing buildings yeah buildings which

00:27:19 existing buildings yeah buildings which where you're pushing k15 positively as appropriate at this point based on the july 2014 test what about all of those buildings in the interim

00:27:30 all of those buildings in the interim before you've got this new product which you say you were going to launch

00:27:38 could you rephrase it again for me sorry yes what i want to understand is why you weren't giving consideration to the buildings

00:27:47 buildings that were having k-15 put on them at this time

00:27:50 this time k-15 which was different to that that you tested

00:27:56 that was in consideration as i explained before it was a difficult um

00:28:03 um situation in in transition

00:28:07 that was not i can't say it was beyond my control because i i should have um protested more

00:28:18 um protested more but it was a position which we didn't anticipate we'd be in given that a the replacement product had been

00:28:25 been um developed and and at certain times we we

00:28:30 we felt was ready to supply that that didn't end up being the case and this situation clearly um progressed for too long

00:28:41 um progressed for too long thank you is the reality that you were just in too deep by this point k-15 was on too many tall buildings

00:28:48 buildings and you'd defended its position for so long

00:28:51 long it was simply inconceivable that you would change tack is that is that the reality now no i i don't believe it is we we were working with

00:29:02 working with with with good intentions towards

00:29:07 a product that was suitable um we were provided evidence that we had at the time

00:29:14 the time for it to be assessed by people that were responsible for signing off these buildings [Music]

00:29:22 [Music] now you said that you didn't know that dr lane had been contacted by the nhbc i want to show you what she said back to the nhbc

00:29:31 the nhbc nhb 50811 and i just want to look at page three there's an email on the bottom of page three sent by dr lane to the nhbc on the 30th

00:29:42 sent by dr lane to the nhbc on the 30th of october 2014 at 12 21

00:29:48 and it's to steve evans copying in jane jane graham perrier and others and the subject is fire performance of p-u-r and p-i-r

00:29:59 p-u-r and p-i-r thermoset rigid insulation boards in building envelopes over 18 meters importance high steve i'm on holiday but jamie will call you to sort dates arab are actually deeply concerned about

00:30:10 arab are actually deeply concerned about the lack of understanding of assemblies and the ongoing incorrect use of test reports

00:30:15 reports for individual materials being applied to more complex building envelope forms the use of highly combustible materials in residential buildings is now simply an accident waiting to happen

00:30:32 and then she carries on so is it your evidence that you were not aware that arab had written in such strong terms to the nhbc at this time expressing concern

00:30:45 i i don't recall being aware of that now

00:30:52 can we go now to kin402199

00:30:59 this is a series of emails between you and the nhbc in early february 2015 so we've moved forward now in time and if we go to page three

00:31:11 there's an email of the third of february 2015 at 10

00:31:16 45

00:31:22 and we can see that what's happened is graham perrier has tried to call iva meredith because mr meredith says in the beginning of this email my apologies for not picking up your call yesterday

00:31:34 for not picking up your call yesterday however i've just spoken to tony who has also picked him up a message from you so it looks like mr perrier had been leaving messages for you and mr meredith

00:31:47 meredith yes and then you set out in your email of the third of february 2015. if we go up to the middle of page one

00:31:59 you have summarized

00:32:03 kingspan's current position you've sent it to mr perrier you've copied in richard burnley and mr meredith and you say as promised i've summarized

00:32:14 and you say as promised i've summarized our current position apologize for the brief format necessary due to short notice firstly it's important to reiterate kingspan continue to support cool firm k15 as fit for purpose

00:32:26 k15 as fit for purpose in its intended application the importance of the product is not underestimated by kingspan this being underlined by your comment the product is currently specified in excess of 400 projects to nhbc's

00:32:38 excess of 400 projects to nhbc's knowledge

00:32:39 knowledge similarly we are aware of its intended use and where consulted provide very significant resource in supporting each and every project team to help demonstrate suitability

00:32:55 now where you say in the first line of that

00:32:58 that you're reiterating that kingspan continued to support k15 as fit for purpose

00:33:03 purpose in its intended application what application are you referring to there the application that we've previously supported via the nhbc so you

00:33:15 supported via the nhbc so you using the test evidence that we had to support its use yeah and when had you come to learn that k-15 was specified in more than 400 projects

00:33:24 projects to the nhbc's knowledge this must have been

00:33:28 been recently to this email um that it wasn't that number at the meeting i had at the nhbc premises i'm confident it wasn't that high at that time

00:33:42 and at the end of that paragraph you say and where consulted provide a very significant resource in supporting each and every project team to help demonstrate suitability so you

00:33:53 to help demonstrate suitability so you were still going to great lengths to justify the use of case 15 on all of those projects weren't you where you were consulted yes

00:34:06 weren't you where you were consulted yes and then in the second paragraph after that

00:34:11 that you say as discussed today our test program with bre continues unabated our aim is to

00:34:16 aim is to wear practical established outer limits of some of the test variables to allow better interpretation against specific projects it should be realized this presents some real challenges in terms of cost but

00:34:27 real challenges in terms of cost but more importantly availability cycle time and the sheer myriad of variables and then you say this includes three successful bs-8414 tests

00:34:38 successful bs-8414 tests one onto a masonry substrate a combustible and non-combustible cladding system onto a steel frame part two now what are the three successful eight four

00:34:50 what are the three successful eight four one four tests we know the eight four one four part one test is is the 2005 test what were the two other successful tests this can only be referring to the

00:35:02 this can only be referring to the latter tests in 2014 so march 2014 and july 2014

00:35:07 july 2014 yes and you're still putting forward march 2014 as a successful test even though you know by now that the bre and indeed the nhbc are saying it's a fail

00:35:19 fail it looks that way yes

00:35:27 and you're also not revealing here are you that those tests had been carried out on research and development products that were different to that that you were selling that's correct

00:35:38 were selling that's correct and then if we go

00:35:43 over the page

00:35:49 if we could pick it up one paragraph down from the top you say in our view the regulatory framework surrounding the application and solutions leave some real holes in how to determine compliance this highlights to kingspan the

00:36:00 this highlights to kingspan the importance of fire engineers role in providing project specific assessment is key

00:36:04 key we should not forget adp part b requires all components used within the external wall build up not just insulation should be of limited combustibility unless large-scale test evidence can be

00:36:16 unless large-scale test evidence can be provided

00:36:18 provided now what holes are you referring to there you say that the regulatory framework leaves some real holes in how to determine compliance what did you mean by that

00:36:32 i think this is purely a reference to the the difficulty in demonstrating compliance via that direct route and a test

00:36:50 had kingspan raised that matter of those real holes with anybody else including say dclg that you felt there were real holes in the regulatory framework

00:37:03 the regulatory framework we discussed it at length from the the point of view of um needing to pursue the assessment route um and explaining that

00:37:16 route um and explaining that it was not on impossible to demonstrate compliance via the the more direct route and a test right in the penultimate paragraph you

00:37:27 right in the penultimate paragraph you say in addressing some of your specific queries around how to handle various aspects

00:37:31 aspects of cool them k-15s performance we continue to engage with arab and will keep you informed with progress what work was going on with arab in february 2015 can you help us

00:37:45 february 2015 can you help us i think this could only relate to project specific queries um that i believe from previous correspondence arab didn't um rule that out i see so not not any

00:37:57 um rule that out i see so not not any kind of

00:37:58 kind of overarching holistic no

00:38:02 was anyone at the nhbc at this point told that there'd been a further test to 8414

00:38:08 8414 part two in december 2014 on a system incorporating k-15 that test was sponsored by french company korea for facades do you remember that

00:38:20 korea for facades do you remember that i do and do you remember that being communicated to the nhbc at any point

00:38:27 i i assume it will have been yes that test was terminated early at 29 minutes due to flaming beyond the top of the test rig we can't see any

00:38:38 top of the test rig we can't see any evidence of the nhbc being informed about that but is it your recollection that they were i believe there was were there two career tests

00:38:49 career tests was there a pass as well i'd have to just double check our notes yes there were two career tests

00:38:57 tests this one on this in december 2014 had been a

00:39:01 been a fail yeah

00:39:09 um yes there was then apparently a pass in march yes 2015. i i would be under the impression that

00:39:20 i i would be under the impression that both tests would have been provided i believe at this time um we were disclosing uh failed tests as well as passes i see we've not seen any evidence of

00:39:33 i see we've not seen any evidence of that but

00:39:33 that but but that's your understanding is it that those failed tests were provided to the nhbc

00:39:38 nhbc yes i i don't know whether all of them but absolutely either was um

00:39:45 we'd had that discussion and in they were interested in seeing that so right then on the 5th of february 2015 a letter was sent by ian davis the nhbc's operations

00:39:57 by ian davis the nhbc's operations director to you and copied to mr jean murder now who is mr gene merter who was he at the

00:40:06 the group ceo i believe yeah and then if we look at the letter it's nhb50922

00:40:20 and the subject of the letter is the use of call firm k15 rain screen boarding facades above 18 meters

00:40:28 and if you pick it up in the second paragraph down kingspan market k15 rain screen board with the claim that it has been successfully tested to 8414

00:40:40 it has been successfully tested to 8414 and can meet the criteria within br135 which makes it acceptable for use above 18 meters this wording appears on the front page of the k-15 product literature dated march 2011 which is on your website

00:40:53 which is on your website and we know that that product literature stayed in place until 2016. and then they say being aware that the current bba certificate for the k-15 product

00:41:04 bba certificate for the k-15 product dated december 2013 does not provide the necessary evidence to fully support this claim we've been requesting evidence from kingspan since early 2014 and then they go on we're disappointed

00:41:15 and then they go on we're disappointed that despite commitments from kingspan to engage a fire engineer expertise or carry out substantial additional testing to demonstrate that alternative typical war buildups are acceptable to be r135

00:41:26 war buildups are acceptable to be r135 today

00:41:27 today none of this has come to fruition and no evidence has been provided to us that demonstrates that k15 can be used in facades over 18 meters in any other configuration in that

00:41:37 that than that detailed in the current bba certificate and then if you go down the absence of evidence from kingspan means we will soon be faced with having to decline to accept buildings which are currently

00:41:48 accept buildings which are currently under construction and have specified the k-15 product in facades above 18 meters for risk management purposes as a provider of defects liability insurance and in many cases also as the approved

00:41:59 and in many cases also as the approved inspector unless the builders concerned can provide evidence themselves in accordance with the bca and that's the technical guidance note and they say the absence of evidence also means we now have to advise

00:42:11 also means we now have to advise builders

00:42:12 builders registering new developments with us that if they specify the k-15 product for use in facades above 18 meters they'll have to provide this evidence themselves in accordance with bca guidance note 18. we are preparing our communications plan

00:42:24 we are preparing our communications plan and intend informing our builder customers of our concerns at the earliest opportunity however for your information this will not be within the next 14 days now do you remember receiving that letter yes

00:42:38 what was your reaction to it when you received it

00:42:43 obviously with um

00:42:48 the people it was directed towards uh you know it obviously jumped to the top of the list of what we were having to address at that

00:43:00 what we were having to address at that time

00:43:02 time did you think to yourself well they don't know the full they don't even know the full story this is what they're proposing to do and and they don't even know that what we've successfully tested this year was a trial product did that

00:43:14 this year was a trial product did that occur to you when you were reading this no it didn't occur to me did you discuss the content of the letter with mr gene merter at any stage no not directly

00:43:26 gene merter at any stage no not directly did you ever discuss with him that what you'd been testing was a trial product and that was different to what you'd sold i didn't do you know whether anybody else did at

00:43:37 do you know whether anybody else did at the time i'm not aware there will have been conversations um obviously this this was managed through uh

00:43:46 uh myself but obviously involving the managing director at the time and other legal representatives and were you involved in dealing with the response to this letter

00:43:58 the response to this letter i i believe i yes i coordinated it you coordinated that response and it's right isn't it that the response to this letter came not from kingspan from king from kingspan solicitors at the time

00:44:10 from kingspan solicitors at the time fennec elliott do you remember that i believe so yes and again none of this is mentioned in your witness statement can you explain why why this wasn't highly pertinent information from for

00:44:21 highly pertinent information from for the public inquiry to be aware of these events

00:44:28 yes i wasn't in a position to to fully set this out at the time i knew there were disclosures supporting the evidence i answered the questions that were

00:44:41 i answered the questions that were posed to me on the understanding that that wouldn't have been um you know the full amount of evidence i

00:44:53 you know the full amount of evidence i appreciate what this correspondence would have been offered as well

00:44:59 i see you opposed a number of questions by the inquiry about the nhbc's concerns did you

00:45:08 did you did you just does not occur to you to that this might be relevant what were your thought processes i believe i believe they were addressed in in some of the uh the the later questions

00:45:19 later questions um i i didn't feel it was

00:45:26 appropriate for me to represent um these

00:45:38 i'm not sure on the right way to phrase it um i didn't think it was my place to represent um what had happened at this stage that the

00:45:50 what had happened at this stage that the the legal team had got involved um i i believed that you know that that was

00:45:57 was above my pay grade at the time um and particularly given the amount of time

00:46:04 time that had passed in the interim and i'd worked in a another role for in excess of five years i i was very keen

00:46:14 keen not to misrepresent what had happened at that time

00:46:17 that time and it was you know very difficult to um be confident that i would recollect it

00:46:23 it accurately

00:46:26 is there anything else that you didn't mention about the k15 story in your witness statement on the basis that it was you felt it was not your place to mention it

00:46:37 no i don't i don't believe that there is let's look at the letter that was sent it's a kin408283

00:46:52 and this letter contains a threat to injunct the nhbc in order to prevent them from going ahead with their stated plan to advise builders that the use of k15 on buildings with a floor over

00:47:03 buildings with a floor over 18 metres required proof of compliance in accordance with the requirements of the bca

00:47:08 the bca guidance note and the letter claims that to make any such statement would constitute negligent misstatement and defamation on the part of the nhbc that's at page three of the letter going

00:47:21 that's at page three of the letter going over to page four

00:47:26 given what we've said above it's clear that there's no justification for taking the steps outline in your letter of the fifth

00:47:31 fifth of february 2015. that's at the very bottom of this page taking such steps would cause our client very significant financial loss they're not properly justifiable from the tests which have been carried out they would

00:47:42 which have been carried out they would amount to an actionable negligent misstatements of the true position

00:47:49 can you explain how this letter came to be written in circumstances where you knew that the product that had been tested was different from that which k15 was selling to market

00:48:06 selling to market no that this letter was um compiled um with reference from uh lots of colleagues at the time

00:48:20 lots of colleagues at the time i i was the the point contact with with toby randall at this point but i was

00:48:26 was coordinating a lot of responses from different people within the business

00:48:33 but were there other people within the business that had a better knowledge than you about the the test evidence and what that

00:48:41 what that could support for k-15 it wasn't was there

00:48:45 there that was you and your department as head of technical yes that's the case so there couldn't have been anyone else who knew about other tests could there no no

00:49:01 and at this point were others in kingspan informed that the product that had been tested was not the same as that which was being sold

00:49:10 others in kingspan informed by myself yes

00:49:17 yes there would have been others that were clearly aware and who were those others at this point by this time um

00:49:28 at this time given that the development product

00:49:33 product which had passed tests wasn't available to market um it would have been all of those people that

00:49:42 that were aware the product hadn't been launched so and including mr jean murtagh

00:49:47 murtagh as well who nhbc had been writing to

00:49:52 i i don't have um i wouldn't be aware by the way i don't know what he was informed but mr pardita [Music]

00:50:06 i can't recall the the extent of the meetings that adrian was involved in over this period he was in a

00:50:19 a marketing role which

00:50:24 did have an involvement in in these discussions yes and what about mr burnley did he have any input at this time into how this response was

00:50:37 at this time into how this response was written

00:50:37 written and yes he would have had yeah and was he made aware that what was tested was not that which was being sold

00:50:45 i don't know that he he was specifically made aware that information would have been available to him yeah i think earlier you said it was common knowledge within kingspan yes yes

00:50:57 knowledge within kingspan yes yes yeah around the people that attended those meetings um with the fire focus group and was that your own view at the time

00:51:08 and was that your own view at the time that the nhbc's proposed statement to builders was unjustifiable did you hold that view

00:51:19 i i recognized and understood their concerns um my my efforts at the time were directed towards finding a resolution i don't

00:51:31 towards finding a resolution i don't believe that we stopped communication with the nhbc and therefore

00:51:45 it's not my opinion that there was no justification it is my view that we were continuing to try and work collaboratively to reach an agreement right the basis for the

00:51:59 an agreement right the basis for the assertion that the nhbc's position was unjustifiable appears on page two of the letter of bullet points one and two

00:52:09 particularly we can see there it says as regards the specific points made in your letter we make the following points our client statement and then we've got the same statement that the product's been successfully tested to 8414

00:52:21 been successfully tested to 8414 remains true and accurate in support of this our client relies on fire tests undertaken by way of example we refer you to bre test reports 220 876 and pn297099

00:52:42 so that's 2005 and july 2014. so you're relying on the july 2014 to say it remains true and accurate

00:52:53 say it remains true and accurate even though the k-15 that was tested is different to the k-15 you're selling yes yes and then it goes on clouding systems

00:53:04 yes and then it goes on clouding systems comprise a number of different components such cladding system as a whole are tested and assessed not their individual components as we understand the position your concern is that a cladding system which includes

00:53:17 that a cladding system which includes among other numerous other components kingspan's k-15 boards has failed a fire test now that wasn't their concern was it they weren't concerned that there had been one system failed

00:53:30 that there had been one system failed test

00:53:31 test they were concerned that there was absolutely no test data that could support k-15 in the wide range of situations that you were trying to sell it that's right isn't it

00:53:43 trying to sell it that's right isn't it they were concerned there wasn't sufficient data yes

00:53:52 and then if you look at point four on this

00:53:56 this page it says even where sorry from good point four even where the systems have not satisfied the acceptance criteria of vr135 it's clear that this has been as a result of the outer layer

00:54:08 result of the outer layer being combustible systems incorporating non-combustible outer layers have been shown to comply with the assessment criteria

00:54:16 criteria accordingly the insulating layer is not the determining factor in whether the system meets the acceptance criteria or not now just taking that those first few

00:54:27 now just taking that those first few lines even where systems have not satisfied

00:54:29 satisfied 135 it's clear that this has been as a result of the outer layer being combustible again that's simply not right is it

00:54:40 there'd been prolonged burning of the k-15

00:54:43 k-15 noticed in a number of tests both in 2014

00:54:46 2014 and 2008 and 2007. so how can it be said that it's as a result of the outer layer being combustible

00:55:00 i think an outer layer being combustible will

00:55:04 will contribute that's not my question it's about

00:55:08 about in fact what had happened about k-15

00:55:13 and as we've seen the the nhbc themselves had noticed the k-15 with ongoing burning we had that back in 2007 and 2008 with ongoing burning so

00:55:24 2007 and 2008 with ongoing burning so how come kingspan are writing this letter saying it's clear it's been as a result of the outer layer being combustible the the ongoing burning doesn't preclude

00:55:36 the the ongoing burning doesn't preclude uh demonstrating compliance to the test um i i i believe this is is pointing out that an outer layer can contribute i see

00:55:56 now i want to take you back to your witness statement now and look at page 49 paragraph 10.4 can you tell us about a meeting you attended at the nhbc with richard

00:56:08 attended at the nhbc with richard burnley and iva meredith on the 5th of march 2015

00:56:15 you say at the meeting i attended there were three kingspan personnel either me and richard and between six and twelve nhbc personnel there were a number of specific construction types on which the

00:56:27 specific construction types on which the nhbc were looking to us to retrospectively validate the use of k-15 we agreed to a programme of fire performance testing to provide that information for the nhbc

00:56:40 to provide that information for the nhbc i do not remember the specific construction types that the nhbc was interested in but all all were in relation to the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters

00:56:51 over 18 meters now can you remember anything else about what was discussed at that meeting with the nhbc on the 5th of march 2015.

00:57:01 yes i think

00:57:05 there was

00:57:08 representations from nhbc i don't recall the specific content um and i believe that the culmination of the meeting was to

00:57:23 move forward with an agreed test program that they would have input to right let's look at an email you sent after that meeting it's kin402204

00:57:38 and i want to start with the second email from the top of page one you send on the 5th of march 2015 at 1708

00:57:49 1708 to richard burnley mr meredith peter wilson mr riley tommy riley who's tommy riley

00:57:57 riley i believe he's uh works for lorcan dowd at group

00:58:02 at group i'm not entirely sure on his title when you say at group what does act group mean king's bank group right yeah i see

00:58:13 and then john garbett and tony rant toby randall so that's fennick elliot are copied in and you say this is a very brief summary of today's meeting to me this somewhat

00:58:24 of today's meeting to me this somewhat differs from the tone of the meeting and i would suggest is due to not wanting to concede anything in writing if i could have any comments i will consolidate a reply

00:58:37 now what do you mean by that you say it's a very brief summary of the meeting and we'll go to that summary at the moment

00:58:45 moment you say to me this somewhat differs from the tone of the meeting and i would suggest is due to not wanting to concede anything in writing what do you mean by that

00:58:56 i i could only mean that i don't believe the content of their summary exactly reflected my experience of the meeting

00:59:05 meeting in what way can you help us in what way you didn't think the summary reflected your experience of the meeting i i i seem to recall that the meeting um

00:59:20 i believe the meeting started quite um

00:59:26 combative if that's the right word i don't think it is but um it was by no means uncomfortable but it there was definitely um a firm opening to the meeting

00:59:38 um a firm opening to the meeting um and is often the case the meeting concluded much more amicably in that we agreed um how we could try and move things forward

00:59:49 things forward i see yeah

00:59:52 what was it that you thought the nhbc would not want to concede in writing do you see you've said that there yes can you help us as to what you mean

01:00:05 can you help us as to what you mean by those words

01:00:09 no um i it may help if i could see yes sorry

01:00:12 sorry let's go to the summary nhb 50977

01:00:23 this summary it records five members of the nhbc

01:00:26 the nhbc being present rather than between the six

01:00:31 six and you said in your witness statements between six and twelve nhbc personnel on this note it looks like there were five members of the nhbc there does that sound right uh no honestly i

01:00:43 does that sound right uh no honestly i it

01:00:44 it to me it felt like there were more than that there right um i i only knew um a couple of the people in attendance um perhaps somebody was was part-time in the meeting i'm not sure

01:01:00 was the was what you were alluding to in your email that the nhbc themselves were in difficulty having signed off hundreds of high-rise buildings with k-15

01:01:11 buildings with k-15 and then having become become aware that there was no test evidence to support that

01:01:16 that is that one of the things you think was was going on in this meeting yes that to me that would be the the most

01:01:25 most obvious concern that they would have the existing liability yeah and then

01:01:35 there's a number of actions agreed actions action point one it says details of test program wall typologies time scales duration and sequencing to be provided to nhbc

01:01:47 be provided to nhbc and that's got your initials tmim so that was further upcoming testing in 2015 yes

01:01:57 2015 yes yes and then action.4 available test data and assessments to be finalized consolidated and shared with nhbc

01:02:12 yes and can you help us as to what the agreement was on that available test data and assessments to be finalized

01:02:21 finalized consolidated and shared is that new test data

01:02:24 data old test data can you remember not specifically i i would assume it would mean just to the consolidation part rings the strongest bell that it was

01:02:37 rings the strongest bell that it was about just making sure that we had everything that we had they had and in one place

01:02:42 one place so that was clear and obvious and then action point three in this summary nhb five zeros nine seven seven sorry and this document action point three

01:02:53 action point three is nhbc to discuss widening amending scope of

01:02:57 scope of options for demonstrating compliance stated in bca guidance note so just to put it in context

01:03:05 context by this time we've got bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught which was in june 2014 the next issue came out in june 2015

01:03:18 the next issue came out in june 2015 and is it right that kingspan at this meeting

01:03:22 meeting were asking for that technical guidance note to be widened in scope for options for demonstrating compliance

01:03:37 no i i don't think so um i seem to recall the widening of the

01:03:47 bca guidance note happened much more quickly than that from issue naught to one is it was there a year

01:03:54 year within that did you say yes right um the only recollection i have of that is in uh recognizing the fire

01:04:05 of that is in uh recognizing the fire engineering route within that guidance which wasn't in the original yes and is it right that it was kingspan that asks for asked for that fire

01:04:17 that asks for asked for that fire engineering route to be put into the next version of bca technical guidance note 18.

01:04:23 note 18. yes i believe we pointed that out as we felt it was an omission yeah you tell us that i think in your witness statement at paragraph 4.37 on page 17 if we could go to that

01:04:38 you say i recall that in 2014 the bca published a technical guidance note which crystallized three of the four available routes to compliance under the building regulations we spotted that the bca had missed one of

01:04:50 spotted that the bca had missed one of the routes to compliance out of this document the fire safety engineering route

01:04:54 route we alerted them to this they corrected it and reissued the amended note i believe that ivor meredith handled this and it would have been dealt with over the phone i don't think it was kingspan solely

01:05:05 i don't think it was kingspan solely that alerted this to the bca and so contributed to that change i think the bca the nhbc had some input

01:05:17 and it would would appear from the notes of the meeting that that was discussed in that march 2015 meeting do you agree

01:05:27 [Applause] and i want to ask you some more questions about mr meredith his role and his responsibilities and your relationship with him

01:05:38 your relationship with him would it be right that you worked very closely with him during the period 2010 to

01:05:43 to mid-2015 yes i'd say it got closer the the longer um that went on and how would you describe

01:05:54 that went on and how would you describe your working relationship during that time

01:05:59 i i would say overall professional difficult at times [Music]

01:06:09 [Music] but productive yeah it's right isn't it that mr meredith's role was extremely wide-ranging and at times onerous in terms of what he

01:06:22 and at times onerous in terms of what he was responsible for would you agree yes it was a responsible role yeah so he's responsible for all the bs-8414 system testing including selecting the

01:06:33 system testing including selecting the materials designing the rig being on site reporting back he was the person with day-to-day responsibility for some of the bba certification yes

01:06:45 some of the bba certification yes um in an assisting role i think yeah technical advice he was training teams of frontline advisors supporting technical advisors dealing with specialist queries

01:06:56 specialist queries yes dealing with issues with contractors yes and he also led up the discussions with the nhbc for a very long time didn't he yes at

01:07:07 for a very long time didn't he yes at the outset yes did it ever occur to you that he might have had just too much to do during that period it was just too much pressure

01:07:15 pressure yes absolutely it was something that um we discussed very regularly joel clark was brought in to assist with his workload at various times there

01:07:28 with his workload at various times there were

01:07:29 were numerous colleagues that he could delegate and rely on as well now we know that mr meredith's employment with kingspan was terminated on the 19th of august 2015

01:07:40 on the 19th of august 2015 following disciplinary proceedings against him were you aware of that you must have been presumably uh this this was after i left actually sorry to be fair

01:07:51 sorry to be fair but i was aware of it yes and did you ever discuss that at any point with mr pardita or mr burnley yes

01:08:02 sorry um when i not i didn't discuss his dismissal i didn't have contact with kingspan after i left but i had

01:08:15 kingspan after i left but i had raised similar concerns on a number of occasions

01:08:19 occasions prior right did you ever discuss um some of the things that mr meredith said during his disciplinary hearings about

01:08:31 disciplinary hearings about what had been happening with k-15 the number of buildings it was on the difficulties that mr meredith had had in the business trying to maintain kingspan's position was that ever

01:08:42 kingspan's position was that ever discussed with you

01:08:45 within as a result of his disciplinary yes no not not after that no

01:08:55 mr meredith appealed his dismissal and he met with mr burnley and elaine gale a human resources adviser for kingspan on the 3rd of september 2015 and what i want to do i'm going to take

01:09:07 and what i want to do i'm going to take you to some of the passages from that disciplinary hearing and just ask you about them okay in that meeting he spoke of the stress he'd been under at kingspan if we can go to the transcript of that

01:09:19 if we can go to the transcript of that meeting it's kin 408681 and i just want to look at just some of the passages with you

01:09:31 so these are the notes of the appeal meeting if we go to page five

01:09:40 in the third paragraph there's it begins eg

01:09:44 eg elaine gayle as i understand it your role or the work that you do has been fairly critical in terms of kingspan's product being approved in terms of fire safety and he says yes i'd i would say that i've been putting put in a situation

01:09:56 i've been putting put in a situation where i've had to maintain performance that perhaps our products don't deserve i have the ability to show that our products can be used in areas where you would

01:10:05 would normally require material which would be non-combustible from a critical lifesaver perspective i've performed in a number of tests in 2005.

01:10:15 2005. kingsman changed the technology of our foam and we couldn't repeat those tests we were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to that the product still said what it did not i think on the tin

01:10:28 said what it did not i think on the tin he means

01:10:29 he means although i bucked at that point and said to my manager at the time that we are stretching the truth here and what are we going into an area where we cannot support the performance of the product

01:10:40 product i wasn't the senior person there we produced documentation and we inferred to the industry that our product could do something that potentially it couldn't

01:10:51 potentially it couldn't now do you have any reason to take issue with anything that mr meredith has said in that paragraph about what had happened about k-15

01:11:02 only that this wasn't the the view that he

01:11:05 he represented to me um as we said before iva and myself did work very closely i i believe i had his best interests at

01:11:16 i i believe i had his best interests at heart as well as the the companies um i i did accept his his position was um challenging um he did

01:11:27 challenging um he did have some

01:11:31 troubles um him himself which i i tried on a number of times to support him through um so what i don't doubt that it it was his

01:11:45 so what i don't doubt that it it was his view

01:11:46 view i just don't recognize that as the way our working relationship he believed in the product what we were trying to achieve

01:11:57 trying to achieve as did i when he says in the fourth line up from the bottom we are stretching the truth here and what we're going we're going into an area where we cannot support the performance of the product

01:12:08 performance of the product that was true wasn't it you were constantly stretching the truth and you'd gone into an area where you couldn't support the performance of the product

01:12:16 product he's not wrong about that is he i i don't think i would phrase it that way i think at all times we we were providing the information we

01:12:27 we we were providing the information we had

01:12:28 had uh for others to make a judgment

01:12:33 if we keep going with this transcript eg says with respect this was 10 years ago and he says no this is about eight years ago now

01:12:41 ago now and she says you just said to me that this was 2005. and then he says this he says this is when the testing was done what happened in the last 18 months

01:12:52 what happened in the last 18 months longer than that actually a lot of those projects that we've sold into have started to come back and started to question that performance now that's correct isn't it in the 18

01:13:03 now that's correct isn't it in the 18 months prior to this in august 2015 a lot of projects had started to come back and question k15's performance

01:13:14 question k15's performance yes and then he says i've been under a great deal of pressure to actually maintain that performance when it's evident through testing that our product struggles with that he's right about that too isn't he

01:13:40 [Music]

01:13:46 the the product wasn't appropriate in in every scenario so yes that that can be read correctly yes

01:13:54 and then he goes on we've obviously had to i've been very busy doing a large amount of testing there was technology that could pass but we were struggling to get the technology to pass to justify our lie

01:14:07 to pass to justify our lie again that's correct isn't it there was a large amount of testing and you were struggling to get the technology to pass to justify the lies that had been told about k-15

01:14:21 [Applause] is obviously this is the first time i've i've seen any of this i wasn't around at king's ban at this

01:14:32 i wasn't around at king's ban at this time

01:14:35 i i can see that that's ivor's point of view

01:14:38 view well do you agree with it sitting here today given all that we've been through i believe yes there there was a a period

01:14:49 i believe yes there there was a a period of time towards the end of my tenure um where it it's it's been shown to be clear today that the product that we were

01:15:01 the product that we were supplying wasn't represented by some of the tests

01:15:11 the tests and then if we could go down the page

01:15:18 actually sorry go back if we go back up the page sorry i'd skipped a passage um

01:15:26 sorry if we could just go one yes so looking at that first main paragraph from the top of the page

01:15:37 he he says after he said i performed in a number of tests in 2005 kingspan changed the technology of our foam and we couldn't repeat those tests now that's correct isn't it

01:15:49 that's correct isn't it do you see that in the middle of that paragraph

01:15:56 from 2005 based on what we know now yes yeah

01:16:00 yeah and then he says we were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to that the product still said what it did on the tin now mr meredith explained that what he's referring to there is wintec with a

01:16:12 referring to there is wintec with a consultant that outed kingspan that's right isn't it they definitely represented their concerns yes yeah and then he says although i bucked at

01:16:24 and then he says although i bucked at that point and said to my manager at the time that we are stretching the truth here

01:16:32 now is that right that he he bucked at that point and he said to his manager that would be you wouldn't it we're stretching the truth here yeah i

01:16:45 we're stretching the truth here yeah i don't recall that conversation so he didn't say that to you at any stage no not that i recollect

01:16:59 do you recall correspondence where mr meredith told you that he was becoming increasingly concerned about the fact that kingspan were having to give specific confirmation that k-15 was suitable for use on high-rise projects

01:17:15 could you repeat yes let's look at some correspondence

01:17:20 kin405894 i think this is an email we've looked at before

01:17:26 it's a second email from the top of the chain

01:17:30 chain yes we looked at this early on in your evidence yesterday he says tony i'm getting increasingly concerned about the number of k-15 projects

01:17:38 projects that the nhbc are involved in and the fact they're getting referring to us for confirmation that the product is suitable

01:17:45 suitable do you see that there yes he did raise concerns with you in writing didn't he about the fact that k-15 was coming under

01:17:56 the fact that k-15 was coming under increasing pressure to be justified on projects yes

01:18:10 if we then go back to those disciplinary notes

01:18:14 notes kin408681

01:18:18 the very end of page five elaine gales says but given what you've said in that your difficulty started 18

01:18:30 said in that your difficulty started 18 months ago the seriousness i'm paraphrasing you found it difficult to cope my concern here is that with such a critical role with your difficulties that it could cause quite serious problems for the company could it

01:18:42 problems for the company could it and then over the page he says yes and i was doing everything that i could and then he says this my boss was having a troubled time at the time anyway he was feeling particularly

01:18:53 anyway he was feeling particularly pressured

01:18:54 pressured as his boss was leaving and he was worrying about what we could do and he was worried that his old boss would come in above him now he appears to be referring to you there

01:19:06 there were you having a troubled time because you felt pressured because your boss was leaving is that right um no i i wouldn't have described it as

01:19:17 um no i i wouldn't have described it as a troubled time um i did at this time go through uh the process um i put myself forward as a replacement

01:19:28 forward as a replacement for malcolm roachford at the time um i didn't get that role um

01:19:36 he could be referring to that that i was obviously

01:19:39 obviously you know very very busy at that time um trying to

01:19:44 trying to juggle the the day job alongside you know um put myself forward for these things um

01:19:50 things um and the reference to he was worried that his old boss would come in above him is that

01:19:54 that a reference to you being worried that philip heath might come in above you

01:20:00 yes i think that could be true um the the first time i left kingspan um was on part of my thinking

01:20:12 um was on part of my thinking it's not fair to say it was the only reason there was an opportunity as well but part of my thinking was that i i was um

01:20:22 um stuck underneath uh my manager at the time and and you know i didn't see that he he was moving on anytime soon so i was keen to progress my own career

01:20:34 i just want to look at two more pages of these notes we go to page seven

01:20:42 it's quite dense this part but um if you look at the part where there's been a redaction towards the bottom of the page we could perhaps take the page up

01:20:54 perhaps take the page up yes you can see at the end of the line where there's a redaction it begins also my colleague adam heath who has been dealt with a lot of who has dealt with a lot of the high-rise issues he was suffering stress

01:21:06 high-rise issues he was suffering stress because of the battering we were getting it was very difficult we were aware that anything that we said could have caused a legal problem for kingspan we had to be very careful in what we wrote and to be honest

01:21:17 wrote and to be honest i didn't have a lot of support and understanding from my managers at the time because my boss tony milichap was moving to another job role so in his last month he removed all of his responsibilities and said

01:21:29 responsibilities and said that's your choice now there was no one out there

01:21:33 out there that was no that was no specialist in the marketplace it was on my shoulders to make all of the decisions now did that occur did you

01:21:45 now did that occur did you say something to the effect of it it's your choice now i'm i'm moving on

01:21:52 i don't think i'd use those words but um there would have been a period that i would have needed to extract myself from day to day

01:22:03 extract myself from day to day there was um

01:22:06 i believe mr parditcher was you know it was known he was coming into the role um so yes i could have said something to that effect but i don't

01:22:17 something to that effect but i don't believe it was those words okay and if we carry on reading so he says there was no one out there that says dot dot dot that was no specialist in the marketplace it was on my shoulders to

01:22:29 marketplace it was on my shoulders to make all of the decisions and if anything

01:22:31 anything i kept our heads above water during that time although i might have been accused of parking some of my important projects at least the 250 230 high-rise buildings that were being

01:22:43 230 high-rise buildings that were being that could have asked to remove the kingspan insulation off them they were never as far as i'm aware we managed to evade the problem

01:22:56 and then it goes on kingspan couldn't say that we were completely happy with the construction because we weren't we couldn't highlight it to the person we told it to and the person at the nhbc that it was

01:23:07 and the person at the nhbc that it was an

01:23:08 an issue so i mean adrian was very busy as soon as he took over the role sales team do you agree with mr meredith that there were at least 230 high-rise buildings that could have asked to

01:23:19 buildings that could have asked to remove

01:23:20 remove k-15 on them because it was non-compliant

01:23:25 yes there was a potential for that if if they were discovered as non-compliant i don't think um yes if they were non-compliant and do you agree that kingsman couldn't

01:23:36 and do you agree that kingsman couldn't say they were completely happy with the construction of those as mr meredith has explained here i i not on maths no they would have to be

01:23:46 be taken on individual merit and then finally in these notes if we go to page 12 and look at the third paragraph down

01:24:07 he says there it's only really that i don't think adrian was aware of my workload

01:24:13 workload and then he carries on if you read my previous arrangements with philip heath and tony it was just my diary that represented my location carries on he says also in my improvement notice from tony what he had

01:24:24 improvement notice from tony what he had noticed was that i was going to a meeting and i was staying in that meeting room after the meeting and he says i was just working away doing that because when i went back to my desk

01:24:34 my desk i'd have a queue of people outside my office

01:24:39 and then if you keep going down he if you look on the right hand side there's a word but

01:24:49 yeah he says but there was a lot of critical stuff going on that could have resulted in major claims against kingspan so i had to keep my head above water and

01:25:00 so i had to keep my head above water and sort it out for kingspan now you instruct ivor meredith to defend the position in writing when the compliance for k-15 was challenged do you remember that we

01:25:12 challenged do you remember that we looked at that

01:25:17 is there a specific well we've looked at an email

01:25:22 an email from december 2013 where you say we will need to defend the position in writing

01:25:29 writing either do you have a draft response outline in a technical position do you want me to take you to that no that's fine

01:25:34 fine yes

01:25:38 and mr meredith's right about that isn't he

01:25:43 he that there was a lot of critical stuff going on that could have resulted in major claims against kingspan and so he had to try and sort that out didn't he that significant problem yes i i don't think

01:25:55 significant problem yes i i don't think that was entirely on his shoulders but yes he was a big part of the team and would you agree that the figure he's given in these notes of 230 buildings is quite possibly an underestimate given

01:26:08 is quite possibly an underestimate given other documents we've looked at today yes what would your estimate be of the number of buildings that k15 went on i there was a an outside figure of 400

01:26:19 i there was a an outside figure of 400 but

01:26:19 but i wouldn't be just in connection with the nhbc

01:26:24 the nhbc um i don't know what proportion of that

01:26:30 i see mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions yes very well um so if we could have um the nor maybe the normal break i think we'll have the normal break now

01:26:42 we'll have the normal break now and that ought to allow an opportunity for

01:26:45 for yes reflection and collection that should yes thank you well um our council thinks she's finished with her questions but we always have to give an opportunity not only for her to check yes but other

01:26:57 not only for her to check yes but other people to

01:26:58 people to come in with their suggestions for questions at all to put as well cool so we'll have the usual 15-minute break that we have in the middle of the afternoon now okay and that will be the opportunity to do both of those things

01:27:10 do both of those things so we'll stop now and we'll come back a quarter to four please sure and once again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room thank you all right thank you very much

01:27:30 good cough to fall them please

01:47:26 yes would you ask mr miller chap to come back in please

01:47:42 all right mr miller chat well we'll see if ms grange has got any more questions for you

01:47:46 for you thank you yes yes ms grange yes only one question um mr militech we've been through an awful lot in the last two days what would you do differently if you had the chance again

01:47:58 um it's difficult to collate my thoughts at this time honestly

01:48:06 honestly i know it would be important to make sure that

01:48:12 sure that the position i'm taking on i understand that more fully in the first place um

01:48:22 clearly to towards the the end of um my role at kingspan there were difficult situations

01:48:33 kingspan there were difficult situations which

01:48:33 which um were i think

01:48:39 pursued with the best intentions but haven't transpired as they should have it's difficult to come to any firmer conclusions at this point okay right just goes to thank you for

01:48:52 okay right just goes to thank you for coming to give evidence and and telling us your your story thank you thank you

01:48:56 thank you well mr militia it's right that i should thank you on behalf of the panel coming to give your evidence i know it's taken up a lot of your time sure but we are very grateful and it's been very helpful to hear what you have to

01:49:07 very helpful to hear what you have to tell us

01:49:08 tell us thank you very much indeed of course of course you're now free to go thank you thank you very much thank you

01:49:25 good thank you very much well that i take it is all we have for the day it is um and um that means we'll break there

01:49:33 there and we'll resume on monday at 10 o'clock yes for some more kingspan witnesses when we'll hear some more evidence thank yes good thank you very much 10 o'clock on monday then please thank you