Adrian Pargeter, former head of technical and marketing at Kingspan, gives evidence about the July 2014 test, marketing of K15 insulation, and use of test data.
00:00:11 [Music]
00:00:15 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr parjita of kingspan so would you ask mr partisan to come back in please
00:00:37 [Music]
00:00:42 good morning mr pontius good morning i'm ready to carry on yes thank you yes mister calling mr chairman
00:00:48 chairman morning members of the panel good morning mr parchita can i go back to some evidence that you gave late yesterday afternoon day 83 and ask you please to be shown page 210
00:01:00 and ask you please to be shown page 210 of the transcript
00:01:03 and at line 19
00:01:08 at page 210 of the transcript that's not right
00:01:12 right i'm afraid uh
00:01:19 yesterday afternoon in any event and i can show you this if need be when i get the right reference is that you were telling us about 1375 785 tests yes and you said and i'll try
00:01:30 785 tests yes and you said and i'll try and summarize it um that the 13785 test proves um a difference at a much lower output of fire and you said that the the more fire output you put on it the less likely
00:01:42 output you put on it the less likely there's going to be any type of difference particularly from a phaser which is a 20th millimeter thick and aluminium and i'm sorry i can't at the moment put my hand on the transcript but that was the thrust of your evidence yesterday
00:01:52 yesterday that's correct now as a matter of fact to your knowledge did kingspan ever obtain an independent expert opinion to support what you've told us
00:02:02 told us not that i'm aware no because we found no evidence of the record that the opinion that you expressed yesterday afternoon in your evidence was commonly held within the technical team is that correct
00:02:15 uh no i don't think so well who who in the technical team to your knowledge at the time held the same opinion that you expressed to us in evidence yesterday afternoon about the
00:02:26 about the 13785 tests at the time of the 13th 785 tests were done at any time between 2014 and 2019. um i think um adam heath might have been
00:02:39 um i think um adam heath might have been of the same opinion after seeing the 13785 tests for example well do you know of any documents where this opinion was recorded
00:02:50 recorded uh no just in the test reports that we've got
00:02:54 we've got has kingspan ever performed a like for like properly instrumented bs8414 test where the only parameter varied between two otherwise identical tests was the thickness of the foil
00:03:05 tests was the thickness of the foil facer
00:03:05 facer or the presence of perforations in the foil facing no not that i'm aware now i want to turn back to uh where we were yesterday when we stopped and i want to ask you about the 2014 test by which i mean the
00:03:17 about the 2014 test by which i mean the one in july 2014 yes can we go then first to your third witness statement at kin30s 22610 uh
00:03:32 at kin30s 22610 uh and let's look at the middle of page 56
00:03:36 where we can see inquiry 85 or inquiries question 85 a and question 85 relates back to paragraph 4.42 of your second witness
00:03:48 paragraph 4.42 of your second witness statement
00:03:50 statement where you say that the july 2004 test may have used k-15 produced for a development project and the question under a is when specifically did it first come to your knowledge
00:04:00 knowledge that there was some confusion as to the insulation board tested and your response to that appears on page 56
00:04:07 page 56 uh just below that at paragraph 7.16 and i'll just show it to you you say in october straight november 2014 as explained in paragraph 45 above at this time i was product development
00:04:18 this time i was product development manager and i was involved in discussions about how this test about this test because it was relevant to our research and development work looking at a low lambda version of k-15 i was not involved in discussions or
00:04:29 i was not involved in discussions or decisions to use this test to support the use of standard k-15 in buildings over 18 meters and i only made the connection that the test i was involved in from a product development perspective in july 2014
00:04:40 2014 was being used to support the use of standard k-15 when it was raised by insulation uk solicitors in early 2019 during the disclosure exercise for the
00:04:52 during the disclosure exercise for the purposes of the grenfell tower now just to be completely clear are you saying here that in july 2014 because of your involvement in the development of the low lambda
00:05:04 in the development of the low lambda product at that time you knew at that time that the product being tested in that test was not standard k-15 but a development product yes that's what i understood that test
00:05:15 what i understood that test yeah it was and you're saying also again to be clear that you only discovered that the july 2014 test was being used to support the use of standard k-15 in
00:05:26 to support the use of standard k-15 in early 2019 during the disclosure exercise that's correct right and you're absolutely sure about that aren't you yes right now um let's continue at the bottom of page 56
00:05:38 bottom of page 56 i showed you the paragraph just want to identify the precise sentence i want to ask you about you say in the fourth line i was not involved in discussions
00:05:49 involved in discussions or decisions to use this test to support the stat use of standard k-15 in buildings over 18 meters now are you saying that there were indeed discussions and decisions
00:06:01 indeed discussions and decisions on that topic well and there must have been because we did we did rely on that test um in the in the literature indeed do you know who was involved in
00:06:13 indeed do you know who was involved in those discussions and decisions
00:06:17 the time i thought it would probably would have been either using that test to support it and providing it to the
00:06:28 to support it and providing it to the marketing teams for doing the routes to compliance document you say at the time i thought it probably would have been ivo at what time at the time when we understood that that test was being used
00:06:40 understood that that test was being used so i understood then in february 2019 we confirmed that that was that test
00:06:48 that test that was being relied on which was in the literature right so in 2019 when you say you first discovered this you you thought looking back on it it would have been either
00:06:59 would have been either yes i see who else uh i didn't think um anyone else at the time
00:07:07 time so did you think in february 19 that iva meredith
00:07:10 meredith would have been a sole actor in using the
00:07:14 the feb july 2014 test in k15's marketing literature for standard k-15 potentially yes yes really the sole actor
00:07:24 actor solely responsible i think he would have provided the report to the teams in the marketing teams to use in the literature did you
00:07:35 in the literature did you in february 2019 investigate that question
00:07:39 question and find out whether he really was a sole actor as you suspected or whether there was anybody else involved i look back at it because obviously it it happened on my watch which i was really disappointed about
00:07:51 which i was really disappointed about and tried to work out where that error had occurred i looked at the report the report referenced it as k-15 and not as a development product or
00:08:03 k-15 and not as a development product or a low lambda product which report the july report the test report right yes and then just just looking back at the documents
00:08:14 documents um thought that was probably the likely case
00:08:18 case did you look at any of the email chains and correspondence and communications internally on the subject uh not at that point so you wouldn't have been able to tell simply by looking at the test report
00:08:30 simply by looking at the test report who within your organization was involved
00:08:34 involved such as for example tony milica yes correct i'm right aren't i yes yeah so when you suspected either meredith of being a sole actor you didn't think about tony miller chap no i didn't
00:08:47 think about tony miller chap no i didn't and you didn't think about anybody else for example richard burnley the uk managing director no i didn't no or peter wilson the uk divisional director no why's that
00:08:58 i just didn't think they would have understood that detail really okay now i just want to read you or show you
00:09:12 now i just want to read you or show you a
00:09:12 a part of tony miller chaps evidence about knowledge of the july 2014 test being used to market standard k-15 it's day 82 page 76
00:09:26 it's day 82 page 76 and i'd like to show you line three onwards and it goes over the page to page 77
00:09:36 page 77 and just as miss grange was in was fair to
00:09:39 to mr miller chapman giving him a lot of run up to it i'll do the same for you um if you go to page 76 line three she puts mr billy chap this now in
00:09:50 she puts mr billy chap this now in fairness to you we want to put this to you were you saying that you shouldn't have a marketing campaign because it wasn't a compelling story answer i pointed out that if we were moving to that product which was fully the intention then obviously that
00:10:01 the intention then obviously that product needs to be identified as a different product who had pointed that out to you i'd seen that in a couple of definitely the fire focus group i think predominantly so the senior team responsible right
00:10:12 responsible right question did any of these men know that the test had been carried out was actually on a research and development product
00:10:18 product do you know how widely was that information known within kingspan yes i believe it would have been i mean richard bromwich was the most senior representing the sales efforts he would have been kept abreast of those developments
00:10:29 developments i don't recall but i believe he would have been invited to the fire focus group i'm not sure if he attended right question what about adrian pogita did he know that it was a trial product that was
00:10:40 that it was a trial product that was different to that that you were selling answer yes i believe it was common knowledge
00:10:50 and then he goes on do you just did you disagree in the event with the plan to promote and market standard k-15 on the basis of the test that you knew not to have been on that k15
00:11:01 not to have been on that k15 answer it's difficult to recall the exact chronology and then it goes on uh do you agree with mr milichap's evidence that it was common knowledge that a test on an r d
00:11:12 common knowledge that a test on an r d product was being used to market standard k15 i don't think it was
00:11:17 was common knowledge do you dispute what mr miller chap says that you personally knew that fact i i didn't understand that that test was what was being represented
00:11:28 represented in the literature so you dispute what he says in his evidence do you i do yes now let's look at some documents um your role as he told us in
00:11:39 documents um your role as he told us in marketing and promotion of k15 began in november 2014 didn't it yes you told us that in your statement uh your second statement to paragraph 4.17
00:11:50 4.17 and you've told us that you were unaware that the july 2014 test that you've been involved in from a product development point of view had been used to market standard k-15
00:12:01 had been used to market standard k-15 until you discovered that in early 19. so does it follow from that i think it must do
00:12:09 must do that at no time between your taking over your
00:12:13 your role as marketing and promotion head chief in 2014 and early 2019 in all those years did you discover this fact
00:12:27 no i didn't let's examine that a little bit more closely still um let's start by looking at the routes to compliance fire safety technical bulletin released in august 2015
00:12:38 bulletin released in august 2015 this is at uh [Applause] this is a kin 6086. let's have that up um i want to have that up just to put
00:12:50 up um i want to have that up just to put it on the screen for the moment that is the document dated august 2015 and at that time you were by then head of technical and marketing so you had both roles correct yes now before we go
00:13:02 both roles correct yes now before we go deeper into the document can i take you to
00:13:05 to your um your your second witness statement please at page 23 and let's look together at paragraph 4.19 there in the middle of the page
00:13:16 the page and you say that one of the main promotional documents created since 2014 was the guide entitled routes to compliance fire safety for facades incorporating kingspan cool firm k15 rainscreen board
00:13:27 rainscreen board on buildings with a habitable story 18 meters or greater above ground level the first issue of which was published in august 2015. as explained at paragraph 4.26 d of my
00:13:38 as explained at paragraph 4.26 d of my first witness statement this document aimed to explain the various routes available to achieve compliance including option b under the adb and the use of desktop studies
00:13:49 studies and just so that everyone else is is clear option b of course is the alternative route compliance where you don't have a non-combustible product or a product of limited combustibility correct
00:14:01 of limited combustibility correct let's then look at paragraph 4.21 at the bottom you say this my role in preparing the technical content of the first issue of this bulletin
00:14:09 bulletin was limited as by the time i took over as head of technical in may 2015 most of the drafting and compilation of the relevant test data had already been completed by either meredith
00:14:22 meredith technical project manager and tony milichap head of technical you see that yes and then you go it goes on to say that you worked with the team to ensure the document reflected the guidance provided in
00:14:33 reflected the guidance provided in bcatgn 18
00:14:35 bcatgn 18 that's technical guidance note 18 and also became involved in the reviewing of drafts of the root compliance document the first issue of the roots to compliance document was signed off by me from a marketing perspective following
00:14:47 from a marketing perspective following reviews by john garbett as he was the divisional marketing director for kingspan as this was a significant piece of literature it was also sent to richard bromwich commercial director and richard burnley uk managing director
00:14:58 uk managing director on the 24th of july 2015 before final sign off
00:15:03 sign off now that's a long bit of background but i want to examine it a little bit with you but let's look at the document kin60s 86
00:15:12 kin60s 86 this is the final form as issued um but can we take it that this is also the document you signed off before it went to
00:15:20 to mr bromwich and mr burnley yes that's correct i mean i i i take it that the the changes they made were either minimal or none if not yes yes can we look at page 17
00:15:35 and we can see the heading at the top of the page appendix b large scale test data
00:15:40 data and we looked at this yesterday and under that under it it says build ups incorporating kingspan cool firm k15 rain screen board successfully tested to bs 8414
00:15:51 tested to bs 8414 part 1 2002 and bs8414 part 2 2005 in accordance with the performance criteria set out in br135 now the first build up we can see as we
00:16:02 now the first build up we can see as we saw yesterday is on the left hand side of those diagrams that's the 2005 test isn't it yes and i think you agreed yesterday that that in fact is a misleading representation there
00:16:14 misleading representation there because in fact the k-15 in that test was not k-15 as sold in august 2015. they've accepted that that was misleading in that respect i accepted that fact
00:16:24 that fact that fact it was misleading yes uh now looking at the third build up in the bottom right hand corner we can see a terracotta tile cladding with a steel frame uh with report number
00:16:38 with a steel frame uh with report number 291642
00:16:40 291642 that was a reference wasn't it to the bre classification report for the july 2014 test
00:16:46 2014 test i believe so yes and if you go back to page uh uh yes if you go to the um diagram
00:16:59 to the um diagram above it on page 17 you can see that the k15 is said to be 80 millimeters kingspan cool therm k15 rain screen
00:17:09 screen board but again it wasn't was it it wasn't k15 it was the development product
00:17:15 product that's correct so in that respect also this technical bulletin was false and misleading that was inaccurate well it was false and misleading
00:17:28 it was definitely inaccurate i wouldn't say it was misleading but it was it was inaccurate well you say it was inaccurate but not false and misleading i don't want to spend hours debating the
00:17:40 i don't want to spend hours debating the semantics
00:17:42 semantics of fraud with you but i just want to understand really how you come to that distinction let's break it down do you agree that the statement 80 millimeters kingspan cool firm k-15 was
00:17:56 cool firm k-15 was erroneous yes do you agree that anybody reading that would then be uh would fall into error because they would think it was k-15 as being sold
00:18:07 would think it was k-15 as being sold when in fact it wasn't yes i agree do you accept that they would thereby be misled yes and so you agree with me that it's a full statement which would be apt to mislead somebody
00:18:19 which would be apt to mislead somebody who didn't know the truth yes i think
00:18:24 now given that you knew in july 2014 because of your involvement in the development of the low lambda product
00:18:35 development of the low lambda product that the product being tested was not standard k-15 you must have known when you signed off on this document on the 24th of july 2014 that this statement here which i've just
00:18:48 that this statement here which i've just shown you
00:18:49 shown you was false and misleading now i didn't make the connection that that was that test at the time
00:18:58 did you read this document when you signed it off yes i did did you read page 17 appendix b when you signed it off yes i did did you look
00:19:10 did did you look at the diagrams on that page when you signed it off yes i did can you explain how you didn't spot
00:19:17 spot when you read the third diagram on that page when you signed it off the fact that it stated that kingspan k15
00:19:24 k15 rainscreen board was used in test for report 291-642 i just assumed that that was a test on the standard product and not the
00:19:35 the standard product and not the development test we've done earlier i don't understand that correctly
00:19:41 correctly you knew as at july 2014 that the test that you'd done in at that time which resulted in that report which has got a number there was done on
00:19:52 which has got a number there was done on a research and development product you've told us that a number of times yes i did and i didn't make that connection for this report explain
00:20:04 report explain i just i just assumed this was done on the standard product um this particular one and i didn't make the connection that that test was the development test what did you think it
00:20:15 development test what did you think it was
00:20:16 was i just thought it was a standard product but there'd only been one successful 8414 test
00:20:23 8414 test on the standard product and that was the 2005 test which is the subject of the diagram on the top left-hand side isn't it yes
00:20:30 it yes so you would have realized looking at this that this test was a different test i didn't realize it i can't understand that
00:20:39 that it was an error on my part well
00:20:45 it's quite a fundamental error isn't it
00:20:53 i just assumed it was a standard test well either you well did you you say you just assumed it was a standard test and i'm sorry to press this a little bit but i'm afraid that's just not
00:21:04 but i'm afraid that's just not really a credible answer and i'd just like to explain how you made the assumption given that you'd read this document thoroughly um well maybe you didn't did you read it thoroughly
00:21:15 thoroughly um i think it did yes yes i mean it's you were head and this was an important document that had gone through a number of drafts and you were sending it up to burnley and bromwich for their final sign-off that's correct
00:21:26 for their final sign-off that's correct it was going to the market as a a positive piece of advice about how safely to apply k15 above 18 meters i'm
00:21:34 i'm i'm going to assume unless you tell me otherwise you did read it thoroughly now having read it thoroughly you need to explain to us how it was that you assumed
00:21:42 assumed that report number 291642 was not the report for the test done in july 2014 on a research and development product i think i just relied on the data that
00:21:54 i think i just relied on the data that was provided and i didn't look into that element of it
00:21:59 it deeply it stands out from the page though that here are at least two successful eight four one four tests forget the one on the top right hand
00:22:11 forget the one on the top right hand corner you must have known at the time that there was only one successful 8414 test in relation to standard k-15 and that was in 2005 and even that
00:22:23 and that was in 2005 and even that wasn't in relation to standard k-15
00:22:28 no i didn't i didn't make that connection
00:22:33 right let's look at a little bit more into the detail can we go to an email chain a little earlier in 2015 this is may and hb 401109
00:22:57 uh this is an email at the top from iva meredith to various members of the nhbc and kingspan including you mr pardister can you see that you're copied in on it yes and it goes to graham perrier of the
00:23:10 yes and it goes to graham perrier of the nhbc
00:23:12 nhbc and uh he
00:23:15 and uh he says hi graham we would welcome a chance to catch up and as discussed previously we'd be happy to extend the invitation for you to visit our production facilities in pembridge herefordshire etc and then in the next
00:23:27 herefordshire etc and then in the next line he says this would also be a good opportunity for you to come and meet come to meet our new head of technical adrian parjita now just pausing there when you receive this email as a copy party
00:23:39 this email as a copy party did you read it i believe i did yes yeah and then you can see that there is a set uh towards the bottom of page one and over to page two a set of
00:23:50 over to page two a set of uh questions and answers uh and the answers are in red from mr meredith to questions which have been posed by the nhbc and i just want
00:24:02 been posed by the nhbc and i just want to look at point two over the page on page two please with you it says there during a previous meeting it was mentioned that a br135 certificate exists for the terracotta fire test it
00:24:14 exists for the terracotta fire test it would be most helpful if you could send a copy of this certificate and it says attached to previous correspondence as sent on the 28th now given that this is may 2015
00:24:26 now given that this is may 2015 it's clear isn't it that that kingspan had only undertaken one large-scale fire test using a terracotta rain screen for which it had a test report as at this date and that was the july 2014 test
00:24:39 and that was the july 2014 test that's my understanding now yes was your understanding now you say why was it not your understanding when you received this email because i don't think i was 100
00:24:50 don't think i was 100 sure just what tests had been done i was aware that that test on the terracotta for the development test had been done but i don't think i was fully aware of all the other tests that may have been
00:25:01 all the other tests that may have been done
00:25:01 done but you were head of technical at this stage just yes just admittedly i agree at the end of may and presumably you don't need to stepped into the role at that stage but were you not interested to get a grip on precisely
00:25:13 interested to get a grip on precisely what tests had been done on k-15
00:25:20 i think yes i would have been and you would have you would no doubt in that role being new to the role and presumably being quite keen to carry it out to the best of your ability have discovered um that the test being
00:25:32 have discovered um that the test being referred to was indeed the test done in july 2014. i i didn't make that connection now you didn't make that connection what connection did you make what did
00:25:43 what connection did you make what did you think mr meredith was talking about when he refers to a br 135 certificate for the terracotta test which had been attached to previous correspondence i just assumed he was
00:25:54 correspondence i just assumed he was talking about a test on the standard product but why because i wasn't fully aware of what we had and hadn't done at that stage well you're not interested to see it
00:26:11 well you're not interested to see it can't i can't say that i did that would have been a pretty slack approach for somebody new to a senior job
00:26:22 was that how you normally operated no no
00:26:30 now he says attached to previous correspondence sent on the 28th if you you scroll down two emails in the chain so this is the chain that comes to you um to page three please
00:26:42 um to page three please uh you can see that here is the email which either meredith is referring to which he sends to graeme perrier and ian davis at the nhbc
00:26:55 the nhbc copy to others at the nhbc trust all is well please find attached bsa414 part 2 report which includes 12 millimeters cp board sheathing and relevant br 135 classification we
00:27:07 and relevant br 135 classification we will follow with an update and address your questions below
00:27:14 now the kingspan document that we've been given doesn't have the attachment but the corresponding nhbc document the incoming email to them does
00:27:25 document the incoming email to them does i just want to show you that it's nhb401086
00:27:32 just so that you can be clear about what it is that's being sent and that's the email from nhbc's disclosure and we we if you go to uh nhb
00:27:46 and we we if you go to uh nhb 401087 you can see the attachment and there it is and it is br 135 classification
00:27:57 and it is br 135 classification report number 291642 that's the number for the classification report that we saw in the bottom right hand corner diagram in the august
00:28:08 right hand corner diagram in the august routes to compliance document isn't it yes and it is clear from this that the issue date is the 14th of april 2015 and that's issue two
00:28:22 and uh it is if you go down to page
00:28:29 three
00:28:32 page two i'm so sorry page two you can see the test date just so that we're clear 14th uh my fault that's the date of that's
00:28:43 uh my fault that's the date of that's the date of the um the report but the date of the actual test
00:28:48 test is on page four
00:29:12 uh and uh and i i have misled you by accident
00:29:15 accident the test isn't actually on there but um do you
00:29:19 do you um looking at that recognize this document at all the classification report yes you do and perhaps we can get there simply by
00:29:31 and perhaps we can get there simply by looking at page six and if you look at the system the description of product under paragraph 2.2
00:29:36 2.2 you can see the system as built comprises
00:29:40 comprises the system that was tested in july 2014 doesn't it
00:29:48 yes yes so i'm unable i think to provide the precise date to you as a simple means of identifying what this is about
00:29:57 is about and nonetheless i think you accept that you were copied in it looks like on an email chain uh in late may 2015 which identifies
00:30:08 late may 2015 which identifies the bre test for the july 2014 test and shows what it was yes yes yes
00:30:18 and if we go to the next attachment nhb nhb401088
00:30:27 that is the bre test report 297099 as you can see also issue uh also 14th of april 2015
00:30:39 also 14th of april 2015 you see that and that's the test report that goes with the classification report that is also for the uh the july test isn't it
00:30:48 isn't it yes and on this document we can see the date for the july test is on page five date of test which is if we just go over to that 7th of july 2014
00:30:59 to that 7th of july 2014 now
00:31:03 going back to uh the email if we can to the nhbc
00:31:07 the nhbc and we can go to um we can go back to the
00:31:11 the uh one at the end of may if you like um which is uh at one zero nhb401109
00:31:21 we can see there that there's no mention at all to the nhbc that this test was only on a research and development product and not reflective of standard k-15 is
00:31:32 and not reflective of standard k-15 is that
00:31:32 that that's correct and do you accept that this chain demonstrates that you were aware that the july 2014 test was being relied upon by kingspan to support
00:31:44 by kingspan to support the use of standard k-15 by virtue of it being sent to the nhbc at the end of may 2015. like i said i didn't i didn't make a connection that that was that test
00:31:57 connection that that was that test at the time i mean it's right isn't it that the only reason to send these two documents the test report and the classification report to the nhbc
00:32:08 classification report to the nhbc was in order to indicate to them that k-15 was covered standard k-15 was covered by a relevant bsa414 test that's correct
00:32:20 but you say you didn't spot the point no let's go on if we go to the email chain with the bba 14th of august 2015 bba six
00:32:31 14th of august 2015 bba six so sorry five zero is nine five one bba five zero is nine five one if we go to the top of the chain
00:32:40 chain this is an email from dan ball 14th of august 2015 15 to gayatri ramcaron
00:32:48 and it's copied to you among others isn't it yes again would you have seen this opened it read it when you received it
00:32:58 it i might not have done but what i possibly could have done right and the attachments are the classification report
00:33:09 six four bi135291642 so again the july 2014
00:33:12 2014 test and other documents and dan ball who is the technical project leader says these are the new reports straight constructions that we wish to add to the reissue of the k-15 certificate
00:33:24 reissue of the k-15 certificate second to be issued under the cool firm combo dietary and we have permission from others to use their reports as well all attached see adam's email below as well gayatri
00:33:35 see adam's email below as well gayatri now we can see from the attachments that they include the br classification 291 642 as i've just shown you
00:33:45 so it follows from this doesn't it that here is kingspan sending the july 2014 br 135 class report to the bba that's what they're doing yes that's correct um
00:33:56 correct um and you can see that happening yes yes i can didn't you wonder why dan ball was doing that given that as you would have it the k-15 in that test was a low lambda product
00:34:08 that test was a low lambda product and not a k-15 standard product no again i didn't i didn't make that connection at the time right so so no connection in the may email run no connection in the august email run
00:34:21 connection in the august email run and no connection in the august document that you signed off in 2015. that's correct right let's then look at the certificate bba
00:34:32 bba 50201 this is the bba certificate for k15
00:34:38 k15 uh reissued on the 8th of october 2015 as you can see from the bottom of that page on the screen there and if you uh go to page five please
00:34:53 so this is only three months or so after the august document we see section eight here behavior in relation to fire and under 8.2 it says when tested to bs 8414
00:35:04 when tested to bs 8414 part 1 2002 or bs8414 part 2 2005 the following specific cladding constructions met the criteria as stated in br
00:35:15 in br report br 135 2013 and then there are four constructions set out um over the bottom of page five in the top of page six construction one uh is 60 millimeters
00:35:27 construction one uh is 60 millimeters k15 insulation board and then six millimeter cement particle boards mechanically fixed that's the 2005 test isn't it correct yes and one can look over to page six
00:35:40 yes and one can look over to page six and see the rest of it which would confirm that and then three further constructions construction two construction three and construction four construction two
00:35:53 four construction two is a build up using the carrier mineral composite grooved panels isn't it yes yes construction 3 it was the july 2014 terracotta test wasn't
00:36:04 terracotta test wasn't it yes and construction 4 is the kingspan test done in 2015 with the taylor maxwell terracotta tiles in april 2015
00:36:17 in april 2015 21st of april 2015 isn't it yes i mean if you're in doubt about that i can show you your schedule you attach to your fourth
00:36:28 your schedule you attach to your fourth witness statement no i was aware of the april
00:36:31 april test right and for the record that that that is confirmed that kin three zeros two two three five seven now this certificate of course doesn't
00:36:42 now this certificate of course doesn't list
00:36:43 list the report numbers uh rather unusually i think but if we go to the next issue of this certificate we can see um but it does it's bba
00:36:55 we can see um but it does it's bba five zero is 200.
00:37:01 this is uh
00:37:05 this is another issue of this certificate it's an amended version and you can see that from the bottom of page one data first issue eighth of october 2015
00:37:16 data first issue eighth of october 2015 and then it says underneath that certificate amended 16th of november 2015. so we know that there was an amendment then if we go
00:37:26 go to the equivalent behavior in fire section at the bottom of page five again we can see paragraph 8.2 if you look there uh and
00:37:37 if you look there uh and uh it says there when tested to bs 8414 part 1 2002 or bsa414 part 2 2005 the specific cladding constructions including the product described in the test reports referred to in table four
00:37:49 test reports referred to in table four of the certificate met the criteria given in br report br 135 2013
00:37:54 135 2013 and so are permitted for use above 18 meters by the national building regulations and if you go to the top of page six you can see the table that's referred to table four
00:38:09 there it is and uh you can see the third test listed in that list is numbered 291642
00:38:20 is numbered 291642 which was the july 2014 test yes that's correct so it looks as if um by mid august 2015 the bba were being given the july 2014 test
00:38:32 the july 2014 test and the class report for the low lambda test and certainly that was the case by the end of november or mid-november 2015 but not being told that the product being marketed
00:38:44 that the product being marketed was not the product tested that's correct
00:38:48 correct did you see the bba certificate when it came back to you with this amendment um i would have looked at the certificate yes yes would you have not have noticed that there in table four was the test number
00:39:01 there in table four was the test number for the test report for the july 2014 test
00:39:06 i just again i didn't i didn't make that connection that that was that test i thought that was still a standard test and we could rely on it right but that was incorrect so we've now got four occasions on which you didn't make this
00:39:17 occasions on which you didn't make this connection yes right
00:39:22 let's go to kin402289
00:39:27 this is an email exchange that you had with richard smith from md insurance services in april 2016.
00:39:35 2016. so this is the next year and i think we need to start at page two to see what it is that you're responding to
00:39:46 to and here is an email from him to you on the 18th of april 2016 at 1540 meeting between kingspan and md insurance
00:39:55 insurance and
00:39:59 he says uh good afternoon adrian following our brief catch catch up at uk bills i feel it would be useful if we could meet up to further develop our processes of how we deal with high-rise buildings and cladding over 18 meters you will no
00:40:12 and cladding over 18 meters you will no doubt be aware that although we apply bca guidance note 18 we seem to be more proactive than other warranty providers than we then we something no we me know however
00:40:23 then we something no we me know however perhaps on occasion we can still become unstuck with some of these schemes particularly where the standard detail has changed but not significantly some of the areas where we require some support or as
00:40:34 where we require some support or as follows
00:40:35 follows we would benefit from accessing your database of test results that confirms that the build-up of construction that we are providing a warranty for meets b4 of the building regulations now that's a bit of the background md
00:40:47 now that's a bit of the background md were a warranty provider for high-rise buildings weren't they or insurer md insurance in insurance yeah
00:40:55 yeah now you respond if you go to page one
00:41:01 uh also on the 18th of april and you say it was good to catch up etc and then you say in the third sentence or third paragraph
00:41:12 or third paragraph we can certainly arrange to have access to our test report data you can access via
00:41:16 via this you can access this via this dropbox link and then you set him a dropbox link there and then you helpfully identify what's in it
00:41:25 in it and if you look at the third and fourth bullet points down you can see bs8414 part 2
00:41:30 part 2 report number 297099 eighty millimeters k15 onto a 12 millimeter cement particle board behind non-combustible cladding taylor maxwell terracotta and
00:41:42 cladding taylor maxwell terracotta and then br 135 report number 21291642 based on report 297099 this shows that the system met the
00:41:53 this shows that the system met the performance criteria of br135 so just pausing there those were the test reports and the classification report
00:42:02 report for the july 2014 test weren't they that's correct and then underneath that block of bullet points we can see you say i have also included
00:42:09 included our current bba certificate for reference please note the certificate code has changed to cut a long story short mr pogista you are clearly
00:42:22 are clearly representing to md that the july 2014 test
00:42:26 test could be relied on to support warranties being granted for the use of standard k-15 on high-rise buildings aren't you that's correct and given that you have accepted that the july 2015 test
00:42:38 have accepted that the july 2015 test did not involve standard k-15 then being sold and therefore
00:42:43 therefore insured by md potentially you must have realized at the time that there was a discrepancy in that respect no i didn't it's the same issue you know we've got these test
00:42:54 issue you know we've got these test reports i missed it at the beginning and because i've missed it then we've just carried i've just carried on um referring to them in that
00:43:06 um referring to them in that mistaken belief that it was a standard product
00:43:10 product or not appreciating the fact that it wasn't
00:43:13 wasn't when you've got there are now i think at least five occasions uh when you are actively involved in either identifying or or actively representing that the july 2015
00:43:28 representing that the july 2015 test was on standard k-15 are you telling us that on not one single one of those occasions did you stop and just ask yourself well hang on this isn't standard k-15 it
00:43:39 well hang on this isn't standard k-15 it was an r d product no i i didn't can you explain why that is i think i think we're just moving forward with the the test program
00:43:52 moving forward with the the test program on we'd done a second test with the terracotta we've done a third test and i just didn't i just didn't think about
00:44:01 about making that connection with that one you are
00:44:05 are head of technical and marketing that blended role required you is this right not only to understand exactly what it was that was being tested but to ensure that
00:44:16 that was being tested but to ensure that what was being sold was as tested
00:44:21 that's correct and that is the key focus of your job
00:44:27 one of the focuses of my job yes and you would have it that you fell down in that key focus certainly on that that one okay that one report yes i did
00:44:47 we're dealing with fire safety that's the purpose of these tests isn't it yes and so your error as you must have realized at the time if
00:44:59 as you must have realized at the time if you'd made an error would have had a profound effect on the safety
00:45:05 safety of the use of this material above 18 meters
00:45:10 i think in in hindsight look at it it wouldn't
00:45:14 wouldn't because we've got other tests and subsequent tests on terracotta that we know was on standard product and in fact was on thicker uh product so potentially a greater
00:45:27 uh product so potentially a greater fire load from the insulation perspective which passed so you know that i would have thought that that test would also
00:45:38 would also pass with the standard product so i don't think that um error from my point of view created any risk from a fire perspective
00:45:50 created any risk from a fire perspective well that's an argument based on hindsight isn't it yes i'm looking back at this in in hindsight
00:45:58 hindsight really what i'm asking you to do is to accept at the time that you didn't make such a fundamental error it matters of life safety this was a deliberate this was a
00:46:09 this was a deliberate this was a deliberate no it wasn't it wasn't a failure for your part no it wasn't deliberate failure you would have us believe that it was simply carelessness i think it was lack of attention to
00:46:21 i think it was lack of attention to detail i'd agree with that and also if it was deliberate then i would have understood that that test couldn't be relied on
00:46:32 test couldn't be relied on and for example once we got the second terracotta test theoretically we didn't need that first test
00:46:41 test so had i been doing it at sort of deliberately and let's say at um
00:46:49 at risk if you like of it's not being representative then we could have just dropped that test immediately we got the second test because we didn't need it
00:47:00 test because we didn't need it anymore and we didn't do that because i was unaware of that first test
00:47:13 where did your assumption or thought erroneous as you say it was that standard k-15 had been tested in july 2014
00:47:24 2014 come from
00:47:27 just my own my own assumption but you'd always known as you told us yesterday in some detail that the july 2014 test was on a
00:47:38 that the july 2014 test was on a development product yes that was true i just didn't make the connection that that was that test well given that you knew that the july 2014 test was on a development product but i'm struggling to understand mr
00:47:50 but i'm struggling to understand mr pranchetta is how that knowledge could somehow be converted into an assumption that what had been tested with standard k-15 i just didn't condition that they were the same test and i agree you know i should have
00:48:04 test and i agree you know i should have done
00:48:05 done right isn't it that there were a number of desktop studies for standard k-15 that relied on the july 2014 test weren't there
00:48:14 yes i would think so yes and we can just look at an example of one because you give one in your second statement
00:48:22 statement can we look at page 79 please of the second statement paragraph 9.6a
00:48:35 second statement paragraph 9.6a uh and this is the desktop study for putney uh there are a number of them in there but if you go to a 9.6 a you can see
00:48:48 9.6 a you can see that you refer to a meeting there and if you go to item uh five little roman five kingspan would continue liaising with x
00:48:59 kingspan would continue liaising with x over on the putney plaza project and include the nhpc in correspondence now let's just look at the putney plaza desktop study it's a kin
00:49:10 desktop study it's a kin 50193 please uh it's done by x over it's issue two it's dated 12th november 2015
00:49:24 it's dated 12th november 2015 and if we go to page seven
00:49:28 this is a report given to kingspan we can see a table with a heading uh which is supporting documentation and it says the following reports and drawings have been used in this assessment of the
00:49:40 have been used in this assessment of the ventilated external wall system which is proposed for use on high-rise buildings in putney plaza development and there in the fifth box down you can see kingspan k15 phenolic foam
00:49:51 you can see kingspan k15 phenolic foam insulation do you see that yes and we can see the bba certificate and then underneath that at the bre report two two zero eight seven six uh to bs eight four one four part one
00:50:03 uh to bs eight four one four part one that's the 2005 test and then underneath uh two down underneath that the bre report two nine seven
00:50:11 seven zero nine nine to bs eight four one four part two that's the july 2014 14 test isn't it yes yes and then bre report two one eight six one one uh but you can
00:50:25 two one eight six one one uh but you can see from that clearly that the two nine seven zero nine nine test is the delight is the july test and if you go to page eight
00:50:38 eight there's a bit more under point two or paragraph two there x over have a heading bre test report two nine seven zero nine nine a five test in accordance with bs
00:50:49 nine a five test in accordance with bs eight four one four part two where the facade system is mounted onto a steel structure rather than a masonry wall
00:50:55 wall was carried out on a kingspan k15 insulated system with a sheathing board of 12 millimeter cement particles and a ventilated terracotta towel facing and there is a reference a little lower
00:51:06 and there is a reference a little lower down to the facing being taylor maxwell ogaton clasico
00:51:11 clasico now you were clearly aware of this report at the time weren't you because you discussed it in a meeting with the nhbc
00:51:16 nhbc didn't you yes that's correct yes again is this another occasion on which you just didn't spot the fact that although the report clearly says
00:51:28 although the report clearly says that the july 2014 test had been carried out on a kingspan k15 insulated system in fact it had been carried out on a research and development system that's correct
00:51:39 and development system that's correct there's another occasion on which this point was missed by you yes and again do you explain that that was just a another emanation of the same error
00:51:50 another emanation of the same error it is yes right
00:52:02 just going back to your witness statement if we can your third witness statement please page 56 paragraph 7.16 which i showed you to start with fourth
00:52:14 which i showed you to start with fourth line down
00:52:15 line down when you say i only made the connection that the test i was involved in from a product development perspective in july 2014 was being used to support the use of standard k15 when it was raised by insulation uk solicitors in early 19 during their
00:52:27 solicitors in early 19 during their disclosure exercise for the purposes of the grenfell tower inquiry now on all the documents we've seen
00:52:33 seen i've got to suggest you that that's simply not true is it it is true it is true i just simply wasn't aware that that was that development test uh
00:52:46 development test uh well if it was true then you must accept that you
00:52:49 that you had had radically failed to a fundamental level in your obligations of safety and the role you held i certainly regret
00:53:01 i certainly regret the fact that i missed that but i don't think it you know it was a fundamental effect on fire safety that that error and and maybe i didn't
00:53:12 that that error and and maybe i didn't look into it any further because we got other tests that were on the standard product which gave me comfort not to not to look at it into any deeper
00:53:24 not to look at it into any deeper detail but i do i regret that because that shouldn't have happened on on my watch and it did and i want to ask you some questions about class naught
00:53:36 about class naught and k-15 to a different topic and i'd like to take you through the class note testing system which you say k15 has achieved
00:53:43 achieved can we go please first to your third witness statement that paragraph 3.40 on page 29 at the top there
00:53:55 and you say as far as it has been possible for insulation uk solicitors to piece together the chronology it appears that at the time of transfer to new technology k15 in 2006
00:54:06 to new technology k15 in 2006 reliance was initially placed on bs 476 testing undertaken on two composite phenolic insulation products produced at kester n in order to support the class naught and low-risk claim of k-15
00:54:17 k-15 these products were called dl-2000 and dl-3300 or 3300. um can i ask ask you why is it
00:54:28 um can i ask ask you why is it proved necessary for kingspan's solicitors to have to piece together a chronology of class naught class naught testing well it wasn't the solicitors that pieced it together
00:54:40 solicitors that pieced it together it was it was the processing team and the um and my team as well looking into
00:54:49 into historic records which provided the evidence which the listeners then pieced um together that they didn't do the work well forgive me but you say as far as it
00:55:00 well forgive me but you say as far as it has been possible for insulation uk solicitors to piece together the chronology so is that wrong and it wasn't they didn't piece it together they put together the pieces that we'd
00:55:10 that we'd um investigated i see um on the basis that it was your team that had done the piecing together does that tell us that kingspan didn't in fact know what
00:55:19 know what testing it was relying on in 2006 when it made claims about the fire safety of its product to the general public um i'm not sure i can speak back to 2006
00:55:31 um i'm not sure i can speak back to 2006 but what we what we were doing as part of the exercise was to is to go all the way back and find what test evidence there was within within our systems so
00:55:45 within our systems so the upshot of that is that it looks as though we could only be relying on those um i don't know whether their products or reports dl 2000 dl 3300 but
00:55:58 2000 dl 3300 but that's what we could tell from the evidence we'd found does that tell us that
00:56:02 that your the kingspan's records its testing records
00:56:05 records were to put it neutrally less than perfect
00:56:08 perfect requiring an exercise of archaeology in order to put them together to understand them
00:56:12 them yeah there was there were files and reports
00:56:16 reports kept in different places on people's personal
00:56:19 personal drives r d were keeping records whoever was sort of taking testing processing had got records there was no overall central
00:56:30 there was no overall central database where going back into 2006 we could
00:56:36 could find records now i thought you told us yesterday that one of your first jobs when taking on the role of product development manager was to rearrange the record keeping it that was so that was in 2014-15 yesterday
00:56:49 so that was in 2014-15 yesterday records for them are easier to find but going back to 2006. i see so when you took over the role in 2014 and
00:57:01 you took over the role in 2014 and cleaned up the record-keeping you only did it prospectively yeah going forward right we didn't put them together historically no no
00:57:10 let's look at the uh initial reliance on the
00:57:15 the dl-2000 and dl-3300 products and those are numbers in test reports which you've exhibited i think your third witness statement
00:57:26 think your third witness statement aren't they yes um and we can we can look at them they are
00:57:32 they are kin30s22645 and i'll just put them up for you put one of them up for you this is um
00:57:42 this is the warrington fire research document
00:57:45 document uh for a bs 476 part 7 test you see that yes and
00:57:56 that's that's one of the tests you're referring to if you go to paragraph 3.40 of your third statement
00:58:08 third statement uh you can see uh there which we just looked at uh that the products were called dl2033 dl 3300
00:58:19 dl 3300 and you've got a footnote footnote 14. and you've exhibited those test reports um to cut a detailed long story as short as i can what are
00:58:30 as i can what are dl2 2000 and dl-3300 i believe there were products manufactured um from the kestren um facility right it was from that
00:58:44 um facility right it was from that facility those tests were taken from just focusing on dl-3300 i think you do say in your your witness statement to paragraph 3.40 um that that
00:58:56 3.40 um that that that one was manufactured they were both manufactured at kestrel were they i believe so right is dl-3300 the same as k-15 sold at any time
00:59:10 i'm not sure exactly the that if there's any differences between the kestrel and the the new technology product but
00:59:25 i know that was the all the records we could find at the time that we could possibly have been relying on in that period so i think it's very similar but i wouldn't know the differences between them
00:59:36 differences between them right how does dl-3300 which was produced on a different line in the netherlands and tested in 2003 allow you to say that new technology k15
00:59:47 allow you to say that new technology k15 produced at pembridge from september 2006
00:59:50 2006 was class naught just on the on the basis that it was a similar product right but again it's a different product isn't it similar maybe but different like i say i
01:00:02 similar maybe but different like i say i wasn't i'm not aware of the details this is back in 2006 so i'm just pulling together out the information that we've been able to find right right and the same with dl2000
01:00:13 right right and the same with dl2000 2000
01:00:14 2000 that's not the same as k-15 is it sold at any time after exactly i think the phone technology is the same but what i wouldn't be aware of is exactly what the face right was on each of them no
01:00:25 face right was on each of them no would you accept this that although dl3300 and dl2000 were deemed to be class naught products they weren't representative of what was being sold to customers after 2006.
01:00:41 um i'm not sure how close i can say how close that they were but they were just the test reports we could find that could possibly have been relied on
01:00:52 could possibly have been relied on to make that claim why would they have been relied on to make that claim because we couldn't find any other
01:01:01 any other any other evidence i see at around that time
01:01:05 time so to be clear you're not saying are you that
01:01:08 that the class naught certificates from 2003 on dl2000 and dl3300 were reliable certificate class naught certificates or class nor tests for k15 sold after 2006.
01:01:22 for k15 sold after 2006. so the question again sorry you're not saying are you that the class naught tests done in 2003 on dl2000
01:01:29 dl2000 and dl3300 were reliable class nought tests
01:01:34 tests for the purposes of class naught sold by kingspan
01:01:39 kingspan k-15 sold by kingspan after 2006. i can't say that that's exactly what was relied on
01:01:46 relied on at the time in the you know in our literature and going forward because it was very difficult to visit together so i think they possibly could be but we can't make that
01:01:57 can't make that connection historically right then let's move to
01:02:01 move to may 2007 can we go back to your third witness statement at or we're on it actually page 29 paragraph 3.41 you say i understand that new technology k15s
01:02:11 k15s class naught classification was subsequently supported by tests undertaken in may 2007 on the foil facer of k15 now when new tech k-15 was first introduced
01:02:24 when new tech k-15 was first introduced and marketed in and from 2006 had it passed tests under bs 476 part 6 or bs 476 part seven
01:02:36 i think the part seven that it had achieved but i don't think we found any records for a part six that would have met the classo
01:02:46 classo criteria on the product right so is this the case and i appreciate you were not yes at kingspan at the time is is it the case that when it was first launched new
01:02:57 launched new or first being sold after 2006 k15 didn't actually have a true class naught pass i think it's true we
01:03:08 class naught pass i think it's true we can't find any any evidence of that from like i say the record keeping was was was all over the place so we can't find anything that we didn't
01:03:19 so we can't find anything that we didn't mean to say there wasn't anything but we can't find it right so
01:03:27 right so when you say that new tech k15 class naught classification was supported by tests undertaken in may 2007
01:03:36 2007 that we don't read that as a reference to um corroborated this is these are new tests is that what you're saying new tests and a new classification
01:03:49 so which bit are we looking at again sorry paragraph 3.41
01:03:55 you say that that the new new technology oh yes on the foil facer yes that's correct yeah you say it was subsequently supported by tests undertaken in may 2007
01:04:06 undertaken in may 2007 that's correct we've got reports um in may 2007 on the face of a15 but you're not saying that they're confirming past tests are you because you don't have the records to say yes that's correct fine now
01:04:18 say yes that's correct fine now you then exhibit as part of your statement part six and seven tests from um some people call body code who were effectively part of warrington fire is that right i think that's who they were before
01:04:30 i think that's who they were before warrington took them over or i'm not sure of the the history of that but i've seen body code
01:04:37 code report but i think it's warrington and as you've said in your statement the testing was on the foil facer only is that right that's correct yes so there was no test of k15 as a composite product foil facer and foam core
01:04:49 product foil facer and foam core no not that we could find no just help me with this broad question how could testing of the foil facer alone be representative of the entire
01:05:01 alone be representative of the entire rigidboard insulation product that you were selling because in the adb for england and wales the definition for class o on a composite product
01:05:15 for class o on a composite product allows you to test either the surface or the product of a composite product and k15 is a a composite product
01:05:27 product and k15 is a a composite product so um it's it was a belief then and belief now still that you can
01:05:34 you can test the phaser and if it achieves class 0
01:05:38 0 then that's trying to claim that then for the product in which that phasor is a composite with now we're going to come and examine that view
01:05:51 view or position as you've just described it a little bit later when we look at some documents later in this story yes from your knowledge did that view of adb that interpretation of atp
01:06:03 view of adb that interpretation of atp was that something held within the business when you came to it
01:06:08 to it yes who held that view when you came to it
01:06:12 it so um certainly john garbett the marketing director he was under that um impression i think iva was under that
01:06:23 impression i think iva was under that impression i think most of the technical team
01:06:26 team were under that impression that that was an interpretation of of adb because it's quite um it goes back quite a way like 2007 if not before that was
01:06:37 like 2007 if not before that was feasible so i know there were it was generally hell view that that was a way to claim classo for eight for eight from adb a way to claim class o or class north
01:06:49 a way to claim class o or class north a root yeah a root yes we'll come back to that
01:06:53 to that answer later on when we look at some of the arguments in a little bit more detail but um it's right i think just at this stage uh that you're
01:07:04 that you're then proceeding to sell composite products
01:07:07 products on the basis that they are class naught but based only on a test of a part of the product the foil face
01:07:14 foil face on the full face that's correct now let's go back to the tests that you refer to may 2007 on the foil facer these are your exhibit ap3 and let's
01:07:26 these are your exhibit ap3 and let's look at those kin 50256 please
01:07:33 and this is the bsa bs 476 part 7 test done in august 2009 it looks like
01:07:50 and that's the date of the report
01:07:54 if you um
01:07:59 that's the fourth that's the part seven test can we look at the part uh six test as well which is kin five zeros two six one uh i'm not sure we need them both up
01:08:10 one uh i'm not sure we need them both up at the same time so let's start with the um start with the part 7 test and just identify if we can on that document it probably doesn't matter what it is that we're looking at the test
01:08:21 it is that we're looking at the test sponsor is in both cases kingspan insulation let's stick with the document that's on the screen this is the part six test and the the general description of the test product is the same in both both reports so let's go to um
01:08:35 both reports so let's go to um back to two five six kin five zero is two five six which is the part seven test uh uh uh because there's more in that i want to show you and go to page five please
01:08:49 now this is the description of test specimens there and in the first box you can see
01:08:54 can see the general description uh a perforated reinforced aluminium foil composite which was tested stapled to the calcium silicate
01:09:02 silicate based board you see that yes sponsor of the test has stated that the facing is utilized on products reference cool duct and cool therm so by foil composite is it just the phaser
01:09:14 by foil composite is it just the phaser of the product that's the foil face that you're referring to that was tested that was tested yes yes and then a little bit down the boxes under the section on the left hand side
01:09:27 under the section on the left hand side it reads uh aluminium foil composite in um vertical you see there is a long rectangular box on the left hand side can you see that which is in landscape yes aluminium foil
01:09:40 which is in landscape yes aluminium foil composite
01:09:41 composite yes um and then it says in the top box uh coat or top square coating can you see that
01:09:52 top square coating can you see that yes and
01:09:56 yes and a little bit above that product reference
01:10:00 reference it says coated foil yes so it's telling you that the what's tested i think is the aluminium foil composite
01:10:12 where the product is coated foil which then has a coating of its own and what we what we see is the elements of the coated foil yeah the foil itself or the facer
01:10:24 yeah the foil itself or the facer is is made up of different materials and foil is aluminium foil is part of that
01:10:31 that of that makeup yes thank you now if we go over the page to page six underneath the text box there are some notes
01:10:43 notes and note 1 says the sponsor of the test has provided this information but under a specific request of the sponsor these details have been omitted from the report and are instead held on the confidential file relating to this investigation and if we
01:10:56 relating to this investigation and if we go back to see what note 1 refers to back a page to page 5 you see it says note 1 name of manufacturer so that's been
01:11:07 name of manufacturer so that's been made confidential yes and then if we go back to
01:11:13 back to well um can you help us as to who the manufacturer of this coated foil was uh i couldn't be sure but one of them the current manufacturer of the phaser
01:11:24 the current manufacturer of the phaser is a company called atlantic land tech right okay we see their name elsewhere
01:11:28 elsewhere yes then if we go back up to the top of the text box on page five we can see on the left hand side a box that says coating and i've shown you that but let's just look at it in a little bit more detail
01:11:40 in a little bit more detail going to the right hand heading you can see things like product reference generic type name of manufacturer application rate stroke thickness application method of flame retardant details
01:11:51 flame retardant details and if you look further to the right again into the further most box on the right you can see that all of those topics relating to coating have the text c note 2 below see that yes and then if you look at
01:12:03 see that yes and then if you look at note 2 below and the same in fact applies also to foil and glass reinforcement if you look at note 2 below
01:12:10 below it says on page six the sponsor of the test was unable to provide this information and then goes on the sponsor has confirmed that some of the components were manufactured by other parties
01:12:20 parties they've also confirmed that they were not able to obtain from the manufacturer of some details that would normally be included in body cut warrants and fire test reports the description of the specimens given above is therefore not as complete as would normally be the case for
01:12:31 would normally be the case for descriptions included in body cut warrington fire test reports and the description may not fully comply with the requirements of the standard in all other respects however the tests were conducted fully in accordance with the requirement requirements of the
01:12:42 with the requirement requirements of the standard and the test results are valid
01:12:47 now the same note appears on the same in the same form in the other report for part six that i've
01:12:53 i've shown you very briefly do you accept that these are these reports um tell you nothing about the coating other than its physical dimensions and that it's aluminium
01:13:05 that it's aluminium uh it tells you there's some glass screen i think i saw there yeah so there's some description of it but like it's in there not all the full details
01:13:16 full details are provided
01:13:20 so they are either worthless or very limited use given the poverty of indicate of information given on the face of the certificate
01:13:32 face of the certificate i think it's to protect you know our ip our um
01:13:39 ip our um you know we work with these um basis suppliers to develop products which work with our products we we don't want to
01:13:48 want to give too much information away in a test report
01:13:51 report for our competition to potentially see and see how it's done so i think that's the reason for withholding some of the information and but then at the end you know the requirements of the standard and the
01:14:03 requirements of the standard and the tests are are still valid yes but they're not but the report is not transparent as to precisely what it is that's going into your product it's it's not transparent on the detail or the manufacturer i agree but
01:14:15 detail or the manufacturer i agree but on the on the makeup and the thickness and the key characteristics i think it's it's fairly clear
01:14:23 well looking at note 2 there are some components that you couldn't tell you didn't know i think and couldn't tell body code but some components that you
01:14:34 body code but some components that you did know but wouldn't tell body cut is that fair i think that's great i mean to test that out i wasn't involved in but i think that's that's fair reading of that document so
01:14:47 that's fair reading of that document so so some information was not given to bodycut
01:14:50 bodycut in relation to the material they were testing which but for sensitive commercial sensitivities could have been given to them
01:14:58 them yes i would read into that yes
01:15:05 why is kingspan or was kingspan testing coated foil
01:15:14 i think that's just that's part of the the build-up is the foil on standard k-15 as being sold to the public at that time and and later coated
01:15:28 i'm i'm not sure i'm not sure on the exact
01:15:32 exact layers but i think it's got a layer above the aluminium to stop the aluminium from oxidizing
01:15:43 so that could be what the coated reference is you don't do you know
01:15:50 now we've seen also if we get back to page five
01:15:58 page five that the substrate onto which the foil being tested was stapled was a calcium silicate based board wasn't it
01:16:07 wasn't it yes now calcium silicate is a non-combustible board isn't it yes it's not a combustible phenolic foam no that's correct did you make any of
01:16:20 no that's correct did you make any of your customers or do you know whether kingspan at this time made any of its customers or anybody that was likely to rely on the class naught certification for k-15 aware of the fact
01:16:32 for k-15 aware of the fact that body coat warrington fire had tested the foil on a non-combustible substrate
01:16:40 substrate as opposed to the phenolic foam forming the rest of the product i think we would have claimed that the um product got class
01:16:51 claimed that the um product got class o based on its um face of performance it wouldn't have said necessarily it's based on its face performance but we would have basted the claim aren't based the claim
01:17:03 basted the claim aren't based the claim on the
01:17:04 on the face of performance so i'm not sure whether
01:17:08 whether we would have made it explicit to customers that that's how it's tested
01:17:18 [Music]
01:17:22 did you see a document that that said that although k-15 had been tested to class naught in fact only the foil facer part
01:17:33 in fact only the foil facer part of k-15 as a composite product had been tested to that standard did did i see a document did you ever see a document like a certificate or a report saying
01:17:45 like a certificate or a report saying that
01:17:46 that i don't believe so no [Music]
01:17:57 now these reports and we can use the one on the screen which is the part 7 report as i've shown you were dated 2009 but the tests were done in 2007
01:18:13 2009 but the tests were done in 2007 as we can see from page four if we just look at page four
01:18:19 you can see in instruction to test the test was conducted on 10th of may 2007 at the request of kingspan insulation limited the sponsor of the test
01:18:29 do you know why two years was allowed to elapse between the test date of may 2007 and the report date of 2009 i don't that's a long time it is a long
01:18:40 i don't that's a long time it is a long time did you ever investigate that question
01:18:45 no i wasn't around in 2007 to investigate that
01:19:01 mr chairman that may be a convenient moment i i'm going to move to a different sub-topic but it's still the same general topic well that's a good point we better take advantage of it i think say yes right we're going to have a short
01:19:12 yes right we're going to have a short break now mr fargita we'll come back at 25 to 12 please and please don't discuss your evidence or anything to do with it of course out of the room thank you
01:19:31 thank you 25 to 12 cents
01:37:40 yes would you ask mr pogita to come back in please
01:37:56 all right mr pudge sir yes yes on we go then yes mr miller thank you mr chairman um and i want to ask you about the testing for class naught in may 2011 and then again in may 2012.
01:38:09 then again in may 2012. uh now again i appreciate that you were not
01:38:12 not overseeing k-15 at that time within kingspan but i just want to ask you some of the history can we look at your third witness statement please at page 29 again look and look at paragraph 3.42 together
01:38:25 look and look at paragraph 3.42 together you say there at the time of filing my second witness statement i understood the new technology k15 had been had subsequently been tested to bs 476 as a composite product and it satisfied the criteria to be
01:38:37 and it satisfied the criteria to be classified as both low risk and class naught
01:38:42 this this is set out in paragraphs 3.18 to 3.19 and 3.40 in my second witness statement where i explain that in my role as head of technical and marketing great britain in 2016 having asked my team to review
01:38:54 in 2016 having asked my team to review the bsa
01:38:55 the bsa bs 476 tests held on file for k15 i understood that bs 476 tests undertaken on 6th may 2011 and 9th may 2012 provided this confirmation
01:39:07 confirmation now it's that last sentence i want to ask you about are you telling the inquiry
01:39:11 inquiry there that in 2016 in your senior role that you uh occupied at that point you relied on what or were told you could rely on the bs 476 tests from may 2011 and may
01:39:25 the bs 476 tests from may 2011 and may 2012
01:39:28 yes that was the data we got right
01:39:34 and those were tests on the composite product and and were you told at that stage that you could rely on those tests to show that standard k-15 could achieve class naught
01:39:45 k-15 could achieve class naught i believe so yes right then you go on at paragraph 3.44 over the page please at the top of page 30.
01:39:52 30. um to say
01:39:57 um to say uh
01:40:03 since finding my witness statement my second witness statement insulation uk has undertaken further investigations around
01:40:09 around historic bs 476 testing of k-15 and its low-risk
01:40:13 low-risk classification as recorded in its product literature i set out below the findings of these investigations which have altered my previous understanding and then a b you say insulation uk has identified
01:40:25 you say insulation uk has identified that although the associated test report records the product tested as k-15 the bs 476 part 6 test carried out on 9th of may 2012 was in fact conducted using a research
01:40:36 was in fact conducted using a research and development version of k-15 which had a fire retardant lacquer applied to it
01:40:41 it this further detail and understanding was obtained by a review of the standard operating procedure sop where available for the product tested in each of the bs476 tests listed in and then you get three
01:40:52 listed in and then you get three references the sap records the precise composition of the tested product and it's therefore possible to identify where non-standard product was tested in their review of test reports in 2016
01:41:03 in their review of test reports in 2016 my team had relied on the reference to k-15 in the test report and understood that standard k-15 had been tested now first can you tell us what the reason was why these investigations didn't take place
01:41:15 these investigations didn't take place in 2016 before you were briefed but only after october 2019 when you did your second statement
01:41:26 we we did do some research in 2016. and we looked at the historic evidence that this was taking back what
01:41:39 evidence that this was taking back what what was
01:41:40 what was in place in 2012 in 2016 we did further testing
01:41:51 but when you looked at the historic position in 2016 is it that the investigation is done at that stage didn't reveal the true composition of the now that's
01:42:03 the true composition of the now that's what i mean the the team looked at the reports could see that they were on the composite product
01:42:09 product and um and thought that they were applicable to be relied on historically right and it's right isn't it that
01:42:20 right and it's right isn't it that kingspan had given three different versions
01:42:22 versions of a the the spreadsheet showing the bs 476 testing the most recent being version 3 on the 17th of january this year
01:42:33 i i can't specifically remember that but well the three word for that sorry to interrupt you the three spreadsheets are those for which you've provided the references
01:42:45 provided the references in paragraph b yes and the first the first version is is the one you've referred to there first kin3022310 and
01:42:56 kin3022310 and that's october 2019 version 2 was 8th of november 2019 and that's the next reference and the most recent one is the most recent uh one in january this year for
01:43:07 recent uh one in january this year for which you give that last reference so it's taken three goes essentially yes right
01:43:13 right can you also confirm to us that the test done in may 2011 and may 2012 that you refer to were originally in the list of class naught tests for k-15 that
01:43:25 list of class naught tests for k-15 that was provided to the inquiry
01:43:29 i'll i'd have to double check
01:43:34 okay we can we can do that but take it from me that that is the case it isn't right that it was only when you produced your third statement in october 2020
01:43:46 in october 2020 uh september 2020 that kingspan told the inquiry that a fire retardant lacquer was used in this test along with a research and development product
01:43:59 it it's which reports which statement is this one the third one third statement that's the 18th century yes now you've said here on the page in front of us that your team had relied
01:44:10 front of us that your team had relied upon the fact that the report referred to
01:44:12 to k-15 and therefore believed that the report could be used as a class nor classification just by that reference is that right yes but you now say that that was an error yes yes are you saying that your team's
01:44:24 yes yes are you saying that your team's error was that they didn't look at the sap records for the may 2012 test yes that's correct why didn't they look at the sop
01:44:36 um i think because we understood that it had been we claimed the 476 and they just found those reports
01:44:48 476 and they just found those reports and and thought oh there's there's the evidence for that right without thinking that there would be
01:44:54 be a difference in it who was it in the team that you referred to who who failed to look at the sap when briefing you in 2016
01:45:07 when briefing you in 2016 i think it might have been dan ball
01:45:12 would have been looking at that evidence why wouldn't the sap have been the most obvious thing to look at straight away to identify
01:45:23 straight away to identify precisely what it was that had been tested
01:45:27 tested i think because you it just wasn't suspicious that it was something that it didn't say it was
01:45:33 it was can you explain why it was only only on the inquiry's request for a third statement from you that this information has come to light because then the um the technical team
01:45:46 because then the um the technical team we're going away and looking at all of the 476
01:45:50 the 476 um part six and seven tests that we got and getting into the the detail around each of those tests and it was then when we started looking at the sop we realized that that
01:46:02 at the sop we realized that that had got a lacquer on it
01:46:07 do you accept that keeping precise and complete records of exactly what is being tested and when is a fundamental part of
01:46:13 part of kingspan safety and testing programs
01:46:17 i think it should be yes and certainly should have been from the time you took over
01:46:22 over that aspect of the role in late 2013 early 2014. yeah the record-keeping certainly
01:46:28 certainly gets better well it it yes and are you saying that in the case of these 2012 class naught tests there are no precise and complete records we i think we struggled to to find them
01:46:41 we i think we struggled to to find them again in a similar way we had to search around to see where those tests
01:46:47 define what we might have relied on historically to find those tests why is that given that one of your roles on coming into the product development manager role in late 2013 was uh early 14 was was to improve the record
01:47:00 early 14 was was to improve the record keeping
01:47:03 a record keeping of products we were developing going forward not at the historic test data of current products
01:47:10 products either meredith told us in his witness statement it's paragraph 55 of it for those who want to see it that kingspan kept meticulous records is that wrong
01:47:20 in certain aspects we i think we did but um but not across the across the board we didn't
01:47:29 we didn't is it the case that kingspan in fact has tried to hide its lack of successful class naught testing and has only really revealed it to the inquiry by degrees so that it only really emerged no i don't weak sources i believe that's the
01:47:40 don't weak sources i believe that's the case now
01:47:40 case now right you don't accept that was the research and development product tested to class naught in may 2011 and again in may 2012 a low lambda version of k15 or a
01:47:54 a low lambda version of k15 or a similar development product uh i'm i'm not sure i think it was i think it was only the facer that had got the fire retardant lacquer on it right so a research and development
01:48:06 right so a research and development product of the phaser alone i believe so i believe the core is the same why would you know why the
01:48:17 research and development product of the phaser alone was tested and not standard 15 as a composite
01:48:24 composite product in 2011 to 2012. because it appears that that particular test was an r d test on a development of the phaser
01:48:36 test on a development of the phaser material do you know why kingspan were testing with fire retardants at all i think just to see what effect they have on the um the fire performance of the product
01:48:49 um the fire performance of the product or the phaser was that because of the lack of successful class nought testing on the foil face to date
01:48:58 no i think the face the phaser was able to achieve um classo from 2007. so um
01:49:09 2007. so um i think it might have been to see if we could get low risk but i'm not sure well you say the phaser was able to achieve class naught from 2007.
01:49:18 2007. that that is only a reference isn't it to the 2009 test reports we've just seen yes yes i see
01:49:25 see um do you know who made the decision to conduct these tests on the foil facer in 2011 and 2012. i don't
01:49:32 don't did you ever look into that question i i haven't personally i don't think we we have no
01:49:43 have no do you agree that anybody looking at the report would be able to see that the coating had a fire retardancy
01:49:51 no you don't i'm sorry i do agree you do agree yes yes
01:49:58 and would you agree therefore that if either you or your team had actually read the reports in 2016 it would have been obvious to you that the test involved a non-standard foam with a fire retardant added to the foil
01:50:10 added to the foil and therefore should never have been relied on as support for k-15 is sold i don't think it was a non-standard phone i'll forget that part of the question then let's try it try it again would you agree with me that if you or your team had read the report
01:50:22 your team had read the report uh it would have been obvious that the test involved a fire retardant added to the foil
01:50:26 the foil and therefore could never and should never have been relied upon for the sale of standard k-15
01:50:34 yes that report shouldn't should not have been relied on right let's then come to 2016 class naught testing
01:50:41 testing we can look at your second statement please
01:50:46 this is october 2019 page eight let's look at paragraph three point eleven together we see you say there when the foil facer of k-15 as opposed to the product as a
01:50:58 of k-15 as opposed to the product as a whole
01:50:58 whole is tested to bsa 476 part seven it is classified as class one as regards its contribution to flame spread test report p one double zero one six zero to one double zero
01:51:09 double zero two one when the factor of k fifteen is tested to bs four seven six part six it achieves a five propagation of index i one point eight and a sub index of little i like 1.7
01:51:21 and a sub index of little i like 1.7 test report p100160102 at part two meaning the k15 achieves a class naught classification as was defined in adb this remained the
01:51:33 as was defined in adb this remained the case until adb was updated in february 2019 when such classifications were removed
01:51:39 removed i address class naught you say in my detail in my response to inquiry question 16 below k15 was until 2016 classified as low risk and that from there on
01:51:50 risk and that from there on was classified as medium risk in scotland in accordance with the scottish technical handbook as referenced in annex 2b table 2.8 reaction to fire this remained the case until the scottish technical handbook was updated in october 2019 when such
01:52:03 was updated in october 2019 when such classifications were removed now the test reports you refer to here you exhibit at ap3 at ap4 as we can see from the footnote five and six at the bottom of the page
01:52:14 five and six at the bottom of the page can you see that yes yes yes and those are am i right um both from the bre with the part 7 test being undertaken
01:52:25 test being undertaken on the 29th of february 2016 and the part 6 tests being undertaken on the 19th of february 2016. yes yes uh and let's look at those together
01:52:36 yes uh and let's look at those together first can we go to kin3020827 two 20827 and this is the bs 476 part seven
01:52:47 seven test that you exhibit as ap three and you can see the date there 29th of february 2016 with that long report number
01:52:55 number that i read out to you is c1 and you can see that it's a bs 476 part 7 test and we can go to page 5 we can see the test date
01:53:09 10th of february 2016. you can see that and if we go back a page to page 4 we can see
01:53:15 can see section 2.2 which is the description of sample and test format and the third box down you can see sample name stroke reference samples of the k15 kd k18 and k17
01:53:26 the k15 kd k18 and k17 blank insulation board facer so this was a sample of the phaser of various kingspan products including in k15 but not the whole product in each case correct and under the sample description
01:53:39 correct and under the sample description uh we can see it says uh lamtech foil facing naught point 38 millimeters thick 176 grams per square meter weight per unit area foil stroke silver color
01:53:51 area foil stroke silver color and underneath that description of sample has received perforated reinforced foil with a white fibrous backing so we've confirmed that the test here is on the foil
01:54:01 foil facer alone that k-15 being sold in the market
01:54:05 market it was the foil spacer that was on the k15 sold in the market right why were you testing only the
01:54:16 right why were you testing only the faces separately from the foam or other components of the product the k15 product because in an adb
01:54:26 that's an allowable route for testing for classo on a composite product i see and why was the facer 380 microns or
01:54:37 and why was the facer 380 microns or 0.38 millimeters thick because that's the overall thickness of the composition of the phaser right was that the thickness of the foil alone or did it include the glass
01:54:46 glass fiber mesh or scrim it's the complete composite
01:54:50 composite it's the complete composite of the foil of the fill of the facer right i see [Applause] so not so you're testing not the surface alone but you're testing
01:55:02 alone but you're testing the composite material making up the outer skin
01:55:07 you're testing the complete phaser exactly which has a number of different parts to it yes which is what accounts for its
01:55:15 for its depth it's overall thickness with a 25 micron
01:55:20 micron foil element to that light and what is the white fibrous background or backing that's referred to under description of sample it's the uh i think we call it scream
01:55:31 it's the uh i think we call it scream it's um
01:55:32 it's um a glass reinforcement at the back and that does that normally on the whole product sit between the foam and the facer it's part of the face and makeup it's part of the back of the face where
01:55:44 it's part of the back of the face where it yes where it sticks onto the foam is that yes and presumably there's an adhesive is there or a bonding process that bonds this skin with the scrim to the foam yes
01:55:57 skin with the scrim to the foam yes yes as part of the process it's sort of auto adhesively bonded to the reacting foam as part of the process
01:56:05 process so are you saying that the whole of the product
01:56:09 product comprising the lamb tech foil facing and the fibrous backing was representative of that same element of the k-15s sold
01:56:20 of that same element of the k-15s sold yes
01:56:26 let's go then to the part 6 test at kin3020828
01:56:36 and this is the report dated 19th of february
01:56:42 february and if we go to page 4 we can see the test dates again top of the page
01:56:50 we can see the objective and
01:56:55 we can see the bottom of the page test date of test 18th and 19th february 2016 and again we can see that the same composition so the questions i asked you
01:57:08 composition so the questions i asked you in relation to the part 7 test would also apply to the part 6 test would they yes
01:57:19 so looking at these tests done in 2016 [Music]
01:57:23 [Music] they were not tests on the composite product sold to the market they were tests on a part of the composite product sold to the market only
01:57:32 only on the on the faceo element and the phaser element and the face element had itself a number of different composite elements didn't it as you can see it has a foil facing and it has a scrim
01:57:44 scrim yes fibrous backing yes yes you didn't test the fibrous backing on its own did you
01:57:49 you you no we don't receive it separated we receive it from land tech completely laminated in that form so when you're so you're testing a
01:58:00 when you're so you're testing a composite product even though it's the outer skin of a bigger composite product yes
01:58:20 so is it right that k-15 has sold to the customer itself never had a class naught classification only part of it the
01:58:31 classification only part of it the the surface that's correct i'm going to come back to class naught shortly
01:58:38 shortly but can i deviate and ask you about psbs8414 and the question of perforations can we go to an email chain at kin403894
01:58:56 this is an email chain about the printing of a logo on the standard k15 boards but but i want the part i want to look at with you is an email from either meredith
01:59:04 meredith at the bottom of page two
01:59:08 and over the top to the top of page three and if you look at the bottom of page two together this email starts from either meredith 23rd june 2014
01:59:19 23rd june 2014 and we can see who receives it over the page
01:59:22 page and one of the recipients as you by copy can we see that yes and the main recipients are mark swift malcolm rotfort gwyn davis and john garbett and the
01:59:34 gwyn davis and john garbett and the subject is k15 unprinted
01:59:41 and it's about a face a switch on k15 and in the last paragraph mr meredith says this
01:59:48 says this this is not directly related however all copied should be aware of the issue perforations when we first started making k15 in nt technical applications were under the
02:00:00 technical applications were under the impression k15 was only to be perforated on one side i.e use the k10 phaser the addition of perforations have shown a marked reduction in performance in the euro class tests and will
02:00:11 in the euro class tests and will obviously change vr and wvt furthermore several cladding system suppliers and frame manufacturers have tested their systems with k-15 for rainwater penetration i have not
02:00:22 for rainwater penetration i have not seen any results for k-15 since we've started using perforations on both sides i did put a request in to revert to perforations on one side only however this can be reviewed after the next bs8414 test which will occur
02:00:34 next bs8414 test which will occur at the end of the month and that was in fact
02:00:38 fact what happened as the july 2014 test now it's clear by that isn't it that that the reference to nt is there nt technical applications
02:00:50 nt is there nt technical applications you must have been aware when reading that at the very latest that there was new technology k15 being used by that date
02:01:01 yes that's correct yes
02:01:06 could you just help us what is vr and wvt
02:01:11 wvt that he refers to in the fourth line there uh
02:01:16 there uh i'm not sure of vr i think the other one is moisture vapor transfer water vapor transfer water vapor transfer right did you understand this email as telling you that where the foil on k-15
02:01:27 telling you that where the foil on k-15 boards was perforated on both sides it would perform less well in fire tests in fact it says just that doesn't it it does yeah
02:01:35 does yeah and given the date of this email 23rd of june 2014
02:01:40 june 2014 as i said to you or put to you a moment ago the next bs8414 test would be the one in july 2014 which was the seventh july test yes yes yes and that test
02:01:52 yes yes and that test was done using perforated and unperforated 50 micron foil wasn't it yes we can go back to the schedule if you like if you'd like a kin
02:02:03 you like if you'd like a kin that's correct three zeroes two two three five seven but you accept that now as we know that test passed bsa414 uh using a product which does not have does not have perforations on both sides
02:02:17 does not have perforations on both sides so when you saw the results of the july 2014 bs8414 test did you think that one of the reason it may have passed was because the foil in that taste only had perforations on one
02:02:28 that taste only had perforations on one side not both no why is that because like i said i think yesterday that at that scale uh the perforations just
02:02:39 uh the perforations just won't have an effect at the scale there the
02:02:42 the euro class scale which is where he says there's a difference um i can understand why that scale you might see a difference in the performance yeah in indeed but
02:02:55 yeah in indeed but as you can see of course this as you've accepted is is a communication before that test and my question is um when you saw the results of the july 2014
02:03:05 2014 test did you not think that one of the reasons that it might have passed was because the foil only had perforations on one side as opposed to both no and although you are right to say that the addition of perforation shows a
02:03:17 that the addition of perforation shows a mark reduction in the euro-class test which are
02:03:19 which are not a 4-1-4 tests as you are as you've as you say why not why would it not occur to you that this that one of the reasons
02:03:31 that this that one of the reasons why the test under 8414 had passed was because the perforations weren't on both sides simply because of the demand
02:03:43 simply because of the demand from the from the fire from the test is so much greater in an 8414 test than it is in an sbi test
02:03:50 test that the the facer element offers just like i said yesterday no protection to the product in that type of test where you can get in excess of a thousand degrees an sbi
02:04:02 of a thousand degrees an sbi test there are two parts to an sbi test and there's the um figure
02:04:11 um figure so the fire index um and then there's heat release and the figure is measured in just the first 15 seconds of the test so the phaser in that
02:04:22 of the test so the phaser in that element of the test can have a more marked
02:04:27 marked um impact on the performance than it would in a in a test done at 414.
02:04:34 414. so was it your view at the time that either
02:04:37 either meredith was wrong to raise the question of perforations given that your view at the time was it that perforations one side or the other side was irrelevant in an 8414 test
02:04:53 was he wrong to raise it well i don't think he was wrong to raise it
02:05:01 but i don't think logically could have it could have an effect was that your view at the time or now definitely now um back at 2014
02:05:12 definitely now um back at 2014 i think i think i would yes i would have had that view based on just that same logic of an eight four one four ten if that was so mr parchito why didn't you respond to this august group
02:05:24 this august group and this is a senior these are senior people many of whom are from technical including tony milica and say to ivan meredith either i don't understand this perforations question because they're irrelevant in an 8414
02:05:35 because they're irrelevant in an 8414 test
02:05:35 test whatever you may think of performance in a euro class test uh i just didn't know a ccd no i didn't um i didn't think to respond to it
02:05:47 um i didn't think to respond to it i've got to suggest to you that what you're telling us may be your view now but it was not your view at the time
02:06:02 but it was not your view at the time i i i can't exalt exactly what my view at the time was well had you disagreed with it and had the view you hold now or tell us you espouse you would have gone
02:06:14 tell us you espouse you would have gone back to him and said you're leading us down the garden path perforations are irrelevant when it comes to an 8414 test
02:06:24 i would possibly do now yes
02:06:29 i'd like to take you in a little bit more detail uh through the question of testing the facer alone going back to class naught
02:06:42 and if we can go first to your second witness statement please at page nine best place to start with this i think is a paragraph three point one
02:06:50 one four uh uh and this relates to an inquiry question one e for purpose or intended use and you say there
02:07:00 uh under inquiry question not numbered if your understanding is to any of the above has significantly changed at any stage please explain how and when this change in understanding came about and at 3.15 you say as noted in
02:07:11 and at 3.15 you say as noted in paragraph 3.11 above k-15 was until october 2019 classified as medium risk in scotland prior to the 10th issue of k-15s product
02:07:24 prior to the 10th issue of k-15s product literature issued in july 2016 k-15 was said to be a low-risk product
02:07:32 now just pausing there
02:07:36 you say that
02:07:39 um k15 was classified as low risk in scotland until july 2016 when it was described as medium risk my question is did your marketing literature spell out that change
02:07:50 literature spell out that change in 2016 from low to medium no i think we just we just dropped the the low risk element yeah you just dropped the low
02:08:01 element yeah you just dropped the low risk element and said nothing at all about risk yes that's correct at least for a period yes for a period yes we'll look at the documents on that
02:08:11 is that because k-15 couldn't achieve a low-risk classification in scotland so it was removed from your marketing literature that's correct
02:08:22 literature that's correct and i also write in saying that you actually you didn't do anything positive to tell your market of that fact and didn't in fact expressly say that the product was medium risk until 2019
02:08:33 medium risk until 2019 after the grandfather grenfell tower fire
02:08:36 fire that's correct
02:08:40 now at the bottom of page nine you uh say and explain the low risk in scotland
02:08:48 scotland and at three point 3.16 you set out the scottish technical handbook definition and you say by way of background the scottish technical handbook is referenced in nx2b table 2.8 reaction to fire
02:09:00 table 2.8 reaction to fire prior to 2019 update to find a low-risk product to be a product where quotes the surface material
02:09:08 material or where it is bonded throughout to a substrate the surface material combined with the substrate has a surface of class 1 and when tested in accordance with bs 476.6 1981 or bs476 part 6 1989 has an index of
02:09:20 or bs476 part 6 1989 has an index of performance i not more than 12 and a sub-index ii not more than six and in the next paragraph you say this therefore requires
02:09:31 therefore requires that the whole composite product is tested and must achieve the requisite fire propagation index results this differs you say this differs
02:09:38 differs from the requirements of the 2006 edition of adb in england and wales which requires that either the product or and then you've underlined these words the surface material of a
02:09:50 words the surface material of a composite product achieve the necessary fire propagation index results thus the definition of low risk includes the surface material and bonded substrate
02:09:58 substrate while the class naught standard tests either the whole product or the surface of the material now you've set out there a a an understanding was that really how
02:10:12 a a an understanding was that really how you understood approved document b from the time you became product development manager at the end of 2013. uh no it was when that became in the
02:10:23 uh no it was when that became in the technical
02:10:24 technical role when we started to look at okay classo
02:10:28 classo so may 2015. yes right from then on but is that really how you understood it yes so to take an extreme example if the foil facer was bonded to a
02:10:39 if the foil facer was bonded to a substrate made of dynamite you thought that the composite product would still pass cast naught if the foil phaser passed
02:10:48 [Music] no i wouldn't have thought that why not
02:10:54 because in part of part um six there's a a table there which says if it's if it's um attached to an insulation
02:11:05 if it's um attached to an insulation element so you couldn't do it to a piece of dynamite so but if you're testing
02:11:13 testing your foil alone your facer alone without the substrate which it's attached how do you know how it will perform under class naught
02:11:24 under class naught unless you test the whole product
02:11:28 you know the fake the facing material of the of the product will achieve class naught
02:11:35 naught and that's why i asked the question which is the requirement is it your understanding was it really your understanding that it was completely irrelevant what you attached
02:11:44 attached the foil phaser to
02:11:50 suppose technically yes but in reality no
02:11:54 no technically yes and in reality knows a bit is a difference so let's just see if we can understand that technically yes do you mean on a strict
02:12:01 strict literal reading of adb yes but in reality you mean on a common sense reading of adb yes yes so on your
02:12:13 yes yes so on your technical reading of adb you could staple the foil face that's a dynamite and put it on a building above 18 meters and call it class nord um no because you
02:12:25 and call it class nord um no because you wouldn't have a classification of class naught applied to a stick of dynamite it wouldn't be a requirement well if it's irrelevant what sits underneath your full face uh
02:12:37 underneath your full face uh doesn't matter whether it's brick that's why or whether it's or whether it's dynamite sorry that's why i say technically yeah but not in reality because those types of products
02:12:49 types of products won't have a um a classification of class zero class north and so do we take it from that that actually what kingspan were doing with your
02:13:00 kingspan were doing with your adoption of the view was pursuing a technical interpretation of atp but not on in reality or common sense interpretation of adb i think it's a it's a technical
02:13:12 i think it's a it's a technical interpretation but it's on an insulation product so it's a common sense approach as well
02:13:22 if you test the facer yes i can see that you might be justified in describing the phaser or the surface of the product
02:13:34 the phaser or the surface of the product as having a class naught or being of classmate category but not the product if you're talking about the
02:13:43 about the combined material would that be fair i think under adb
02:13:49 the definition you can have your composite product by the surface of that composite product you mean mean you think adb allows you to describe the comp the whole product the insulation
02:14:01 comp the whole product the insulation let's say which is the real guts yes as having a class naught classification based sorry just because the foil phaser
02:14:23 just the way it's written i think all right thank you yeah just the way it's written so that's why i'm asking you whether you were but the kingspan was pursuing a deliberate policy of approaching the testing on just the way
02:14:35 approaching the testing on just the way it's written as opposed to taking a common sense in reality approach to it
02:14:43 no i think it's i think it was both it was part of the definition which was different in for classo than it is for for low risk
02:14:54 than it is for for low risk let's just uh look at that a little bit more closely did you at any stage read the actual test standards for bs 476 part 6 or part 7 in arriving
02:15:05 476 part 6 or part 7 in arriving at this particular interpretation of the test requirements not the test standards just uh just adb right well let's let's just look at those before i do can
02:15:18 let's just look at those before i do can i ask you why didn't you look at the test standards and only content yourself with adb um because the team who were doing the testing were far more
02:15:30 who were doing the testing were far more familiar with the standards than i was so i
02:15:32 so i did not occur to you to ask yourself the question well how can this be how can we get away legitimately uh by calling a clerk with calling a product composite product class nor
02:15:44 product composite product class nor by only testing the foil facer did that question not occur to you only by the interpretation in adb yes and having seen adb did it not occur to you this cannot be
02:15:55 did it not occur to you this cannot be right or this is an interesting interpretation i wonder what the test uh standards actually require did that question not occur to you no i thought it was an alternative interpretation but i didn't
02:16:07 interpretation but i didn't um i didn't think the test standards would would have any uh bearing on that did you ask any member of your technical team from latest may 2015 when you took on
02:16:19 from latest may 2015 when you took on the technical role to go and look at the test standards and just double check whether the test standards themselves supported this interpretation technical interpretation
02:16:32 interpretation technical interpretation of adb no
02:16:36 of adb no can we look at the test standards this is bre405557 which is the test standard bs 476 part 6.
02:16:47 6. [Music]
02:16:56 and is this a document familiar to you at all even today yes it is when did you first become familiar with this document um probably a year ago
02:17:08 um probably a year ago not during your tenure well i suppose you're still ahead of technical aren't you yes
02:17:12 you yes but not not at any time prior to the fire and not any time before you did your first or indeed second witness statements no correct um let's look at
02:17:24 no correct um let's look at um page six uh sorry page 18 please page 18 which is appendix b
02:17:33 and on the left hand side of the page we can see appendix b effective thermal characteristics on the performance of assemblies with thin materials it says with thin
02:17:44 with thin materials it says with thin materials or composites particularly those with high thermal conductivity the presence of an air gap and the nature of any underlying construction may significantly affect the ignition performance of the exposed surface
02:17:55 performance of the exposed surface increasing the thermal capacity of the underlying construction increases the heat sink effect and may delay ignition of the exposed surface any backing provided to the test specimen
02:18:06 specimen and in intimate contact with it such as the non-combustible packing pieces may alter this heat sink effect and may be fundamental to the test result itself the influence of the underlying layers on the performance of the assembly
02:18:18 on the performance of the assembly should be understood and care should be taken to ensure that the result obtained on any assembly is relevant to its use in practice and and then i'll just finish off some reading of the rest
02:18:29 reading of the rest of this i want to show you in the right hand column it says the following advice is offered on the construction and preparation of test specimens and then i think if you look at c and d you will see this
02:18:41 if you look at c and d you will see this where the product is to be used over a low density non-combustible substrate and the characteristics noted in a do not apply which is about thermal properties then the product should be tested in conjunction with that substrate
02:18:53 conjunction with that substrate where the product is to be used over a combustible substrate and the characteristics noted in a do not apply then the product should be tested in
02:19:01 tested in conjunction with that substrate now is it right that the result obtained from
02:19:08 from a test on a piece of soil phaser stapled to a non-combustible calcium silicate board is not even vaguely relevant to the use in practice of that foil
02:19:19 to the use in practice of that foil phaser against a combustible phenolic foam
02:19:22 foam is it so if if we look at d where the product is to be used over a combustible substrate and the characteristics noted in a do
02:19:34 and the characteristics noted in a do not apply then the product should be tested in conjunction with that substrate
02:19:38 substrate but in a they they do apply they do do they
02:19:44 that was that part of the thinking at the time
02:19:48 the time but somebody go through this and say well a's disapplied so i don't have to test it over the substrate i can't say it was ever pointed out to me
02:19:58 me so that's an argument going back to the right the left-hand column uh where um a warning about composites is set out the influence of the underlying layers
02:20:10 the influence of the underlying layers on the performance of the assembly should be understood etc by testing the foil phaser alone you would not be taking the care that it was required to make sure that the um
02:20:23 to make sure that the um underlying substrate had no effect on the test for good oral
02:20:44 i can say we it d applies and so with d and a not applying you have to test it on a on the apparatus
02:20:55 on a on the apparatus backing which is then the calcium silica board
02:21:01 [Music]
02:21:08 tell me you did you did full product low risk
02:21:12 risk tests for sale in scotland didn't you because this interpretation that you've espoused in relation to testing the foreign facer only doesn't apply in scotland that's correct so did you do full product low-risk
02:21:24 so did you do full product low-risk tests for sale of k-15 in scotland
02:21:29 historically yes but we couldn't achieve that requirement with the the face on it
02:21:40 with the the face on it do i take it from that that by 2016 you were aware whatever the interpretation might allow you to do in england you couldn't pass the relevant test for low risk for sale
02:21:52 the relevant test for low risk for sale in scotland yes that's why we changed did you continue to sell k-15 in scott in scotland uh we changed we dropped the low risk yeah
02:22:04 we changed we dropped the low risk yeah calling but we still yeah yeah still without saying what risk it was
02:22:09 it was not directly no knowing that you hadn't passed a low risk test
02:22:16 uh well we weren't claiming low risk no so no but but you knew that k-15 could not pass and had never passed a low-risk test for use in scotland
02:22:28 a low-risk test for use in scotland and yet you were continuing to sell k-15 in scotland but not as low risk well as nothing you didn't describe it one way or the other did you
02:22:37 did you no not to start with did that not strike you at the time it's remarkably reckless
02:22:44 no you know i thought we checked the testing we couldn't apply i wasn't prepared to claim it if we couldn't if we couldn't get the result for it so we we dropped the
02:22:55 we we dropped the low risk classification from it let's look at an email chain from june 2016
02:23:02 2016 where we can see that you discuss this topic
02:23:05 topic with your technical team and we'll start with kin three four zeroes four one six eight please and go to page seven
02:23:15 it's a long email chain and i'd like to show you the third email up
02:23:22 from reshma ruderman to you on the 22nd of june 2016. uh now just help me reshma ruderman had
02:23:34 uh now just help me reshma ruderman had what role
02:23:35 what role she was in the marketing team marketing team
02:23:39 team and she reported to you did she by this stage because you were since you were ahead of marketing she must have done yes and she says uh although kingspan cool firm k-15 rain screen board and its rigid thermoset insulation
02:23:51 board and its rigid thermoset insulation core our class naught hi adrian please can you confirm whether we are still running with the above phrase
02:24:00 phrase as regards to stating that both the product and its core are class naught thanks are you see that yes now this is this is june 2016 do you know what had happened for kingspan to
02:24:12 know what had happened for kingspan to consider
02:24:13 consider changing its marketing material in this respect
02:24:16 respect or at this point
02:24:19 i suspect um russia may have had discussions with the the technical team maybe with uh with aaron or dan and come to the view
02:24:31 and come to the view that the
02:24:34 that the current testing wouldn't support that
02:24:40 claim so she's flagged that then to me what had led to that what had led to or rather what discussions or
02:24:51 or rather what discussions or investigations within the technical team had
02:24:53 had led to the view that the current testing wouldn't support a claim to class north i can't recall directly but it may have been a review of the the literature what it calls that
02:25:05 i can't recall at the time you really can't
02:25:10 can't you were ahead of time you had a technical by this stage yeah you've been in that role about a year more or less you can't remember no i can't remember what exactly what triggered it off
02:25:19 off if we go up the chain to the next email we can see i'm afraid you've got to go to bottom of page six for it um that it's an email from aaron chalmers
02:25:30 chalmers to dan ball copied to you on the same day
02:25:33 day in response and he says dan can you confirm mate that we should remove the section about the core achieving class naught i remember you saying that solely the
02:25:44 i remember you saying that solely the core was having issues achieving class naught i think you said class two in some rare instances not that it's an issue because you can claim in bold and underline you can claim the product as a whole is class
02:25:55 claim the product as a whole is class naught if the facing of the product has achieved this which k-15 lambtech faced has see below and then he said he sets out the paragraph
02:26:04 paragraph that i think you're referring to from adb is that right that's correct and that is a appendix a paragraph 13 uh which says uh the highest national
02:26:15 uh which says uh the highest national product for performance classification for lining materials is class naught this is achieved if a material and then he's highlighted the words or the surface of a composite product is either composed throughout of
02:26:26 is either composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or b a class one material which has a fire propagation index i of not more than 12 and sub index i one if not more than six
02:26:37 one if not more than six no class naught is not a classification identified in any british standard test
02:26:43 can you confirm that this is the bit of adb
02:26:46 adb that you were referring to when you were explaining just now uh your your view of the interpretation yes that's it is it right when he
02:26:58 yes that's it is it right when he came up with this or or told you this were you not extremely concerned to hear that in the in some cases the core of k-15 was achieving class two
02:27:12 if you get back the previous page you can see where he says that yeah i think he said on rare occasions so obviously wasn't a consistent a consistent um problem but it's it's
02:27:25 um problem but it's it's it's not a consistent test it's a quite inconsistent test if it likes a very old standard so we would see fluctuations right it
02:27:36 we would see fluctuations right it didn't bother you um it didn't overly concern me at that point right what about him saying that the core was having as he put it issues achieving class naught did that bother you
02:27:47 class naught did that bother you or not no because really the core achieving classo is is not that relevant we claimed it we
02:27:58 is is not that relevant we claimed it we claimed it on the core historically yeah um but i'm not sure what the relevance
02:28:05 relevance of claiming it on the core was historically well was that a was that a view at the time that you thought well doesn't matter
02:28:12 matter what the core does no no it wasn't it didn't matter it just it wasn't a it wasn't a concern and over concern were you aware before aaron chalmers
02:28:23 were you aware before aaron chalmers wrote this email that k-15's core was having as he put it issues achieving class naught and on some occasions rare occasions only met class two no i think it was at
02:28:34 only met class two no i think it was at this point that it was starting to be flagged when russia picked it up right now let's scroll up and we can see that the next
02:28:45 scroll up and we can see that the next email is
02:28:47 email is from you to him in response
02:28:52 a copy to others including rashma rudelman
02:28:55 rudelman guys the decision was made today to remove the reference to class naught because i was advised that neither the core or the film will conform to class naught
02:29:03 naught it will be potentially damaging to remove it but not prepared to say we pass if we don't so which is it does the face a pass or not
02:29:11 not now you say the decision was made today who made that decision
02:29:18 myself initially in discussions with um with reshma i think that she felt we could haven't got the
02:29:25 got the evidence to keep the claim for classo so if we haven't got the evidence then we'll we'll stop claiming it right
02:29:36 we'll stop claiming it right but you and reshma rudeman yes
02:29:41 was that in a meeting or uh an email ex no i think it might have been um in a meeting because we were right in the same room we've seen no record of that decision a written record of that decision no
02:29:54 a written record of that decision no that's i think that's probably the only record who advised you that neither the core nor the film would would conform to class naught i think it was i think it was reshma she'd been
02:30:04 been talking to that with her interpretation after i've been talking to the technical team
02:30:09 team so it's not just the call you're talking you're you're being told about it's the it's
02:30:12 it's the film as well yes we're under that interpretation yeah right so when you say film do you mean the i mean yes now what test was that a reference
02:30:23 yes now what test was that a reference to
02:30:27 um i don't think it was a reference to a test i think it was just reference to a discussion that reshma had had right what what was the basis of her belief
02:30:40 what what was the basis of her belief that she was communicating to you that the film would not conform to class naught i i don't know because that that
02:30:51 i i don't know because that that actually
02:30:51 actually wasn't correct um that that phaser wouldn't
02:30:55 wouldn't last but it was definitely the impression she had got why do you ask her at the end of your message here does the face of pass or not
02:31:03 not i'm i'm i'm not asking reshma i'm asking um the technical team aaron and dan
02:31:14 team aaron and dan so this is to them in response to reshma's
02:31:18 reshma's um discussion with me i see so you were told by reshma that neither the call nor the film would pass but is it right that you didn't
02:31:29 but is it right that you didn't understand why it was being said the film wouldn't pass because so far as you were concerned it had is that is that what your is that what we take from this yeah i wasn't aware why it wouldn't so that's why i put that to the to the
02:31:41 so that's why i put that to the to the team
02:31:43 team to let me know does it does it or doesn't it right now if as you said you knew the core in some cases achieved class two how could you possibly contemplate a class naught rating for a product based
02:31:55 class naught rating for a product based on the classification of the phaser alone
02:31:57 alone or is the answer to that question your interpretation point yes it's the interpretation right so when you sent this email this message uh at uh at 17 1747
02:32:11 uh at uh at 17 1747 you had had mr chalmers's message back to you
02:32:15 to you with the quotation from appendix a of the of adb for about four hours that afternoon haven't you yes between receiving
02:32:27 yes between receiving his um message and sending this message to uh aaron chan was back again did you investigate
02:32:38 did you investigate uh yourself the appendix a point and and examine the wording and have a think about it no i'm probably busy doing other things so i i sent that to the team
02:32:50 so i i sent that to the team to look at them far more experienced in the testing to to 476 than uh than than i was so i forwarded it to the team when you sent this massive message back to
02:33:01 this massive message back to aaron chalmers and dan ball did you did you really think that the meaning which aaron chalmers was teasing out of or extracting from the language of
02:33:12 or extracting from the language of appendix a he was sending you was really the intended
02:33:18 meaning it was the literal interpretation from my perspective but did you think it was the intended meaning
02:33:32 i don't think that is i don't think i just
02:33:35 just considered the intended meaning i think it was just a literal interpretation of it
02:33:39 it right
02:33:43 so you didn't stop and ask yourself well although i think it literally says this it can't possibly mean this you didn't stop and have those thoughts
02:33:54 you didn't stop and have those thoughts no no
02:33:56 no no is that because you saw this literal interpretation as a useful tool yeah obviously it had been
02:34:08 relied on previously and i thought it was a legitimate interpretation you thought it would have been relied on previously by whom
02:34:20 previously by whom by by kingspan
02:34:25 and you thought it was a legitimate interpretation even though you didn't consider whether it was an intended interpretation yes further up the chain we can see the same day dan ball responds to you
02:34:37 same day dan ball responds to you and i'm afraid you'll have to go back over to page five for this email but it's quite a long one and it comes to you in the first instance and actually it ends with a question what do you think aid so this is directly
02:34:48 aid so this is directly asked of you by dan ball same day just after eight o'clock that evening and the email comes to you and muhammad asif
02:34:58 asif who is mohammed asif um he was somebody we'd
02:35:03 we'd taken on who was doing um a fire a masters
02:35:06 masters in in fire performance right and it's copied to adrian brazier and reshma rudeman and he says who told you that aid core that's correct but not facing that's a
02:35:19 that's correct but not facing that's a true statement for k7 k12 k8 k108 but the lambtech 25 micron i've done both tests recently on perf and non-perth and have class naught summary reports on both 25 micron lam techs
02:35:30 both 25 micron lam techs mo what was the result on the black 18 micron lamb check that you tested a couple of months ago i know the bre are slow but it's a couple of months ago that you scented them now
02:35:39 them now isn't it possibly longer biari are better but they're so slow aren't they
02:35:47 and then he says uh if you haven't heard sheila she'll be able to tell you over the phone if we can get the summary report on that as well are the ones i have on the 25 micron anything with those facings we can state a class naught or state of
02:35:59 can state a class naught or state of class normal facing to the product the section in part b does state you can claim they are class naught because of the facing stroke composite layer we don't have to say it's because of the facing if we don't want to but of
02:36:11 of the facing if we don't want to but of course that's a choice
02:36:14 did you understand mr ball from that to be suggesting that you could choose to decide to claim class naught for a product based on a class test class nought test
02:36:25 based on a class test class nought test on the face alone and then not reveal that the test was on the facer only yes i think that's that's what he's saying there and then if we follow on
02:36:38 and then if we follow on with that to see what happens next uh if we go up page five
02:36:51 uh if we go up page five uh just above dan ball's email this is now the next day early in the morning 8 40 23rd of june 2016. rushman rudderman writes to dan ball
02:37:02 writes to dan ball and you and mo copy to adrian brazier and there's a series of bullet points and
02:37:11 and the third bullet point is in bold
02:37:15 uh sorry i should show you the second bullet point based on the face of facilitating a class nor england and wales
02:37:22 wales and to be technically correct the statement i've run with is kingspan cool thumb k-15 range screen board is class naught
02:37:28 naught as defined by the building regulations without the class naught we'd have no product for that application she says in the next bullet point and then she goes on to say if in the future the core achieves class naught that should be all by itself then
02:37:41 naught that should be all by itself then we will revert to the following statement
02:37:43 statement kingspan call 15k reigns k-15 reigns green board and it's rigid phenolic insulation core is class north strike low risk as defined by the building regulation stroke standards what did you make of that message as a
02:37:55 what did you make of that message as a head of technical and marketing
02:37:59 i thought it was an accurate way to describe
02:38:02 describe the performance of the product the difference between the building regs and the scottish standards it didn't occur to you that was an utterly disingenuous and opportunistic
02:38:13 utterly disingenuous and opportunistic interpretation
02:38:17 no no but it's right isn't it
02:38:22 well actually is it right is it right that you would have no product without class naught no i don't think so no
02:38:29 no but over the 18 meter market
02:38:33 in the over 18 meter market you wouldn't be able to use this without class nor would you no the insulation the plus naught elements not not relevant it's relevant
02:38:44 elements not not relevant it's relevant for the cladding yeah that's a different question yes whatever you would need class naught four above eighteen meters not as part of the cladding i understand that uh
02:38:54 that uh you would still need class naught over 18 meters it does have an application over 18 meters doesn't it not for the insulation well we can argue about that till the cows come home um didn't you think at the time that
02:39:08 um didn't you think at the time that testing the facer alone and then claiming class naught for kingspan k15 as a product was misleading no i didn't why is that because it
02:39:20 no i didn't why is that because it because it was an interpretation of adb how would any buyer of k-15 know that you had adopted that interpretation and tested to class naught only the foil
02:39:31 and tested to class naught only the foil facer and not the entire product only by defining it as defined by the building regulations you think that was that was it was it those words as defined by the building
02:39:42 those words as defined by the building regulation that would be it yes did you really honestly think at the time that by using those words you were signaling in clear terms to a buyer of k15 that you'd only tested the foil facer and not the entire composite product
02:39:58 no i don't think i would no so any buyer of k-15 being told it was class naught would not know would they that they were buying a product
02:40:09 buying a product in respect of which only the foil phaser had passed the class naught product no but they've been tested they know that a product was class nought by the definition of the building regulations so was it really your
02:40:21 regulations so was it really your thinking at the time that a buyer of k15 would look at your class naught designation and work out that you'd only tested the foil phasor by reference or cross-reference to
02:40:32 by reference or cross-reference to paragraph 13 of appendix a have approved document b no they would just need to know that it was correctly described as classo
02:40:44 how do you any reason to think that the entire market shared the interpretation of approved document b that aaron chalmers had come up with
02:40:57 chalmers had come up with early in the afternoon of the 22nd of june 2016. any reason to believe that the market shared aaron chalmers's interpretation of the building regulations that he'd
02:41:09 of the building regulations that he'd come up with or identified early in the afternoon of the 22nd of june
02:41:15 june i'm i'm not sure whether the market
02:41:20 what other people were doing with their classo testing in response to adb
02:41:28 i mean put it this way you weren't aware were you at the time of a generally held view
02:41:33 view that the interpretation of the build of adb
02:41:37 adb which alan chalmers was putting forward was one widely shared in the market
02:41:43 no i wouldn't
02:41:48 moving up we can see what happens next second email down on the page page five dan ball
02:41:54 dan ball to russian rudolph and to you and to mo asif irfan and adrian brazilian adam heath that first statement of yours is perfect rash and should always stay like that we
02:42:05 and should always stay like that we shouldn't revert to the second one as it's not referring to the product as placed on the market that first statement of yours is spot on
02:42:16 you see that yes
02:42:20 and if we then go to the next email up this is from muhammad asif irfan and it starts at the bottom of page four and goes to the top of page five
02:42:33 and goes to the top of page five he says that he's tested a black lamtech 18 meter facing and achieved class naught
02:42:38 naught i'm paraphrasing what he says there
02:42:42 uh uh and then uh he says uh underneath the fire propagation index and sub indices
02:42:53 fire propagation index and sub indices uh since the fire propagation is well below six the phaser is clearly a class naught a product
02:43:01 uh and he then says underneath that now the only question i have with regards to getting the entire k15 40 millimeter product tested is there any point in doing that adb volt2
02:43:14 there any point in doing that adb volt2 clearly states that as long as the surface of the product is class naught the entire product can be stated to be class naught i'm sure we can allocate those finds to other testing so that's what he says and if we go
02:43:25 so that's what he says and if we go further up page four to dan ball's email above that on the 23rd of june copy to you at 12 57 page this is on page four thank you um this is dan ball
02:43:37 this is dan ball he says we don't have to test the product as a whole to get class not quite right and we can claim it legitimately now we would just be interesting to see if there's any difference between testing facing and product play as placed on the market be good to
02:43:48 play as placed on the market be good to see if that k7 got a class one at least we could
02:43:51 we could as at least we claim but as we got a euro class f it would be a surprise that's good about the black lam tech now it seems
02:44:00 it seems looking at these three emails what's going on here and is this right is that your
02:44:03 your team with you looking on knew that they couldn't achieve class naught for k-15 as a product as a composite product but could get class naught for the foil facer but then suggest that k-15 can be
02:44:14 but then suggest that k-15 can be marketed as a class naught product based only on the foil being class naught correct yes but the legitimacy of that approach rested on a particular interpretation of
02:44:25 rested on a particular interpretation of paragraph 13 of appendix a that that we'd seen earlier in the emails yes
02:44:34 and you knew of no widespread adoption of that in the industry as you've told us
02:44:39 us did you know the time of any of your competitors honestly adopting that interpretation
02:44:48 no i know so so from your perspective you would have understood that this interpretation was entirely novel i don't know i mean it was a plain potential interpretation
02:45:01 plain potential interpretation so they could have been but i wasn't aware
02:45:04 aware whether they were or not
02:45:10 did you stop to consider how such an interpretation could possibly make any sense
02:45:18 in terms of that particular test one of the problems with that test when you're trying to test a composite product particularly with a foil phaser is the the phaser itself can delaminate
02:45:31 is the the phaser itself can delaminate from the product and then touch the the burner element and affect the test so it's quite an unreliable type test for insulation materials
02:45:42 for insulation materials it was really as i believe designed for internal
02:45:46 internal linings more plasterboard type products and so i think it based on that experience then to take that
02:45:57 that experience then to take that element
02:45:57 element out of the test and just test the phaser gives you a more reliable result on the test than it would with just the face of delaminating and
02:46:09 just the face of delaminating and affecting the burner what i would suggest you that these emails show thus far is the evil evolution over some two days in june 2016
02:46:21 two days in june 2016 of a plan to sell k-15 on the basis of a claim that it was a class naught product knowing that only the surface could be described as such and then to justify that statement by reference
02:46:32 that statement by reference to a novel and unverified meaning of adb that you had not verified outside the business you accept that as a fair summary of what was going on here
02:46:45 i don't think it was a novel interpretation that business had used that interpretation for quite some time so it wasn't novel to
02:46:54 to to kingspan whether it was novel in terms of
02:46:57 terms of competition i wouldn't know well you see this is about life safety isn't it class naught's about saving lives ultimately isn't it
02:47:09 right i bet it's about a small-scale fire
02:47:13 fire performance yes but the point of doing the tests is to make sure that there aren't fires in which people are either injured or die or lose their property
02:47:20 property [Music]
02:47:23 [Music] potentially yes well you seem to be having trouble with that proposition let's take a step back approved document b
02:47:33 b and uh yes indeed part b of the building regulations is about fire isn't it that's correct and the reason why constructions are regulated and i'm sorry to sound so as far as it sounds patronizing but i
02:47:45 as far as it sounds patronizing but i just want to be sure you really are grasping this is big it says to stop buildings being dangerous
02:47:52 that's correct yeah and and and the class naught test was part of that regime
02:47:58 regime yes so it was not potentially part of life safety it was actually an important element
02:48:03 element in construction regulation to protect lives
02:48:10 yes yes but yet here you are deciding to adopt a an interpretation of the guidance and
02:48:21 an interpretation of the guidance and approved document b which was literal and which you had no reason to believe was shared in the industry either by buyers or your competitors
02:48:32 competitors yes correct was that not an extremely dangerous thing for you to do
02:48:41 no i don't think it was i think because of
02:48:44 of like i said the test it's difficult to test an insulation material um with a with a phaser because it delaminates and so i think it was it was a fair
02:48:56 so i think it was it was a fair interpretation of it to test the face which is what would come in contact with the actual fire if it was a fair interpretation why not simply say in your marketing
02:49:08 why not simply say in your marketing literature and in the relevant certificates under which it was sold that the foil facer had achieved class naught
02:49:19 i would agree that would be clearer well it wouldn't just be clearer i would suggest to you that the reason you didn't do that was because you knew very well
02:49:28 very well that would immediately provoke questions as to whether k-15 had passed a class naught test and you couldn't answer that question with the answer yes could you we could you could because you
02:49:40 could you we could you could because you could revert it to the to the standard so we could have described it that way and reverted to the standard and its description and by selling kingspan k15
02:49:53 and by selling kingspan k15 having passed only a class naught test successfully in relation to the foil you were misleading and deliberately misleading the market oh i don't agree with that and anybody
02:50:05 oh i don't agree with that and anybody who read the class naught certificate for kate kingsman k-15 was not told that it didn't apply to the whole product but only a part of it and they would have no means of knowing that
02:50:16 would have no means of knowing that do not accept that if somebody would have asked for the classo test we'd have provided them with the
02:50:23 with the phaser test
02:50:29 so you were prepared to say that the product can't pass class naught but when asked would reveal the truth is that how it worked
02:50:40 worked uh we'd reveal a reveal we would provide the
02:50:44 the the test report to substantiate that interpretation so this is a thoroughly dishonest and disingenuous way of carrying on business isn't it no i don't think it is and he's
02:50:55 isn't it no i don't think it is and he's playing fast and loose with life safety regulation no not at all
02:50:59 all now let's look at a few more of these emails in this run i get to paraphrase paraphrase the next few
02:51:06 few but um if we go up from page four to page three and then run up page three
02:51:14 uh you can see what happens uh
02:51:23 and i'm going to summarize it and i hope accurately but tell me if this is wrong effectively reshma rudiment asks what should be written for the classification for the scottish market and dan ball is keen to test the core of k15
02:51:35 core of k15 and if we go to aaron chalmers email in the middle of page 3 there
02:51:41 he says on the 23rd of june i didn't see any issues with stating that cool firm k15
02:51:47 k15 k10 k9 is designated as a low risk in accordance with the scottish technical handbook as and then he says section 2e1 it states the designer is free to choose a product that satisfies a bs test
02:51:59 that satisfies a bs test or a european one until such time as the bs classifications are withdrawn low risk materials it is designated as such should the surface material basically achieve class naught as highlighted in adb2
02:52:10 highlighted in adb2 we don't achieve a b to euro class which does muddy the water slightly but it does state you're free to choose a product that satisfies either not necessarily both can you explain what aaron chalmers is
02:52:21 can you explain what aaron chalmers is saying here
02:52:25 no it doesn't it doesn't make sense to me
02:52:29 me uh no and you were copied in on that email
02:52:32 email did you go back to him and say i'm sorry aaron i can't understand what you're talking about could you just explain we don't see that happen no i don't think so no why's that um i think i was just
02:52:46 um i think i was just looking to see what the rest of the team would would say on that right i think my view was the standard the um technical handbook interpretation was was different
02:52:57 was different right uh and then um uh we go up an email up one to dan ball's email to aaron chalmers again you're copying it i agree with aaron if we can show it's class naught and in the
02:53:08 we can show it's class naught and in the meantime get 40 millimeters k15 test it and see what occurs the only reason it would fail when the facing passes is if pentane released through the perforations causes a fail but i'm optimistic and just just on that point that rather
02:53:20 just just on that point that rather undermines doesn't it the argument you come up with that actually the perforations uh wouldn't make any difference in an eight four one full test because actually they would have made a difference in in this test no i think it still
02:53:31 in this test no i think it still supports that argument because this is a very small scale testing a very small product with a very low fire output and if we if we go to the email from aaron chalmers at the bottom of page 2
02:53:42 of page 2 same day 23rd june 2016 at 1758 he says and again you're copied right all agreed it's definitely class naught so include the product is class naught
02:53:54 so include the product is class naught in the document i'll email france pap and gage's views on whether we can claim low risk at present without a full product test if so we'll have to leave that bit out for the time being and just add it as an update in the future
02:54:06 update in the future and uh dan ball comes back and says agreed mate cena must make density at the same time etc uh i can't get them here at the moment i can't get them at them here just to see if you can say
02:54:17 at them here just to see if you can say it's low or not if he doesn't know no one will and we can just remove the old statement
02:54:21 statement and then dan ball's response uh on uh sorry i'm jumping ahead um uh if we go to
02:54:32 um uh if we go to aaron chalmers response up the chain at 27th of june at 1003 i think we need to go to page one for that uh he
02:54:44 says at the bottom of the page page one again you're copied franz has said that smoke density figure around 100 is low et cetera et cetera and then if we go over the page to page two he says um under the text box there
02:54:57 he says um under the text box there with regards to class not low risk he believes that we should test the complete product before we can claim anything as the foam behind the foil is likely to have a bearing on the facing performance
02:55:08 there it is in black and white from franz papp a fire engineer at ixova that the classification to either class nought or lowrisk the complete composite product should be tested and it gives a reason the foam behind
02:55:20 and it gives a reason the foam behind the foil has a bearing on the face of performance at the time did that not strike you as the correct advice and obviously so no i think because higher up he said it's a it's a valid
02:55:31 higher up he said it's a it's a valid interpretation but not one that that he would take but thought was an interpretation never mind interpretation i'll come we'll come to show you the full run i i assure you of that but just looking at
02:55:44 assure you of that but just looking at the advice that aaron chalmers is passing on to you that he got from france papa takes over the foil behind the foam behind the foil is likely to have a bearing on the facing performance you had no reason to disagree with that as a matter of
02:55:56 disagree with that as a matter of science did you no no was that not a good point to jump into this chain and tell those in the technical department that they should stop trying
02:56:08 department that they should stop trying to come up with clever ways through adb and just test the whole product at class naught as xover had advised
02:56:16 [Music]
02:56:22 potentially but i i took the view we could still take the interpretation from adb right against the
02:56:28 the advice from an independent fire engineer at x over
02:56:33 at x over but franz pepper also says it is a valid interpretation as well yes we're going to come to that in just a moment i'm just on the advice you get at this point you see that franz papp is telling you
02:56:45 see that franz papp is telling you that you should test the complete product before you can claim anything because the phone behind the foil is likely to have a bearing on the facing performance you've told us that there's no scientific reason to dispute that given that at that moment why not just
02:56:59 given that at that moment why not just tell your team to test the whole product
02:57:04 because this was part of that whole discussion so it wasn't just this moment that i was considering the the other communications as well but you didn't know what was coming next did you
02:57:16 no but it was shortly after then so i wouldn't have made an immediate so why at that moment as soon as you see an external fire engineer
02:57:23 engineer telling you through aaron chalmers what we see here didn't you go in and say come on we need to test the whole
02:57:34 product
02:57:39 i'm still considering the views of the team and keeping the um conversation going but
02:57:51 conversation going but right let's look at the response that comes from dan ball then over the page on page one he says
02:58:05 he says uh i spoke and i'm sorry this is the um second email from the bottom on that page so two thirds of the way down page one
02:58:12 one dan ball 27th of june again you're copied i spoke with friends about this as well
02:58:18 as well and he says as well because it appears that mr chalmers had also had a discussion with friends pap and he says we are okay claiming class naught from foil as it can be interpreted like that he's
02:58:30 as it can be interpreted like that he's just got to take the fire engineer perspective and cover himself and give the conservative point of view ideal situation product is placed on market but we can interpret class naught from the face as shown in adb
02:58:41 from the face as shown in adb it's just we are doing what we attack competitors for doing but low risk in scotland
02:58:45 scotland words with substrate we do have an old report but it needs updating he feels we should test complete for low risk statement etc etc yes and in the last sentence dan
02:58:56 etc etc yes and in the last sentence dan ball says
02:58:57 ball says low risk we could do with a 40 millimeter k15 being tested in a uk test house
02:59:02 house or thinner if we have one so should try a 40 millimeter k15 max
02:59:08 it it looks from that that dan ball has pressed x over with his interpretation the literal one that you've espoused earlier in your evidence today and got an approval but a caveated one
02:59:21 and got an approval but a caveated one correct is that how you saw it at the time yes
02:59:24 time yes so you would have known that this interpretation of adb that you were discussing adopting was open to you as a matter of language but not conservative and not ideal
02:59:38 yes not conservative yes
02:59:42 do you accept leaving aside the uh tenability of the interpretation that kingspan and you yourself personally were prepared to sell k-15
02:59:53 sell k-15 on the basis of a class naught representation based on a view of a proof document b that was not conservative and not ideal
03:00:04 [Music] yes and if it was not conservative and not ideal it would be it would follow less safe
03:00:15 [Music] i'm not necessarily but i'll take the point
03:00:22 point do you agree with me i would necessarily mean it's less safe but i would i'd take your point riskier would you be happy with riskier it would be riskier to take the less conservative
03:00:35 be riskier to take the less conservative not ideal approach arguably yes well what's what's the argument
03:00:41 argument because each each um file incident would have different effects on the product and just by testing the small sample of
03:00:54 and just by testing the small sample of the product um either with or without the phaser is just an indication of how the product would perform in a very small scale event um but most fires develop much
03:01:07 event um but most fires develop much more than that and so i think the difference between um the face or on the front the face or off it would would arguably have a a less significant effect but i'd say
03:01:18 effect but i'd say why not adopt the safer conservative ideal approach that franz papp had indicated to darren ball
03:01:31 because we were happy with the the interpretation of adb does this exchange tell us mr positive that you were prepared to exploit a perceived ambiguity or literal interpretation
03:01:43 interpretation in the approved document b in order to make sales i wouldn't say exploit i'd say interpret take advantage of
03:01:51 of and interpret the literal meaning all right i'll try the question again with your preferred word does this exchange tell us that you were prepared to interpret adb in a particular way in order to make sales
03:02:05 yes that would be true and that particular way was less safe less conservative and not ideal
03:02:14 potentially yes even though that may that interpretation might place lives at greater risk than adopting the interpretation
03:02:25 interpretation which france pap was or the approach that france papp was advising i don't think it does place lives at greater risk
03:02:36 greater risk and i'm looking at the clock i've got one or two questions on this meeting haven't finished this document have we no
03:02:41 no no that's why well perhaps we should well
03:02:44 well thank you a little bit lower down the email you in the third line you are told by dan ball it's just we are doing what we attack
03:02:55 it's just we are doing what we attack competitors for doing what was that a reference to i don't recall it might might have been some historic
03:03:07 issue i don't i don't know what we did there did you ask him were you not interested to know what it was that kingspan had deprecated in the past but what it was now proposing to do
03:03:19 was now proposing to do no i didn't why is that i didn't i just didn't occur to me to do that did it not occur to you at the time even on what little you were told by dan ball that
03:03:31 told by dan ball that here was kingspan attacking its competitors in the past for testing the full facer and presenting the product as class naught when you are now proposing to turn 160 180 degrees and do the same
03:03:44 it didn't know
03:03:48 was there any point during this email run
03:03:52 run where you thought you should end the conversation reprimand staff who'd suggested misleading marketing material and marketing k-15 with fast standards that the product couldn't achieve arrange an immediate team meeting and
03:04:05 arrange an immediate team meeting and educate people if not discipline them did that not occur to you no it didn't and you were perfectly happy to go along with this because it it would be able to increase your i thought the interpretation was
03:04:16 your i thought the interpretation was was a fair interpretation let's go back to the email chain we're nearly at the top of
03:04:24 the second email down is from aaron chalmers 27th of june 2016
03:04:30 at 11 42 and he responds yeah does seem a bit of a cheat though doesn't it claiming class naught for just to face a test when as you said it's meant to be product is placed on the market
03:04:42 product is placed on the market but like everything in adb it depends on who's interpreting the wording like the whole k15 issue and where the filler material includes the cladding if a fire engineer believes the core will affect the facing performance
03:04:53 will affect the facing performance though
03:04:54 though should we be claiming class naught based off face to performance alone if 40 millimeter k-15 then fails to get class naught now
03:05:07 and at this point as we see just above that
03:05:14 uh perhaps it would be better if you had a meeting to discuss this matter verbally and that's from reshma rudemaran
03:05:19 rudemaran to all of you and then the email chain runs out
03:05:23 runs out the first question is did you actually con continue that conversation verbally as she puts it rather than in writing
03:05:30 writing um we may have done i think we may have um
03:05:34 um got together and just agreed what we would do going forward it was the reason why it was suggested that you should have a meeting to discuss the matter verbally was that you didn't want a written record of the
03:05:45 didn't want a written record of the discussions no i think he was just getting a long email chain and
03:05:53 now when aaron chalmers says yeah it does seem a bit of a cheat though doesn't it he was right about that he put his finger on it
03:06:05 i don't think it was a cheat i mean aaron had originally suggested it as an interpretation but um i don't think it was a cheat it was a just a literal interpretation of
03:06:17 just a literal interpretation of of adb yeah but he says a bit of a cheat though doesn't it claiming class naught for
03:06:21 for just a face a test it is right isn't it it is a bit of a cheat it's an interpretation well it's a bit of a cheat
03:06:31 cheat it's cheating and it's cheating because you know very well that's not what the people who put together approved document be meant but you were taking advantage of a clever clogs reading of it to try to sell product i think it was a
03:06:44 to try to sell product i think it was a clever clogged reading of it it was how it was written do you accept do you accept what he says here in the last sentence that if a fire engineer
03:06:55 last sentence that if a fire engineer believes the call will affect the facing performance should he be claiming class naught based on face of performance alone
03:07:03 that was a serious question and required a serious answer
03:07:13 yeah on reflection i do why didn't you realize that at the time
03:07:22 i think i was just relying on that interpretation that i've got the reality mr podgetter is that you knew jolly well at the time that the approach was less
03:07:33 the time that the approach was less ideal not conservative and a bit of a cheat
03:07:37 so was your attitude at the time that any weakness in fire safety legislation was essentially fair game to be taken advantage of in order to make sales no not at all
03:07:49 that's not how you saw it no is there any other explanation for adoption of the less conservative less ideal approach
03:07:59 other than the test itself been not ideal tests for testing insulation products it wasn't designed for that
03:08:14 and you say in your witness statement your third witness statement and just for the
03:08:18 for the transcript it's paragraph 4. 3.49 in on page 31 having set out this in discussions and interpretation that you still stand by the decision today and that was in september this year are
03:08:31 and that was in september this year are you telling us that even though you knew at the time this interpretation was being explained or characterized to you by your staff your technical staff was a bit of a cheat you would still make the same decision today
03:08:44 i i think it was a fair interpretation would you make a same decision sorry you think it was a fair you still think it was a fair interpretation do you
03:08:52 you yes i do and you would make the same decision today would you only to test the foil but present the whole product as class naught
03:09:05 i think what i would do today was probably make it clear in the literature that's what we tested
03:09:13 tested mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is well we'll have a break there for some lunch we'll come back at 10 past two please
03:09:20 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while they're away all right thank you very much
03:09:35 right ten past two then please
03:09:58 you