Adrian Meredith continues evidence about Kingspan's manipulation of BBA certificates, pushing the LABC to certify K15 as 'limited combustibility' when it was combustible, and admits 'that's what we were doing' when asked if they were trying to say things that weren't true.
00:00:12 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr meredith so would you ask mr meredith to come back in please
00:00:32 good morning mr meredith good morning all ready to carry on yes very good thank you very much yes mrs green jr yes thank you yes good morning mr meredith
00:00:43 morning mr meredith so yesterday when we broke off i was um asking you about the the first issue of the bba certificate that was dated the 27th of october 2008 and i now want to move to the amended
00:00:56 and i now want to move to the amended issue one of that certificate from april 2010
00:00:59 2010 if we can bring that up it's at bba six zeros 37
00:01:04 zeros 37 [Applause]
00:01:08 and if we look in that bottom left hand corner of the page again
00:01:14 again we can see it says date of first issue 27th of october 2008 but underneath that in smaller text it says certificate amended
00:01:23 amended on 6th of april 2010 with revisions made to scottish scottish building regulations do you see that there yes so this was the this issue one of that certificate
00:01:36 and we can see on page one if we go up the page it's under key factors assessed again
00:01:48 it's under key factors assessed again and we've got its fire performance there behavior in relation to fire three headings down it says there again the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire and then it says the product has been
00:02:00 and then it says the product has been tested to bs 84141 for one specific construction on masonry walls
00:02:07 walls do you see that there yes so that was a change and if we go on to section seven
00:02:23 to section seven on page five so there we see behavior in relation to fire and if we look at section 7.1 under that it says the product is classified as
00:02:34 it says the product is classified as class
00:02:34 class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and then under england and wales can
00:02:46 of and then under england and wales can you see it says approve document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraphs 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 volume 2. see
00:02:58 and 12.7 volume 2. see also diagram 40. do you see that there yes now k15 could never comply with or will be used in accordance with
00:03:09 accordance with the requirements of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b could it because it's not a limp a material of limited combustibility i'd have to see 12.7 if i was to comment
00:03:20 i'd have to see 12.7 if i was to comment on that
00:03:21 on that okay we can take you to that i think it might be cld five zeros two two
00:03:29 two four page
00:03:34 four page 69 95.
00:03:42 here we go if we go i think it it's going to be over the page yeah there we've got 12.7 of adb in a
00:03:53 yeah there we've got 12.7 of adb in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility do you see that yes so looking at that would you agree
00:04:07 yes so looking at that would you agree that k-15 could never comply or be used in accordance with that part of adb not with section 12.7 though exactly the source the alternative route to compliance yeah
00:04:19 compliance yeah can you help us as to who suggested that wording and how it got into that certificate we don't currently understand that at the moment we can't see that from the documents
00:04:30 documents are you able to help this is the word can i look at the vba stuff yeah let's go back to that on page five
00:04:40 so it's the wording under 7.1 england and wales so before that said the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and it's got various
00:04:51 the provisions of and it's got various paragraphs in approved document b the bba would normally um we would present them with the test information
00:05:02 present them with the test information and they would come back with a certificate we would then proof it but because the bba were experts we would pretty much leave them
00:05:13 experts we would pretty much leave them to their own devices we would comment where we saw fit and try to sort of direct them towards the areas that we wanted the product to be used but at the end of the day
00:05:25 but at the end of the day it was their call so we had to we had to live with whatever they were going to put in writing but if they put something in here that's patently incorrect like that they're 12.7 implying it's of
00:05:37 like that they're 12.7 implying it's of limited combustibility surely it was important that kingspan went back
00:05:42 went back to the bba and said a mistake's been made
00:05:46 made but it's also referring to sections 12.5 which is the one with the alternative route to compliance i appreciate what you're saying about 12.7 yes yes but because it's referring to
00:05:58 yes yes but because it's referring to 12.5
00:05:59 12.5 uh you know i think that was a an oversight if if 12.7 was there on its own then but because it was stuck next to 12.5 and 12.6
00:06:11 and 12.6 i see you say this before it was looked at holistically okay so you say this is an oversight on kingspan's park do you we would we would not proof
00:06:23 that the we would only proof it for purposes of marketing reasons and make sure that
00:06:28 sure that our test evidence was presented correctly
00:06:32 correctly we were not a specialists in the building regulations although we we would read them as much as we could but you knew full well we've seen emails where you've written about it you knew full well about the
00:06:43 about it you knew full well about the requirement for limited combustibility and the alternative route and you knew full well that k-15 couldn't satisfy that limited combustibility requirement
00:06:54 combustibility requirement yeah i i would say that that was an oversight on our proofing okay well let's move on because we're going to come to something similar in a moment in another certificate and i just want
00:07:06 in another certificate and i just want to put to you that this is wholly misleading and that it ought to have been corrected if not by the bba then certainly by kingspan
00:07:16 kingspan can we also look at 7.2 here underneath scotland it says in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the
00:07:27 advice should be sought from the certificate holder do you see that yes now would you agree with me that kingspan very much welcomed clauses like that in these certificates because it meant that people would
00:07:38 because it meant that people would contact them about whether or not it could be used over 18 meters and give you an inroad into selling the product on particular projects would you agree with that
00:07:50 projects would you agree with that certainly yes
00:07:53 and can you help us as to when this certificate was actually published and circulated for use can you recall that being it would say on the
00:08:02 on the the front of the certificate yeah i mean we can see the dates on the front but we just wondered as soon as they um they're they're on the bba website i i think maybe the kingspan website
00:08:15 i i think maybe the kingspan website links into the bba website for the yeah it should do anyways okay let's look at an email chain really before we leave that yeah can i just ask your help on one
00:08:26 just ask your help on one question if you look at paragraph 7.5 of the certificate yes it refers to the tests undertaken and the bs 84141 test for a masonry substrate
00:08:40 bs 84141 test for a masonry substrate yes now if you go to the first page of the certificate i don't know whether we can get that up please
00:08:52 um what's pictured there is what can you can you just tell us what we see in that picture that would be a an insolent on a steel
00:09:04 that would be a an insolent on a steel frame system yeah so it's not representative of what the certificate purports to cover is it it's not representative of the the
00:09:15 it's not representative of the the tested evidence for that specific test yeah so my question is do you know how that came to be portrayed on the front of the certificate that would have been us a standard image
00:09:26 that would have been us a standard image that would have come from our marketing department
00:09:31 i think it's the standard image that's used on the front of the k15 literature i see thank you but do you remember ever noticing that that image was for a story
00:09:42 noticing that that image was for a story when you knew that the only 8414 relevant data came from a masonry test
00:09:53 because the goal was to um do it onto a steel frame eventually i i don't think i really considered well
00:10:05 i i don't think i really considered well it was considered an issue at the time right if you look in the the text actually to the left immediately to the left of that image we can see under product scope and summary of certificate it says this
00:10:17 summary of certificate it says this certificate relates to cool them k-15 rain screen insulation board a rigid phenolic board with foil composite facings for use as thermal insulation on new and existing steel frame or masonry walls
00:10:28 frame or masonry walls do you see that there yes let's move on to an email chain now up now about the bba certificate um from november 2012 this is kin
00:10:39 um from november 2012 this is kin four zeros nine three five three so this is later in time now november 2012.
00:10:48 2012. and if you look at the very bottom email in the chain on page five it's an email from mandy osman who was the administrator from the bba to gareth mills on the 5th of november
00:11:01 to gareth mills on the 5th of november 2012 attaching a draft revised certificate for k-15 you can see that in the first
00:11:07 the first paragraph we attached for your approval of draft of the proposed certificate which is to be sent to the regulatory authorities and our technical assessors for comment the purpose of you seeing the draft now is to satisfy yourself that circulation
00:11:19 is to satisfy yourself that circulation would not result in confidential information being divulged to a third party this is also your opportunity to comment and request revisions do you see that in the second paragraph yes so she sends that there
00:11:32 yes so she sends that there and if we go to the next email in the chain
00:11:35 chain uh on page or the next thing i want to show you is on page two we can see that mandy osman is still chasing on the 3rd of january
00:11:49 2013. you see that there dear mr meredith please may we have your approval of the draft certificate to enable us to maintain progress yours sincerely mandy osmond so she's still chasing
00:12:01 osmond so she's still chasing in january 13 having sent the revised certificate in november 12. now you said something yesterday to the effect that often you'd only have a very short period of time to check these
00:12:12 period of time to check these certificates so say 24 hours what the documents appear to show is that in fact often you have months to check these certificates and go back to the bba with any comments
00:12:23 and go back to the bba with any comments and there's often very protracted exchanges with the bba about these certificates looking at that now would you agree does that prompt your memory on that
00:12:39 that prompt your memory on that [Applause] i was under the under the impression that i wasn't actually directly responsible for the bba at the time i had been previously um i believe this might have
00:12:51 previously um i believe this might have been something that just got lost in my mailbox i had an unfeasibly large amount of emails i was trying to juggle i see um yeah so this could have been an oversight on
00:13:02 this could have been an oversight on mine or it could have been something that i
00:13:04 that i forwarded to gareth to try and get him to sort i may have just missed it yeah i think it wasn't a deliberate delay by any means because the k-15 certificate was
00:13:15 certificate was it was important yeah can we look at the top email in this chain and a response to joel clark that you send on this topic on friday the 4th of january 2013
00:13:29 on friday the 4th of january 2013 you say this as gareth has the experience on what we can and cannot get away
00:13:33 away with we need to take the lead from him and perhaps sit down and work out our approach
00:13:38 approach asap gareth have you drafted anything to the bba
00:13:42 the bba reference this draft that can be circulated do you see that there yes can you explain your comment there about what we can and cannot get away with
00:13:53 with what they will accept with regards to changes
00:13:56 changes i wasn't really okay with um mandy osman or
00:13:59 or i think george lee who was the the main contacts on this certificate so you know gareth had been working with them
00:14:08 them would you agree that that language suggests that you're somehow trying to get away with something in the certificate that perhaps you shouldn't
00:14:19 yeah i will admit we're king's plan when we're molding the certificate the time to
00:14:24 to to meet the needs to make sure and we would have to do that with any certificate to make sure it it covered the markets that we were um in yeah what i'm going to suggest to
00:14:35 um in yeah what i'm going to suggest to you is that far from any of this wording ever being an oversight
00:14:39 oversight in fact the wording was always very carefully checked by kingspan and they pushed as hard as they could to get the most favorable wording for its sales of its product would you agree with that
00:14:52 i would agree that it was always the case that it was the bba is difficult was
00:14:57 was intrinsic to any sales so it was very important that the text within it was suitable for the marketplaces we were in
00:15:06 were in so yes but it it's more potent than that isn't it
00:15:11 isn't it it's that you're trying to push the bba as far as possible to say things that are going to maximize the sales of k-15 even if they're not true that's right
00:15:22 even if they're not true that's right isn't it
00:15:30 that's what we were doing yes yep
00:15:35 can we go now to another email chain this is kin four zeros five five seven two which is a very long chain
00:15:42 chain running from the fifth of november to the 14th of january 2013. and the change starts with the same email we've been looking at from mandy osman
00:15:51 osman attaching the draft and then her chaser and then the email i want to ask you about is on page four and it's sent by joel clark to you copying in tony milichap and gareth mills on the
00:16:04 tony milichap and gareth mills on the 9th of january 2013 at 1606. and that's the day after a review meeting appears to have taken place with the bba on the 8th of january 2013. um
00:16:18 2013. um now if we look at this email joel clark says to you sorry perhaps i wasn't clear i'm fully aware we want it as open and delimiting as possible
00:16:29 as open and delimiting as possible that's blindingly obvious is it not however
00:16:32 however on the basis of some of the comments flying around yesterday my first thoughts are that we're not going to have it put back to how it was by butting heads i don't even think they'll give us the get out of
00:16:44 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 way we're not doing anything immoral or
00:16:55 we're not doing anything immoral or illegal after all it does perhaps reflect the position we are in if
00:17:00 are in if worst case we have to let them say in small letters that anything other than 60 millimeters should be assessed then we need an assessment of suitable weight and there's no real problem
00:17:11 there's no real problem where are we with labc type approval would that not do it i'd love it back how it was but feel it unlikely
00:17:18 unlikely that's all do you see that there yes now in the light of your previous answers um i think you'd agree with this that it was blindingly obvious wasn't it that kingspan wanted the certificate as open
00:17:31 kingspan wanted the certificate as open and delimiting as possible yes that's correct and what was meant by there on to ours had you attended the meeting with the bba the day before and do you recall getting the impression
00:17:44 and do you recall getting the impression or it being said that the bba were on to you
00:17:52 i'm not sure if i was in attendance at that meeting
00:17:58 um but it suggests does it not that the bba have perhaps realized that the previous issues of the bba certificate yeah aren't suitable anymore aren't
00:18:09 yeah aren't suitable anymore aren't suitable we're never suitable
00:18:13 were they they weren't suitable based on the test evidence that we had yeah and we also see that the bba appeared to have decided to put an end to the get out as he calls it
00:18:26 put an end to the get out as he calls it of the contact the manufacturer for advice clause so i showed you that in 7.2 of the last certificate where it said for buildings over 18 meters contact the manufacturer and that was a get out because it
00:18:39 and that was a get out because it allowed kingspan to have direct contact with industry professionals and open the door
00:18:44 door to kingspan sales pitch didn't it yes what was your response at the time do you remember having a response to the the phrase he uses where he says we're
00:18:55 the phrase he uses where he says we're not doing anything immoral or illegal after all
00:19:01 do you remember that noticing that and what was your response to it
00:19:19 i can't remember what i would have said at the time but i think we were uncomfortable with our situation yeah
00:19:33 let's look at another chain of correspondence from near at the time a further amended version of the certificate was issued this is at kin405870
00:19:47 and if we go to the second page we can see an email from mandy osmond of the bba
00:19:52 bba sent on the 6th of december 2013 to gareth mills attaching a revised copy of the final draft of the bba certificate and moving up to the next email we see
00:20:04 and moving up to the next email we see that gareth mills forwards the final draft to joel clark and to you on the 9th of december that's right at the bottom of that first page
00:20:14 page he says copy of an updated draft which came through on friday i've not had a chance to look over it yet
00:20:20 yet and then looking now at the next email up
00:20:24 up sent the next day by joel clark to gareth mills and to you we see that he says this just been going through this the first paragraph is now exactly as it used to be which is very
00:20:35 exactly as it used to be which is very good news
00:20:36 good news both versions attached for easy reference there is a mention of some potential restrictions at 8.2 and 8.3 as per the following and then he sets those out 8.2 the test
00:20:47 and then he sets those out 8.2 the test result relates only to the specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of materials and then 8.3 the product incorporated in
00:20:58 and then 8.3 the product incorporated in the construction defined in 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor above 18 meters
00:21:03 meters above ground level fire breaks should be used at every floor level after the first floor and then he says given that the note at 8.2 is in the smallest possible font and
00:21:14 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 as a restriction but logically speaking it
00:21:25 restriction but logically speaking it does not preclude the use of other thicknesses personally i believe this certificate is now acceptable at least in so far as it is much less restrictive than it was and i do not believe we'll get any joy
00:21:36 and i do not believe we'll get any joy in trying to have the la this last restriction removed happy to take on board comments though before going back to the bba do you see that there yes now in the light of the answers you've given would you agree with me that
00:21:46 that that email typifies the approach that kings band were taking at the time which was to get away with as much as possible
00:21:53 possible in their dealings with the bba over the language of the bba certificate yes that's correct and to bury any wording that was adverse to kingspan's commercial interests as far as possible into the
00:22:07 interests as far as possible into the smallest font and deep into the
00:22:10 certificate
00:22:19 i mean that wasn't a direction from myself that joel was acting under his own steam with written respect to that but it was he was meeting what we were wanting for
00:22:30 he was meeting what we were wanting for that certificate yes yeah did you ever discuss this with tony militare
00:22:35 militare this approach to bba certificate i think um all online managers were okay with
00:22:44 with um
00:22:47 the back and forth we had to do to to get a certificate and they were condoning this behavior is that your understanding
00:22:59 when putting black and white it looks quite shocking but
00:23:06 yes i believe so yes they condoned that behavior
00:23:12 and do you ever remember any of your line managers or anyone else at king's band
00:23:17 band saying we need to play straight with the bba
00:23:21 bba we need to be open and transparent with them because this is a matter of life safety fire safety do you ever remember having that conversation i don't remember that now yeah
00:23:33 i don't remember that now yeah now do you recall it was you that signed the contract with the vba um prior to these certificates being produced do you remember that this was maybe into what 2006 or
00:23:47 this was maybe into what 2006 or something like that so let's look at that is that bba three zeros 10745 it's actually the fourth of august 2004.
00:23:58 it's actually the fourth of august 2004. if we go at the bottom of page four of this certificate with the bba we can see there the date and is that your signature yes signed on behalf of the applicant
00:24:09 yes signed on behalf of the applicant yes did you ever read that contract and check what your obligations were of disclosure to the bba
00:24:17 bba during the time you were dealing with k15
00:24:22 i don't believe i read it after i signed it now
00:24:25 it now did anyone else ever go back and check what the obligations were to the bba in terms of disclosure [Applause] not that i'm aware now were you aware
00:24:38 not that i'm aware now were you aware that you had to immediately notify the bba of any change in the particular supply to the bba and also of any new or additional information concerning the subject or its suitability
00:24:52 we see that on page three if you want to look at it where's the clause here yeah page 3g
00:25:02 immediately just as the bottom uh one paragraph up from the bottom on the left hand side immediately notify the bba of any change in the particular supplied or any third parties and also if any new or additional information concerning the
00:25:14 or additional information concerning the subject or suitability for the specified use including the generality of the foregoing details of claims by users of the subject that it is or maybe unsatisfactory for the specified use
00:25:26 unsatisfactory for the specified use did you ever tell them the bba about the failed tests in 2007 and 2008 and the poorer performance in fire of the new technology k15
00:25:38 the new technology k15 the reason i wouldn't we wouldn't have told them about the failed test in 2008 although i think somebody i remember inviting the bba along to a test they witnessed a
00:25:50 bba along to a test they witnessed a failed
00:25:51 failed k-15 test um i don't sorry could you rephrase the question yeah did did you ever tell the bba
00:26:02 yeah did did you ever tell the bba about the failed tests in 2007 and 2008 and the worst fire performance of the new technology k15 that you saw in those tests okay the the tests in 2008 were um owned by sotech primarily
00:26:16 2008 were um owned by sotech primarily so it wasn't our it wasn't kingspan's responsibility it wasn't um it wasn't the input the information wasn't owned by kingsplan but couldn't
00:26:27 wasn't owned by kingsplan but couldn't also also sorry also the failure um although yes i was shocked by it i didn't completely attribute attributed
00:26:38 i didn't completely attribute attributed to the insulation in isolation there was uh an effect of the cladding panel because it it melted and it floated in front of the uh system allowing the fire to leak up
00:26:50 uh system allowing the fire to leak up the the fire barrier we looked at this yesterday the bre comments
00:26:55 comments that they made they did have a concern about the k-15 continuing to burn didn't they
00:27:02 they yes yeah definitely and even if that information with so tech the test information all the detail of it was confidential why couldn't you have gone to the bba and said look i can't give you the full detail because it's confidential to
00:27:14 detail because it's confidential to another party but what i can tell you is we've changed the technology of our foam it now has perforations in the foil and it's performing worse in fire you could have done that couldn't you
00:27:27 we were striving to solve that problem before it came to a head so yes it could have been done but you were desperately hoping that something else we were we were hoping to
00:27:40 we were we were hoping to to have resolved it before it became an issue yeah you were hoping something else might come along that would give you the justification for the product you were selling definitely [Applause]
00:27:52 [Applause] can we now look at the labc um and their registered details and system approval for k-15 and you were asked in your witness statement what the purpose was of
00:28:03 statement what the purpose was of seeking an labc registered detail certificate and if we look at your response this is at your witness statement kin30s 22312 at page 39.
00:28:16 at page 39. and at paragraph 83 a towards the bottom of that page you're asked that question what was the purpose of obtaining an labc registered details certificate
00:28:27 details certificate and the answer you give is labc acceptance with a registered detail is a quick way of securing building control acceptance thus it was a no-brainer to seek out such a document do you see that there
00:28:38 such a document do you see that there yes so it was a very important document wasn't it when getting k-15 accepted for use on high-rise buildings yes without a date let's look at the
00:28:49 yes without a date let's look at the first system approval certificate which i was obtained for k-15 in may 2009 if we go to kin-405
00:29:02 [Applause] this is the system approval certificate and we can see it's been granted to the certificate holder which is kingspan
00:29:14 and under the system title we can see it says king description is kingspan call them k15 rainscreen board do you see that there yes
00:29:26 board do you see that there yes and under the conditions in section five on this page it's valid for three years do you see that in the the yellow highlighting yes
00:29:38 and then in the fourth page under the heading requirement be fire safety
00:29:51 so this is a document which appears at the back of the certificate requirement b fire safety considerations we see this and it says k-15 has been tested in accordance with
00:30:03 tested in accordance with and there's a list of four british standard test methods and we can see there
00:30:09 there we've got bs 8414 part 1 2002 and then you've got a fire resistant test and then you've got bs 476 part 6 and part 7
00:30:20 bs 476 part 6 and part 7 the national class nought tests and then it says this underneath it says from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility
00:30:31 limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame do you see that there yes now just looking at that sentence now do you agree that the most natural
00:30:42 now do you agree that the most natural reading of that is that k-15 can be considered to be a material of limited combustibility i i've seen this this um terminology
00:30:54 i i've seen this this um terminology used
00:30:55 used quite a bit when looking at alternative means to compliance because they say if you satisfy the alternative means to compliance test you can be considered a material limited combustibility therefore
00:31:06 combustibility therefore be used in the same scenario as who said that
00:31:09 that i've seen that in a um in an insurance document going back something to an lpcb document but it's not what approved document b says is it approved document b has very
00:31:21 says is it approved document b has very specific
00:31:23 specific tests for a product to be of limited combustibility and it's yeah no no certainly yeah there's the limited combustibility test which obviously prevents you having to do any other testing yeah
00:31:35 do any other testing yeah um but if you did the other testing what they're doing is putting limited combustibility side by side with a bs 8414 test there but it but it is it is badly worded and
00:31:46 but it but it is it is badly worded and it's misleading definitely yeah and bs 8414 testing can't transform a combustible product into one of limited combustibility can it it's not what said in approved
00:31:59 can it it's not what said in approved document
00:31:59 document b is it anywhere
00:32:04 but what they're saying is it can be it can be considered the same as it can be considered at the same level but that
00:32:11 but that that's just utterly wrong isn't it bs 476
00:32:15 476 part 11 testing and testing for a1 or a2 euro testing that's what you get with your limited combustibility are much more onerous tests aren't they yeah the their their small scale tests
00:32:27 yeah the their their small scale tests whereas the 8414 is a is a large scale test
00:32:31 test and kingspan knew didn't it all along that k-15 was not a material of limited combustibility on the contrary it was a combustible insulation was it definitely definitely yeah do you agree that this statement is
00:32:43 yeah do you agree that this statement is fundamentally wrong and misleading
00:32:53 it's very misleading yes yes what was your reaction when you saw that the certificate stated that k-15 can be considered as a material of limited combustibility
00:33:05 as a material of limited combustibility what did you think when you saw that i think i couldn't believe it was written
00:33:10 written and did you talk to anybody about that did you discuss it with your line manager and say that there's obviously been a mistake here this can't be right
00:33:21 i don't think i was directly responsible for this certificate i i'm sure we would have had that conversation yes
00:33:30 so because someone else was responsible you didn't think it was for you to say that that's simply wrong i was buried in work
00:33:39 work i you know if it wasn't my direct responsibility then i you know i'd very very rarely get the time to even read such things right let's look at page five of the
00:33:50 let's look at page five of the certificate when we see a section headed b4
00:33:54 b4 requirement b4 external file spread at the top of that page and it says this it says since k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable
00:34:06 combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 including those parts of a building more than 18 meters above the ground in the latter circumstances the cladding
00:34:17 in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also also meet the requirement for limited combustibility where the substrate is a metal frame wall system rather than masonry or concrete a non-combustible lining board
00:34:29 concrete a non-combustible lining board must be specified to the external face of the metal frame wall eg calcium silicate border similar performing do you see that there yes now again
00:34:42 yes now again that whole paragraph is plainly wrong and utterly misleading isn't it
00:34:53 but again it it's saying it can be considered a material limiting combustibility it's not saying it is a material limited combustibility and says it can be considered via the regulation but anybody reading
00:35:05 via the regulation but anybody reading this certificate would be led to believe that it was a material of limited combustibility looking at those words wouldn't they the word considered given limited combustibility has a very special
00:35:16 combustibility has a very special meaning
00:35:16 meaning in approved document b considered the word considered doesn't change that does it it's not saying it is a material limited combustion it's it's it's difficult that we were looking
00:35:27 it's it's difficult that we were looking at the regulations they were they were full of ambiguity around this kind of thing but yeah i i agree what you're saying it doesn't it doesn't look right when we look back at it now
00:35:38 look back at it now it doesn't say here does it that only one 8414 test has been carried out it doesn't say the system that that was carried out on in 2005.
00:35:50 carried out on in 2005. it doesn't say it doesn't have any restriction or qualification or caveat does it
00:35:56 does it is there not an addendum to this document where it lists that information i don't believe there is i mean someone will correct me if i'm wrong
00:36:07 and and do you agree looking at the wording where it says three lines down in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also
00:36:18 also meet the requirement for limited combustibility doesn't that wording reinforce
00:36:24 reinforce the message of this paragraph which is saying that this is a material of limited combustibility
00:37:03 sorry the question again yeah to put it more simply isn't it clearly saying that the insulation meets the requirements for limited combustibility and the other components of the system must meet them
00:37:14 meet them as well isn't that what it's definitely saying that the the other components surrounding the insulation must must meet the requirements of limited combustibility yes and it's the use of the word
00:37:24 the word also doesn't that reinforce the point that a reader of this would be led to believe that it was a material of limited combustibility
00:37:41 it's saying that the requirement for limited combustibility not not not but yeah yeah i i agree what you're saying it is definitely ambiguous and the reference to here to diagram 40
00:37:52 reference to here to diagram 40 is incoherent isn't it because k-15 was never going to be used as the outermost external layer of a cladding system was
00:38:02 it
00:38:17 no it wasn't so diagram 40 didn't apply did it had no relevance to this
00:38:26 this it's solely for external surfaces isn't it diagram 40 yeah if we look at what you say in your witness statement about this um if we go to paragraph 92 d on page 42
00:38:38 um if we go to paragraph 92 d on page 42 of your witness statement
00:38:42 you're being asked about this certificate and why kingspan didn't take any action about the wording in it and and you say this you say we were paying experts to make opinions based on
00:38:53 paying experts to make opinions based on our products properties and their applicability in accordance with building regulations we supplied the product data they would write the guidance these bodies usually kept themselves in check and we were clutching at anything
00:39:05 check and we were clutching at anything that would support the use of our products and very busy trying to balance all the needs of the company's business development therefore i believe it went unchecked properly by us that being said the documents were
00:39:18 us that being said the documents were very cheap compared to normal agreement certificates that could cost twenty thousand pounds per year compared to an initial two thousand pounds to produce the whole document do you see that there yes now far from
00:39:31 do you see that there yes now far from this certificate having gone unchecked properly by us that's what you say there are three lines up from the bottom of that paragraph far from that being the case in fact
00:39:42 far from that being the case in fact kingsborn were very pleased with this wording weren't they they knew exactly what it says said and they were very happy with it
00:39:53 it yeah of course it had its benefits and they knew that the wording was misleading
00:40:03 you and and your superiors knew that didn't you yes and the language you use there suggests
00:40:14 and the language you use there suggests is this right that you were just desperate for any support that could be given for the k-15 product is that fair
00:40:26 it was business critical because it was an important product yeah putting it simply a certificate from the labc saying that k-15 was of limited combustibility and suitable for use in
00:40:38 combustibility and suitable for use in all situations was of enormous benefit to kingspan commercially wasn't it
00:40:45 yes
00:40:48 can we look then an email from philip heath about this certificate if we can go to kin405383
00:41:04 here we can see it's an email from philip heath on thursday may the 7th 2009 and it's sent to a lot of the generic kingspan email addresses
00:41:18 and then a number of individuals are copied in including malcolm rochefort do you see that there yes would you have received this email
00:41:30 yes would you have received this email as one of the technical services people on those email strings
00:41:43 i'm not 100 sure if i was i should have been
00:41:46 been i should have got a copy of this do you remember
00:41:49 remember getting a copy if we scanned down it begins great news exclamation mark
00:41:56 let's read some of it together um he says please find attached local authority building control approval for k-15 range screen board then he explains in the next section
00:42:08 then he explains in the next section what is
00:42:08 what is labc approval and he says under benefits having a building type housing commercial or industrial or a complete
00:42:15 complete building element a system approved by labc means that it can be used without the full plans approval process happening repetitively around the country at each site this saves time and money for developers
00:42:27 this saves time and money for developers designers engineers contractors and builders and then he says this the highlight of this certificate and supporting documentation is the requirement under b4 of adb external fire spread
00:42:39 external fire spread since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable in all situations shown on diagram 40. so he sets out the paragraph there verbatim that we've just been discussing
00:42:51 been discussing and at the end of that paragraph he says nb this statement does not differ from anything
00:42:57 anything kingspan states and then he says k-15 remains the only insulation board that has successfully met the requirements of the bba
00:43:05 the bba and labc system approval all the relevant documents surrounding the labc system approval certificate are attached
00:43:16 and it's right isn't it that far from being unchecked by kingspan this very wording about limited combustibility was being celebrated within the company wasn't it
00:43:29 we wouldn't have um i don't believe i'm not completely okay with the process but i don't believe it went through the same sort of back and forth checking that like a bba certificate would
00:43:40 would um but but certainly you can see there that we
00:43:44 that we there were kingsmen were pleased with the benefits of the certificate yeah they were philip heath was thrilled wasn't he
00:43:50 wasn't he do you remember that it can be seen here yes
00:43:58 and he's called that part he's highlighted in bold material of limited combustibility and he's called it the highlight of the certificate that was indeed the highlight of the certificate wasn't it
00:44:11 that's the main clause because they're comparing the product as as like a material limited combustibility definitely do you agree that the labc certificate should have either been immediately
00:44:23 should have either been immediately corrected or withdrawn by kingspan
00:44:30 if the k-15 bs-8414 test had been um
00:44:38 more if i i believe if that statement had referenced the bs8414 test that we did in the in the defined construction that would have made that more
00:44:49 that would have made that more acceptable i see so it's just back to your point that you think it was we thought they're comparing it to them they're saying it can be considered
00:45:00 saying it can be considered like a material limiting combustibility they're not saying it is a material limited combustibility they're saying it's following the limited combustibility route because it meets that because it's bs 8414 part one
00:45:12 bs 8414 part one then it it puts it in the same box as limited combustibility okay but but even if you did think that that was
00:45:20 that was an appropriate route by this time you'd change the product that was being sold and it performed worse in fire so isn't that a fundamental problem here
00:45:34 it is a fundamental problem yes
00:45:39 can we go to another email now kin405385 this is an email sent on the 5th of june by you to mark swift and andrew pack
00:45:50 by you to mark swift and andrew pack and sorry to mark swift and gareth mills and andrew packer copied in friday the 5th of june 2009 and it reads this you're talking about approved document b
00:46:02 you're talking about approved document b in the subject and you say this adb b4 diagram 40. personally i would just say that we have now we now have the labc
00:46:12 the labc document and as long as the guidance within it is followed there are no limitations of use for k-15 and high-rise external ventilated facades
00:46:22 facades this document will be available to all lb labc
00:46:25 lb labc therefore we will not get any problems in the future when seeking approval for use
00:46:30 use from local authority building control offices from now on when challenged i'm simply going to send the labc document and let that do the talking i've copied ap
00:46:40 ap and gm to allow them to comment so that's andrew pack and gareth mills
00:46:48 so that was your strategy after that point wasn't it to let that certificate misleading as it was do the talking and
00:46:59 misleading as it was do the talking and get
00:47:00 get k-15 on to high-rise buildings and it took the pressure off for a while didn't yeah i was i was drowning in inquiries about k-15 so i was just following suit from my line
00:47:12 i was just following suit from my line manager that this was the solution yeah it gave you a much needed reprieve didn't it in terms of some something to point to on projects to say
00:47:23 something to point to on projects to say you can use k-15 over 18 meters
00:47:27 because there was no test evidence was there that supported that
00:47:39 there was test evidence but it was not directly relevant like we discussed yesterday yeah thank you
00:47:48 who would have been responsible in may 2012 for dealing with labc certification for k15 can you help us on that who would that have been
00:48:01 [Applause]
00:48:05 i'm not 100 sure it could have been gareth or andy or maybe matthew evans okay yeah can we go forward now
00:48:16 okay yeah can we go forward now with the story if we go to kin 405
00:48:25 and i want to look at an email on page one that you wrote to gareth mills yes in the middle of that page so this is now september
00:48:36 is now september 2012 and it's headed labc registered systems
00:48:42 systems and you say to gareth hi mate what's the status of this project was it done do you see that there yes
00:48:51 now by then the system approval had lapsed is that right the labc system approval
00:49:01 actually if i show you another email look at the top of this chain now to your email to tony milichap on monday october the 15th
00:49:12 on monday october the 15th there you say this you say hi tony you may or may not be aware that our labc approval for k-15 has lapsed without this we have lots of tall building issues which are causing a
00:49:23 building issues which are causing a major headache and potentially a lot of lost work whose responsibility was the k15 labc approval as gm is that gareth mills yes refuses to answer my emails on the
00:49:35 yes refuses to answer my emails on the subject and ap is that andrew pack yes says although he knew it had lapsed he was going to wait and see if they contacted him as he kicked it off i need to also put
00:49:48 as he kicked it off i need to also put pressure back on production to come up with a
00:49:50 with a testable k-15 as to get a new labc type approval we will probably need new data since we let it lapse your thoughts on this issue would be
00:50:01 your thoughts on this issue would be appreciated do you see that there yes so we can see you're obviously concerned that the certificate's lapsed and you've got lots of tall buildings and lots of potentially
00:50:13 tall buildings and lots of potentially lost work if you can't justify k-15 on tall buildings that's right isn't it yes that's the case and you say in the third paragraph down that you've got to put pressure back on production
00:50:25 got to put pressure back on production to come up with a testable k15 you see the work you use the word testable yes now that comment confirms that the current k-15 was not testable doesn't it
00:50:36 current k-15 was not testable doesn't it if production need to come up with one
00:50:42 i believe without cross-reference in the the technical meeting notes i i believe they were still trialling different variants and coming up with uh
00:50:54 up with uh modifying the ovens and that sort of thing so
00:50:57 thing so yeah yeah i was pushing production to to sort that issue out basically yeah
00:51:05 and it must follow from what you've said here doesn't it that at this point october 2012 you didn't think you had a version of k-15 which uh could pass certain fire tests
00:51:16 uh could pass certain fire tests as part of a system tested to bs 8414. yeah i was i was always concerned about the product so
00:51:27 and no tests had been done to bs8414 since june 2008 that's right isn't it we've been doing um small scale tests
00:51:39 we've been doing um small scale tests bench scale tests we've been oxygen index testing there was lots of work going on behind the scenes to come up with an improved material yeah it wasn't the
00:51:52 improved material yeah it wasn't the real reason that they've been there testing
00:51:54 testing that actually you had the labc certificate and you had favorable bba certificates for some of that time and they took the heat off yeah i think we were told to to pull the plug on expensive testing
00:52:07 to pull the plug on expensive testing yeah
00:52:07 yeah we're going to come to that in a moment actually i think we get that more directly
00:52:12 directly you write again on this issue four days later on the 19th of october if we look at that
00:52:17 at that it's at kin405554
00:52:24 and i want to go to the first email in the chain at the bottom of page
00:52:30 two and this is you to gareth mills joel clark andrew pack and the subject is labc for k15 and you say in the first paragraph with
00:52:41 and you say in the first paragraph with regards to trying to get something out of the labc to replace our old out of date question mark labc k 15 type approval
00:52:49 approval can i ask who's planning to take this on and then you say this as win tech are now aware our labc document is not valid anymore and are coming up against and we are coming up against all sorts of issues
00:53:01 coming up against all sorts of issues which will inevitably mean we are going to lose a lot of work do you see that there yes can you help us you talk about wind tech there who will win tech
00:53:12 win tech are um i think they're uh they're sort of a certification sort of engineers for the glazing
00:53:23 sort of engineers for the glazing industry
00:53:24 industry yeah um they uh consultants fire engineers i believe yeah
00:53:32 yeah and tell us what problems were win tech causing
00:53:35 causing at that time
00:53:40 i think they were refusing to accept kingsman's information yeah they were raising
00:53:49 raising real questions about the use of k-15 on buildings over 18 meters weren't they yes that's correct we'll come to some examples of that later
00:54:00 going on you say in the third paragraph um there are several very big projects that i believe are going to come unstuck because we no longer have this information therefore it's important we understand how much
00:54:12 understand how much and how long it will take to get a replacement i appreciate we may need some further work and the replacement may not be as useful as the previous version
00:54:20 version however can we ask the question as to how much and what we need to supply if we have not already do you see that there
00:54:28 there yes
00:54:32 and it's very clear what you mean by coming unstuck is that that certificate had been of a fundamental importance to winning high-rise projects hadn't it and without it kingspan was in much more
00:54:44 and without it kingspan was in much more difficulty
00:54:46 yes that's the case were you aware at the time what effect that labc certificate had had on sales of k-15 into the high-rise market were you ever
00:54:57 into the high-rise market were you ever given any
00:54:59 given any indication of that
00:55:02 i didn't really follow the sales side of the business i just validated my work from speaking to the business development side they would you know
00:55:12 know they would push me for work in specific areas so
00:55:16 areas so that's what i concentrated on i knew it was a successful product yeah so you knew it had been very important in terms of sales in the high-rise market that labc
00:55:28 in the high-rise market that labc certificate yes
00:55:31 if we look at the fourth paragraph you say that as the technical note and as the literature reference the labc approval we need to make a decision as to whether we should still send out this document or not have we
00:55:44 send out this document or not have we had anything official to advise that it's no longer relevant so is it right that one of the options you're canvassing here is whether it might be possible still to send out that labc certificate even though it lapsed that
00:55:56 though it lapsed that that's right isn't it
00:56:05 [Applause]
00:56:08 i'm just asking the question here yeah
00:56:14 now i just want to moving forward ask you about the registered details certificate which is issued for k15 on the 20th of august 2014. if we go to that it's nhb50798
00:56:37 this is an labc registered details certificate do you see that there yes and then on validity at the bottom left-hand corner of this page
00:56:48 left-hand corner of this page it says this certificate was first issued on the 28th of august 2013 and is valid until the 30th of november 2014 issued dated 20th of august 2014.
00:56:59 issued dated 20th of august 2014. do you see that there yes so slightly oddly
00:57:03 oddly it appears to be we think an extension of the previous certificate from the 28th of august 2013 but it's only valid until the 30th of november even though
00:57:16 until the 30th of november even though it's been issued on the 20th of august 2014. does that sound right on those dates
00:57:23 dates that's the way it looks there yes yeah and if we go to page three in the middle of the page under the heading adb file safety
00:57:35 do you see there it says this fire safety from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught since k-15 can be considered a material
00:57:47 since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40. now that's an exact repeat of the wording i previously took you to in the may 2009
00:57:59 may 2009 labc approval summary did you see that yes
00:58:03 yes and again that is accurate inaccurate and misleading isn't it
00:58:35 [Music] yes the same answer as before really with regards to my this thing about considered material not
00:58:46 this thing about considered material not actually a material i can see where they were coming from with this but yeah it is misleading and can you help us how that could have happened again in this certificate
00:59:01 i was not involved directly in the in the production of these certificates so
00:59:07 i think that would they only issue for a year or something like that so right who who was involved in the issuing of these certificates and they're proving i think it might have been gareth mills or andrew pack
00:59:19 been gareth mills or andrew pack okay yeah i mean i had a these emails were sent to me and copied to me asking questions but like i say it wasn't my main focus at
00:59:31 like i say it wasn't my main focus at the time okay
00:59:35 can we now go to nhb 50810 which is a chain of correspondence between a building control body in manchester called ascent and the nhbc from november 2014
00:59:51 i don't believe you're you're copied in on these emails or received them but i want to show you them nevertheless if we go first the bottom of page five and over into page six we can see at the bottom of page
01:00:02 six we can see at the bottom of page five there's an internal email from john miles of ascent building control in manchester on the 12th of november 2014 at 1558 and
01:00:13 on the 12th of november 2014 at 1558 and he's asking others about the use of k15 on buildings over 18 meters so the subject is kingspan k15 insulation above 18 meters and he says afternoon all i've got a
01:00:24 and he says afternoon all i've got a query below wonder what the view is on buildings over 18 meters would anyone have any hesitation in accepting this and then he's he carries on and he's given some details below that
01:00:37 now there's a response to him uh at the top of page five there's a response to him on the same day 12th of november 1617 on the top of page five
01:00:50 1617 on the top of page five um
01:00:54 yes and and there it's uh someone called jane keeley
01:01:01 where she says this she says hi john as i understand it kingspan have a test certificate where it is not combustible when used in conjunction with a non-vented rain screen cladding the certificate does not cover the
01:01:13 the certificate does not cover the situation where it's used with a vented rain screen cladding and i've heard that it burns quite readily when it's used in a vented situation i believe the labc certificate has been withdrawn now
01:01:25 withdrawn now i've just received details with kingspan at a height of over 18 and i've asked for a test certificate specifically for use
01:01:31 use with a vented rain screen situation do you see that there
01:01:36 yes and going up the chain do we know who jane keeley is
01:01:45 i think she may be within a cent is that right
01:01:50 right yeah she's another uh individual within the
01:01:53 the ascent building control body right sorry i should have said that um and if we go up the chain to page on page four
01:02:04 page four we can see that 1208 on the 13th of november
01:02:07 november jane keeley forwards the email the chain of correspondence to john lewis at the nhbc do you see that there on the 13th of november yes and she says not had a chance to
01:02:19 yes and she says not had a chance to read this yet but this is the one they've been they have withdrawn slash are withdrawing and then if we scroll up to the top of page one john lewis's email is quite
01:02:32 page one john lewis's email is quite long
01:02:32 long this is john lewis of the nhbc and we're going to talk quite a bit in the rest of today about the nhbc um but it starts with this he says back to jane keely
01:02:43 jane keely it's all garbage hereford labc didn't know what they were talking about we had a telephone call with labc warranty
01:02:52 warranty warranty technical manager can't recall his name
01:02:55 his name at which he stated that they were withdrawing their approval straight away that was on 27th of october so i would check that it's still valid if i were you
01:03:05 you do you see that there and then he sets out various parts of um adb now were you made at the at any time made aware that
01:03:16 aware that the labc had been contacted by the nhbc in this way about the content of this particular certificate
01:03:33 i don't believe so but i did i think i might have met john lewis and
01:03:40 i might have had we might have had this conversation or i might have something around this area so yeah so if we go to page two of don lewis's long email
01:03:52 long email um we've got a photograph there and what he does in the next section is he explains the difference between tests to bs 8414 part one and part
01:04:03 tests to bs 8414 part one and part two and then at the very bottom of of that page in the very bottom paragraph beginning kingspan he says this he says kingsman have since done at least two tests i suspect they've done more but
01:04:15 tests i suspect they've done more but have kept the results close to their chest
01:04:17 chest because they performed so badly exclamation mark using a steel frame and vent ventilated rain screen and there is an issue with ongoing burning once the fire source is
01:04:28 burning once the fire source is extinguished the insulation continues to burn up the cavity and in one case continued over the cavity barrier and to the top of the test rig so it's not clear why the labc detail states that it is a m-o-l-c
01:04:40 states that it is a m-o-l-c so material of limited combustibility when it clearly isn't do you see that there yes and then on the next page top of page three after
01:04:51 on the next page top of page three after he's done the screenshot of the labc certificate that we were just looking at
01:04:58 he writes immediately under that the bit about using a non-combustible lining board instead of a masonry backing on a steel framed wall has since proved not to be correct these words were king spans they assumed that
01:05:10 words were king spans they assumed that it would perform the same but when they did the tests it was found that it performed far worse do you see that there yes now that's correct isn't it the advice to use a non-combustible
01:05:22 the advice to use a non-combustible backing board on steel framed structures came from kingspan originally didn't it yes that's correct and that was to try and mask the fact that no successful test to bs 8414 part 2
01:05:34 test to bs 8414 part 2 on a steel frame structure had been carried out on any system incorporating k15
01:05:39 k15 that was done to extend the part one test to cover the part two yes yes but without there actually being a part two test in fact there being a part two successful test at the time yes yeah
01:05:53 and then in in the next paragraph down still on page three he says this it's all an accident waiting to happen and we're meeting with all the pir manufacturers to try and get
01:06:04 manufacturers to try and get something sorted but in the meantime they continue to state that it's fine and most
01:06:08 and most bcb's building control bodies accept that at face value without sifting through the details however dclg are now on the case hence why we need to sort something out
01:06:20 why we need to sort something out soon do you see that there yes so this is november 2014 were you at this stage alerted
01:06:32 were you at this stage alerted to the fact that dclg the department for communities and local government were on the case
01:06:43 i don't recollect them being on the case so to speak no did you i i know that we were we were bombarded by queries of this
01:06:54 we were bombarded by queries of this nature
01:06:55 nature around this time did you yourself have ever ever had have any contact
01:07:02 contact with um the dclg about this and the use of k15 over 18 meters
01:07:12 i think we i think i might have had a conversation with anthony bird yeah um can you remember what that would have been a a while back really around
01:07:25 a while back really around i think it was maybe it was around the um time that 8414 part one and two was being included within adb so much earlier much earlier yeah okay
01:07:39 so much earlier much earlier yeah okay so you don't recall having a conversation in or around 2014 or thereafter with the dtlg or anybody there
01:07:48 there i can't recollect that now or any of your bosses do you recall them ever meeting with anyone at the dclg were we were talking to insurers and
01:07:59 were we were talking to insurers and other
01:07:59 other industry bodies but not the dc lg or anything
01:08:03 anything but we considered the bra to be the people that provided the dclg the guidance but you were aware weren't you by late 2013 that the
01:08:14 2013 that the nhbc was on the case wasn't it and starting to ask difficult questions about k-15 certainly yes
01:08:26 on the labc certificate were you aware at any stage that this labc certificate of the 20th of august 2014 had been withdrawn and amended
01:08:37 had been withdrawn and amended were you ever made aware of that
01:08:56 what this particular version yeah yeah um
01:09:00 um i can't recollect unfortunately okay um we understand that that revised certificate uh we can see an email on the 18th of december 2014
01:09:12 december 2014 um where it was sent that's labc 40997 is the certificate that was sent
01:09:27 now this one also appears to be dated the 20th of august 2014 if you look in the bottom left hand side
01:09:37 and but it carried an expiry date it says it's valid until the 30th of november 2015 do you see that yes
01:09:46 and in this certificate this revised one the claim that k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility had been removed so if we go to the middle of page three
01:09:57 middle of page three we can see that the form of words under adb fire safety has changed to say this thermosetting insulins
01:10:06 insulins do not meet the limited combustibility requirements of adb a d b2
01:10:13 a d b2 table a7 and so should not be accepted as meeting paragraph 12.7 however if they are included as part of a cladding system tested to br 135 and bs 8414 for use above 18 meters
01:10:25 bs 8414 for use above 18 meters the complete assembly may ultimately prove to be acceptable where the substrate is a metal framed wall system rather than masonry or concrete and non-combustible lining board
01:10:36 lining board must be specified to the external face of the metal frame wall do you see that there yes so the limited combustibility part has been amended but it still makes reference to
01:10:47 reference to eight four one four though it doesn't say whether it's part one or part two and it still says misleadingly doesn't it at the end that where the substrate is a metal frame wall system
01:10:58 frame wall system a non-combustible lining board can be specified
01:11:01 specified do you see that yes that's correct
01:11:10 can you help us and you may not be able to
01:11:13 to but but we can't work it out at the moment as to what version of the labc certificate was it being circulated by kingspan between august 2014 and march 2015.
01:11:26 between august 2014 and march 2015. is that something you would have been involved with it should have been the most current version of the document i think i remember we had to set up an area on the intranet
01:11:38 area on the intranet or the the company website where we had the the relevant versions of documents because it was possible that sales managers would have the wrong
01:11:49 that sales managers would have the wrong version on their laptops and be sending that out so i tried to push for a central
01:11:53 central location to prevent errors like that happening
01:11:57 happening yeah now just going to a related topic which is the decision to stop testing that we've already discussed i just want to send to take
01:12:09 discussed i just want to send to take you to some emails on this now so um do you recall that after the bba certificate was issued the first one in october 2008 and the labc
01:12:19 labc certificate was first awarded in may 2009
01:12:22 2009 a decision was made by philip heath the stop fire
01:12:25 stop fire testing or certainly large-scale fire testing of k-15 that's right isn't it that's correct yes and if we go to an email he wrote to you and others if we can look at kin kin40s5382
01:12:38 if we can look at kin kin40s5382 this is an email of the 11th of may 2009
01:12:47 so if we can blow up the top of the page
01:12:54 so he says to you justin davis vincent coppock
01:12:57 coppock copying in malcolm rochford and the subject is phenolic fire focus group and then he attaches the labc system approval certificate
01:13:08 system approval certificate he says this following the success of receiving the attached labc accreditation that now satisfies the requirements for k-15 being installed above 18 meters we should cease
01:13:18 cease any further far test for rent ventilated rain screens at an excess of 15 000 pounds per test both the sales and business development teams should be adept enough to use their
01:13:29 their tool kit to the full the pressure is on other component suppliers of this method of construction to obtain similar statements or prove their non-combustible statements
01:13:40 their non-combustible statements this saving will allow other applications in the coolthorn brand to achieve a similar focus to that given to k-15
01:13:46 k-15 over recent years and look at how the sales in this have grown therefore the focus on this group should be other cool firm applications where we do not have the complete sales toolkit we should be considering fire test smoke
01:13:58 we should be considering fire test smoke tests that may not be relevant for either construction or the end-use application provided it has a good marketing story these should be tabled do you see that there yes now given that
01:14:10 do you see that there yes now given that this was your area of responsibility how did you view this decision to stop testing once you had the labc certificate
01:14:20 this is a response phil's email is a response to my phenolic fire focus group meeting request i set up a monthly meeting with
01:14:31 request i set up a monthly meeting with some of the key chemists just to try and forward um the technology and you know make sure that they were focusing on the need for an improved product obviously
01:14:42 product obviously phil's kind of hijacked my email and my meet and request email and he's saying that this is the case i i remember at the time that i wasn't over the moon about this
01:14:54 that i wasn't over the moon about this because we as far as i saw we still needed more testing right we were we were basing our story on some flimsy very flimsy labc certificates which were
01:15:06 very flimsy labc certificates which were as we say that they're not very well written yeah um what phil what what is important here is phil's comment that he um says i mean it's not brilliantly written
01:15:17 says i mean it's not brilliantly written it says
01:15:18 it says it's it's up to other component suppliers to obtain similar statements like i illustrated yesterday kingspan had demonstrated that k-15 or a version of an earlier
01:15:29 that k-15 or a version of an earlier version of k-15 could perform in the bs-8414 test what we wanted was the other suppliers in industry to come together and we tried to do this with rain screen works
01:15:41 with rain screen works was to also test with us and to demonstrate that their systems could could be used as well but we like i say we had a reluctance from a lot of the cladding manufacturers they were
01:15:52 the cladding manufacturers they were sort of happy the questions weren't being asked of them at this point in time so i mean what phil says there to prove their non-combustibility statements what he means is to prove that they can
01:16:03 what he means is to prove that they can perform in a similar manner to limited combustibility that's what he's trying to say there i see so he's not saying there the pressure's now on
01:16:16 now on component suppliers who are competitors no no
01:16:22 other elements of the cladding system so you know the rain screen panels specifically those compressed kind of fiber types like trespa return it that sort of thing and
01:16:33 trespa return it that sort of thing and obviously
01:16:34 obviously acm which we knew wasn't great in performing into this test so
01:16:44 yeah he's just trying to say that you know we've got what we need for the moment
01:16:48 moment you know we haven't we haven't ticked all the boxes but we've got evidence and that that was always the strategy really we knew by this point that we we could never provide a catch-all we've done
01:17:00 provide a catch-all we've done everything to meet the market needs obviously this you know we when the labc came in and wrote things like that on top that kind of clouded our original story and we
01:17:12 of clouded our original story and we we obviously hid behind that yeah you said that you weren't over the moon about this do you ever recall going and speaking to mr heath and saying listen we can't stop testing we don't
01:17:25 listen we can't stop testing we don't have
01:17:26 have any substantiation for k-15 over 18 meters certainly not the one that you're selling by that point did you ever have that discussion i don't know if phil was my line manager at this time so who would have been your life i think
01:17:38 so who would have been your life i think it might have been tony um tony tony tony miller oh i see okay so i think you know we had seven separate
01:17:50 i think you know we had seven separate budgets
01:17:51 budgets i mean i feel when it went off to australia for a couple of years then he came back
01:17:55 came back and he took on a different role yes that's in 2010 yeah at this point 2009 don't believe tony miller chap's taken over you all right okay
01:18:07 over you all right okay so just to ask my question again do you recall ever going to mr heath or indeed mr militarp and saying we can't
01:18:17 can't not test because we haven't got anything to support k15 being used above 18 meters i think because of the weight on my shoulders that i put on my own shoulders probably
01:18:30 that i put on my own shoulders probably i i took these things as a bit of a breather sometimes you know it was i was i was overwhelmed with the amount of work i was dealing with so you know sometimes i didn't deal with
01:18:43 so you know sometimes i didn't deal with things correctly okay thank you mr chairman i think that's a good moment for this morning all right we'll have a break now then uh mr meredith they'll come back at 25 to 12 please
01:18:54 12 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room
01:18:57 the room all right thank you
01:19:07 right 25 to 12.
01:37:04 thank you would you ask mr meredith to come back in please
01:37:19 all right mr meredith i'm ready to go on yes thank you very much here's some scratch
01:37:23 scratch yes thank you so staying with the topic of the decision to stop testing can we look now at uh kin408845 which is some minutes
01:37:34 which is some minutes of a fire focus group meeting for phenolic fame on the 18th of may 2009
01:37:43 2009 and we can see your present and it appears that you took the minutes do you see that there at the top yes do you know was this the first meeting of that group that took place it's the 18th of may
01:37:54 that took place it's the 18th of may 2009
01:37:58 i think looking at the um the way i've set out the meeting minutes it does look like this is something that this is a kick-off meeting for that yeah format yeah i needed something more official
01:38:10 yeah i needed something more official and
01:38:11 and to to push these issues basically so yeah we ran that group yeah yeah and we can see malcolm rochefort's there and apologies are sent by philip heath on this occasion and
01:38:22 heath on this occasion and and then going down under background it says this and the meeting was called to organize agree and understand the current fire testing requirements and mandatory product development of our
01:38:34 and mandatory product development of our new technology cool firm there are several fire performance requirements that are crucial for sales of phenolic however in some areas on development phenolic products we are falling just
01:38:45 phenolic products we are falling just short of the mark do you see that there yes
01:38:51 and then um that paragraph carries on this group was originally pulled together as we believe we must have the bs84 part one and part two for our propagation test on call
01:39:03 two for our propagation test on call firm k-15
01:39:06 firm k-15 following the recent release of the k-15 bba and the labc land tech approval this urgent requirement has been relaxed as the documents are working to cover the regulatory desires for specific system approval yes
01:39:19 for specific system approval yes and then you've got other areas of concern relate to the surface spread of fire performance of the product that we are concerned may have reduced and this can be seen in a recent bs476 part 7
01:39:30 part 7 test and then if we go on to item two of the meeting minutes there's a heading call them k15 facade test and it says there following discussions
01:39:41 and it says there following discussions it was agreed that we still need to look at developing a product that will be able to pass a bs 8414 part 2 test as a backup to the labc documentation
01:39:53 as a backup to the labc documentation and then it goes on current fire propagation levels with ath filled and op920 development products are not adequate for this test do you see that there yes thus
01:40:04 test do you see that there yes thus currently we are not in a situation to test due to the prolonged levels of afterburn
01:40:09 afterburn which are experienced um so again here is it right you're confirming that k-15 as you've got it currently at that time
01:40:20 time can't pass a large-scale fire test as part of the system tested to 8414 part two
01:40:31 i am confirming that it won't pass [Music]
01:40:35 [Music] i had confidence that we could pass with less onerous systems but with aluminium composite materials and and weaker facades then yeah
01:40:46 and and weaker facades then yeah k-15 was going to struggle yeah can we now go to kin409135 which is an email chain between you and a number of others in august
01:40:58 a number of others in august 2009 about a particular project and i want to look at the second email in the chain dated the 28th of august at 10 29 yeah on that page there
01:41:13 and it's from you to philip heath sorry it's not philipp heath it's to mark swift richard bromwich do you see that there yes and the
01:41:26 do you see that there yes and the technical help desk is copied into that yep
01:41:31 and you say this um i've given steve a courtesy call apparent apparently this is a very small area behind brass cladding onto concrete at the very top of the building which is set back from the main facade
01:41:43 which is set back from the main facade with a large terrace therefore very low risk anyway it's stuart taylor at wind tech whom is raising concerns and we know as being pro-mineral wool
01:41:54 being pro-mineral wool apparently the lower areas of the job went to rockwool as reef deck did not get any assistance from us i suspect this is not true and they have their own agenda here does anyone know any different and then
01:42:06 does anyone know any different and then you say
01:42:06 you say it may be a nice job to market as it's definitely over 18 meters it's one of the bigger apartment blocks in the uk and then you say all also betham towers
01:42:17 and then you say all also betham towers in manchester which is another high-rise job that went to k-15 i think can we do some case studies question mark i know these inquiries have died out since we obtained the labc approval
01:42:28 out since we obtained the labc approval however it would be good to get as much supporting evidence of successful jobs in the portfolio while we have the chance
01:42:37 so you say there in that last paragraph that i just read that inquiries have died out since we obtained the labc approval and that was because
01:42:50 approval and that was because building control bodies would have the labc certificate saying it was a limited combustibility material wouldn't it so you were getting fewer queries is that right yes that's correct
01:43:03 and these jobs that you're discussing in this email did you think they were all replicating the configuration of the 2005 test
01:43:14 or were you aware that they were different systems i'm definitely aware that they're
01:43:25 i'm definitely aware that they're different systems yes yeah do you ever recall dealing with or anyone else in kingspan dealing with a customer who was proposing to use the exact buildup
01:43:36 exact buildup that had been tested in may 2005 no because the exact buildup we was only a it was a simulation test we were only looking to to simulate the
01:43:47 we were only looking to to simulate the performance of a non-combustible cladding
01:43:51 cladding yeah and you were well aware weren't you that kingspan should not have been advocating the use of k15 with a structural steel frame as you did not have any test evidence to
01:44:02 as you did not have any test evidence to support that did you we did not have any test evidence um one of the things i was looking at here i was wanting to speak to these customers to speak to the fire engineers and to
01:44:14 to speak to the fire engineers and to find out what routes they had gone through to satisfy compliance we were looking to build up a bigger portfolio for k-15 and we were looking for
01:44:24 for fire engineers who had um who were comfortable with the performance based on
01:44:30 on the information that we were providing to them
01:44:33 to them right and we were we were looking to potentially get extended application rules from someone else apart from the bre because we couldn't get them out of them and did you ever find a fire engineer
01:44:45 and did you ever find a fire engineer who was prepared to do that for you i believe um there were towards the end of my time at kingsman we got assessments from several fire engineers who were
01:44:57 several fire engineers who were expanding the scope of the the test evidence based on the test evidence that we had so expanding the scope of the may 2005 test yeah to other systems yeah applying
01:45:09 test yeah to other systems yeah applying it to other systems yeah even though you knew that wasn't a truly representative test and you knew the k-15 yeah i knew it wasn't a truly representative test but it was
01:45:19 it was to be taken looked at you know it wasn't supposed to be a representative test it was supposed to be evidence of performance of an insulation behind a
01:45:30 insulation behind a combustible a non-combustible layer so like i say the the the real criteria of the s8414 as we understand is the fire spread up the facade
01:45:41 the facade once you've got a um a cow a cement pasta board or something on the outside of the frame you're not really going to have to worry about fire penetrating through the
01:45:52 about fire penetrating through the buildup
01:45:53 buildup so it's really the spread up the facade that's the concern but did you ever tell any of those engineers that in fact the product you tested
01:46:03 tested back in 2005 was no longer the product you were selling no we wouldn't have said that can we go to
01:46:14 kin403701 which is an email you wrote to philip heath on the 21st of may 2008
01:46:23 if you look at the top it's about cladding queries ice developments walnuts way stevenage and you say this to philip heath you say
01:46:34 and you say this to philip heath you say this is the email i'm worried about we simply do not have the information to support use of k15 above 18 meters with steel frames i'm worried that the product will be removed from site and the ongoing effect of such an action
01:46:45 of such an action i think getting this sorted should take priority over all other projects and is causing us to lose work now what was philip heath's response to your concerns when you raised that with him
01:46:57 him was there a response to this email no we can't find one
01:47:05 can you recall his response at another any other time when you raise concerns about not having an 8414 test relating to steel frame systems
01:47:22 relating to steel frame systems i think we like we've said previously today
01:47:27 today phil felt we'd spent enough money in this direction and it was time to you know look after the other products and and raise their profiles
01:47:38 raise their profiles so they would you know do you recall anybody
01:47:42 anybody recommending to the technical teams in kingspan that it should stop proposing the use of kingspan and build ups
01:47:50 ups with a steel frame system after you sent this email
01:48:05 this email i think obviously there was wind tech um there were a few other people that raised concerns but i don't remember anyone internally saying that we should stop selling into that area and you didn't
01:48:16 selling into that area and you didn't say that
01:48:21 i'd raised my concerns about the absence of information definitely okay i want to move on now to to look at the way that kingspan the
01:48:32 to look at the way that kingspan the technical team dealt with inquiries from customers
01:48:35 customers and we're going to be looking at some projects where win tech were involved can we go now to
01:48:45 five eight kin402589 and these are emails from 2008 on a project called grosvenor waterside and i want to start at the bottom of page four
01:48:58 where we can see simon hepworth there of aztec projects to you and gareth mills copying in philip heath and richard
01:49:10 copying in philip heath and richard bromwich
01:49:11 bromwich and others and it's the subject is k15 combustibility and he says there gareth i appreciate i appreciate your response i think it means your response
01:49:22 means your response however as far as i can see the bre cert does not cover the testing of k15 and trespa
01:49:28 trespa to br 135 and hence does nothing to back up your statement that k15 is suitable for use above 18 meters this is very concerning ivor assured me
01:49:39 this is very concerning ivor assured me that the test data and the bre certs were available for the br135 test can you please clarify regards simon do you see that there yes now he's
01:49:50 do you see that there yes now he's referring to an assurance that you've given him there that the test data and bre certificates were available for the br135 test had you told him that had you assured
01:50:01 had you told him that had you assured him that
01:50:02 him that i think i'd assured him that he could um i worked quite closely with simon i think i assured him that he could definitely see the the test data i think
01:50:13 definitely see the the test data i think maybe gareth would
01:50:16 maybe question why he needed it before he sent it out i think that was what was going on there had you assured him that
01:50:23 him that a br135 classification report was available
01:50:28 available for the test that you know i would never have done that because there wasn't one available
01:50:33 available and kingspan had not at this stage completed any large-scale fire testing using trespa cladding panels had they no this was one of the companies that we had tried to involve in rain screen
01:50:45 we had tried to involve in rain screen works
01:50:46 works who had been reluctant to get involved and
01:50:49 and from my understanding they were one of the leaders for high-rise cladding yeah so you've got no large-scale fire test data using that trespa cladding panel we can see that you then respond
01:51:02 panel we can see that you then respond to simon hetworth with a long email starting about halfway down page three sent on the 10th of september at 9 26
01:51:14 it's quite a dense email i'm going to ask you about various bits of it as we go um and in essence you're you're still recommending k-15
01:51:26 recommending k-15 for the groveno waterside project so you say following review of the trespa fr product on our own enclosed far test data we believe we have everything required to satisfy building control on the above
01:51:38 to satisfy building control on the above mentioned project please refer to text below an attached test
01:51:43 test report for further confirmation in respect of your questions so when you say uh we believe we have everything required to satisfy building control on the above memphis and project
01:51:54 control on the above memphis and project who's the we you're referring to there is that kingspan that would be kingspan yes and on what basis
01:52:01 basis did you form the belief that you had everything required to satisfy building control on a project which involved trespa and this was a steel structure
01:52:15 um we had obviously tested with a non-combustible
01:52:23 layer in front of our insulin um a six mil one
01:52:28 mil one and we looked at i think we looked at the trespa fr data i can't recollect what it is now but
01:52:38 we were being optimistic here that we had the the correct information definitely when you say optimistic you didn't have the right information to be able to make that recommendation did you
01:52:51 well we are i don't believe kingsman ever took
01:52:56 ever took complete responsibility for these buildups we would always present our information as this is what we have
01:53:03 we have and we would recommend that you seek support from the other component suppliers
01:53:08 suppliers but we do see again and again and again king's
01:53:11 king's kingspan saying that k15 is suitable for projects over 18 meters that was said wasn't it yes time and time again on many buildings
01:53:24 yes that's and that was our that was our presented belief yes yeah
01:53:32 so you go on you you say um please at the end of that first paragraph please refer to text below an attached test report for further confirmation in respect of your questions in the next paragraph you
01:53:44 your questions in the next paragraph you say
01:53:45 say br135 and bs 8414 are alternative methods of compliance look at adb 12.5 that have been inserted into the approved documents to allow the use of combustible insulations
01:53:57 use of combustible insulations as long as the appropriate fire precautions are provided i.e the provision of adequate fire barriers now that's not a proper characterization of the terms of
01:54:08 of the terms of 8414 or br135 is it they don't allow the use of combustible insulation as long as there's appropriate fire precautions i've written that badly they're test
01:54:19 i've written that badly they're test methods
01:54:20 methods and can be used to for the alternative route to compliance yeah yeah but that that misrepresents what they're saying you're saying that they're there to
01:54:31 you're saying that they're there to allow the use of combustible insulations as long as appropriate fire precautions are provided i.e fire barriers that that's not the purpose of those tests isn't it no no that that test you you could actually put put a build
01:54:44 you you could actually put put a build up together without fire barriers if bs8414 could demonstrate it quite and then in the next paragraph down
01:54:52 down uh beginning kingspan insulation limited you say kingsburn installation limited recommend when using k15 above 18 meters that horizontal fire barriers are adopted at every intermediate floor level
01:55:02 level this information has been deduced following the guidance in br 135 and via testing to 8414 we have attached our 8414 test report which most closely represents the system
01:55:13 which most closely represents the system proposed on the above mentioned project now when you're referring there to reports in the plural and attaching the report which most
01:55:25 and attaching the report which most closely represents you only had one report at that point didn't you it was the 2005. yeah and i'd not have i not sent the class o test reports with this
01:55:36 class o test reports with this as well but the class number test reports wouldn't be relevant to above 80 meters would they no not at all but they would be part of our um
01:55:44 our um standard offering to demonstrate the fire performance of k-15 yeah
01:55:51 k-15 yeah but you also knew more fundamentally by this point that the k-15 that's being sold
01:55:57 sold performs even worse in a test situation than the old k15 in that 2005 report didn't you yes that was correct
01:56:10 would you agree that this is actively misleading to the customer he's inquiring about the product yes that's the case and it was deliberate wasn't it
01:56:21 deliberate wasn't it wasn't inadvertent it was deliberately misleading so that kingspan stayed on that building
01:56:32 i mean this wasn't agreed text this was you know this was um
01:56:43 you know this was um we were still learning about the test method and approved document b at the time
01:56:48 time and we were presenting what we considered our best foot forward at the time
01:56:52 time but you were deliberately misrepresenting the information you had weren't you but yeah the the the we had the the phenolic material was
01:57:03 we had the the phenolic material was evolving and it wasn't the what i tested most recently wasn't
01:57:09 wasn't satisfactory as far as i was concerned no yeah
01:57:15 and then a little bit further down on that it's about halfway down through line 10 on that page there's a paragraph beginning kingspan
01:57:26 beginning kingspan insulation limited tested the cooldown k15 onto a non-combustible substrate with a particle board cladding system
01:57:41 yes yes can you see that it starts so in the third paragraph it starts four lines down in the third paragraph towards the right hand side you can see
01:57:52 towards the right hand side you can see kingspan insulation limited tested the cool them k15 onto a non-combustible substrate with a particle board cladding system do you see that there yes and
01:58:04 do you see that there yes and it's right isn't it that you're using the term non-combustible substrate rather than saying it was masonry because you didn't want to point out the reality of the situation that
01:58:15 out the reality of the situation that any test data you did have could only apply to a masonry structure that's right isn't it we're trying to expand the scope of that test yes yeah you're not you're not being precise
01:58:27 yeah you're not you're not being precise as to what it was tested on no and then just a little bit further down same paragraph there's on the right hand side
01:58:38 paragraph there's on the right hand side there's a
01:58:39 there's a sentence beginning in accordance with en 13501
01:58:43 13501 that's the european classification system you say in accordance with that a non-combustible substrate can either be calcium silicate sheathing masonry or steel the tested
01:58:55 masonry or steel the tested system was designed so with relatively inner components so the fire effect of the k-15 could be clearly identified and then you say the uac cladding panels
01:59:07 and then you say the uac cladding panels adopted within this test had the same levels of fire performance as the trespa fr panels
01:59:12 fr panels when tested two four seven six part six and part seven although not also although not directly applicable to the uk marketplace however it is being introduced
01:59:23 it is being introduced the fireside of the euro classifications for trespa fr and the usac product are very similar as both achieve a euro class b do you see that there yes so what
01:59:34 b do you see that there yes so what you're doing here is correct me if i'm wrong you're desperately clinging to anything you can say
01:59:41 say which suggests that the external panel that they're proposing to use the trespa one is similar to what you tested on aren't you yeah we're highlighting similarities
01:59:52 we're highlighting similarities as a basis for their fire engineer for this job to hopefully provide approval but you're bringing in tests in the class naught test bs 476
02:00:03 tests in the class naught test bs 476 part 6 and part 7 that are of no relevance to this question are they but they're used in the building regulations as a way of identifying materials they are yeah
02:00:13 yeah but in terms of whether materials should be put above 18 meters or not i understand that it's not relevant is it
02:00:22 where you see it's not directly relevant but we're trying to build build a picture here but were you actually trying to confuse readers in a paragraph like intentionally no
02:00:33 intentionally no we were trying to work towards a goal here
02:00:39 and then you go on it so at the bottom of that page we can see a paragraph beginning as the tested system details and you say this as the tested system details the performance of cool form k15
02:00:51 details the performance of cool form k15 when used onto a non-combustible substrate with a class o cladding product
02:00:55 product we believe this is representational of the construction i.e a class naught cladding system trespa fr with a high performance phenolic insulation k15 fixed onto a
02:01:07 insulation k15 fixed onto a non-combustible steel frame sheathing based on the enclosed data kingspan insulation limited are confident that the product is suitable for use above 18 meters as long as fire barriers are adopted in
02:01:18 as long as fire barriers are adopted in the intermediate floor levels however as with all alternative methods of compliance the final approval always needs to come from building control now the reality is isn't it that far
02:01:30 now the reality is isn't it that far from being confident and you were wholly unsure of how k15 would behave with a trespass panel you couldn't have had any
02:01:41 panel you couldn't have had any knowledge of how that was going to play out could you
02:02:01 at this time we had no experience i didn't think of the trespa panel in an eight four one four tests so we
02:02:08 we you know we were like i say being optimistic with our suggestions here yeah but at the end of the day we're we're saying that this is our point of view you need to
02:02:20 view you need to you need to seek advice from building control or the appropriate approval body yes but you're you're confidently saying as the manufacturer that the product is suitable for use above 18 meters in
02:02:31 is suitable for use above 18 meters in that specific system yeah i can't get away from that yeah i see that yeah yeah and any test to support the use of that system would have to be to bs 84
02:02:42 that system would have to be to bs 84 part two wouldn't it because this was a steel frame structure
02:03:02 if you had to do a full large scale test it would have to be to part two yes yes and we know don't we that when kingspan
02:03:09 kingspan did test with a trespa fr panel in january 2014 the test was a fail isn't that right yes that's correct
02:03:24 if we look at the second line of the second to last paragraph there on on page three
02:03:32 um do you do you see is that it's the sentence beginning as the tested system details the performance of k-15 then if you go on to the next line it
02:03:43 then if you go on to the next line it says when used onto a non-combustible substrate with a class naught cladding product we believe this is representational of the construction at and then something's missing and then it
02:03:54 and then something's missing and then it says i.e
02:03:55 says i.e a class naught cladding system
02:03:59 my question for you is is this a standard pro forma answer that kingspan was sending out no not at all that's just a typo
02:04:12 i mean i might have had some sort of standard sections of text but no this wasn't the standard letter and if we go to the last two lines on page three right at the very bottom
02:04:25 page three right at the very bottom there
02:04:25 there you say up until now we have not had any issues with the use of k-15 when used in conjunction with adequately performing cladding materials thus following supply of the enclosed
02:04:36 thus following supply of the enclosed test data
02:04:37 test data we expect building controls and then over the page opinion of our product to be positive now that that's simply not right is it you hadn't not had
02:04:48 you hadn't not had any issues with the use of k15 you'd encountered tests in 2007 and 2008 on steel frame structures where it failed spectacularly didn't it
02:05:04 i still consider this to be partly the fault of the cladding system okay well we've been over those documents and we can see what what was
02:05:15 documents and we can see what what was written at the time yeah um but it's simply not true is it that no questions had been asked about the use of k-15 by this time questions had already
02:05:26 by this time questions had already started to be raised about compliance for a k-15 over 18 meters hadn't they yeah i believe that's a bad sentence i think yeah
02:05:37 that's a bad sentence i think yeah it's wholly inaccurate yes
02:05:41 now i just want to break off from this email chain for just a moment we're going to come back to it in a minute um and look at another email chain
02:05:51 k-i-n-405308 and this is a six-page email chain between you um aleister lambie at kingspan and andrew pack of kingspan arising out of a query from a firm of
02:06:02 arising out of a query from a firm of architects about the use of k-15 in a 10-story project and if we go to the bottom of page 4
02:06:11 the client who is beatrice bryant at heard roland rolland says on the 27th of july 2007
02:06:23 says on the 27th of july 2007 at 909
02:06:27 she says this alistair so this is aleister lambie and then at the top of page five she says we are considering specifying this for a ten-story project residential and
02:06:38 for a ten-story project residential and our fire consultants asked me to ask you to send us a copy of the assessment that was carried out in accordance with br135
02:06:47 and then if we can look at um aleister lambie
02:06:52 lambie an email he sends at page four on the 8th of august 2007. at 8 23.
02:07:02 alistair lambie was in kingspan wasn't he yes
02:07:05 he yes yes the um structural area sales manager yeah and um he says this uh to andrew pack on
02:07:17 and um he says this uh to andrew pack on the 8th of august 2007. andy the suitability of k15 in a ventilated cavity over 18 meters is being questioned more and more in scotland can you forward all the relevant fire assessment
02:07:28 forward all the relevant fire assessment certificates documents to the architect below and to myself i can then print them off and make a k-15 pack which can be left when we complete cpds or sent to architects contractors who question its suitability
02:07:41 contractors who question its suitability and then if we go up the chain to page two we see you become involved
02:07:49 and on the 14th of august 2007 you send a response to aleister lambie and andrew pack
02:07:59 on this topic and you say this alastair we are a little reluctant to go public with the actual test information at the moment
02:08:06 moment as this is only to bs 84141 and i suspect this job would be a bs 84142 project at the moment i'm doing a vast vast amount of work to promote sorry
02:08:19 vast amount of work to promote sorry to produce a very robust situation where cool firm k-15 can be used on all substrates and with most generic types of cladding we appreciate this is a particular issue
02:08:30 we appreciate this is a particular issue in scotland and over the next 12 months we will be performing at least 15 large-scale tests to bs 8414 with a total cap x of well over 200k
02:08:41 with a total cap x of well over 200k until that time we have the bs 8414 flyer
02:08:44 flyer we will write letters of suitability and for larger projects i can come and do a specific k-15 technical fire presentation which details our compliance with br135
02:08:55 which details our compliance with br135 a common misconception is that be the bre have to write an assessment to be r135 when actually all you have to do is pass the test and therefore you meet the criteria of br135
02:09:06 therefore you meet the criteria of br135 anyway i was hoping by this time i would have something better on paper that we could address the scottish situation with
02:09:12 with however this is a little way off until then most projects are dealt with on a job for job basis as although k15 is suitable the surrounding cladding may mean that you can't use k15
02:09:23 mean that you can't use k15 that's the last thing we want to tell our customers so if you can get the following information i will write a letter specifically for this job that hopefully
02:09:31 hopefully provides enough confidence in our product please get off the architect the building height the story height the full construction from inside
02:09:39 inside out including products descriptions and brand names the trouble is k15 meets the criteria of 135 but when you start introducing other factors it gets complicated hence we will not be up for providing all the
02:09:51 will not be up for providing all the test evidence in a rain screen pack and then you say when you next come in come and have a chat
02:09:59 chat and i will show you what i can present if the job's big enough fortunately nine times out of ten they accept our word do you see that there yes
02:10:12 and it's right isn't it that letters of suitability were being written by kingspan on a project by project basis long before september 2008. do you accept that
02:10:23 accept that yes how often were those being written and who was writing them
02:10:32 i was predominantly the the senior technical advisors um myself
02:10:41 um myself sometimes andrew park gareth mills joel clark
02:10:44 clark maybe adam heath
02:10:47 and did anyone check or sign off those letters of suitability they would be um i think we we find we molded the text eventually to an agreed format
02:11:01 and then on the basis of what test data or evidence did you write then was it again
02:11:05 again the only reason what we've discussed yeah
02:11:13 and was philip heath involved in that practice of writing letters of suitability he would have seen or proved those letters yes and what about malcolm rochefort
02:11:25 rochefort i can only assume so yes
02:11:31 and when you say fortunately nine times out of ten they accept our word right at the end
02:11:36 the end is that right that nine times out of ten customers who got in touch with kingspan about
02:11:41 about use over 18 meters would accept kingspan's word i think i'm just being optimistic there i was i was trained to be optimistic
02:11:50 so are you saying that an accurate figure would be less than that yeah potential i'd say you know it was three times out of ten we'd keep
02:12:01 it was three times out of ten we'd keep a specification but there was a lot of specifications going about
02:12:10 was it a commercial strategy or was it part of the commercial strategy to maximize scales sales from customers who were not asking technical questions knowing that that would compensate for
02:12:21 knowing that that would compensate for those that did because so few raised queries
02:12:26 the the strategy the kingsman strata big strategy would be to go after every job right then often at the time of specification the
02:12:37 at the time of specification the cladding isn't fixed that could change a number of times before the building was built yeah as we know
02:12:48 building was built yeah as we know now i want to having looked at that from earlier i want to pick up back again at the in the gravener waterside um chain that from september 08 if we go back to kin40s 258
02:13:03 if we go back to kin40s 258 and i want to look on now
02:13:09 um i'm looking at your response at page four so i think we've started to look
02:13:19 yes we've been looking at your detailed response perhaps we can just remind you of that back on page three i've been going through it paragraph by paragraph with you and we got to the bottom of the page and then if we can go over to page four
02:13:31 and then if we can go over to page four i want to look at the top of page four and right in that top line in the middle you begin
02:13:39 you begin kingspan call firm k15 rain screen insulation has been used on many high-rise projects and is slowly becoming a household name in this marketplace do you see that there
02:13:50 there yes and is it right that by september 2008 no other thermoset plastic insulations were being marketed for use over 18 meters
02:14:04 i don't know if that was the case i know i don't know when the selatex product was introduced the rs 5000 or the fr
02:14:13 the fr whatever it was four thousand well the rs 5000 that was being marketed for use above 18 meters was being marketed for use from august 2014
02:14:25 2014 so many years after this
02:14:30 other than the celetex product were you ever aware of any other thermoset plastic insulations that you were competing with in this market i think extra therm had a board yeah
02:14:43 and otherwise would it be mineral wool product products yeah yes yeah were they your main competitor yes definitely and then
02:14:56 yes definitely and then if we continue picking it up in the second line at the top of that page you say where there is a risk of fire or the insulation is semi-exposed kingspan insulation limited will only allow the specification of
02:15:07 allow the specification of high performance thermoset phenolic material
02:15:10 material that will not melt run or drip when exposed to fire as well as having class naught which is a property that few foamed materials can boast of owning
02:15:21 foamed materials can boast of owning owning the product has very negligible smoke emissions less than five percent when tested to bs five triple one both the crucial characteristics that can help maintain life and property in the event of an
02:15:33 life and property in the event of an outbreak
02:15:35 outbreak and then you say further to your question in respect of compliance we must highlight again that although we understand the information we are providing
02:15:42 providing has allowed specification and use of our product on other high-rise projects the final approval needs to come from building control however we are confident that once the full information has been reviewed continued
02:15:53 information has been reviewed continued usage should not be an issue do you see that there yes
02:16:00 and just to be clear there existed no test data
02:16:03 test data which could support the use of k15 and this build up did they this was the trespa fr construction wasn't it
02:16:11 wasn't it yeah on a steel frame no direct test data no
02:16:16 data no no your response is sent on to wintec for comment and steve
02:16:22 steve lee of wintec responds to simon hepworth on the first of october which is uh if we go to the second email on page one of this
02:16:31 this chain
02:16:34 so steve lee of wind tech comes back about grovino waterside and in the first paragraph he says we've had a look at the bre document but it is referring to the test that is
02:16:46 but it is referring to the test that is not recognized as being a cover all in short what they have tested is not what we've got on the job and bre will not give approval on a generic detail
02:16:57 generic detail as we've spoken about before they will only certify on a job-to-job basis while i would not disagree with what i was saying bre need to certify the material or the building control officer needs to pass it
02:17:09 needs to pass it i hate to be so negative but there's an awful lot riding on this decision and as we've stated we're not fire engineering specialists do you see that there yes
02:17:22 and all of that was correct wasn't it wintec were entirely right to point out that the bre document couldn't cover all and certainly couldn't cover
02:17:34 cover all and certainly couldn't cover what they've tested could it what they've got on their job
02:17:39 yeah that document was not a coverall although it was desired to be it didn't yeah this email chain is followed by a letter signed by philip heath and dated the
02:17:51 signed by philip heath and dated the 29th of october 2008 if we can go to that that's kin four zeros two five nine four
02:18:04 this is a letter from kingspan insulation and it's 29th of october 08 it's for the attention of mr simon hepworth the senior designer
02:18:15 hepworth the senior designer aztec projects limited and we can see it's about the gravener waterside residential development of bridge road in london sw1
02:18:26 of bridge road in london sw1 um can you remember having any input into the text for this letter
02:18:35 i probably might have helped phil with this yes
02:18:39 this yes was that what often happened if these letters of suitability needed drafting that
02:18:43 that you and he would work together on a letter
02:18:46 letter um
02:18:50 i would report to him directly and um i would get information whatever we were using at the time and we would we would put it together yes definitely is this one of the letters of
02:19:02 is this one of the letters of suitability that we've seen you describing to aleister lambie is that right
02:19:14 i mean these letters of suitability they were the intention was that they were bespoke
02:19:18 bespoke for the specific project yeah although we have capsule we wanted catch all test data we
02:19:25 data we we knew we could never say that you know we could never write a layout that was going to cover every scenario yeah there was different types of cloud in which we had different opinions about and there was different types of
02:19:36 and there was different types of fire barriers etc so you know each letter was going to be individually produced that's why we kind of took this off the the front line technical department this kind of work because
02:19:47 department this kind of work because because it was too complex yeah now the first three paragraphs here um actually the first four sorry the three underneath the first one
02:19:59 sorry the three underneath the first one about in response to recent items of correspondence those three paragraphs below that are setting out some information about the building regulations and approved
02:20:10 the building regulations and approved document b
02:20:13 we don't need to read those out he's just pointing out that the requirement of
02:20:17 of limited combustibility
02:20:21 the guidance then about br135 in that third paragraph from bs8414
02:20:30 bs8414 as the alternative route and and then in the final paragraph we're looking at there
02:20:35 there mr heath writes this as you will appreciate it is not practically or financially feasible for a component manufacturer such as kingspan insulation to test in accordance with bs 8414
02:20:46 accordance with bs 8414 with every rain screen cladding material and component currently available however tests undertaken by ourselves with and without a generic cladding system
02:20:54 system showed the requirements of br135 via bs8414 test method were achieved the comparison with and without a cladding system was important to determine the influence of a
02:21:05 to determine the influence of a ventilated cavity on the external face of the cool therm the results confirmed there was little or no difference do you see that there yes and again is it right that the only
02:21:18 yes and again is it right that the only tests he could be referring to there is the
02:21:21 the 2005 test and the naked test and the naked test yeah and if we go over the page to the first paragraph
02:21:32 it says there at the top based on above route to compliance together with british board of agreement approval that's the original bba certificate from 2008 kingspan
02:21:45 bba certificate from 2008 kingspan installation limited can confirm the product is fit for the intended purpose and is suitable for your development do you see that there yes so you're confirming
02:21:57 yes so you're confirming in a formal letter that the k-15 product is fit for purpose and suitable for the development that's right isn't it that's correct yes and yet as you've
02:22:08 that's correct yes and yet as you've accepted there was no test data that would support the use of k15 with a trespass system on a steel frame there was no direct test data there no
02:22:21 and it's right isn't it that this assurance
02:22:24 assurance that kingspan confirmed the product is fit for purpose and suitable for your development was given in many many cases by kingspan wasn't it
02:22:35 in many many cases by kingspan wasn't it it was standard terminology yeah and there were hundreds if not thousands of inquiries in which
02:22:42 in which something similar was said that's right isn't it i would say so yes and it would lead that wording would lead many designers and architects to believe that they completed their due
02:22:53 believe that they completed their due diligence
02:22:54 diligence in getting written confirmation from the manufacturer about the suitability of the product didn't it
02:23:07 the tricky thing is here the product is only suitable if all the components around it are suitable
02:23:14 suitable so sorry could you rephrase the question well yes i mean in this letter for this letter you shouldn't have been advising this
02:23:23 this at all you the furthest you could have gone is to say this was our build up your buildup's different
02:23:30 different we don't think we you can use it but it's a matter for you you could have said that couldn't you
02:23:39 that would have been a less less a less positive letter definitely yeah yes less positive for kingspan's commercial sales yes and that was the sole consideration at this time wasn't it
02:23:50 this time wasn't it that was the goal of the business yeah and not in not even this time throughout the period you worked at kingspan that's right isn't it yeah certainly
02:24:02 now i've taken you to those examples and it's swept up a number of projects there but it's one of many others where similar advice was given you accept that yes
02:24:12 yes yes definitely i don't have the time to take you to all of them but i've taken you to those
02:24:18 can we now look um at kin40s 9643
02:24:31 this is an email chain from november 2013
02:24:35 2013 where questions were being asked about the use of k15 over 18 meters again by simon heckworth at aztec and if we can go to the second paragraph on page one
02:24:47 on page one so this is simon heckworth to joel clark mark swift and you're copied in
02:24:55 and he says this in the second paragraph your email would indicate it is still kingspan's view that k-15 is fit for purpose over 18 meters is this the case you have talked about
02:25:06 is this the case you have talked about non-combustible substrates yet the main points of contention with regard to your 8414 testing is that it was based on block work substrate not steel frame structure with a sealed
02:25:18 not steel frame structure with a sealed cementitious outer cladding neither of these conditions even remotely resemble what the proposed construction is here and you know it is the bre's view that the use of k15 should not be specified
02:25:31 the use of k15 should not be specified on the basis of those test results do you see that there yes now did you know that it was the
02:25:42 yes now did you know that it was the bre's view that the use of k-15 should not be specified on the basis of the test results you had
02:25:53 results you had there was a complaint from the bre i think we discussed it yesterday which
02:26:00 which would allude to that i believe
02:26:05 and is it right that after this you were tasked with defending kingspan's position in writing when challenges were raised about the use of k-15
02:26:15 k-15 over 18 meters this was something that was always a requirement
02:26:23 do you recall tony milichap saying to you that you ought to defend kingspan's position in writing
02:26:34 position in writing this was something i was trained to do throughout my time at kingspan yeah let's just quickly look at that if we go k i n four zeros nine six eight two
02:26:45 and i want to look on page one at an email of the 11th of december 2013 at 19 30. [Applause]
02:26:56 [Applause] and we can see he says to you richard bromwich
02:27:00 bromwich mark swift joel clark all given simon's comment below we will need to defend our position in writing it's clear that he's beginning to position himself in the worst case event
02:27:10 event that cladding will need to be removed and who will cover the related costs i appreciate the need to keep installers on site however we also need to defend kingspan
02:27:19 kingspan either do you have a draft response outlining their technical position do you see that there yes and do you
02:27:30 do you see that there yes and do you agree as a result of being tasked to defend kingspan's position you knowingly
02:27:36 knowingly mislead a number of professionals about k-15's performance in fire
02:27:51 we follow the strategy that was outlined within the previous document so yes yeah
02:28:00 and i want to ask you a bit more about the nhbc
02:28:04 the nhbc we've already touched on them and i want to ask you um about dealings which kingspan had with the nhbc
02:28:12 the nhbc in 2013 and 2014. and i can't take you to
02:28:16 to all of this because we'd be here for a long time
02:28:19 long time and we will be asking mr milichap about some of this as well but i'm going to try and
02:28:23 try and cover the key events in the story with you
02:28:29 you now if we look in your witness statement at page 46 at paragraph 103 to 104 at the top of page 46.
02:28:40 page 46. we asked you about the the national house building council the nhbc and what your understanding was of the role and responsibilities of that organization
02:28:51 organization and you say this you say they claim to be one of the leading warranty and insurance providers for new homes in the uk
02:28:58 the uk and then you say you're asked to state what you know about the relationship between kingspan and the nhbc between 2005 and
02:29:05 2005 and 2014 and you say they were very important to the sales and use of kingspan insulation in these sectors so when the ceo had questions about the use of k15 i was pulled off another
02:29:17 use of k15 i was pulled off another project
02:29:18 project to immediately sit down with them and our sales director to discuss the information we had and what they wanted from us going forward do you see that there yes so
02:29:29 do you see that there yes so um it's right isn't it that you you were pulled off another project because kingspan had received an email from john lewis
02:29:38 lewis at the nhbc asking detailed questions about the compliance of k15 for use over 18 meters that's right isn't it
02:29:46 isn't it yes that's the case yeah and if we can go to a document nhb 50645
02:30:00 i want to look at page two that an email that john lewis sends on the 13th of december 2013 at 17 51
02:30:11 and it's to the king's kings band technical inquiries email copying in steve evans dave white graham perrier
02:30:21 and um he says hello thank you for your help so
02:30:25 help so far i my managers here at nhbc would very much like to resolve this issue with you as soon as possible could i request
02:30:32 request that you escalate it to your management team with a view to meeting early in the new year between both parties
02:30:38 parties and then he says this unfortunately given the number of affected projects that nhbc deals with we feel that we need to start to advise our customers that k15
02:30:48 that k15 doesn't comply with the building regulation requirements or the bba certificate when used on a building in excess of 18 metres high i look forward to hearing from you as
02:30:59 i look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible
02:31:02 when john lewis that says um given the number of affected projects that nhbc deals with do you know approximately how many projects that might have been at that time
02:31:22 i'm not 100 sure i've got i've got a number of 230 in my head to do something i haven't familiarized myself with any of these emails okay i understand i understand i'm not
02:31:34 okay i understand i understand i'm not but you think it might have been hundreds of projects i'm not 100 sure okay and you respond to this email at the top
02:31:45 and you respond to this email at the top of the chain on page one on the 16th of december 2013. we can zoom in on that
02:31:56 we can zoom in on that and you say this hi john further to your correspondence with our technical team we would like to invite you to our head office in herefordshire in the new year alternatively we can come to you having
02:32:07 alternatively we can come to you having read your comments we request that you hold off on advising your customers until we've had a chance to sit down and go through the body of evidence that leads to our alternative method of compliance we appreciate the opportunity to talk
02:32:19 we appreciate the opportunity to talk you through this therefore the sooner we can have this discussion the better and you ask if you can propose dates for january and february that would be for 2014 so you can get something in the diary
02:32:32 so you can get something in the diary now before you responded would you have discussed the content of your response with your managers yeah definitely yeah
02:32:44 and you're referring there and the third line down to a body of evidence you want to sit down with them and go through a body of evidence that leads the alternative method of compliance
02:32:56 the alternative method of compliance what body of evidence are you referring to there we're talking to talking about all the test data we have which was obviously the bsa414 part 1 report
02:33:05 report we were going to show them our on our small scale work our internal tests you know we we were quite frank and open with the nhbc once we got into these meetings
02:33:16 meetings i see but for buildings over 18 meters all you had in terms of relevant test data was at best the 2005 test even though that
02:33:28 at best the 2005 test even though that was on a different product yeah yeah certainly but we needed to push our our thoughts about the other components
02:33:39 about the other components it was all coming down on the insulation materials shoulders when actually the other components also have a right to prove their suitability above 18 meters
02:33:49 meters and how did kingsbound planned to respond in terms of any structural steel frame projects
02:34:05 it was it was kingspan's opinion that if a non-combustible substrate was offered like a cement a non-combustible cement board behind the insulation
02:34:16 the insulation then the parameters would be similar to that of the part one test in 2005. obviously we wholly accept that the cladding on the outside's different but
02:34:28 the outside's different but if it's really about the involvement up the face of the insulation then the relevance of the internal substrate of the building is all the tests is questionable
02:34:39 is all the tests is questionable yeah that was our opinion you didn't you didn't have any test data that showed that if you used a non-combustible substrate on a steel frame the 8414 test could be passed and the br
02:34:51 the 8414 test could be passed and the br 135
02:34:53 135 classification at that time was there some pressure on you at the time at this time with the nhbc to
02:35:04 time at this time with the nhbc to to resolve this did you feel under pressure oh completely yes there was there was i was getting calls from
02:35:13 from many of the high up people in the business to make sure that this was boxed out
02:35:16 boxed out they they had a responsibility for a large number of buildings and the thought i think my understanding was the requirement of the bba that getting
02:35:27 the requirement of the bba that getting a bba certificate was mainly to keep the nhbc that was one of the key things about the bba certificate was it
02:35:35 was it it allows the nhbc to keep that happy so but by this point they're not happy are they no
02:35:44 they no now we know that you met with the nhbc on the 17th of january 2014 at their offices in milton keynes
02:35:52 can you help us what were your recollect your recollections of what happened at that meeting with the nhbc can you remember what was said to them
02:36:01 i remember we would have presented the information that we had to date and then talk them through our needs for going out and pushing
02:36:13 our needs for going out and pushing this request onto the other components because we couldn't get the cladding manufacturers to buy buy in they were happily
02:36:21 happily being used above 18 meters with our insulation or a non-combustible insulation and they just weren't interested in doing bs8414 testing
02:36:33 doing bs8414 testing no so is it your evidence that you did actually pass to the nhbc a body of evidence which supported k-15s use above 18 meters we would have given them the part one
02:36:45 we would have given them the part one test report we would have showed them some videos we would have showed them um look at the class a report so i mean we we discussed our strategy at length with
02:36:56 we discussed our strategy at length with them
02:36:57 them and when you say you were open with the high up people first of all what high up people are you talking about at the nhbc well it's i think it was steve evans and graeme perry all with the
02:37:09 graeme perry all with the we we explained what information we had and they came back and saying well that's all very well but we we want you to get somebody else to put this in writing as well did you tell them at that first meeting
02:37:22 did you tell them at that first meeting that the 8414 part one test from 2005 had been carried out on a different k-15 product no that wouldn't have been mentioned
02:37:31 mentioned no did you tell them anything about the the worsening and the fire performance that you witnessed in the 2007 and 2008 tests no that that was internal information only yeah so you
02:37:43 internal information only yeah so you weren't completely open and transparent with them were you i would have been out on my ear if i would have told them that sort of information so i couldn't
02:37:53 and who else was with you from kingspan at the time of this meeting was it mr militar i don't know whether it was tony adrian or richard burnley we had about i
02:38:04 adrian or richard burnley we had about i think we had three meetings with them yeah mark swift was there one of them as well
02:38:12 well it's right isn't it that 10 days before this meeting so this meeting was on the 17th of january and on the 7th of january 2014 you had carried out a test to bs 8414
02:38:24 you had carried out a test to bs 8414 part 2 at the bre burn hall that's right isn't it this was which test sorry the january 2014 test can you remind me of the construction and was that sponsored directly by king's
02:38:35 was that sponsored directly by king's one was it yes it had k15 uh in in it it was a it was the trespa test all right okay
02:38:47 and that uh test was a fail wasn't it it was not successful he wasn't successful did you mention that to the nhbc at the meeting ten days later that you tested with a transfer
02:38:58 later that you tested with a transfer system
02:38:59 system just a few days before to part two and it had failed
02:39:05 i know that the bba had witnessed this test
02:39:08 test and i i can't quite recollect whether it came up to be honest okay but you don't have a positive recollection of telling the nhbc about that
02:39:16 that i don't have any positive recollections of that meeting there okay now around this time the nhbc began to ask kingspan to provide written approval for the use of k15 over 18 meters
02:39:29 for the use of k15 over 18 meters on a project by project basis do you remember that yes and if we can go to kin four zeros five eight nine four
02:39:41 four zeros five eight nine four and look at page one an email you send on the third of february 2014 1813 yeah in the middle of that page
02:39:53 1813 yeah in the middle of that page you say this you say uh tony so this is to tony milichap high importance nhbc need your thoughts is the subject tony i'm getting increasingly concerned about the number of k-15 projects that
02:40:05 about the number of k-15 projects that the
02:40:05 the nhbc are involved in and the fact that they are referring to us for confirmation that the product is suitable
02:40:12 suitable with this in mind if you can just check the letter below and give me your thoughts
02:40:16 thoughts i do not think i can do any more apart from elude to our forthcoming test programme
02:40:21 programme which is what we advise the nhbc we were doing
02:40:25 doing and then you've got some text kingspan insulation limited during 2014 intend to embark on a test program to further and i think what's happened
02:40:36 further and i think what's happened after
02:40:37 after you've drafted this is tony milichap has has suggested some alternative wording in here
02:40:42 in here um is that right can you remember that i think we see that from the chain in a moment but anyway he's blue he's deleted proved
02:40:54 he's blue he's deleted proved suitability and he's is written extend the scope of use for with his initials of call firm k-15 and high-rise facades therefore would appreciate feedback on any combustible cladding systems
02:41:06 any combustible cladding systems that you are typically adopting in high-rise buildings and then you say the reason the nhbc are asking for this information at the moment is because they do not want to say no to kingspan however if we cannot provide the correct
02:41:18 however if we cannot provide the correct information they will say no if you can provide your sign off to the letter below and suggest if it needs anything else it would be appreciated do you see that there yes can you help
02:41:30 do you see that there yes can you help us why did the nhbc not want to say no to kingspan why was that
02:41:39 i think it's a matter of cost really the high performance insulation is considerably thinner than the the non-combustible alternative if the cladding zone is reduced
02:41:52 if the cladding zone is reduced the footprint of the building can be expanded the the fixings all the bracketry everything is considerably reduced there's massive cost savings to look towards a high rise
02:42:02 high rise i'm sorry massive cost savings look towards um utilizing high performance in high rise or in any
02:42:09 or in any war buildup so you think the nxbc were reluctant
02:42:13 reluctant to stop using k-15 on buildings it was involved with because k-15 was was cheaper than other alternatives and therefore advantages to it
02:42:24 it yes and um i think maybe they've gone down the route of a number of buildings already
02:42:31 already and they were worried that they needed us to provide more satisfactory information so they didn't have to
02:42:42 didn't have to maybe go back to those buildings and correct
02:42:45 correct how it had been installed maybe yeah so they're also worried that they've got k-15
02:42:50 k-15 on a lot of existing buildings and they don't want to have to go and take it all down
02:42:54 down yeah certainly yeah now you're expressing you're saying here very clearly in this email i'm getting increasingly concerned about the number of k-15 projects the nhbs are involved in
02:43:06 nhbs are involved in and the fact they're referring to us for confirmation that the product's suitable what was mr militare's response to your concerns
02:43:14 concerns as expressed here
02:43:18 is there not anything in the email chain let's just look at the top of this page
02:43:28 see what we get there is just with some tweaks otherwise happy do you see that yes so don't think we've got anything in the emails we can see where
02:43:41 anything in the emails we can see where he's substantively responding to the concern you're raising he's just saying he's just editing my text and yeah he's happy with it
02:43:50 with it but do you recall having discussions with mr miller chap at this time that you were concerned about the position with the nhbc and the lack of substantiation i was always concerned about the position of k-15
02:44:01 about the position of k-15 yeah so you know like i say i was i tried my best to to sit on my thoughts because they didn't do me any favors but you know
02:44:12 but you know this was all a major headache yeah it was more than a major headache it was a nightmare
02:44:17 nightmare yeah now a few weeks after that exchange we've just discussed you send an email to the technical team about k15 nhbc queries if we go to
02:44:31 six kin402163 we can see an email sent on the 26th of february 2014.
02:44:41 so if we look at the top of that page 26th of february 2014 you to joel clark matthew ball matthew evans so people in there the technical team that is that right technical officers
02:44:52 that is that right technical officers in the team yeah that's the those are the front line technical people yeah yeah and the subject is k15 nhbc
02:45:01 nhbc queries do you see that yes and then you write
02:45:05 write in the first paragraph we are using the text below when the nhbc are asking for confirmation that k15 is suitable for use
02:45:11 use onto steel frame structures above 18 meters
02:45:15 meters the paragraph highlighted in yellow can be amended to suit the project if you have anything you feel we should add or remove please let me know and then you say can we keep a note of
02:45:26 and then you say can we keep a note of the projects we send this out on and get the asm who's the what's the asm area sales manager yeah to confirm if and when we get the order
02:45:35 order do you see that there yes and we can see the generic text that would be sent out below that not in bold
02:45:48 so you've got a kind of introductory paragraph about further to previous discussions and then in the second paragraph below that it is our opinion that our cool them k15 product
02:45:59 that our cool them k15 product would be fit for purpose if installed onto a non-combustible substrate with horizontal cavity barriers installed at centers not exceeding 3.5 meters
02:46:10 meters do you see that there yes and and then
02:46:15 the test details we have reviewed of your project show call firm k-15 fitted onto sheathing board to be in line with our test evidence and the labc registered detail rd-165 kingspan insulation limited
02:46:28 rd-165 kingspan insulation limited require that k15 is mounted onto a non-combustible substrate this can be achieved with either a masonry layer calcium silicate or often more affordable magnesium oxide silicate boards
02:46:39 silicate boards onto a steel frame system now it's that paragraph that you i think you're highlighting and said could be amended to suit the project is that
02:46:50 amended to suit the project is that right
02:46:54 yeah as to whether it was a steel frame system or a masonry substrate here yeah so you've highlighted in yellow to the team that that's the one they can adapt yeah for use differently
02:47:05 yeah for use differently [Music]
02:47:11 and um you then go on kingsplan insulation have tested calls them k15 successfully to 8414 part one in this test the cool thing was fitted
02:47:22 in this test the cool thing was fitted onto a non-combustible substrate so it doesn't say that's masonry does it there
02:47:28 no we we'd started using the terminology non-combustible substrate yeah like i said before because it it it opened the door to to our thoughts that part one
02:47:39 to our thoughts that part one tests could be used on steel frame if if the substrate wasn't penetrated yeah and it was just really and that could be argued as well i believe
02:47:51 argued as well i believe well it could be argued but you didn't really believe that that was yeah we're providing this information in good faith and in recognition of the restrictive nature of this test well i would suggest that you
02:48:02 this test well i would suggest that you weren't providing it in good faith what i would suggest is you're providing this text
02:48:07 text so that you can keep nhbc work using words which have no basis in the test data would you agree
02:48:19 agree i can understand that yes you agree
02:48:26 um in january 2014 as we've just mentioned there was this test on trespa high pressure laminate it's eight millimeters
02:48:37 millimeters um we'll come back to talk about the nhbc
02:48:40 nhbc again in a moment but i just want to ask you a little bit more about that january test
02:48:46 test it was a 8414 part 2 test undertaken in partnership with aztec projects and um i just want to ask you who decided on the build-up that was to be tested
02:48:58 the build-up that was to be tested in that in that 8414 test can you remember
02:49:07 i'm finding it hard to recollect whether that was one of the um whether that was a directly sponsored test by kingspan or that was something that aztec
02:49:18 that aztec projects had somewhat taken on themselves right can you remember who designed and constructed the rig for the test it would have been simon hepsworth
02:49:28 hepsworth or one of his team yeah but were you project managing it from king's fans um side if that was one of the ones that we
02:49:36 we i would have um i would have had some involvement yeah definitely i would have been the key person at king's fan probably and was the k-15 that was tested in that test
02:49:47 test standard new technology k-15 it would have been the the latest off-the-shelf new technology k-15
02:49:55 k-15 okay i believe um however there was some work done with um some fire retardant products as well around this time so yeah we're gonna come struggling to be
02:50:07 yeah we're gonna come struggling to be clear on that yeah let me try and help you there's a powerpoint presentation that you did in may 2015. if we can look at this
02:50:20 kin3021945 it's a document dated the 18th of may 2015
02:50:26 2015 and it appeared to be a presentation you put together do you see that there yes can you remember this yes i think so yeah so it's headed the facade insulation
02:50:37 insulation solution and if we can go to slide 17
02:50:45 we can see it's under the heading testing to date do you see that there yes and we can if we go down to the january 2014
02:50:57 if we go down to the january 2014 test towards the bottom of that page three lines up do you see that january 2014 yeah
02:51:05 2014 yeah sponsor is kingspan the thickness is 80 millimeters the product is k15 and then under formula facer in the next column it says 25 micron unperforated can you see that
02:51:28 i can see that yes i'm just struggling i thought we had a lot of issues producing the unperforated product right if we keep looking along the
02:51:42 right if we keep looking along the columns
02:51:44 columns it talks about fire barrier barriers at 75 millimeters and then high pressure laminate the eight millimeter trespa fr panel so that's the that was the outer cladding
02:51:53 cladding um but would you agree that the the k-15 that was being sold and had been sold since 2006 had a perforated 25 micron phaser
02:52:05 had a perforated 25 micron phaser yes that's correct yeah so can you help us as to whether this product might have been some kind of research and development product just for the testing with an unperforated facer
02:52:22 it looks to be but i can't recollect this
02:52:25 this okay the bre would have some pools of this board wouldn't they they should have is it your understanding that the bre what keep sampling they retain a little bit of each and specifically with the latter tests what
02:52:37 specifically with the latter tests what i wanted was i was driving towards kingsman to get a for our test method so what we could do we could tie the test back to the material to the production run and then when they came in and
02:52:49 run and then when they came in and audited
02:52:50 audited that would allow them to sort of like identify the product it would also ensure that i could make maintain congruence of the
02:53:01 the formulation against the test result and stop
02:53:05 stop you know the the product being developed in ways that were um right not suitable for the testing but you can't help us here as to why we're seeing an unperforated facer there
02:53:17 seeing an unperforated facer there i can't recollect at the moment to be honest
02:53:20 honest i know i lobbied for an unperforated version
02:53:23 version but i've just got a feeling that we could never manufacture that one could never manufacture that okay do you remember the sorry there was a
02:53:34 do you remember the sorry there was a solstice
02:53:35 solstice additive which might have helped with that so yeah yes i'm coming to the solstice i think we see that coming in the march 14 and july 14 tests you see below that yeah the soul let's leave that for the
02:53:47 yeah the soul let's leave that for the moment because i want to deal with that when we get to those tests but just back to the january 2014 tests it's right isn't it that was it was a fail both in relation to the thermocouple temperatures
02:53:58 thermocouple temperatures and because flames were above the rig
02:54:03 that's correct yes yeah
02:54:07 and then if we can look at an email chain
02:54:11 chain now from january 2014 this is kin3021905 and i want to look at the bottom of page
02:54:22 and i want to look at the bottom of page 2 at an email of the 9th of january 2014
02:54:31 so this is an email um sorry bottom page two and on to page three
02:54:45 actually i think it may be if we can go up i may have a incorrect reference there if we go up to the bottom of page one and on to page two
02:54:59 all right
02:55:08 yeah sorry i think you've got two one nine
02:55:12 nine the reference isn't right so it's kin three zeros
02:55:25 yes and if we go to the bottom of page two and onto page three yeah so it's it starts at that there on the 9th of january 2014 at 17
02:55:36 the 9th of january 2014 at 17 35 and the subject is 15 mins 15 minutes and you say if you look to the back page you'll see where the 15-minute reference
02:55:47 where the 15-minute reference comes from and on to page three
02:55:55 then you give um an extract i think from br135 is that right
02:56:04 that looks like an extract from br135 and the external fire spread success criteria i believe so and what this appears to be is a
02:56:16 and what this appears to be is a discussion about what had happened in the january 14 test and if we go in the next email from malcolm rochford 9 9th of january 14 and 1857
02:56:28 14 and 1857 on page 2. he says to you and tony milichap and others 9th of january that implies we only just failed question mark regards malcolm
02:56:39 question mark regards malcolm do you see that there yes and then if we go up again we see on the 13th of january at 6 55
02:56:49 a longer email from you
02:56:53 with the heading bs 8414 test update and then you say from the external temps it does look very close the temperatures in the cavity
02:57:04 in the cavity were a little higher but still close to the 15 minute window ideally we need a pass with a 10 window for assessment anything too close will impede the bre's
02:57:15 anything too close will impede the bre's ability to provide practical test assessments is that there and then you say
02:57:26 um because of this closeness tm suggested it would be so easy to go too far at this point therefore we should find a balance while ensuring we
02:57:38 should find a balance while ensuring we get a result do you see that so you seem to be reporting a comment from tony milichap is that right it seems that way yeah yeah and he said it would be
02:57:48 be so easy to go too far at this point therefore we should find a balance whilst ensuring we get a result can you help us with what he meant by that or what you understood him to mean by that
02:58:06 can i just look at the end of that email yes so if we keep going you say it's with the above in mind and after an extensive review of the test video and data
02:58:15 data we are looking to propose considered the following
02:58:18 following and then what you do in the next part of the email if we go over the page is you propose
02:58:23 propose various changes to how the test is carried out and you say it one you could slightly raise both cavity barriers to maximize their influence and extend
02:58:35 their influence and extend their width consider reducing perimeter air tightness to limit the effect of oxygen draw three reposition panels to maximize venting below barriers and increased
02:58:46 venting below barriers and increased security above four consider replacing 10 millimeter cladding panels with 15 millimeters pending outcome of small scale lab tests five adopt modified k15 solstice
02:58:59 five adopt modified k15 solstice ref refer to discussions in meeting as soon as this is made if i can get samples
02:59:05 samples and calorimetry of any variants of the solstice board we should try and get them to x over quickly to see if there's any difference in the initial flammability calorific output and then adopt a closed vertical joint
02:59:17 and then adopt a closed vertical joint or put a t directly behind and then you put a little star about replacing the panels with a 15 millimeter board and you talk about you're struggling to get hold of
02:59:28 about you're struggling to get hold of samples
02:59:30 samples and then at the very end you say i'm at the bre on wednesday to dismantle and to assess
02:59:34 assess the damaged areas hopefully the data will be calibrated there for you for any questions let me know i think tony's trying to i think i'm being bombarded by questions about this and he
02:59:45 bombarded by questions about this and he understands where my head needs to be and what i need to be doing at this time and he's just sort of saying look guys just take a step back i think a little bit yeah you know we just need to look
02:59:57 bit yeah you know we just need to look at it once we've got a real test report i think
02:59:59 i think i see because of the expenditure of these tests and the interest to the business there was a lot of what happened and that sort of thing but you know until you've got a test report in front of you we've agreed
03:00:11 in front of you we've agreed um calibrated the thermocouple data you're only going on what you assumed or saw at the day yeah i see mr chairman i i i
03:00:22 yeah i see mr chairman i i i do want to come back to this email but i think that's a good match you'd rather stop there yes very well all right well we'll stop there for some lunch and we'll come back at two o'clock please and in the meantime please don't discuss your evidence or
03:00:33 please don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with anyone thank you very much
03:00:44 good two o'clock please
03:01:00 you