Kingspan Evidence - Tuesday 24th November 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:11 ask mr meredith to come back in please

00:00:28 all right mr meredith yeah thank you thank you very much yes yes thank you i just want to pick up on one point arising from this morning's evidence before we then pick up where we left off so we looked at the bba certificate the

00:00:41 looked at the bba certificate the revised issue certificate from 2010 and if we could bring that up again that's bba

00:00:46 bba six zeros 37

00:00:51 and you asked from questions from the chairman about the image uh there on the right showing a steel frame system is it right that this certificate would apply to buildings above and below 18

00:01:04 apply to buildings above and below 18 meters

00:01:07 this is a general call firm k15 certificate that's um supposed to apply to all areas of k-15 yeah but it's right isn't

00:01:18 areas of k-15 yeah but it's right isn't it that in the image we don't see any clear delineation between whether that system can be used above or below 18 meters do we no not at all it's just a general

00:01:28 a general illustration yeah okay now picking up where we left off um if we can go back to kin3021095

00:01:43 and we were looking at your

00:01:47 longer email

00:01:50 that starts at the bottom of that page and if we could go over the next page to where you are identifying the types of modifications you're recommending for future testing do you remember that

00:02:01 future testing do you remember that yes and i want to ask you a little bit more about the fifth modification you're proposing there adopt modified k-15 solstice and then it says refer to discussions in

00:02:12 and then it says refer to discussions in meeting

00:02:13 meeting as soon as this is made if i can get samples for o2 index 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

00:02:24 quickly to see if there's any difference in initial flammability calorific output now um can you just help us what was k-15

00:02:34 solstice i believe solstice was a modified um i think it was a modified blowing agent yeah i can't recall directly was it a liquid blowing agent different

00:02:47 was it a liquid blowing agent different to the pentane blowing agent i remember that i think it was yeah

00:02:51 was yeah i can't say definitely and so where we see

00:02:55 see solstice blown that that's referring to that blowing agent yes i believe so yes is it a more environmentally friendly blowing agent with for example a

00:03:06 with for example a a non-ozone depleting chemical compound i think

00:03:10 i think um kingspan have been producing with zero dp

00:03:13 zero dp or low ozone depleting potential blowing agents for some years so this is just the the latest variant of the material that's being

00:03:24 variant of the material that's being talked about at the r d meetings so i'm trying to

00:03:28 trying to get some produced so we can test it quickly yeah and so had you been present at some discussions in meetings where k-15 solstice blown had been discussed [Music]

00:03:39 [Music] i would have been if it was the fire focus group or the the technical lamination meeting yeah probably yes and were you also proposing to add fire retardants to that board for the

00:03:50 retardants to that board for the purposes of testing

00:03:53 i was not proposing to add fire retardance for the purpose of testing i was proposing that any modifications that could be made would be made to k-15 for the purposes of their inclusion to

00:04:05 for the purposes of their inclusion to make the product a better product right yeah and you say there if there's any variance of the board you should try and get them to x over

00:04:13 over quickly to see if there's any difference in flammability or calorific output can you help us what was the outcome of that did that happen did xover give you some information about its fire

00:04:26 performance if i recollect at the time this was a constantly moving animal kingspan were constantly introducing new chemicals sometimes

00:04:39 chemicals sometimes they would disappear because they couldn't we couldn't afford them we couldn't get supply of them sometimes they were proven that they weren't viable because for other reasons they didn't support the thermal conductivity that we

00:04:51 support the thermal conductivity that we wanted for the product i think fire was always seen as very much secondary whereas i was trying to pitch fire as the most important characteristic for k-15

00:05:02 characteristic for k-15 right yeah but going back to my question can you recall what the outcome was of any testing and the difference i don't know any um i can't recall direct results to be honest

00:05:14 direct results to be honest okay if we go up to the next email on um in the chain we can see it's from malcolm rochford up on page one

00:05:26 and he says uh on the 13th of january 2014 to you and tony milichap um and others he says either agree with all except move to solstice as restaurant merely tweets to

00:05:37 restaurant merely tweets to the test suggest any recipient calls me back to discuss rather than email correspondent which will get too complicated regards malcolm do you see that there

00:05:48 that there yes okay can you recall why was he um saying he's happy with all of that except the move to solstice can you remember what his position was on that

00:06:02 i don't know exactly what his position was but i

00:06:06 was but i it could have been that solstice was not a viable

00:06:09 a viable option because of the um it didn't support the thermal conductivity that we desired for the materials so and maybe i wasn't no fade with that and

00:06:20 and maybe i wasn't no fade with that and he was just suggesting why were we talking about that i don't know i'd say i wasn't directly involved in the chemical side okay and did you ever get a clearer picture as to why he didn't want to discuss this in

00:06:31 discuss this in email correspondence he says it will get too complicated there but did you ever become aware that there was another malcolm was always very um reserved about what we put in writing

00:06:45 um reserved about what we put in writing i think i was told off a few times for maybe being too illustrative in in emails really why was he more reserved about what you

00:06:56 why was he more reserved about what you put in writing

00:07:01 uh he'd been through um he'd been through a large legal case with rockwell i think

00:07:07 i think yeah and you know he knew how these things could potentially be taken out of context and come back to bite you basically was that when there was an action by kingspan against rockwool

00:07:18 rockwool in relation to um its products yeah that was the case he'd been through that and he was worried about committing things to email i think that's might be what he's

00:07:30 i think that's might be what he's referring to here yeah yeah if we go above this um tony milicep then writes to you and says just to you um on the 14th of january it's the

00:07:42 um on the 14th of january it's the second email down there hi iva malcolm's response was cryptic let me know his thoughts over the solstice element and then um you respond at the top will

00:07:53 and then um you respond at the top will do he's in meetings today also i edited your comments as i thought he would be concerned

00:07:58 concerned over us putting too much in black and white so does that go back to that verifies what i was saying yeah that you were aware that malcolm rockford didn't like you putting too much in

00:08:07 much in in writing about this because he was nervous about if this ever came out yes potentially yes yeah i agree um

00:08:19 yeah i agree um let's go now to the march 2014 test that was on trespa decorative rain screen

00:08:27 screen on the 19th of march 2004 it's a test to bs 8414 part 2 with 80 millimeter kingspan k15 and this trespa decorative rain rain screen board and it was not

00:08:40 rain screen board and it was not successful due to flaming above the rig is that right

00:08:46 i believe so i'd have to see the report but yeah

00:08:50 but yeah can you remember what k15 was tested on that occasion

00:09:01 i can only recollect because i saw it in the emails earlier as was it not a 50 micron foil or yes let's look at your powerpoint presentation again to try and help you

00:09:12 presentation again to try and help you kin3021945 and go back to slide 17. um and within this at 17 we can see the march 2014 8414 test one line up from

00:09:23 march 2014 8414 test one line up from the bottom and yes there you can see it says according to this presentation 50 micron unperforated soul is does the soul mean solstice

00:09:34 soul is does the soul mean solstice blown that would be a sauce display material yeah and as you've pointed out 50 microns is double the um double the thickness in relation to

00:09:44 to of the um foil component of the foil yes and yeah whereas the standard foil would be perforated and 25 microns that right isn't it

00:09:55 right isn't it correct yeah and here you've got unperforated again in this schedule do you see that yes that's correct can you confirm that this was a research and development product

00:10:06 and development product which was sourced blown with that thicker foil facer

00:10:11 we as far as i was aware kingspan were looking to move towards solstice so although these were research and development tests if they proved viable they would become

00:10:24 if they proved viable they would become full tests that's why we'd always approach the test house with this is going to be a full test

00:10:29 test but if it doesn't work you treat it as an indicative yeah was the bre aware that this was not standard k-15 when the tests were being carried out or

00:10:40 when the tests were being carried out or this test was being carried i'd say they they knew that we were developing and improving the product i'd had this discussion with them what i was i was asking them to record batch

00:10:52 i was asking them to record batch numbers

00:10:53 numbers and like production dates and things like that and i did actually get them to come in and sample a batch around that time because i was looking we were confident of the improved

00:11:04 confident of the improved improved performance and we were looking potentially to get an lpcb approved bs8414 approach so we did get them to retain samples um

00:11:15 so we did get them to retain samples um because if the test had been successful then we could have gone down this route so but we we didn't go into too much information about what the exact chemical components were because these were

00:11:26 because these were confidential secrets within kingspan that would only be exposed to the bre if we had them involved from a certification perspective

00:11:38 and who was it at the bre that took the samples as far as you understood

00:11:45 i think the bre used a bba agent to come and sample the product

00:11:51 product right so under the um european guidance i think that the bba or a body that can actually do that they can come into a laboratory or come into a production facility and sign

00:12:03 production facility and sign products as proved standard from standard production or taken out of the warehouse now let's look at an email chain after this test has been carried out if

00:12:14 after this test has been carried out if we can go to kin30s 21907 and i want to start right at the bottom of the chain on page three and it starts there on the 21st of march

00:12:27 and it starts there on the 21st of march 2014 with you blow that up with you inquiring of stephen howard of the bre you say any thoughts on

00:12:38 of the bre you say any thoughts on kingspan 8414 testing did you see that there

00:12:42 yeah yeah this is this is might be a response to a telephone call or messages i've left him or something yeah and and then the response comes from stephen howard above on the 25th of march

00:12:55 howard above on the 25th of march there and he says to you copying in phil clark

00:12:59 clark either i discussed the test with phil and the current status is that you do not have a clear pass we need to review the video footage of the test and make a decision based on this i think he means phil is out

00:13:11 on this i think he means phil is out sick i was out yesterday so i'm trying to establish where things have got to and he'll update later today do you see that there yeah i think there was some question over there whether it did or did not achieve the

00:13:23 whether it did or did not achieve the criteria here yes we're going to come on to that so then we see that you send this response on if we if we go up in the chain to the next one in the chain on the 31st of march

00:13:37 in the chain on the 31st of march 2014 at 13 23 you send an email internally within kingspan to a number of others including tony militare from malcolm rochford

00:13:48 militare from malcolm rochford and you write there initial feedback from the bre is that this test did not meet the requirements of br135 third edition now pausing there that third edition had come in in 2013 hadn't it

00:14:00 it so the year before this okay you thought yeah that's the yeah if that's the case yeah yeah and then you say this is by no means the end of this as we'll be challenging this

00:14:11 end of this as we'll be challenging this opinion and doing everything possible to get something usable out of the testing whether this be an assessment for a different cladding or a shorter build or we try and get them to issue a report based on

00:14:22 report based on the earlier version of the standard do you see that there yes now just pausing there how could you get the bre to issue a classification report based on an earlier version of br135 or the second

00:14:35 earlier version of br135 or the second edition from 2003 and not the most recent version from 2013. how did you think you were going to do that i think we were very hopeful in asking for such a thing

00:14:47 for such a thing yeah um and it was just one of the ideas that was banded about at the time and if you remember it's right isn't it that in that third edition it made it clear that if the

00:14:58 clear that if the flames got to the top of the rig if there was that failure within 60 minutes it was a failure do you remember that where we went wrong with this is the we hadn't paid close enough attention to

00:15:10 hadn't paid close enough attention to the

00:15:10 the the height of the rig we'd actually continued

00:15:14 continued the system up above the recommended height

00:15:17 height so that the surface burning continued above that quite readily right and we were of the opinion that if the rig hadn't been built to that height

00:15:29 rig hadn't been built to that height then it might not have continued to that height basically did you ever raise that issue with the bre if that was the issue in in in play

00:15:41 if that was the issue in in in play either the height of the rig do you remember ever raising that

00:15:47 i think there must have been discussions but i can't recollect directly at the end of this email you then say i shall know by the end of the week when i will

00:15:55 will need the insulation for the next test buy however the question remains about the insulation we choose to use is it possible to share the calorimeter results of the solstice versus standard versus phosphoric

00:16:06 versus phosphoric that we performed at ftt last week what's ftt uh fire testing technology i think right and you ask again does this support our views on the flammability

00:16:18 support our views on the flammability calorific content of the different phenolic foams this would be good to look at alongside the video so you're obviously

00:16:24 obviously still trying to explore other options in terms of different types of k15 for the next test do you agree yeah definitely

00:16:37 yeah definitely and who are you asking to to share the results who is it that you want that would be um lindsay hobbs and gwyn davis

00:16:45 davis i pushed for many years for us to get a calorimeter that we could use for factory production control

00:16:55 control so we could maintain congruent formulations for specifically for products like k15 where fire performance was critical so um they have finally

00:17:06 so um they have finally agreed to procure one of those machines but prior to that they went to ftt and did a bit of a round robin of all the all the materials right i see i don't know if i ever saw that data to

00:17:17 i don't know if i ever saw that data to be honest right that was my next question did you ever get the data i don't know if i'd okay yeah

00:17:27 who was it who chose the insulation for the next k-15 test can you remember that would be the one on that was done in july 14. it would have been an agreement with the those within that email

00:17:42 the those within that email yeah so it would have been a joint decision yeah yeah by by this sort of time everybody was involved in the the steps we were taking to improve k-15

00:17:53 the steps we were taking to improve k-15 yeah and if we go further up the email chain there's another email above of the 31st of march 2014 at 1401 in the middle of that page

00:18:08 from tony milichap to that group and he says this he says oh let's not forget we are carefully pushing bre for the result typically this is not issued without the full report after four to five weeks

00:18:21 full report after four to five weeks in the short term we are just trying to understand our options whilst waiting for the full data and trying to sow some seeds to influence that result in the event we do not get what we aimed for stronger tactics will be employed

00:18:35 for stronger tactics will be employed and then he says obviously lindsay's welcome to attend a dismantle and then he goes on and says i will concurrently employ our solicitor to ensure they are fully briefed to support a challenge

00:18:46 a challenge or defend against any ongoing contracts do you see that there yes now looking back at that first paragraph where he says trying to save some seeds to influence

00:18:57 trying to save some seeds to influence the results what seeds were sown to influence the result to your knowledge

00:19:04 i think tony had highlighted to me some ambiguity in the way that br135 was written or the actual yeah so i remember at the time he felt we had

00:19:18 so i remember at the time he felt we had a case for arguing that because what we wanted from this test yeah it wasn't a great result but we wanted

00:19:27 wanted it to be considered in our body of evidence

00:19:30 evidence so it is your evidence that this sowing the seeds were arguing back to the bre about whether or not the

00:19:38 not the the test was a pass yeah certainly yeah and whatever sorry the bre didn't it wasn't normally after the test they gave you the green light but in this

00:19:49 you the green light but in this scenario they were very much sort of on the fence with it they needed to consult their um [Applause] assistants and etc because they didn't know whether it was definitely a fail

00:20:03 know whether it was definitely a fail right what about the stronger tactics he says in the event we do not get what we aimed for

00:20:09 aimed for stronger tactics will be employed what was your understanding when you received this of what he was meaning there

00:20:18 i don't know what stronger tactics could be employed really to be honest but could it be threatening legal action as he then

00:20:26 he then implies at the end of that email he's going to employ the solicitor to ensure they're

00:20:30 they're fully briefed to support a challenge could that be one of the stronger tactics

00:20:36 it reads like that yes anything else were you ever aware of any other stronger tactics being employed

00:20:48 stronger tactics being employed no

00:20:51 you said yesterday that there was an assertive culture within kingspan would you agree that by this time and

00:21:02 would you agree that by this time and and i'm

00:21:02 and i'm may ask you this again once you've seen some more exchanges with the nhbc that actually the culture has become aggressive within kingspan in terms of trying to defend

00:21:13 defend the indefensible

00:21:20 adopt a very pushy approach yes yeah you'd be happy to say very pushy yeah

00:21:29 do you accept that the final decision on whether or not the system could be classified to bl-135 rested with the bre and not kingspan's own opinion

00:21:39 certainly and then if we go to the top email in this chain um this is an email that tony miller chap

00:21:54 sorry actually it's a different chain go let's go now to kin three zeros one zero four six one

00:22:09 yes so this is an email that tony milichap then writes to stephen howard at the bre on the 7th of may 2014 and he's copied in there if you see

00:22:21 and he's copied in there if you see under the cc list you and toby randall who appears to be from fennick elliott solicitors do you see that there yes i do

00:22:30 do and he says hello stephen we write further to the ongoing correspondence and prior to our meeting later this week we would confirm the following and he says in a sec in the second paragraph

00:22:42 he says in a sec in the second paragraph that he's just received the full thermocouple data and the video footage and he says in the second line it's clear the pass fail criteria for the first stage of the test was met all as per the original indications it's

00:22:55 all as per the original indications it's our firm belief the second edition of this

00:22:58 this the second section of this test does not have a pass fail criteria this being confirmed between within br135 and it's for recording observations only so he's trying to say

00:23:09 observations only so he's trying to say that

00:23:10 that observing it to the full 60 minutes was from observation only and wasn't part of the fast

00:23:15 the fast pass fail criteria that's right isn't it that was his interpretation yes and um he says it should also be noted it was confirmed immediately after the test by your phil clark

00:23:27 test by your phil clark the test ran to a full one-hour duration and was not terminated so he's also saying phil clark had said that it ran to the full one hour and was not terminated we do accept that some transient flaming

00:23:39 we do accept that some transient flaming was evident above the full rig height or they would not classify this as flame spread as referenced in the standard the insulation fire barrier at this point was not compromised in any way and the test ran the full duration so

00:23:51 test ran the full duration so he's arguing the case based on the video evidence about this and then he says for clarity based upon data we receive we would interpret this as a positive result against the br135 assessment criterion

00:24:04 against the br135 assessment criterion should this be interpreted any other way by yourselves we would intend to appeal the result formally do you see that there yes

00:24:14 was this an attempt by tony millerchap to put pressure on the bre it looks that way yes including copying in a solicitor to this correspondence

00:24:25 in a solicitor to this correspondence were you aware that that's what he was that's intended toby randall was there one of the company's solicitors said yes

00:24:34 i think one of the issues here was that kingsman felt the cladding was the cause of the failure the surface spread of flaming was on the front of the cladding that doesn't matter it

00:24:45 the cladding that doesn't matter it wasn't yet but it wasn't necessarily the involvement of the insulation so we were looking you know we weren't expecting a perfect test result but we were expecting something that we could use to talk about our material and to build

00:24:57 to talk about our material and to build up our body of evidence but yeah i i can see where you're coming from with it yeah i mean it's a full system test and it may be that in one particular system the cladding panels have more

00:25:08 panels have more of a contribution and another it's more the insulation but doesn't that demonstrate the need for it to be a system test and only then used where that system is is replicated yeah certainly

00:25:21 is replicated yeah certainly if we go to br135 third edition if we bring up cel403364

00:25:31 and we look this is the third edition it came out in 2013 and we look at page 31 under b2

00:25:41 you see there in the middle of that page b2

00:25:45 b2 it says there in the second sentence in order for a classification to be undertaken the system must have been tested to the full test duration requirements of bs 84142 without any early

00:25:56 of bs 84142 without any early termination of the full fire load exposure period do you see that yes so br 135 third edition was very clear that the full 60 minute duration

00:26:08 duration was relevant wasn't it and any early termination within that full 60 minutes resulted in a failure but was that test terminated early i think that's what

00:26:19 terminated early i think that's what they're

00:26:20 they're isn't that what they're saying

00:26:33 let's go now to bre four zeros three five seven six

00:26:48 and if we go

00:26:51 this is uh i want to look at tony miller chaps um this tony miller taps email of the 7th of may has been acknowledged by the bre complaints coordinator on the 8th of may 2014 at 1604

00:27:04 on the 8th of may 2014 at 1604 at the bottom of that page do you see that 8th of may 2014 dear mr miller chap i refer to your email 7th of may i'm responding in my capacity as the complaints coordinator for bre global

00:27:16 complaints coordinator for bre global do you see that there yes i've taken and she says at the end of that paragraph i've taken this to mean that you intend to lodge a formal complaint and then um tony millerchat responds at

00:27:28 and then um tony millerchat responds at the top email in the chain if we can go to that

00:27:31 to that and you're copied into this hello marion many thanks for acknowledging our position

00:27:37 position my interpretation of the current situation is that we do not yet have the formal results my comments were based upon stephen's initial assessment which we are to discuss

00:27:45 discuss further tomorrow do you see that there yes

00:27:48 yes so tomorrow would be the 9th of may 2014.

00:27:52 2014. um were you present at that meeting that then happened the day after do you recall that i had many meetings with um stephen

00:28:05 i had many meetings with um stephen howard

00:28:06 howard i think i should have been but i'm not 100 sure

00:28:09 100 sure can you remember whether it was at that meeting that the bre explained their interpretation of of the test to you and whether it was a pass or a fail

00:28:21 i can't recollect directly to be honest

00:28:26 was the result of this meeting that the bre wouldn't agree with your opinion on this test

00:28:35 i don't believe it was agreed with though

00:28:43 how could you have used this test data in any event since you all knew that it was carried out on a solstice blown version of k15 with a 50 micron full facer that wasn't

00:28:54 with a 50 micron full facer that wasn't going to help you with the k15 currently in the market was it

00:29:01 i think it was an understanding that if we

00:29:04 we found a solution that was working then that was what k-15 would evolve into i see so that's how all the research and

00:29:15 i see so that's how all the research and development works you try a new chemical or a new phaser and if if it met the criteria and it could be procured effectively then we'd actually run with it

00:29:26 run with it yeah it's right isn't it that the system tested on the 19th of march 2014 was never classified to bl-135 was it i don't believe it was

00:29:40 i don't believe it was now around this time that you're getting pressure from the nhbc in 2013 and 2014 it's right isn't it that

00:29:48 it that wind tech also started raising more significant concerns do you remember that

00:29:54 that i believe so yes were you aware that in october 2013 malcolm rochford had met with wintec and wintec had asked kingspan to commit to undertaking tests to 8414 part 2

00:30:07 to undertaking tests to 8414 part 2 and providing test data within six months

00:30:10 months where you were made aware of that

00:30:14 i think so yes and it's right isn't it that otherwise wintec intended to recommend to all of its clients

00:30:22 clients that k-15 could not be used for facades over 18 meters that's right isn't it as i understand yes

00:30:32 now in terms of the situation with the nhbc

00:30:35 nhbc there was another meeting between kingspan and the nhbc on the 2nd of april

00:30:40 april 2014. that's right isn't it yes can you recall

00:30:45 recall what you told the nhbc at that meeting about

00:30:50 about k-15 and its use above 18 meters

00:30:59 i can't recall directly without looking at the minutes okay but he would have been sorry it would have been something along the lines of what

00:31:06 what where we were up to what we or what what our latest approach was i think but you weren't able to provide any evidence of successful testing to bs

00:31:17 any evidence of successful testing to bs eight four one four part two were you no not at that time and can you remember how the situation was left with the nhbc as you understood it i think it was

00:31:29 as you understood it i think it was the it wasn't the best after that meeting

00:31:33 meeting no can we look at an email nhb 50703

00:31:47 nhb 50703 this is where you are updating the the nhbc including steve evans richard bromwich and copying in others

00:31:58 richard bromwich and copying in others about kingspan k15 do you see that there yes and you initially you were you've apologized for the delay in responding this is june 2014.

00:32:10 responding this is june 2014. you say you're responding to your email as richard has moved from the business development manager to our director of sales therefore is currently busy

00:32:18 busy settling into his new role asked me to respond on our behalf and then you say in the second paragraph at the last meeting i presented the test completed in march that we are still in

00:32:29 completed in march that we are still in negotiation with the bre about as advised the system tested which was a more onerous cladding than we intended would represent the majority of the cladding market met the 30 minute criteria of the bs

00:32:42 met the 30 minute criteria of the bs 8414 part 2. however some ongoing burning on the face of the cladding panel in the observation period

00:32:49 period caused them to deem this a failure it should however be noted we feel the system met the requirements and if the test were clearly a 30 minute test there would be no question that this would be fully compliant with br135

00:33:00 this would be fully compliant with br135 there is however some ambiguity within the test standard we are currently going through a review process with the bre with their only defense for this opinion

00:33:11 with their only defense for this opinion being the amended text which is in in the proposed bs84 part 2 draft that is currently out for public comment this review has resulted in the delay of

00:33:22 this review has resulted in the delay of the production of the test report and the br135 classification do you see that there yes now would you accept that in that paragraph you are misleading the nhbc about the

00:33:34 you are misleading the nhbc about the accurate position in relation to that march 2014 test

00:33:42 and what happened i'm explaining that there is some discussion over the past fail

00:33:47 fail yeah i can see that it's perhaps optimistic towards the end well in the fourth line for example you say there's some ambiguity in the test standard there

00:33:58 ambiguity in the test standard there wasn't any ambiguity on in br135 third edition that you had to go for the full test duration was there it wasn't a 30 minute test it was a 60 minute test

00:34:11 was a 60 minute test i remember being um going through this with tony he had he had a strong point with regards to the the text and the interpretation of

00:34:22 the the text and the interpretation of this

00:34:23 this but yeah i i can see where you're coming from here definitely and nowhere in there do you explain to them that what you were testing was not what you were selling because you were trying desperately to find a

00:34:35 you were trying desperately to find a different version of k15 that might pass the test

00:34:38 the test that's correct yes

00:34:44 and the test was not going through a review process was it the bre had deemed the test of failure and kingspan were trying to challenge it there was no review on the bre's part was there

00:34:57 review on the bre's part was there i think we felt that their um the email from the customer services we felt that that was going to be

00:35:08 we felt that that was going to be ratified there i think at that time okay did you feel uncomfortable about giving the nhbc the impression that this test

00:35:17 test might be deemed to meet br 135 thereby encouraging them to keep approving the k15 you were selling on tall buildings i felt uncomfortable with all of this

00:35:33 and you also included in the email a photo of the construction of the july test rig and asked for an extension of their ultimatum to the 30th of june 2014 that's right isn't it yes so you're

00:35:46 2014 that's right isn't it yes so you're saying look we've got another test coming up please don't go through with your threat of pulling k-15 from your buildings givers until the

00:35:59 from your buildings givers until the 30th of june yeah you're about you're just you're trying to buy more time with them definitely yes and then in the final paragraph

00:36:09 paragraph of that page we see this you say kingspan identified that a single test will not be the silver bullet to alleviate any concerns therefore are working with arab to create a generic assessment of our

00:36:21 to create a generic assessment of our testing to date to give us a better scope of approval alongside any bs 8414 data we are also looking to obtain a toolkit that can be used on a project specific basis using knowledge that's

00:36:32 specific basis using knowledge that's been collated to date and allowed arab wind tech and the other large facade consultants to accept the use of coolsam k15 above 18 meters kingspan have a

00:36:43 k15 above 18 meters kingspan have a large portfolio of phenolic fire test data

00:36:46 data that has been used by arab to accept the use of our products which we can make available to the nhbc if required however we understand you need to firstly see bs 8414 part 2 test

00:36:58 firstly see bs 8414 part 2 test information as referenced in our building regulation a summary of this has been added for your perusal do you see that there yes now it's right isn't it that sometime

00:37:09 isn't it that sometime after this not before arab eventually did agree to meet with kingspan without making any promises or endorsement or collaboration with kingspan that's right isn't it we had a

00:37:22 kingspan that's right isn't it we had a meeting with arap with regards to k15 at a later date yes and they wouldn't support your product would they they needed they also needed more information yeah and they wouldn't provide kingspan

00:37:36 yeah and they wouldn't provide kingspan with any form of generic assessment for k-15 would they they didn't at that time now they wanted to deal on a

00:37:43 deal on a project-by-project basis and they needed more evidence from us now kingspan they send a letter to the nhbc on the 3rd of august 2014. if we

00:37:56 nhbc on the 3rd of august 2014. if we can go to that kin402186

00:38:01 and if we look at the bottom of page two

00:38:06 sorry if we can bring that up kin four zeros

00:38:10 zeros two one eight six we can see this is a letter signed by u

00:38:17 and we go back to the first page so this is a

00:38:21 is a date of the third of august for the attention of steve evans at the nhbc do you see that there yes and sorry back to page two you've copied the letter to the sales director richard

00:38:32 letter to the sales director richard bromwich

00:38:35 richard burnley the managing director and tony milica the technical manager within kingspan do you see that do you see that yes

00:38:45 and who drafted this letter did you draft it or was it a joint effort can i ever look through it from the start of course sorry i'm sorry

00:38:54 so um let's look for it through it first in the first paragraph you you correct the nhbc about whether or not

00:39:03 or not uh what type of foam call them k15 is and you take the opportunity to to correct them and say it's a phenolic foam not a pir for foam

00:39:16 and then in paragraph two you say this our significant test portfolio alongside many precedents in gaining approval standards lobbying and extended involvement with fire consultants over

00:39:28 involvement with fire consultants over many years has afforded kingspan with a deep understanding of the regulatory framework in this area given kingspan's confidence the product is fit for purpose and is working within this framework our only

00:39:39 working within this framework our only practical option to demonstrate compliance is via a fire safety engineering approach the prohibitive cost and recognized lack of scope of approval within bs8414 and br135 demands this

00:39:52 within bs8414 and br135 demands this do you see that there yes and this this letter sorry was um i recognized this text as this came from tony

00:40:03 tony or he he assisted me in putting this letter together yeah and it's right isn't it and that it's not until the 4th of august 2014. i after this letter that you write to arab seeking their assistance

00:40:25 seeking their assistance if that's the case we can briefly look at that if we go to kin four zeros two one eight one page six

00:40:39 there's an email on the 7th of august 2014.

00:40:46 yeah i was 5 40. i was having no success with

00:40:49 with andrew hedges i think if we go up i think we go up the page yes there so 7th of august charlotte adam and then we go

00:41:01 adam and then we go down there at arab we trust all as well you've had some involvement with a project first street and carillion and then you'd say we'd like to plan a meeting we've got two

00:41:13 like to plan a meeting we've got two successful eight four one four tests one with a combustible cladding and one with a terra cotta to send this to you to start discussions about our needs below we need we know that our testing is not a silver bullet but would like some scope of

00:41:25 bullet but would like some scope of assessment and the identification of when a fire consultant needs to become involved so that that's where you're asking arab to see if they can give you some kind of scope of application yes so if we go back to

00:41:36 yes so if we go back to the letter that you'd written to the nxbc

00:41:39 nxbc on the 3rd of august 2014

00:41:44 we see there in the second paragraph you're referring to your significant test portfolio

00:41:54 what was that significant test portfolio it was no different to what we've talked about before was it you didn't have any 8414 tests that you passed in 2014 you only

00:42:06 passed in 2014 you only still had the 2005 test isn't that right yeah i think we're generally referring to all

00:42:11 to all our fire testing and all our call firm products

00:42:15 products yes so yeah we it's not directly clear no

00:42:18 no and for for large scale fire testing on k15

00:42:22 k15 you didn't have any further eight four one four test data or br135 classifications did you that's correct yes

00:42:32 and then in the next paragraph you say for absolute clarity kingspan insulation our confident cool theorem can be appropriate for use in the application and then in the second half of that paragraph you say in the event nhbc were to offer

00:42:44 say in the event nhbc were to offer contrary advice to the wide industry we would request 14 days prior notice in order that we may consider our position further

00:42:51 further this is particularly pertinent given the number of bodies you've undertaken to keep informed and then if we go to the top of page two you say as part of the test portfolio we

00:43:02 you say as part of the test portfolio we have completed two further successful tests to bs 8414 part two this year and currently await their interpretation to br 135

00:43:11 to br 135 these tests have been commissioned to demonstrate a range of approval and include scope for insulation thickness and cladding finish type we've also reached some agreement with regards to extending the scope of this testing

00:43:22 this testing in line with comments from your dave white with regards to the possibility to put flexible insulation fill between the structure steel frame stud work

00:43:30 work do you see that there we had received an agreement from um i think it was somebody at the bre that said the inclusion of a flexible insulin between the steel

00:43:42 a flexible insulin between the steel work would not adversely affect the results so they were comfortable in providing that assessment in terms of the two further successful tests you're referring to at the top of

00:43:54 tests you're referring to at the top of that page

00:43:55 that page in that paragraph which test there's been the one to eight four one four part two carried out on the seventh of july

00:44:04 of july 2014 on a research and development product

00:44:08 product what's the other successful test

00:44:18 can i have a look at my presentation again just to remind myself of that yeah well i don't i'm struggling with the only test just because the only tests in 2014 were

00:44:29 just because the only tests in 2014 were january 2014 that was the fail march 2014 that was the one that was challenged and then july 2014 [Applause]

00:44:46 [Applause] and the january and march ones were trespassing yes one was a trespass um yes one was a trespass um

00:44:57 yes one was a trespass um high pressure laminate and the other one was a decorative trespa the second one

00:45:10 when was the terracotta test 7th of january 2014. sorry sorry july 2014.

00:45:24 and this letter was written in august 2014.

00:45:30 so i'm talking about the terracotta test there on time and um i'm talking about we're talking about potentially i think we might be talking about the one that

00:45:40 might be a fail the one was deemed potentially a fail but the bre had not by august 2014 changed their previous position on that march test had they

00:45:51 march test had they no like i said i think tony was because we had that ongoing um c1s25 whatever it was complaint code that that was going to be reviewed

00:46:02 that that was going to be reviewed later date i think anyway this is just optimistic text isn't it well it's it's inaccurate it's not optimistic is it because there hadn't been a second successful test had there

00:46:14 a second successful test had there because march 2014 yeah if the first one's not successful then yeah it doesn't it doesn't i think you agreed with me earlier that the january one was certainly not i think it failed both on thermocouple

00:46:25 i think it failed both on thermocouple and reaching the top of the rig

00:46:31 are you prepared to accept that this is inaccurate and misleading this paragraph

00:46:39 yes definitely and then in the last line of that paragraph you say um we've also reached some agreement with regards to extending the scope of

00:46:50 with regards to extending the scope of this testing in line with your comments from dave white can you help us as to what that's referring

00:46:55 referring to this is to do with the inclusion of flexible insulation we were proposing he'd seen

00:47:03 he'd seen i've been sending the design details for the future tests to dave white he'd been concerned that we weren't including um mineral fiber or flexible fiber

00:47:14 mineral fiber or flexible fiber insulation between the steel stud work um although we weren't actually testing with

00:47:20 with fiber between the steel stud when i spoke to the bre they were comfortable that they would be able to do an assessment to take a part two test without flexible

00:47:32 take a part two test without flexible fiber between the studs and say that yes flexible fibre could be included between the studs this was one of dave's requirements he was very passionate about fire

00:47:43 was very passionate about fire resistance so he wanted to see that flexible insulation in that area i see so that was a very specific area that you were discussing it was not um extending the scope of

00:47:55 it was not um extending the scope of 8414

00:47:56 8414 testing it is extending the scope of 8414 but it's saying that it's not just applicable for steel frames it's applicable for steel frames with insulation between them as well

00:48:08 with insulation between them as well but you hadn't even got to the steel frames bit had you

00:48:17 the the terracotta test wasn't on a steel frame the one done in july oh i'm sorry that one was but it was a research and development product it was a solstice it was a solstice

00:48:28 it was a solstice it was a solstice which was going to be you see in my mind like i come back to what i said before about that once kingspound found a product that worked it was no longer research and

00:48:39 it was no longer research and development that was going to be the the way forward and we would only move backwards if we could then take that test and repeat it again with the standard product

00:48:50 product and then we could say okay well we passed it with a better product but we've also passed it with a standard product so we can move back to that yeah so that that's just how my mind worked at the time really that and that

00:49:01 worked at the time really that and that was

00:49:01 was the ethos of kingspan when it came to research and development yeah and that was purely wishful thinking meanwhile it's being specified on

00:49:09 on lots of buildings isn't it yes that's correct

00:49:13 now you attend another meeting at the nhbc on the 6th of august 2014. and following that meeting the nhbc requested a letter of comfort from the bre

00:49:24 comfort from the bre about ongoing testing and assessments do you remember that yes and did the bre ever write such a letter of comfort about testing

00:49:35 such a letter of comfort about testing i don't think they did no would you agree that rather than the bre providing letters of comfort these were being provided by kingspan

00:49:45 kingspan [Applause]

00:49:53 yes we were providing well we were providing letters that said that we were happy with it but you still needed to source independent verification yeah because at

00:50:05 independent verification yeah because at the end of the day we only had this body of evidence yeah let's look at an email chain

00:50:13 kin408841 from the 21st of august 2014.

00:50:22 so this is an email from you if we blow up the first half of the page from you to tony miller chap richard bromwich richard burnley gwen davis malcolm

00:50:33 richard burnley gwen davis malcolm rochford with lizzy hob lindsey hobbs and um you say subject comment required by monday 5 pm

00:50:44 monday 5 pm please k15 update and you begin that email um saying as the key stakeholders for the current cool firm k15 fire certification issues i've taken five to update you all

00:50:56 issues i've taken five to update you all on the current situation since our last meeting a month ago did you see that there

00:51:01 there yes says it right that those were the key stakeholders those people who received this email they were the key stakeholders for the k-15 fire certification issues

00:51:13 yeah i'd say at the time yeah perhaps i might have missed vincent coppock but mal he reported into malcolm so malcolm's on there so yes that's fine and under nhbc bca

00:51:24 and under nhbc bca you say this a meeting has been held with the nhbc whom are still pushing for someone to provide job-specific test data they are still sanctioning the use of

00:51:35 they are still sanctioning the use of k-15 as long as they get a bespoke letter

00:51:37 letter off kingspan which technical projects are turning around in 48 hours on receipt of the drawings and confirmation of the fire barrier dimensions they have also given us an extra three

00:51:48 they have also given us an extra three months to get some further assessments on the test data to meet their needs we've also requested two weeks notification if they decide to change their stance steve evans was also involved in the bca

00:51:59 steve evans was also involved in the bca publication attached and you attached bca technical guidance note 18

00:52:05 note 18 from june 2014 to that email and you say he was involved in that publication attached which has been driven by them following the confusion interpretation of our high-rise regulations

00:52:17 of our high-rise regulations i've highlighted some parts of this document as it clearly singles out polyurethane as not being suitable but does not mention pf phenolic foam we could we should

00:52:28 pf phenolic foam we could we should consider whether this would be a document

00:52:30 document we would ever consider referencing for commercial reasons do you see that there yes so going back to the second line of that what's happening is nhbc and

00:52:41 what's happening is nhbc and bca's the building control alliance there

00:52:45 there but i think you're saying that it's the nhbc are still sanctioning the use of k-15 as long as they get a bespoke letter is that right that's correct yes

00:52:55 and again kingspan shouldn't have been sanctioning the use of k-15 should it given the

00:53:01 given the testing it had done to date at that time

00:53:11 we were providing a letter of comfort the nhbc were sanctioning the use of the product but yes there is the the issue with regards to the test data not representing the

00:53:22 not representing the original formulations yeah

00:53:30 in the senior management at kingspan several of whom you've copied into this email raise any concerns or make any comments about this practice at this time do you remember

00:53:43 time do you remember not that i recall

00:53:48 was the risk to life safety or kingspan's corporate responsibility ever something that was discussed either at this time or thereafter in relation to this approval of k-15 on

00:54:01 in relation to this approval of k-15 on high-rise buildings

00:54:05 the the letters of comfort that we wrote i think we might have had a a lawyer look at them or something they were um

00:54:16 we were only kingsman was only simply presenting the information it had and they were always pushing out for others to take responsibility so although it was a letter of comfort

00:54:27 so although it was a letter of comfort it wasn't really a big comfort to the nhbc those letters but you were still positively suggesting k-15 in configurations very different from the one you tested in 2005

00:54:39 from the one you tested in 2005 yes and despite knowing that the product had changed since that time yes that's correct

00:54:48 now that that test from july 2014 just to ask you some questions about that now um

00:54:55 um that was on the 7th of july 2014 that was the third test that year it was a tester 8414 part 2 using a terracotta tile at the bre

00:55:06 using a terracotta tile at the bre and in your witness statement if we go to that

00:55:10 to that at the top of page 58 paragraph 120 a

00:55:16 you say you're asked about what was the product and the properties of the product

00:55:21 product actually tested and you say foil faced thermoset phenolic foam this was an improved variant of k15 it would appear the same but production records would relate it to a trial

00:55:32 records would relate it to a trial product that potentially going to be the new version of call firm k15 do you see that there yes was there anyone in the technical team at kingspan

00:55:43 anyone in the technical team at kingspan who was

00:55:43 who was unaware that that test had been carried out

00:55:46 out on a trial project

00:56:09 i don't know to be honest maybe the frontline technical advisors but we weren't they weren't dealing with the k-15 inquiries

00:56:20 inquiries but all those uh who were on that email chain before would they have been aware that the july test was on a trial product

00:56:27 product of course because they would have provided the product to me so yes yeah let's go back to your powerpoint presentation

00:56:37 kin3021945 and back to page 17.

00:56:46 and we can see at the very bottom of that page july 14 kingspan it's 80 millimeter kingspan this time

00:56:53 this time and it says 50 micron unperforated soul top hats so the 50 microns we know that that's about the foil facer so it's double the thickness

00:57:04 so it's double the thickness of the foil facer normally used for k15 yes

00:57:10 yes that's correct and and it's unperforated so it's double the thickness of the foil within the the central part of the facehead

00:57:18 facehead yes it's not the entire face or it's no i think it's a laminate face i see yeah and it's sole again does that mean solstice that would mean solstice and what does top hats mean can you help us top hats

00:57:30 us top hats is in relation to the aluminium support system

00:57:35 system the um which would be what was required for terracotta i see and then we can see on the right that was a a terracotta cladding test yeah um

00:57:54 cladding test yeah um and if we can go to the schedule that's been provided by kingspan to us at kin3022357 at the bottom of page three

00:58:10 there we can see it says the 7th of july 2014

00:58:15 2014 um kingspan insulation in the next test and then the next system tested terracotta this is taylor maxwell standard classico terracotta tile it's a pass there's a test report number

00:58:28 it's a pass there's a test report number and then in the next column properties of the tested insulation product it says trial product thickness 80 millimeter and then on the foil it says perforated and unperforated 50 micron

00:58:41 perforated and unperforated 50 micron and we just wanted to ask you about that does that mean that it's possible that the foil used in that test

00:58:48 test had a perforated foil on one side and an unperforated foil on the other side that's what it would mean yes yeah do you recall that about that test

00:58:59 yeah do you recall that about that test i recall it was very difficult to manufacture um products with without corporations i think we really struggled

00:59:09 struggled when it was unperforated i think there was issues with the boards buckling but it was something that they were potentially working towards so

00:59:21 potentially working towards so it was it was suitable enough product to be used in the test in a way yeah in adrian parjita's um third statement the inquiry he's

00:59:32 um third statement the inquiry he's he's described this test as as testing a low lambda version of k-15 the solstice is that right the solstice blowing agent was what the business we're moving towards

00:59:44 what the business we're moving towards to reduce the lambda from i think o2 to 018 so it was definitely something that was going to happen yeah

00:59:57 was going to happen yeah if we can go to an email you send on the 27th of october 2014

01:00:06 kin3021904

01:00:12 and we go to the bottom of page two

01:00:17 so there's an email there right at the bottom

01:00:20 bottom 10 31 begins on that page to gwen davis lizzy

01:00:24 lizzy lindsey hobbs copying an adrian pager to tony miller chat if we go over the page

01:00:33 and what you appear to be discussing in this email is that the the insulation that you're going to send to the bre for the next test after july 2014.

01:00:42 2014. and at the second to last paragraph on that page you say can you provide the location of the product so i can get it labelled up for transit

01:00:50 transit i also need to make sure it does not state trial on the label do you see that there yes why did you not want the product to state trial on the label again we were wanting

01:01:01 trial on the label again we were wanting to

01:01:02 to um keep things simple with the bre we would be providing them with batch numbers

01:01:08 numbers it would traditionally if things were in the warehouse it would probably say op920 trial or solstice trial or something like that to keep our um commercial secrets

01:01:21 our um commercial secrets we needed to make sure that that was a correctly labeled product but did you not want bre to know that it was a trial batch why was there a problem with them

01:01:32 batch why was there a problem with them knowing that because it wasn't going if this was the way we if this was successful this was going to be the product we'd move forward with and you didn't want to know that what you were doing was testing a trial

01:01:44 you were doing was testing a trial product

01:01:45 product um potentially not no no can we just look at a photograph relating to the january 14 trespa high pressure laminate test if we can go to bre-405773

01:01:59 can go to bre-405773 and look at page 25 of that clip

01:02:08 and we i want to zoom in on the bottom right hand photograph on that page do you see that down there these are photographs from provided to

01:02:19 these are photographs from provided to the inquiry in the bre's disclosure and appear to relate to the test based on the number that was used for these photographs to the test on the 7th of january 2014

01:02:30 to the test on the 7th of january 2014 and you can see it says k-15 trial there do you see that yeah so is it is it possible that for this

01:02:40 this test someone didn't think to remove the trial on that the product would have that that information on the label um you've got the batch number there the

01:02:51 you've got the batch number there the production date that would all be printed on the side of the board

01:02:58 some of the they have further labels on the to

01:03:02 the to identify the stacks which often when they're in the trials area in the factory they had you know more simpler labels which would describe the chemical constituent of the

01:03:14 describe the chemical constituent of the product so yeah can we now go to an email from november 2014

01:03:25 kin3021810 this is towards the end of 2014. and the subject heading so we'll bring that up

01:03:37 this is a

01:03:41 an email chain with the subject k15 testing direction and at the top of the page we can see you've forwarded this to adrian pargeter

01:03:52 you've forwarded this to adrian pargeter and then

01:03:53 and then we can see what you forwarded below that which is an email from tony miller chapter

01:03:57 chapter richard burnley copying you do you see that there yes and then if we go to the email that tony miliceps sent on that page he

01:04:09 that tony miliceps sent on that page he says further to our meeting earlier today i've set out our understanding of the published celetex rs 5000 result and its current impact and then he says this initially having sourced a copy of celetex marketing

01:04:21 sourced a copy of celetex marketing blurb

01:04:22 blurb we were not surprised of the vagueness surrounding the specifics of the test construction notably around provision of fire breaks further efforts finally secured a copy of the actual test report

01:04:33 of the actual test report albeit this was missing the relevant pages relating to the test construction upon receipt of the actual construction designs these were reduced photo copies again lacking clarity the reports text references four

01:04:45 the reports text references four horizontal fire breaks however the sketch is unclear where how these are positioned and then he says i do suspect from their construction designs that a critical panel joint that is essential to the

01:04:56 panel joint that is essential to the test and influences the result is missing from the celetex design i'm not confident we have enough clarity to challenge this officially with bre but we will raise it in any case

01:05:06 case see that there so this appears to be referring to the select well it is we can see from the first paragraph the celotex rs 5000 testing and the product had been

01:05:17 testing and the product had been launched in august 2014 of that year can you help us how do you know how kingspan managed to obtain a copy of the test report we would um seek the help of a friendly

01:05:31 we would um seek the help of a friendly architect or a friendly insulation distributor and try and get them to

01:05:37 them to request a copy of the report

01:05:42 and that's how we got a copy

01:05:46 i think it came from a sales manager who got it from a distributor yeah if we carry on to look at the fourth paragraph we can go down that page

01:05:57 he he says um there in the paragraph we are only third paragraph down now on that page it says

01:06:08 page it says we are only aware of one project where the celetex product has been adopted which involved the same supply chain as their test program we have yet to be asked to defend specification against the product

01:06:19 specification against the product we are actively involved in supporting 60 plus projects specifically on the over 18 meter issue do you see that there yes so at that point

01:06:29 point it looks like king spanner trying to support the use of k15 on 60 plus projects for over 18 meters do you agree

01:06:40 agree yes that's correct and then he says this in the same moving on in the same paragraph whilst we had to financially support the project at first street manchester this specification held and we have not

01:06:51 this specification held and we have not lost a specification since feedback from specialists subcontractors specifiers and consultants all raise doubt over the celetex solution and now first street was a project where

01:07:04 and now first street was a project where kingspan

01:07:05 kingspan paid arab for an assessment and the k-15 was actually removed wasn't it off that building i'm not directly familiar with that

01:07:16 i'm not directly familiar with that project but okay

01:07:22 what was the doubt over the celatex solution did you ever discuss that with anybody

01:07:30 well i think we knew because we were aware of the flammability of k-15 compared to the celetex product because i

01:07:38 because i tested them in the laboratory using our lab scale tests um we were just shocked how they could even

01:07:46 even get a test when when kingspan sort of struggled

01:07:49 struggled to to pass this test and we were seeing that we were only going to be suitable in certain scenarios if any at all

01:07:58 all then how could celetex have even got there

01:08:01 there this was a big question so i was presented the report by a number of people who were like well this doesn't make any sense how can a pir be used in that situation

01:08:12 pir be used in that situation it wasn't the the real position that you knew

01:08:15 knew that neither celetex rs 5000 nor kingspan k15 should be being used on buildings over 18 meters you knew that didn't you

01:08:27 i knew we had serious holes in our um information yes yeah and then the email continues he says in light of the fact we cannot produce k-15 100

01:08:39 produce k-15 100 solstice either commercially or from a production perspective i would advocate we test the blended product

01:08:46 product once lambda and costs are acceptable i've included malcolm's cost assessment to revert to testing standard is that nt new technology new technology yeah to revert to testing standard new

01:08:58 yeah to revert to testing standard new technology k15 will not support the strategy

01:09:01 strategy we are pursuing with arabs and nhbc will but we'll signal a backwards step with significant consequence do you see that there

01:09:08 there yes so it's clear that you can't produce the

01:09:12 the solstice product that you've passed with in july you can't produce it either commercially or from a production perspective that's right isn't it that's correct yes what's the blended product he's referring to there

01:09:25 product he's referring to there i think he's talking about standard new technology

01:09:31 and is it right that the solstice product couldn't be produced because it had crystallized in the production process

01:09:37 process so it just wasn't viable were you aware of that

01:09:41 of that i think there was a number of reasons it was um problematic like i say i didn't follow the chemistry closely

01:09:49 closely and when he refers there at the end of that paragraph to he talks about reverting to testing the standard new technology k-15 will not support the strategy we are pursuing with arabs and

01:10:00 strategy we are pursuing with arabs and the nhbc

01:10:01 the nhbc what was your understanding of what that strategy was at that time

01:10:13 that we were looking for assessments we were looking for expansion we were looking for to work with a favorable

01:10:22 favorable consultant who would be able to take our information and expand it so get get a scope of application on those testers on

01:10:33 testers on the original test result and you were still desperate for that weren't you at this time

01:10:38 this time of course yeah but we were this we were shocked with this because this and this is this is typical of what was happening at kingspan we were we were going down a route with a new

01:10:50 we were going down a route with a new chemical

01:10:51 chemical and then it was proving when it's when we started to we do small-scale testing it proved it's okay when we started to roll it out to the product range it would either become not available

01:11:02 it would either become not available china couldn't supply it or it was you know it was not commercially viable for an any number of reasons so because we were mixing the formulation ourselves we were

01:11:13 mixing the formulation ourselves we were constantly coming up against these sort of problems yeah so you know we could talk about two years worth of work could be just down the pan because they could no longer afford to buy that chemical so it was very frustrating

01:11:26 chemical so it was very frustrating yeah i mean i personally wanted a comfortable pass margin on any of our tests

01:11:31 tests so we could so we were confident in what we were supplying it was just not a good situation that we were only barely passing if not at all yeah

01:11:42 only barely passing if not at all yeah and then in the next paragraph it goes on the above approach assumes we continue to acknowledge differences between the tested products both blowing agent and facing thicknesses have significant

01:11:53 and facing thicknesses have significant impact

01:11:54 impact all testing has been referenced back to precise factors with control samples as is a requirement of bre however this does not include a description of the physical differences do you see that there

01:12:04 there yes just going back to what i was saying before about i'd um made sure that the bre had all the batches so if they ever came in with the lpcb

01:12:14 lpcb it could all be traced back and we could have a certified validated approach yeah i want to ask you by this time had kingspan discussed

01:12:25 kingspan discussed with anyone else at the bre the differences between the the sold product and the tested product

01:12:34 product i think he said that yesterday that phil clark was aware that you were trying out different products is that right i was talking to phil about um

01:12:45 i was talking to phil about um that we were making improvements to the material that's why i was asking for his candid

01:12:50 candid answers his on and off record comments with regards to um what he thought of the product and was he aware that what you tested in 2005 was not what you were selling

01:13:02 in 2005 was not what you were selling after that

01:13:07 i think he was i noticed he was i think he might have spotted the facing was different

01:13:13 different um and i might have confirmed that to him as well

01:13:20 essentially to the untrained eye you know this is a it's a pink phone with a foil facing it's not going to be nobody else is going to notice it's any different it's it's only within the kingspan

01:13:32 it's it's only within the kingspan formulation where the differences are apparent

01:13:36 apparent did you discuss that at anybody with anyone else at the bre at any time those differences the bre um would certify our iso 9000 so they

01:13:49 um would certify our iso 9000 so they were coming into the the company four times a year to look to look at our formulations

01:13:58 however i don't think we discussed it directly with regards to the um k-15 though okay

01:14:07 now the situation with the nhp before you go on the screen can i just try and get yeah

01:14:12 get yeah yeah this reference to the blended product i'm not sure how far it matters but i wonder if you can just help a little bit further the thrust of the paragraph beginning in the light of the fact

01:14:23 the light of the fact yeah is that you couldn't produce 100 solstice but you didn't want to revert to testing standard and new technology k15

01:14:36 standard and new technology k15 so i'm just wondering whether the blended product involves some sort of halfway house between the two or maybe something different no no that i think the that's just i think he's referring to

01:14:48 that's just i think he's referring to just standard new technology well that doesn't make much sense does it because you go on in the next sentence to say

01:15:00 you go on in the next sentence to say to revert to testing standard new technology will not support the strategy but we would be a signal backwards step with significant consequences yeah the argument seems to be we should

01:15:12 yeah the argument seems to be we should try testing something that isn't standard new technology k-15 and isn't 100 solstice

01:15:22 could you certainly light on yeah now i i see what you're saying i i agree with this it's talking about a mixture isn't it between the two yeah right yeah to be fair mr chairman this isn't his email just to be clear it's

01:15:33 isn't his email just to be clear it's tony miller chap's email well all right yeah mr litcher but the point is can mr meredith shouldn't he light on that i i think you're

01:15:43 you're correct tony's angling towards a blend but again

01:15:46 but again tony he's he wasn't a chemist either he wasn't responsible for the chemistry side of the business we were picking up terminology from the technical meetings right well if necessary we can ask it

01:15:58 right well if necessary we can ask it more possibly someone else yeah okay are you going on to another document um i am yes would that be a good point to have a record is it going to interrupt the flow

01:16:09 record is it going to interrupt the flow i would like to finish this topic right on the nhbc before before the break if that's okay so the situation with the nhbc

01:16:21 so the situation with the nhbc escalated during the second half of 2014 that's right isn't it yes and if i can summarize the situation after

01:16:29 after requests for letters for comfort from the bre and arab were made neither of these letters were written the nhbc attempted to place further ultimatums on kingspan to provide test

01:16:42 ultimatums on kingspan to provide test data

01:16:43 data the meeting with arab didn't result in arab agreeing to assist or provide any guidance to kingspan um that was the position wasn't it yes and do you remember there was

01:16:55 yes and do you remember there was another meeting with the nhvc on the 22nd of october this was the one where richard burnley attended

01:17:05 i think that's right can you remember what was said at that meeting

01:17:18 to be honest they all blend into one of those means okay what happens then is the situation with the nhbc culminates in a letter from ian davis the operations director to tony

01:17:30 davis the operations director to tony miller chap copying in jean murtagh the chief executive officer of kingspan if we can just go to that letter

01:17:36 letter this is nhb50922 it's dated the 5th of february 2015.

01:17:51 and it's headed yeah the use of cool them k15 and facades above 18 meters and in the second paragraph ian davis uh writes

01:18:01 writes kingspan market k15 raid screen board with the claim that it has been successfully tested to 8414

01:18:08 8414 and can meet the criteria within br135 which makes it suitable for use above 18 meters

01:18:14 meters this wording appears on the front page of the k15 product literature which is on your website and it goes on being aware that the current bba certificate for the k-15 product dated december 2013 does not

01:18:25 product dated december 2013 does not provide

01:18:26 provide the necessary evidence to fully support this claim we have been requesting evidence from kingsman since early 2014 and then he continues we are disappointed that despite

01:18:37 we are disappointed that despite commitments from kingspan to engage fire engineer

01:18:41 engineer expertise or carry out substantial additional testing to demonstrate that alternative typical wall buildups are acceptable to br 135 to date none of this has come to fruition and no evidence has been

01:18:53 fruition and no evidence has been provided to us that demonstrates that k-15 can be used in facades over 18 meters

01:18:58 meters in any other configuration than that detailed in the current bba certificate now he's right his knees entirely correct in what he's written there despite those commitments to get fire

01:19:10 despite those commitments to get fire engineering expertise or substantial additional testing none of that had come to fruition had it we

01:19:17 we did we not have the terracotta test by that time

01:19:22 that time that was july 2014 yes yeah okay yeah but he he's right that we don't have anything within the bba certificate

01:19:34 and then continuing if we go on he says

01:19:41 the absence of evidence from kingspan means we will soon be faced with having to decline to accept buildings which are currently under construction and have specified the k-15 product in facades above 18 meters

01:19:52 facades above 18 meters for risk management purposes as a provider of defects liability insurance and in many cases also as the approved inspector

01:19:59 inspector unless the building the builder's concern can provide evidence themselves in accordance with bca guidance note 18. you see that there

01:20:11 and then he says in the next paragraph the absence of evidence also means we now have to advise builders registering new developments that if they specify k-15 they will have to provide this evidence themselves do you see that there

01:20:22 there that's the yes so this is the nhbc um having been patient and waited for evidence they haven't had that evidence forth coming and therefore they are getting stronger here

01:20:35 therefore they are getting stronger here with kingspan aren't they than what they are yeah they're also coming around to our point of view to a certain extent that we're wanting them to seek

01:20:46 to seek acceptance for the full system from elsewhere as well it shouldn't we we didn't feel it should sit directly on our shoulders all the time

01:20:54 time i see so what was that your reaction to this letter that there was some form of silver lining within it well he's like he's saying that he's what does he say he says he's um

01:21:07 [Music] unless the builder's concerned can provide evidence themselves in accordance with the bca guidance i i assume i've not read the bca document lately but that refers to

01:21:20 document lately but that refers to a fire engineering approach or something like that doesn't it

01:21:25 in june 2014 it referred to desktop assessments and then in july june 2015 it started referring to fire engineering approaches but

01:21:39 what was the response of your superiors to this letter can you remember

01:21:46 well let's do some more testing i think let's you know keep trying let's look now at the response to this

01:21:58 let's look now at the response to this letter

01:21:59 letter um it's at kin408283

01:22:10 um it's at kin408283 it's dated the 13th of february 2015 and it's the response it's a response from kingspan solicitors fennec elliott

01:22:19 do you remember that

01:22:28 i was aware that this had gone on yes yeah

01:22:31 yeah and um this is a threat to injunct the nhbc

01:22:36 nhbc in order to prevent them from going ahead with their plan to advise builders that the use of k15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters required proof of compliance in

01:22:47 required proof of compliance in accordance with the bca guidance doesn't it do you remember that at the time

01:22:53 time if we go to page four of the letter second paragraph down we see that very clearly

01:23:04 so you see in the second main paragraph down there they want some if we've not received such confirmation from you by 4 pm on monday the 16th of february 2015 our client considers it

01:23:16 february 2015 our client considers it will be left with no alternative but to protect its position by applying to the court for an injunction preventing the nhbc from making the statements you propose in relation to the k-15 boards clearly

01:23:27 in relation to the k-15 boards clearly we would much prefer not having to do so now were you involved at all uh at this point

01:23:36 point in in

01:23:40 well when it came to dealing with the legal side of it this this was sort of above me but and i'm not i'm

01:23:49 on a call or i might have met toby at one point with um tony but this is not something that i would have got involved in directly so i'm not asking you what the content of

01:24:00 i'm not asking you what the content of any instructions were that were given to the solicitors those are privileged but do you know who it was at kingspan who was giving instructions in respect of this letter who was it who

01:24:11 in respect of this letter who was it who was involved at kingspan

01:24:15 i think we've we saw in the earlier email trails that this was um this would have been tony in conjunction with endorsement

01:24:26 tony in conjunction with endorsement from

01:24:27 from his line manager i see tony millerchat yeah yeah did you see this letter before it was sent to the nhpc do you remember

01:24:39 i i may have had it sent to me that's quite a large inbox i didn't really get through all my emails on a daily basis if we look in the final paragraph on page three the second line up from the

01:24:51 page three the second line up from the bottom

01:24:54 we can see it said in that paragraph given what we've said above it's clear that there's no justification for taking the steps outlined in your letter of the 5th of february 2015 taking such steps that's the letter i just took you to where they said they

01:25:06 just took you to where they said they were going to start telling their builders

01:25:08 builders that you needed to get separate authorization if it was going to be used on buildings taking such steps would cause our client very significant financial loss they are not

01:25:18 not properly justifiable from the tests which have been carried out they would amount to actionable negligent misstatements of the true position

01:25:28 position further given that any such unjustifiable statements would clearly cause serious harm to our clients business

01:25:33 business resulting in serious financial loss they would amount to and then the top of the page top of the next page page four

01:25:47 defamation under the defamation act 2013. do you see that there so it's clearly being said in that letter that nhbc's proposed statement to builders

01:25:57 builders which they said they because they simply had no test evidence to support the use above 18 meters but they were proposing to say to builders

01:26:06 builders uh that k-15 had to be separately justified

01:26:09 justified kingspan is saying that's unjustifiable now was that your own view at the time that's what i want to ask

01:26:20 was it your view that the position the nhbc had taken was unjustifiable

01:26:34 this is a very heavy-handed approach isn't it

01:26:40 i wouldn't say that their position was unjustifiable there was that um terracotta test putting aside the the formulation might not have been

01:26:51 not have been what was the facings weren't what was directly being produced and sold in the marketplace at the time

01:26:59 kingspan had a story about the products ability to perform but you know this is this is pushing back in some order isn't

01:27:11 this is pushing back in some order isn't it

01:27:13 it i think we'll leave it there mr chairman that's a good moment for a break yes very well thank you well we're going to have a short break now mr meredith same as before we'll come back at

01:27:24 same as before we'll come back at quarter to four please and no discussing your evidence when you're out of the room thank you very much

01:27:38 all right across the floor please

01:46:06 would you ask mr meredith to come back in please

01:46:20 right mr meredith carry on thank you yes i'm strange yes thank you um just on national class naught now just a couple of very brief questions on that um you mentioned um yesterday

01:46:34 um you mentioned um yesterday um you said this for the transcript it was

01:46:38 was yesterday page one six six lines fifteen to sixteen that you were not able to repeat the class naught results for the kester in technology k-15

01:46:48 k-15 is that right that after the technology was changed you kept trying to test to bs 476 part 6 and part 7 but you couldn't ever get those results again with the new

01:46:59 those results again with the new technology is that right the part 7 the surface spread of flame test that was not an issue it was the fire propagation test yes we were unable to repeat the results

01:47:15 we were unable to repeat the results as a composite material yeah so it's right isn't it that kingspan started testing the foil facer alone is that right that's correct justin

01:47:26 is that right that's correct justin davis found a clause in the building regulations that seemingly allowed this i personally didn't agree with this and voiced my concerns yeah who did you

01:47:38 and voiced my concerns yeah who did you voice your concerns to i think everybody yeah and where you concerned that it it seemed wrong to have a product that was a composite product like k15

01:47:49 composite product like k15 but only be testing the foil facer

01:47:55 we could test the core the kingsman would test the core that would achieve the part six result and they would test the facing that would achieve the part six as i understood but they couldn't

01:48:07 as i understood but they couldn't test put them together it wouldn't work because of the the nature of the test the facing would blow off um push against the gas burners and cause a failed test if i can remember correctly

01:48:20 failed test if i can remember correctly so it was it was just something that wasn't possible with a composite of that nature yeah what did tony miller chaff and mark and rochford say in response to your concerns about class naught and testing the foil phaser

01:48:32 class naught and testing the foil phaser alone

01:48:34 alone would justin found this clause in the approved document be that like i say seemingly allowed it but i was not

01:48:41 i was not comfortable with that but again my from my personal perspective i wanted to see k-15 improved because i felt that product needed that

01:48:55 because i felt that product needed that to be acceptable for use yeah now i want to move on now um to ask you about the disciplinary and appeal hearings that you had prior to being dismissed by kingspan

01:49:06 prior to being dismissed by kingspan after 16 years of employment there and i do appreciate this as a sensitive subject but i do have to ask you about this

01:49:14 this now it's right isn't it that your employment was terminated on the 19th of august 2015 and before the termination and after an appeal hearing you made certain comments about events at kingspan during your

01:49:26 about events at kingspan during your time there that's right isn't it yes that's the case and you also revealed to those in senior management at kingsbound that you'd been suffering from stress poor mental health and drug

01:49:37 from stress poor mental health and drug addiction problems yes that's correct and is it fair to say that um particularly when once wintec and the nhbc became

01:49:48 once wintec and the nhbc became concerned about k-15 you were under enormous pressure at kingspan to try and justify the use of k15 over 18 meters definitely without a doubt

01:50:04 can we go to kin 408686 this is an email that was received by kingspan in july 2010 and i want to go to the second email in

01:50:16 and i want to go to the second email in the chain

01:50:18 the chain which is an email from your landlord to kingspan about um various matters and if we look in the

01:50:30 various matters and if we look in the third paragraph of this email it's titled to whom it may concern he says i had a chat with my lodger two days after hearing of this and they strongly denied it i believed it for a short time and i'm still not

01:50:41 it for a short time and i'm still not sure

01:50:42 sure the person who told me that it was common knowledge at kingspan of the problem my lodge has made me think of lots of people in the working environment there do know about it that there's no smoke without fire

01:50:54 smoke without fire it may be an overblown version but if there is any hint of drug use in my house they will be evicted right away

01:51:02 do you see that there yes and and so i should have picked this up in the first paragraph it says there a quick email at this stage it says i was told by a friend of

01:51:13 stage it says i was told by a friend of mine

01:51:14 mine who's an employee at kingspan that another member of your staff who's a lodger in my house has quite a serious drug habit do you see that there yes i do now um was it known within kingspan at this

01:51:25 was it known within kingspan at this time that you had a drug habit a serious drug habit

01:51:32 i can't comment on that i'm not sure like i say we were i was definitely a functioning addict i i was i was working hard it was just

01:51:44 i i was i was working hard it was just i had a number of serious problems that weren't just that um that coleman culminated in my last couple of years there so we were a very busy company

01:51:57 so we were a very busy company so everyone was steaming ahead with their own agendas working towards the main requirements of the company yeah were you asked by kingsville at this time whether you had any problems did

01:52:08 time whether you had any problems did they come to you and and say you know either are you okay you know do you need support did that happen i think um both my bosses tony and phil would always do whatever

01:52:21 tony and phil would always do whatever they could to help me

01:52:27 um you know they were they were very good bosses but no no

01:52:34 but no no not directly not to do with this issue no

01:52:38 no no did you ever deny to them that you had

01:52:41 had problems of this nature

01:52:46 i i they were this was brushed off as a bit of a joke really at the time brushed off by you or brushed off by them brushed off by them and and me to a certain extent i wasn't

01:52:57 and me to a certain extent i wasn't gonna this was i had a lunatic landlord as you can see um

01:53:04 so yeah okay would i be right in thinking that you didn't actually raise any of your personal problems uh with them

01:53:12 with them no they weren't problems at the time if we go now to 2014 if we go to kin408700

01:53:22 kin408700 this is a series of emails from july 2014 between you tony milichap and susan ewert who worked i think in the hr department at kingspan and it appears that you'd not submitted

01:53:34 and it appears that you'd not submitted your expenses of mileage claims at this time and in tony militare's email to you in the top email of the chain

01:53:43 chain he says um he says either we've discussed related matters many times including him recently as this week you must allocate this type of activity the correct priority continued failure to recognize the importance of these

01:53:55 to recognize the importance of these procedures will require me to formally address the situation via disciplinary procedures you will not get a warning again for clarity this relates to management of expenses mileage declaration

01:54:06 of expenses mileage declaration time and attendance and any other items related to self-administration on a practical note putting a recurring appointment in your diary each week to spend some time on these tasks regularly will manage the issue

01:54:17 will manage the issue so um would you accept that at this time you were struggling with self-administration issues i always put the requirements of the

01:54:28 i always put the requirements of the business in front of my requirements so things like expenses i saw a secondary and i was dealing with things like testing firstly yeah to my

01:54:41 things like testing firstly yeah to my own detriment you know i should have been sorting out because i lost loads of money for not putting my expenses in but you know i was trying to do a job i was very passionate about doing the job i you know i thought i had a job for life

01:54:53 you know i thought i had a job for life there to be honest yeah and did you feel at the time that tony militech was trying to help you with sought out of course he was

01:55:07 and then if we look at kin three zeros two two five five nine this is the 24th of october 2014 and the issues are ongoing and he writes to you again and he says at the

01:55:18 writes to you again and he says at the top of that page either we've spoken too many times about this i regret if this continues i'll take disciplinary action if you have an issue you should come clean now otherwise resolve immediately do you see that there did you talk to

01:55:31 do you see that there did you talk to him at the time about the problems you were experiencing yeah i was talking about my i was overloaded with work yeah and what was his response when you raised those issues with him

01:55:44 he was sort of helping me build a structure around myself at around that time so i could disseminate some of my workload i'm sorry to

01:55:56 some of my workload i'm sorry to interrupt again but when you say you and spoken about the problems you were experiencing was that no it wasn't work or just or personal problems

01:56:06 problems i had some personal issues um so i'm not asking you to describe them i just want to know whether you raised them with i was talking to him about some pers some of my personal issues but primarily

01:56:17 primarily it was to do with the workload the pressure i was under with k15 and the needs of the business at that time and tony

01:56:26 and tony he was he was then helping me put a team of people around myself to actually take the pressure off my shoulders

01:56:35 shoulders but unfortunately it was kind of probably a little bit too little too late

01:56:39 late you know it takes a good you know it can take six months to train a person up and you know and when you've got four of them around you that you're trying to train up at the same time it wasn't an overnight process so

01:56:50 overnight process so like i said unfortunately it was a little too little too late but yeah i don't blame the business for that yeah thank you sorry strangers yeah it's fine is it right at this time that you had literally thousands of emails in your inbox that you had to try

01:57:02 emails in your inbox that you had to try and manage yes yeah yeah and there was a meeting held with tony miller chap on the 27th of february 2015 with susan ew at present do you remember

01:57:13 with susan ew at present do you remember that

01:57:13 that yes and at that point he acknowledged that you were under pressure um and he also said he was impressed at the way you'd manage the team do you remember that

01:57:24 remember that yes and

01:57:27 yes and and was that meeting an attempt by kingspan to to give you some assistance with your workload to try and understand the pressures you were under and give you some support

01:57:38 were under and give you some support it was a disciplinary wasn't it it was a it was a mark on the paper that they'd had to chat with me that they were trying to

01:57:47 trying to get me to sort my issues out i think if we go to the notes of that meeting

01:57:54 kin408697

01:58:02 we can see at the first paragraph on the top of the first page it says set the scene

01:58:06 scene relevant conversation to have as a practical point of view you are under pressure

01:58:12 pressure and i think push that you do a good job i want to separate professional ability my team doing a good role do you see that there yeah and then if we go on page

01:58:25 and then if we go on page three to look at these notes we can see he makes a comment about your demeanor there overall demeanor generally exceptionally

01:58:37 overall demeanor generally exceptionally tired and perspiring a lot personal changes don't sleep brilliantly do you see that there so you're telling him that you're

01:58:46 well he's noticing something about your demeanor that you're exceptionally tired at that point is that right yeah is that how you felt and that and you told him you're not sleeping brilliantly at the time do you see that

01:58:57 brilliantly at the time do you see that there

01:58:59 there and did you get disciplined at that time this is

01:59:02 this is february i think this is a i don't know what it is it's a sort of precursor or it's a mark on the paper it's a warning isn't it i think that's what yes yeah and then moving forward in time you

01:59:15 yeah and then moving forward in time you were suspended by adrian parjita at the beginning of august 2015. and it's right isn't it that was for falling asleep on duty and driving a company car against management

01:59:26 company car against management instruction that's right isn't it that's correct yes and just to be clear at any time were you ever disciplined in

01:59:38 at any time were you ever disciplined in any way

01:59:39 any way about your action in respect of your role in relation to k-15 no no that was not never part of it was it not at all no

01:59:52 and if we go on you have a meeting with adrian parditer on the 17th and it goes on to the 18th of august if we can go to the notes of that meeting

02:00:03 kin30s2232

02:00:07 these are the notes the handwritten notes of the meeting and on page nine i want to ask you about a number of things you said during this meeting and in the next

02:00:18 said during this meeting and in the next meeting about the pressures on you and what was happening in your job on page nine of the notes um from the meeting

02:00:27 meeting and about a quarter of a way down the page

02:00:31 page you're recorded as saying um it's under eye the second eye on that page

02:00:40 page and in the third line down there it begins i had to be careful a lot of responsibility tricky line some would question playing in market not suitable for

02:00:51 not suitable for do you see that there yes are you referring to k-15 there i'm referring to cool thurman k-15 yes

02:00:59 yes right so that the whole lot all the insulation products you were responsible for

02:01:04 for is it right you were saying you were having to tear a tricky line and some were questioning whether you should be playing in that market that it wasn't suitable for yes yeah definitely yeah

02:01:17 and if we can go to page 10 of 18 and the end of the sixth line

02:01:28 under i um so if we look six lines down on the right hand side there's the word business and it says their business

02:01:40 their business put me in a very difficult position last year it was doing my technical integrity no good

02:01:47 no good and say that our product was okay my mistake was to derail admission my mission sorry was to derail the whole process and not much fun

02:01:58 much fun [Music]

02:02:00 [Music] pretend you're stupid got a bit of help from matt ball reams of paper coming through on a monthly basis i don't miss anything do you see that there yeah

02:02:14 and again when you're referring there to it was doing my technical integrity no good and say that our product was okay are you referring there to k15

02:02:26 are you referring there to k15 perhaps as well as other i was referring to the cool firm products the classo issue and k15 yes but also the above 18 meter problem and and k yeah yeah

02:02:38 and and k yeah yeah sorry and do you want to finish your out and k5

02:02:42 and k5 we were having a lot of that was the external wall board at the time there was a lot of queries around that but i think those issues were resolved yeah

02:02:52 yeah and you say my mission was to derail whole process what does that mean okay i mean i was very emotional at this time as you can imagine um you know i read this now on a

02:03:03 um you know i read this now on a question

02:03:03 question you know where my head was at the time but i mean there's some troops coming out here obviously that's kind of i was never told you've got a derail the whole process but at

02:03:14 got a derail the whole process but at the end of the day sometimes that was my only sort of solution because we weren't getting the answers i wasn't getting the product that i wanted out of the production side of the business so

02:03:26 of the business so you know i was put in an impossible situation yeah yeah and the pretend you're stupid is that that you sometimes had to pretend that you didn't understand why questions were being asked

02:03:38 were being asked to a certain extent yeah yeah and if we go now to page 14 of 18

02:03:53 here and then if we look in the second paragraph

02:03:57 paragraph at the end of the first line so i think that's the second paragraph beginning with i

02:04:04 and then you say

02:04:08 um why not there's a there's a question i

02:04:11 i why not sure what to do and then it says time definitely k15 project making sure none of that being pulled off the wall my main goals and this one was failing

02:04:24 my main goals and this one was failing not sure of answers and not sure what to do making up as going along i was trying to keep on track so there you do seem to be referring specifically to k15 don't you

02:04:35 specifically to k15 don't you there yes and making sure none of that was pulled off the wall that's making sure

02:04:40 sure no one realized that it shouldn't be on the tall buildings and pulling it off is that is that fair no it was we were dealing with the inquiries they were saying that you know unless you provided evidence we needed

02:04:52 unless you provided evidence we needed to pull it off the wall so we would then approach with the letters of comfort we would go out and find engineers and fire consultants that would badge it we would we would collate any fire performance

02:05:03 we would collate any fire performance information on the ancillary products and try and bring together a position and we would pay external consultants bre x over whatever that was that was our

02:05:15 over whatever that was that was our strategy there yeah but yeah ultimately we we didn't want anyone that has bought the kingspan product to have had to remove it because they would never buy it again yeah and then if we go to page 15

02:05:29 yeah and then if we go to page 15 in the second i in the margin

02:05:33 and you say there and time flies my priorities sat with live projects and then i think you say shafted by tm does that make sense um i felt tony left

02:05:45 does that make sense um i felt tony left me in the lurch a little bit um because he left at the time um i think that's all that was really yeah

02:05:56 i think that's all that was really yeah and then do you say there is like kept bre sweet

02:05:59 bre sweet damaged my integrity when just being told to book a test do you see that there yeah so 50k wasted each time

02:06:11 wasted each time might take longer and works all that matter in my eyes any anyhow so just breaking that down when you say

02:06:18 you say kept bre sweet what were you referring to there

02:06:21 to there in what way had you kept them

02:06:29 i sweet can't i don't really know that i i was

02:06:32 i was there was no who um weren't bribing them or anything like that it was more a case of i was a bit annoyed that we were booking tests and then we weren't carrying them

02:06:45 and then we weren't carrying them through because i couldn't get hold of the products you know there was no there was sometimes there wasn't the time for r d or research and development there was more focus on selling product yeah sometimes research

02:06:57 selling product yeah sometimes research and development came second and that isn't the right way around at all yeah so you know that was i i was just thinking i was damaging my integrity by saying to phil clark right we need the

02:07:08 saying to phil clark right we need the laboratory next month for 30 days and then i wasn't able to deliver on that so it was getting very frustrating towards the end

02:07:24 that's helpful and then if we go to page 31

02:07:27 31 and look at the fourth line down

02:07:39 sorry go to page 17 sorry that's a wrong reference go to page 17 now and if we look in the fourth line down you say there it's just beneath the bit that's been redacted i know i am at

02:07:50 that's been redacted i know i am at fault and i know i should have done something and didn't k15 not giving me any time to take a break maybe sooner

02:08:00 depending on today not much holiday tm threw stuff at you and got at you when not done

02:08:06 not done do you see that there and then you say the real

02:08:10 the real things tech and applications not supportive is that right so i think i think you're saying there that with k-15 you didn't have any time to take a break

02:08:22 didn't have any time to take a break you didn't have any time or you didn't take much holiday is that right yeah that's correct and then what do you mean when you say tm threw stuff at you and got at you when not done i think i'm just emotionally venting there about your boss

02:08:34 there about your boss yeah about my boss at the end of the day tony was a good bloke and you're not saying he physically threw stuff at you you're talking about work was being thrown at you is that right

02:08:44 right yeah at the end of the day i think it was been thrown all of us there and then i just want to look at the appeal

02:08:54 appeal um hearing um so your employment with kingspan was terminated you appealed this

02:09:00 this and you met with richard burnley the managing director of kingspan and elaine gayle a human resources advisor on the third of september 2015

02:09:11 advisor on the third of september 2015 and there are minutes of this meeting and i just want to take you through them you say and you've said it today again in your witness statement that you're not confident of the accuracy of this as

02:09:22 not confident of the accuracy of this as it was a highly emotional time and you were operating with minimal sleep and under extreme stress is that right that remains yeah yeah the position

02:09:32 position if we can go then to kin408681 and we go to these are the notes of that appeal

02:09:42 appeal hearing and if we go to the bottom bottom of the second page to start with

02:09:52 four lines up um you say

02:09:59 you say i don't really blame kingspan yes it's been a turbulent time and i've been put under excessive stress i'm coming here with my hat held out to you really because i'm physically in a mess i've it's been known to the business i

02:10:11 i've it's been known to the business i think i've always had and then you go over the page

02:10:17 a drug problem obviously there are a number of times that people have joked with me

02:10:21 with me when i've been going to amsterdam etc that sort of thing and then you say this i'm surprised that nobody thought my part-time hobby and lifestyle had taken a turn for the worse 18 months ago so is it right that you're

02:10:33 18 months ago so is it right that you're saying in this interview that you were surprised that people hadn't appreciated that you were having a very difficult time 18 months before this is that right

02:10:46 yeah definitely

02:10:50 and the suggestion is that they should have been aware do you think they should have been aware at the time of the stress and the pressure you were under and the toll it was taking in terms of your the thing is that

02:11:01 in terms of your the thing is that everybody in the business it just seemed a very busy time there was a lot going on

02:11:09 i think i handled it sometimes excuse me outwardly i handled it quite effectively so

02:11:16 you know may i i don't know they perhaps they should have noticed but you know i can't blame them if they didn't

02:11:28 yeah and then if we go on um to page five of these notes

02:11:37 and if we look in the second eg down elaine gales says to you as i understand that your role all the work that you do has been fairly critical in terms of kingspan's product

02:11:48 critical in terms of kingspan's product being approved in terms of fire safety and then you say this yes i would say that i've been put in a situation where i've had to maintain performance that perhaps our products don't deserve i have the ability to show that our

02:11:59 i have the ability to show that our products can be used in areas where you would normally require material which would be non-combustible from a critical lifesaver perspective i have performed in a number of tests in

02:12:10 i have performed in a number of tests in 2005. kingspan changed the technology of our fame and we couldn't repeat those tests

02:12:15 tests we were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to that the product still said what it did not on the tin although i bucked at that point and said to my manager

02:12:26 point and said to my manager at the time that we are stretching the truth here and what we were going into an area

02:12:30 an area where we cannot support the performance of the product i wasn't the senior person there we produced the documentation and we inferred to the industry that our product could do something that potentially it couldn't

02:12:42 potentially it couldn't do you see that there yes now you're talking about the the k15 product there aren't you yes and you're talking about the fact you've done the bs-8414 tests

02:12:54 done the bs-8414 tests in 2004-2005 and then there was the chain and changing technology and you couldn't repeat those tests that's right isn't it

02:13:02 isn't it they weren't initially repeated no yeah yes yes

02:13:05 yes yes and and when you say we were outed by a consultant can you help us as to which consultant you're saying you outed by i think it could have been

02:13:17 outed by i think it could have been wintec

02:13:18 wintec at the time i can't quite recollect

02:13:24 yeah and then you say i bucked at that point and said to my manager at the time that we are stretching the truth here and what what and what we're going into an area we cannot support the performance

02:13:36 performance what are you referring to to there which manager is it and and can you recall when you said that

02:13:52 i think i would have communicated this up the ladder to um malcolm and phil perhaps tony i say it always sat uncomfortably with

02:14:04 i say it always sat uncomfortably with me what we were doing here

02:14:09 so you think i can't you're referring you can't remember which manager i don't know

02:14:14 know okay so it could have been philip heath or tony miller do you think yeah i think it was phil but and you say that at the time we were stretching the truth

02:14:23 truth and we were going in an area where we can't support the performance i i wasn't the senior person there we produced documentation and we inferred to the industry that our product could do something that potentially it couldn't

02:14:35 couldn't i just want to give you the chance to to respond to this it's right isn't it that this was a deliberate and calculated deceit by kingspan in which you had become embroiled yes that's correct

02:14:49 and it was part of an overarching strategy

02:14:52 strategy to achieve the best possible sales of the product by every means available that's right isn't it and that's the strategy adopted for all the products really

02:15:05 [Applause] that is the everything that can possibly be done is done to achieve sales yeah

02:15:16 and then if we go on um page seven of this um

02:15:25 this is quite dense type here but um i want to ask you about a section that's actually

02:15:32 actually just near where the redacted part is and so a lot at the end of that line where there's the redaction you say there also my colleague adam heath

02:15:43 heath who has dealt with a lot of the high-rise issues he was suffering stress because of the battering we were getting it was very difficult we were aware that anything that we said could have caused a legal problem for kingspan

02:15:54 a legal problem for kingspan we had to be very careful in what we wrote and to be honest i didn't have a lot of support and understanding from my managers at that time because my boss tony milichap was moving to another job role so in his last month he removed all of

02:16:06 so in his last month he removed all of his responsibilities and said that's your choice now there was no one out there that was no specialist in the marketplace it was on my shoulders to take make all

02:16:17 it was on my shoulders to take make all of the decisions and if anything i kept our heads above water during that time

02:16:24 do you see that there we can stop there

02:16:29 and again are you referring to the the battering that you're getting about high-rise issues is that over k-15 yes definitely

02:16:44 and then if we continue on we can see um that you you say below that so you said kept our heads above water during that time

02:17:01 that time and then you go on and you say and although i might have been accused of parking some of my important projects at least the 230 high-rise buildings that were being that could have asked to remove the

02:17:12 that could have asked to remove the kingspan insulation off them they were never as far as i'm aware we managed to evade the problem kingspan couldn't say that we were completely happy with the construction because we weren't we couldn't highlight it to the person

02:17:24 we couldn't highlight it to the person we sold it to and the person at nhbc that it was an issue so i mean adrian was very busy as soon as took over the roles sales team do you see that there yes now the 230 high-rise buildings

02:17:37 yes now the 230 high-rise buildings where did that number come from where do you got that from once we started getting issues and queries

02:17:46 queries i made it my team's responsibility to track all these projects so we dumped all the inquiries into a high-rise matrix a lot of excel sheet

02:17:57 high-rise matrix a lot of excel sheet which listed every single project what information had been sent what the cladding was with the details of the build up etc who the contractor was

02:18:06 was if we'd managed to resolve the issue and you know

02:18:10 you know which fire engineer we used and you know whether that information could be used elsewhere that sort of thing so yeah it was a matrix we created and it was two it was about 230 when i left kingsville

02:18:22 it was about 230 when i left kingsville right

02:18:22 right yeah and i think you've already accepted there were hundreds of high-rise buildings with k-15 in the external system

02:18:29 system by august 2015 weren't there yeah definitely mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions um if we could have a break usual break use

02:18:40 if we could have a break usual break use your brain just to sweep up anything else

02:18:42 else yes that would be helpful well mr meredith when council thinks she's got to the end of her questions she needs a short time just to check there aren't any things that have been overlooked and we also have to allow the

02:18:53 and we also have to allow the opportunity for people who are not in the room but following the inquiry to make suggestions so we'll have 10 minutes will 10 minutes be all right for the time being at least um i think so well so let's go for 10

02:19:07 i think so well so let's go for 10 minutes yes i think what we'll say is we'll resume at half past four unless we get a message that more time is required in which case it might be a bit longer

02:19:15 longer okay all right so would you like to give the usher and again no talking about your evidence please

02:19:27 and this grange will say half past four if you need more time thank you

02:32:11 yes would you ask mr meredith to come back in please

02:32:26 all right mr meredith we'll see if ms strange has found any more questions okay this one's great just two very short questions and the first one back to that um disciplinary um the disciplinary meetings that you had

02:32:39 the disciplinary meetings that you had um

02:32:39 um when you were explaining all the detail you gave about k-15 the pressure you were under having to maintain the lie etc

02:32:47 etc did mr burnley express any surprise at any point during that meeting about what you were telling him about all of that

02:32:58 he came to the nhbc meeting

02:33:03 earlier in the year or the year before um and it was at that meeting i think he was

02:33:08 was um really okay with the with the problems that we had with k15 and it was after that meeting he said we really need to get either the answers

02:33:19 really need to get either the answers for these questions right so i don't think he was surprised at that point no okay and then one final question is that looking back on it and we've

02:33:30 is that looking back on it and we've gone through a lot now in the last two days is there anything you would have done differently or anything further that you want to say at this point

02:33:41 firstly the um the non-combustible board was a uac berhard board which was known as i think it was marketed as superlux in the uk

02:33:52 superlux in the uk and it was a cellulose fiber cement board so as opposed to part although it had particles in it it had cellulose fibers in it as well

02:34:03 cellulose fibers in it as well so yes not traditionally suitable for the outside of a cladding but it was non-combustible ward [Music]

02:34:13 i think i would have tried to speak up more about my my fears and my concerns um things might have gone very differently if i had

02:34:25 differently if i had um and obviously my my sympathies go out to everyone that's been involved in this tragedy really yeah thank you

02:34:35 mr chairman thank you that's all well mr meredith it just remains for me to thank you very much on behalf of the panel for coming here to give your evidence i know it's gone on a long time and i

02:34:47 i know it's gone on a long time and i think we can all understand that it can't have been easy for you to answer the sort of questions you've been asked over the last couple of days but i would like you to go away knowing that it's been extremely useful to us to hear what you have to

02:34:59 useful to us to hear what you have to say your evidence will help us a lot okay and we are very grateful to you for coming okay right well thank you very much and now you're free to go and the usher will look after you thank you

02:35:19 thank you ms granger that must be enough for today that's it and another king spam witness tomorrow right thank you very much well we'll break at that point and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow

02:35:30 and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning thank you

02:36:01 you