Kingspan Evidence - Tuesday 8th December 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:16 all right would you ask mr partiter to come back in please thank you

00:00:34 all right mr partnership ready to carry on i am thank you very much yes mr thank you mr chairman mr partner uh can we now please go to kin 3074

00:00:49 i'm hoping what appears it is a redacted version of this document and i only need to look at the first part of it this is an instant messenger chat between two of your technical team pete moss and aaron chalmers

00:01:03 pete moss and aaron chalmers and it's it's linked so you can see from the very top of the page to an email from pete moss to himself on the 9th of november 2016 so this is in your during your um tenure

00:01:16 so this is in your during your um tenure as a head of marketing and technical conversation with pete moss and it's quite difficult to read so bear with me um but it says at 1630 mate pete moss made he says and then

00:01:29 mate pete moss made he says and then underneath that has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with bs476 close

00:01:35 close quotes which alternatives can we propose aaron chalmers comes back class naught board k-15 or k-10 pete moss and k-110 question mark aaron chalmers well yeah

00:01:48 question mark aaron chalmers well yeah the solstice alternative not k5 anymore though

00:01:51 though pete moss cool cool thank god i got it right aaron chalmers all in the facing my friend and there's a smiley face pete moss yeah he wanted to use k7 and i said any k10

00:02:02 said any k10 k110 k15 are comparable whereas k7 has a class 1 surface spreader flame another class naught product aaron chalmers doesn't actually get class naught when we test the whole product though lol peter moss what in the capitals

00:02:15 lol peter moss what in the capitals we lied question mark honest opinion now dw

00:02:19 dw aaron chalmers yeah tested k-15 as a whole got class one way lol pete moss well hey [ __ ] product scrap it

00:02:27 scrap it aaron chalmers but england wales is worded in such a way that it quotes implies unquote the facing can give you class naught scotland is best written better therefore probably is not clause class

00:02:38 therefore probably is not clause class north in scotland haha but don't tell anyone that what like fire performance haha kingspan cool

00:02:45 cool cool thumb k-10 is class naught whoops at kingspan cool firm k-15 is class naught non-combustible uh what k-15 doesn't say that question mark and then over the page

00:02:56 mark and then over the page [Applause] uh look look who knows that way look who knows their [ __ ] aaron chalmers yeah old lies mate

00:03:04 lies mate pete moss just tickling your balls mate aaron chamberlain so class one is on k seven k twelve eight dan got class two i'm retesting to hope pete moss fire performance key case band

00:03:15 pete moss fire performance key case band kings band cool firm our k-7 pitch roof board is class one aaron chalmers balls all we do is lie in here pete moss i uh and then it goes on it and then it turns into a personal question which

00:03:26 turns into a personal question which thankfully has been redacted now i i've shown you that because although it's not particularly um uh literary

00:03:37 um uh literary it's certainly clear as to what it's saying

00:03:40 saying um is this what your own technical team thought of the bit of a cheat about the class naught on how to present class north on k-15

00:03:52 i mean reading that it's certainly not the view that they expose externally um

00:04:03 expose externally um and it is very disappointing to read that from my perspective but it's when he says on page two does mr chalmers all we do is lie in

00:04:14 does mr chalmers all we do is lie in here i mean these messages were clearly never meant to see the light of day uh but when he says that it was i have to put to you a a true pithy summary of kingspan's culture at the time

00:04:27 culture at the time i i don't believe that's true that was what was happening in your technical department under your tutelage no i disagree with that absolutely i mean you had been

00:04:38 absolutely i mean you had been uh in charge of this department for some two and a half years by this point how do you account for this attitude to occur

00:04:47 occur and it's not just the attitude or the tone of the discussions people would think would find that less shocking than actually what they were talking about how can you explain that i can't because

00:04:58 how can you explain that i can't because that's not a culture that um that i endorse or foster at all do you accept that a culture of lying about the safety

00:05:09 lying about the safety fire safety of products is particularly serious because you're taking risks with people's lives and the safety of their homes yeah i don't believe that we we are lying i think that they've i can't explain why

00:05:23 i think that they've i can't explain why they're

00:05:24 they're describing it as such in that way between the two of them well there's no major differences there other than a difference in pat's tone uh between what they're talking about and the bit of a cheat email that aaron

00:05:35 and the bit of a cheat email that aaron chalmers sent to you is that i think there is i think this is this is a very different

00:05:44 approach if you like it's not the same as what they expose externally let's look at your second witness statement at paragraph

00:05:55 statement at paragraph 3.18 on page 10 please

00:06:00 and it's got a long paragraph and we we've seen some of it before i think

00:06:07 think about the differences between england and scotland and i'd like to pick it up um at halfway down the page where it says these test results uh and they were talking about results

00:06:18 uh and they were talking about results for bs 476 6 and 7. you say these test results also impacted on our class naught status in england and wales because we were relying on the same composite tests to claim class nought in england and wales

00:06:30 nought in england and wales however as the definition for class north in england and wales is different to low risk in scotland and set out in paragraph 316 and 317 it allows the surface of a composite product

00:06:39 product such as k-15 to be tested the foil phaser was tested separately and achieved the requirements of class nor in order to reflect these changes in what part of the product had been tested kingspan updated the k15 product

00:06:50 kingspan updated the k15 product literature in october 2017 to define its class naught status as a chief class naught as defined an approved document be in england and wales

00:07:05 now

00:07:09 was the tests with the test that you're referring to the tests done by dan ball in 2016 in which he couldn't achieve the required propagation index for k-15

00:07:21 propagation index for k-15 um the tests in 2016 were on the facer so i think the tests on the product may have been earlier than that

00:07:32 product may have been earlier than that right did you know that in august and september 2016 that there was discussion internally about the part six and seven tests at up to that point

00:07:48 in august 2017 2016 2016 yes yes yeah let's look at let's look at uh let's look at that it's kin four zeros one 4213 please

00:08:03 i'm going to come back to the wording of the

00:08:07 the certificate later but if you look at this email run this is an email chain in late august early september 2016

00:08:18 2016 and if we look at page two at the start of the chain it starts with stacy deeming at x over sending dan ball the results on the bs4766 and seven

00:08:30 ball the results on the bs4766 and seven tests so far

00:08:34 and uh you can see that if you look at the uh second email from the bottom in the middle of page two

00:08:44 uh och is just above the stacy deeming email danbul sends these to you you see that yes and perhaps just to be fair to you we need to see the whole of the stacy deeming email

00:08:55 the stacy deeming email and she says hi dan as i thought the testing

00:08:58 testing has at the minute been suspended and held at the indicative stage as a result of poor part six results on the first specimens the results obtained so far as follows and then she sets them all out product ref call them k15

00:09:10 out product ref call them k15 and that goes over the page to page three where she says currently indicating a class one result is possible and the rest is is is for k5 and then at

00:09:21 and the rest is is is for k5 and then at the end she says can you please confirm how you wish for us to proceed with this testing do you wish for us to complete any of the testing or stop the testing at this indicative stage you see that now if we go back to page two we can see that as as i say dan

00:09:35 page two we can see that as as i say dan bull sends the results to you to adrian brazier and adam heath and he says this no cigar again k-15 was worse than the k-5 both look on track for a class one but neither as a finished product have met the criteria for class naught

00:09:49 met the criteria for class naught this is where the regs that state that you can claim it from the facing starts to cause

00:09:52 to cause issues we have a class not facing on k-15 and therefore according to part b can then claim that anything with that phaser is class north but when tested as a complete product is placed on the market it's not class naught

00:10:03 naught kind regards dan ball now just pausing there

00:10:06 there dan ball is clearly pointing out to you that saying that a composite clap composite product is class naught because it surfaces class naught when the composite itself fails class naught

00:10:17 naught causes issues he says it causes issues you could see that couldn't you it's what he's telling you yes did that not prompt you to see the absurdity of the position of your decision that you apparently

00:10:29 of your decision that you apparently still stand by today which is selling a composite product as class naught when when it has failed a 476 part six test merely because the surface alone when

00:10:40 merely because the surface alone when tested separately passed uh it didn't because i think like i've said before the i think the interpretation is fair the test is not designed for this type of

00:10:53 is not designed for this type of material

00:10:56 material so you get these um strenuous results um on the fire propagation side of it um it it always gets a class one because the facer doesn't come off but in the

00:11:08 the facer doesn't come off but in the part six the face it comes away and you get

00:11:12 get you get a false result so i think it's still a fair interpretation even though

00:11:23 interpretation even though as he's clearly making it plain to you k-15 as a product which people buy as a product that they buy separately they buy k-15 as a composite product

00:11:34 buy k-15 as a composite product would fail a 476 test [Applause]

00:11:39 it would fail to achieve the requirements for classo on the 476 part 6 element of it that's that's correct it would

00:11:50 that's that's correct it would and if we go to your response to his email

00:11:54 email because you do respond to it we can see what you say now it comes in a little bit later it's 5th of september

00:12:01 and you say bottom of page 1. dan interesting results i have a couple of questions

00:12:05 questions how do we determine the class naught certificate for k-15 phaser do we do it or is it certified by the supplier how do we account for the difference when tested as a combined part

00:12:16 when tested as a combined part uh part some part question mark perforations question mark why did you ask who certifies the k-15 phaser

00:12:25 phaser um i thought it it might be possible a supplier

00:12:28 supplier would test the phaser to um to that standard it isn't the case but i thought that asked a question and your question is how do we account second question how do we account for

00:12:39 second question how do we account for the difference when tested as a combined part

00:12:42 part question mark perforations question mark was that not the key question because here we see you wanting to know how to explain the difference in

00:12:53 how to explain the difference in performance between the composite as tested and the foil face was tested that was what you were asking yes and that was the key question wasn't it yes yes

00:13:05 and again you could see that one possible way of doing that would be perforations yes

00:13:13 i think that's a question is with the perforations or not depending on the phasor right and if we go to the top of the email chain then we can see dan ball writes back on the 5th of september same day

00:13:25 the 5th of september same day saying this is to you we test the facing separately and we have a class naught summary report so under part b we can then say the plot the product is class naught low risk however it doesn't

00:13:36 class naught low risk however it doesn't cover that requires the product is placed on the market to be tested so only by claiming it from the phaser can we satisfy part b but not the scottish regs

00:13:47 yes it's the same issue as the euro class really pentane and the perforations the only product in the kil range that can be class naught as a product that's placed on the market

00:13:58 as a product that's placed on the market is the ecotherm pro protect uses a pure foil unperforated now i'll just pause there for a moment pentane and the perforations is a reference to the pentane gases being released

00:14:09 released is this right pentane gas is being released through the perforations during the test

00:14:14 the test and causing a fail that's correct right were you actually aware that the only one product in kingspan's entire range the only one product in the range could

00:14:25 the only one product in the range could achieve class naught and that was ecotherm pro protect i was by this this email right and all the rest could not achieve class not

00:14:36 that's correct yeah they're continuing with dan ball's email he goes on to say this

00:14:41 this and it is something that needs some attention if we wish to continue with stating class nought is claiming class naught from the facing is somewhat misleading now just pausing there that's right isn't it

00:14:52 there that's right isn't it he's correct

00:15:01 all right yeah i would agree you would

00:15:06 or could leave us open to unwanted attention if we are claiming class not to be part to part b but not stating low risk in accordance with the scottish regs they could put two and two together and realize that the class naught has been

00:15:18 realize that the class naught has been obtained from just testing the facing which is technically allowed but when i've spoken with fire engineers in the past like franz pat they've agreed that technically you can claim it like that but they always

00:15:29 claim it like that but they always advise that the product should be tested as a complete product of course they would as they will always err on the side of caution so whether we can stroke want to state class naught when as a finished product we will only

00:15:41 when as a finished product we will only have reports stating that they are class one i don't know how we want to proceed there as we don't have a report that states class nought on the finished product

00:15:49 product when i tested core we didn't even get class one this time both k five and k-15 got class one but they were a fair way of getting a total index of less than 12 with no individual result over six we

00:16:00 with no individual result over six we were over 12 after three burns and there were a total of five in the test did he not at least by that stage strike q as

00:16:10 q as as odd that you could claim class naught in england by the reason of a pass of the test to the foil facer alone but not in scotland where the test requires the

00:16:22 scotland where the test requires the composite to pass

00:16:26 there was a clear difference in the definition so i don't know how the definitions were derived

00:16:32 derived but for in adb it was allowable to test the surface but in um a scottish technical book it wasn't did you not stop to ask

00:16:45 it wasn't did you not stop to ask yourself

00:16:46 yourself now that this has been made this distinction has been made crystal clear to you

00:16:50 to you at this point by dan ball and ask yourself the question why is it that the guidance for england wales allows this literal interpretation which

00:17:02 allows this literal interpretation which you were

00:17:03 you were apparently keen on uh and scotland doesn't

00:17:07 doesn't did you ask yourself that question um

00:17:12 i may have asked myself but i wouldn't have known or how to go about finding out how the differences were had occurred it was just what was in the regulations well did you know the time of any policy

00:17:25 well did you know the time of any policy differences as between england and scotland in this respect no policy difference now and there's no differences there between how

00:17:36 differences there between how fires behave on products south of the scottish border from how they behave north of the scottish border is there no and so if the if the difference was a

00:17:48 and so if the if the difference was a real difference as opposed to an apparent difference you would have wanted to know what that difference was based on

00:18:04 possibly yes and the reality is isn't it mr pogita that the difference that you claim to have seen between the english and the scottish test requirements was entirely illusory it wasn't a real

00:18:15 was entirely illusory it wasn't a real difference it was just an argument of semantics

00:18:17 semantics based on your literal reading of approved document b

00:18:23 that's correct different different interpretation yeah different statement and that's why dan ball felt he had to give the warning that people might put two and two together and worked out what

00:18:34 two and two together and worked out what you've done

00:18:38 um well i think it was it was clear that we tested it to the english and welsh regulations

00:18:49 in the way that you interpreted them yes or purported to

00:18:54 what was it after this email that the decision was made to remove low risk from k15's marketing literature so far as it was directed at the scottish market i can't remember exactly

00:19:06 scottish market i can't remember exactly when

00:19:08 when we changed it do you know who made the decision that low risk should no longer be claimed for k-15 ultimately i did

00:19:25 k-15 ultimately i did and you did that am i right it it because

00:19:28 because uh it would have been completely unopened to you on the basis of the wording yes that's correct did you ask yourself how come up to that point

00:19:39 to that point k-15 had been described as low risk

00:19:50 it was it was the core actually in the literature that was being claimed as low risk but

00:19:54 risk but um it was on the understanding that there was some um previous test evidence to have to have claimed it

00:20:08 who made the decision that even though you were going to withdraw the description of low risk for the for the scottish market nonetheless you would continue to claim class naught for k-15 in the english and welsh

00:20:19 for k-15 in the english and welsh markets

00:20:21 markets i i did and that decision was taken in the face of xover's advice that the product should be contested as a complete product and that was the conservative way to do

00:20:33 and that was the conservative way to do it

00:20:34 it and that any other approach was less than ideal it was based on my interpretation of adb so you took a conscious risk to market class north in a way that was

00:20:45 to market class north in a way that was riskier

00:20:46 riskier and put people's great lives at greater risk than if you had told them exactly what you've done i don't think it put people's lives at a greater risk but i do consider we could have made it

00:20:58 but i do consider we could have made it clearer

00:20:59 clearer [Music]

00:21:01 [Music] you don't think it put people's great lives at risk but with the mr pogita it isn't for you as the manufacturer to decide that question

00:21:10 question is it it that's why we have a testing

00:21:14 regime i just i just stuck with that interpretation of adp because if the logic of your thinking was carried to its conclusion you would think to yourself well i think

00:21:25 you would think to yourself well i think that this is perfectly safe and therefore the testing regime simply doesn't matter

00:21:32 and that can't be right can it no that's not right

00:21:40 were you aware at the time that the the industry by which i i really mean some parts of the uk construction industry not all uh often confused class naught

00:21:52 not all uh often confused class naught with limited combustibility i wasn't no you weren't no were you aware that uh in the past the phrase limited combustibility had been used

00:22:03 combustibility had been used even in respect of k-15 at the time now were you aware of a thinking in the or some parts of the uk

00:22:15 thinking in the or some parts of the uk construction industry that class naught simply meant that it was safe above 18 meters no can we look at your second witness statement please at page 10 come back to that and let's

00:22:27 at page 10 come back to that and let's look at paragraph 3.18

00:22:31 i said i would come back to it i'm not doing that and at the end of that paragraph there you say in order to reflect these changes in what part of the product had been tested kingston

00:22:39 kingston updated the k-15 product literature in october 2017 to define its class naught status as quotes achieves class nought as defined in the in approved document b in england

00:22:50 in the in approved document b in england and wales

00:22:52 and wales is that a reference to the wording that reshma rudemaran rudiment put together in the email chain we looked at earlier yes i think it is effectively removing the reference to the core yes yes yes let's look at

00:23:06 yes yes let's look at the documents at the time kin408729

00:23:16 this is uh the kingspan cool therm k15 rain screen board i don't know whether you'd call it a data sheet or a piece of marketing literature

00:23:27 literature um but the date is that it's july 2016 as you can see from the top right hand corner and it's the tenth issue and so is this a document you approved given that you were head of marketing at

00:23:38 given that you were head of marketing at the time

00:23:42 yes and if you look at page seven uh we can see here thermal properties in the top left-hand corner

00:23:54 the top left-hand corner and then excuse me a little further down on the right left hand side on page seven five performance and it says kingspan cool firm k-15 rain screen board is class naught

00:24:06 screen board is class naught as defined by the building regulations now that was untrue wasn't it

00:24:14 no because the facer could achieve it so that's in the building regulations as opposed to technical handbook i see so when you approve this document was your thinking that this form of

00:24:26 was your thinking that this form of words

00:24:28 words as a pr as defined by the building regulations was supposed to communicate to the reader the following idea namely the k-15 as a composite product

00:24:40 namely the k-15 as a composite product has failed class naught but the foil surface passed when tested separately so k-15 can be treated as having past class naught it was to show that into the

00:24:53 it was to show that into the building regulations and the interpretation of the england wealth building regulations it was allowable to claim classo

00:25:05 if you were so confident in the argument that that is what approved document b meant why not just say that k-15 is class naught because its foil facer has passed a bs four seven

00:25:17 foil facer has passed a bs four seven six six

00:25:17 six six and seven test yeah i agree in reflection that's something we could have done well now you say on reflection you could have done at the time surely you realized that you should have done

00:25:32 uh it didn't it didn't occur to me at the time

00:25:36 you said it didn't occur to you at the time mr parget i i simply can't accept that as a true answer but for the reasons and looking at the documents we've been through which show

00:25:47 through which show that this language was intended uh to convey but in reality to conceal the fact that that contrary to what is said

00:25:58 said the rain screen board isn't is not class naught

00:26:03 but by the definition it is so it was your thinking at the time that somebody would pick up this document read what's written there and think to themselves

00:26:15 themselves ah well they only tested the foil facer to class north and that's good enough for me now that they would see that it was as defined by the building ranked class note given that you had no reason to think

00:26:27 given that you had no reason to think that the literal interpretation of approved document b was one shared widely in the industry or by your competitors how could you possibly honestly have thought that anybody in the industry picking up this document and reading it

00:26:38 picking up this document and reading it would have adopted or even seen that literal interpretation

00:26:43 [Music] i would have i would have assumed that people in the industry understood there was a difference between the england regs and the scottish region and it was under the england and wales wrecks that definition

00:26:55 england and wales wrecks that definition was

00:26:57 was the reality mr padre let's face it is that you intended deliberately to mislead your market your customers by these words and need your competitors for that for what it's worth but would have an argument of challenge

00:27:09 but would have an argument of challenge and then see how it went no i disagree there's a thoroughly disingenuous and opportunistic choice of words on your part to conceal the fact that k-15 had never passed class northern never would as a

00:27:20 passed class northern never would as a composite product no i disagree and you were seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the market and also to mislead customers into buying products that knew you knew had failed

00:27:31 failed regulatories fire safety's test no that's not the intention you would do the same today because you stand by that argument even now it seems

00:27:42 that's not i don't agree

00:27:48 let's adopt a different angle and uh and look at it the other way around and at its most generous to you on what you've told us which was this was a literal reading you thought was fairly available to you

00:27:59 thought was fairly available to you and tell me i've misunderstood that that's how you read it at the time yeah on a literal reading this it was it was fairly open to you to describe k-15 as you have here yes would you

00:28:10 k-15 as you have here yes would you accept that on that basis even on that basis

00:28:13 basis you were exploiting a loophole in the guidance

00:28:19 no i think it was in interpreting adb i think it was exploiting a loophole

00:28:26 you were interpreting adb there in accordance with a literal form of words rather than by reference to the underlying intentions in reality

00:28:37 i'm interpreting it just by what it said but you'd seen a weakness in the drafting and were proposing to exploit it [Music]

00:28:48 [Music] no i don't think so i think it was like i say it was it was the interpretation of of adb and that's why you had you were forced to remove the references to the product being low-risk in scotland but then did

00:29:00 being low-risk in scotland but then did nothing to inform industry in england and wales that the classification class naught couldn't be maintained

00:29:07 because of that literal reading it could be maintained because of that literal reading

00:29:14 reading let's look at your second statement

00:29:17 before i do can i just ask you this in scotland

00:29:20 scotland is it right that it was only after the grenfell tower fire in june 2017 that you expressly then made the product literature state that the k-15 was medium risk in scotland

00:29:32 the k-15 was medium risk in scotland i can't remember exactly when it was but um we'd had a few i think customers ask well what what is the the

00:29:39 the the rating if it's not um low risk right so we

00:29:43 we took the decision to make that clearer right

00:29:47 right well let's just look at what you say about that uh your second statement please at page 30. um and i'd like to look at paragraph 4.41

00:29:58 4.41 sub-paragraph c about a third of the way down that page and you say that the k-15 product literature was further amended in the 11th issue dated october 2017 to state kingspan cool them k-15 range screen

00:30:10 kingspan cool them k-15 range screen board achieves class naught rating as defined by approved document b in england and wales and technical booklet e in northern ireland it also achieves medium risk as defined in the technical handbook in scotland

00:30:21 handbook in scotland and then you say this wording now makes clear that k-15 achieves a medium risk rating in scotland and removes all ambiguity

00:30:29 ambiguity now do you accept that that wording that you've set out there on the page was as misleading as the wording in the july 2016 version of the k-15 product literature

00:30:40 no i don't it's not misleading this is of course october 2017 after the grenfell tower of fire why not simply put out a clear

00:30:51 why not simply put out a clear correct and unambiguous description of the test results for this product

00:31:00 because that was an interpretation of adb

00:31:04 adb why did you wait 15 months before getting around to stating what the true level was in scotland medium

00:31:10 medium but in the intervening 15 months so july 2016 to october 2017 said nothing about it that simply left class naught in

00:31:22 i think i was in i think it was in response to customer queries about what was the rating in scotland then so we responded to that

00:31:30 to that did it did it not occur to you at the time that

00:31:33 time that by removing the reference to low risk in scotland but leaving the reference to class naught in england and wales scottish buyers might think that because it had class north in england and wales

00:31:44 it had class north in england and wales it was therefore low risk in scotland

00:31:49 no it didn't but given the intended well let me ask you i tried it before try it again you didn't see any intention

00:32:00 you didn't see any intention for there to be any let me try it again did you see any intention for there to be

00:32:05 be any non-equivalence between scotland and england

00:32:11 do you think that the lack of equivalence you perceived in the wording was deliberate

00:32:16 uh well it must have been why was it why was it differently worded you didn't know of any rational reason why that should be the case i didn't know why they were developed

00:32:28 i didn't know why they were developed into different definitions so so far as you were concerned this was this was an accident of drafting without any rational or empirical explanation i wouldn't say it was an accident i just wasn't aware of of why the drafting had

00:32:41 wasn't aware of of why the drafting had gone the way it was exactly and that's a question you never thought to ask yourself or anybody else that's correct yes and on that basis alone

00:32:49 alone you let scottish buyers think that although there was no specific death classification of low risk in scotland nonetheless because it was class naught

00:33:00 nonetheless because it was class naught in england it could be treated as low risk in scotland

00:33:05 scotland not deliberately would you say not deliberately why not then redesignated as medium risk in scotland straight away yeah we should have done why didn't you um just it didn't

00:33:18 why didn't you um just it didn't didn't think about it we didn't it didn't occur to us we just took the low risk rating off but in hindsight we should have put that it was medium risk the reality is obvious isn't it mr

00:33:29 the reality is obvious isn't it mr parchita that you had no way out even a tenable argument on the narrow wording in scotland

00:33:36 scotland which is why you were forced to remove the reference to low risk but because you saw this literal reading in england you retained the class naught

00:33:46 and you must have realized surely that that would mislead scottish buyers into thinking that although nothing was said about lowrisk in scotland because it was class nought in england that would be all right in scotland

00:33:59 that would be all right in scotland no i didn't i didn't think that you didn't but not to think that do you accept

00:34:04 accept if you didn't think that at the time then

00:34:08 then that was at the very minimum casual and reckless approach to fire safety regulation no i don't think it was it was casual or reckless

00:34:25 now i've asked you some questions about your

00:34:29 your perception at the time of a common misconception in the industry that class naught meant limited combustibility or safe above 18 meters and you've never heard of that can i just ask you to look at something

00:34:43 kin3020841 please this is an email chain from november 2016.

00:34:57 uh and and you're on it just so you're clear and i want to start at page six please because on page six we can see a query

00:35:09 because on page six we can see a query from page park architects in glasgow so we're now in scotland and we're now in october 2016. uh and it's from joanne hemings to

00:35:20 uh and it's from joanne hemings to travis hunter

00:35:24 and she asks him and i don't think we need to know who he is particularly or what project it is other than it's in scotland and she says hi travis as discussed

00:35:35 and she says hi travis as discussed please see note below from the building control officer and then she sets out the note about suitable barriers uh we have only allowed for cavity barriers every 20 meters as the kingspan k15 has a class naught fire rating

00:35:48 k15 has a class naught fire rating we don't want to go up to cavity barriers every 10 meters if possible can you please comment we will also need to add a cavity barrier detail around the windows and doors

00:35:57 doors etc etc so she's talking here about using it about insulation within a within a cavity it seems and then if we go

00:36:06 go up the email chain

00:36:11 we can see how this evolves travis hunter responds on bottom of page five

00:36:18 uh with table 13 and this is that's the relevance

00:36:21 relevance of the classification class naught of insulation within a cavity and travis hunter

00:36:29 hunter says just above the end of page five with cool thumb k15 being class naught and euro class c would appear to fall into the max 20 meter category

00:36:40 fall into the max 20 meter category now don't forget this is in scotland but they're looking at class naught there and if you go up the page a little bit further

00:36:47 further the pages a little bit further to page two

00:36:53 we see this email coming into kingspan uh

00:36:56 uh and at the bottom there and up the page further you are then engaged by aaron chalmers second of november 2016 at 1501 and he

00:37:08 second of november 2016 at 1501 and he writes to you and says hi adrian can you help on this you're probably aware of this issue as it's been ongoing for a while but basically through a loophole note the word we claim k15 is class

00:37:19 note the word we claim k15 is class naught in line with the adb by just testing the facing however scotland's technical handbook is worded better

00:37:25 better in the sense that the entire product must be tested to achieve class naught to subsequently be designated as low risk

00:37:32 risk so we have two options one we know it's not low risk shall we be honest

00:37:38 honest and say it's medium risk and therefore cavity barriers will need to be every 10 meters and not every 20 meters bearing in mind this could then damage us on future jobs as extratherm has a low risk board

00:37:50 low risk board and therefore huge usb over k15 usb means um ultimate selling point two this is the second of his options we

00:38:03 two this is the second of his options we blag it

00:38:04 blag it send them off facing test and confirm that in line with adb it's class naught and kind of ignore her direct question about being low risk and hope their building control officer interprets this to class naught stroke

00:38:16 interprets this to class naught stroke low risk

00:38:19 low risk and uh we can see your response in the next email up if we turn to page one bottom of the page you to aaron chalmers same day a few minutes later

00:38:32 same day a few minutes later 20 minutes later to be precise hi aaron tricky one as class naught will no longer be recognized by bba etc is there any other test method that can be used to prove

00:38:43 be used to prove low risk quotes those quotes what was tricky about a choice between being honest and blagging it mr pogita um that that is

00:38:54 mr pogita um that that is tricky it's the fact that the bba are no longer recognizing the british standard tests and are only going to be referencing the

00:39:05 and are only going to be referencing the euro class tests and then what i was trying to find out was what

00:39:11 was what what else is there to give us a low risk in terms of the euro-class standard why not just go for option one be honest what was wrong with that nothing was

00:39:23 what was wrong with that nothing was wrong with that well why not tell him i just wanted to find out what the the other options were if classo is no longer going to be or

00:39:35 if classo is no longer going to be or the

00:39:35 the british standards were no longer going to be referenced in the bba you wanted to find out what the other options were you're given a choice between telling the truth

00:39:42 the truth and blagging it i can translate blagging for you if you want me to lagging means falsifying or lying about it you're given a choice by aaron chalmers and instead of telling

00:39:53 by aaron chalmers and instead of telling him what the obvious answer was you tell us you wanted to find out

00:39:57 find out what the other options were yeah it wasn't a choice between plugging it up obviously we would tell them we'd go for the honest route but we need to work out what other avenues

00:40:08 we need to work out what other avenues there are if there's no longer going to be class o in our bba certificate well forgive me you're given a one choice of two

00:40:19 two routes being honest and lagging it your response isn't to say to him well you've got to be honest clearly now this is clearly the time we've got to come clean

00:40:29 clean uh you ask him what what are the other choices

00:40:33 choices how could that possibly be a straight way of dealing with this question

00:40:40 well plugging it was not and was not an option

00:40:43 option and possibly i should have made that clearer

00:40:47 clearer but we need to see what other options there are as well in fact blagging it was as described and he then goes on to explain precisely what that involved was exactly the policy

00:40:59 exactly the policy that you were hoping to pursue wasn't it no and that's precisely why you were able you felt able to produce the product literature for july july to 9 2016 we've seen with

00:41:11 for july july to 9 2016 we've seen with the statement it has in it ignore the question about being low risk which i put to you then and hope the building control officer interprets it to class naught that that's that was the policy no

00:41:23 that that's that was the policy no it wasn't i don't i disagree you don't but your response you see is also telling isn't it because you come back you don't say to him well we can't blag it and you've got to say it's not low risk and be honest you ask

00:41:35 it's not low risk and be honest you ask for

00:41:37 for other options now is that a responsible and honest approach of the head of technical and marketing

00:41:46 i should have i should have clarified the fact that you know the option of blagging it isn't isn't an option i agree but we don't see that you see you don't you don't entertain this this request

00:41:57 you don't entertain this this request it's very clear exposition of your choices you just tell them it's a tricky one and look for other options i've got to suggest to you that this really identifies exactly what was going

00:42:09 really identifies exactly what was going on that

00:42:10 on that you had adopted a disingenuous and opportunistic reading of adb that you claim was open to you i can argue about that they've been told by a fire engineer that that was not a

00:42:22 by a fire engineer that that was not a conservative or ideal reading i decided to adopt it had put out marketing literature and now that the net was closing because somebody in scotland had actually asked the right question

00:42:31 question you were faced with a tricky one that's what was happening wasn't it

00:42:37 no it wasn't i think we needed to understand what the low risk option was with euro class and not any longer on the

00:42:49 euro class and not any longer on the british standard classifications that they're being removed well let's see how aaron chalmers responds in light of that answer we go scrolling up please to uh page one higher up aaron chalmers comes back

00:43:01 one higher up aaron chalmers comes back to you five minutes later and says i know our only option to legitimately claim low risk

00:43:09 low risk is to get a euro class b on k15 or somehow get class naught on the product as a whole which ideally is what we should be doing anyway

00:43:17 anyway neither seems like a reasonable possibility atm now it's right isn't it ideally you should have been getting class naught on the product as a whole but weren't that's clear isn't it and that's what

00:43:28 that's clear isn't it and that's what franz pappard advised

00:43:32 in an ideal world yes i agree with that i ideally

00:43:36 i ideally i would suggest in a compliant world in a world where you wanted your products to comply that's how he's still compliant but

00:43:46 and it's clear from this isn't it that your staff at kingspan mr chalmers knows exactly what you ought to be doing in terms of claiming class naught

00:43:57 class naught but you weren't doing it and that was because you were persisting with your course of exploiting what you perceived what he described as a loophole in adb

00:44:08 in adb that's his view yes what kind of what kind of business what kind of department were you running mr parchetta

00:44:21 uh i'd like to thank a good well-run department the department that seizes on an opportunistic reading of fire safety legislation and exploits it for profit is how some people would see it how do

00:44:33 is how some people would see it how do you

00:44:33 you how do you respond to those people i don't see it like that at all let's go to the top of the chain

00:44:43 uh this is an email um that you send on to gwen davis the technical processing director uh and tony scott and lindsey

00:44:54 director uh and tony scott and lindsey hobbs

00:44:55 hobbs guys just passing on difficulties we're getting in scotland we will soon have to declare a medium risk for k-15 unless we can get euro class b

00:45:02 class b on this product this will hurt us and allow extra thermine with their low risk product

00:45:07 product i was hoping k115 would give us a chance to tackle this but the hope of this has faded

00:45:11 faded with subsequent testing why were you not declaring a medium risk in scotland already given the knowledge that you had in relation to the performance of k-15 in the testing november 2016.

00:45:27 because we just removed the low risk and i agree we should have been clearer with that it was medium risk yeah and at this point of course you're alive to the fact that you would soon have to do that

00:45:39 yes to make it clearer for people agree yes and why haven't you done it already that's my question i just it just hadn't occurred my priority was to make sure it wasn't

00:45:50 wasn't um described as low risk right is it right am i right to take from this email that when you say we will soon have to declare a medium risk for k-15 you realize that for every day

00:46:01 for k-15 you realize that for every day you went by there was a risk

00:46:10 yes potentially yes well you see you were well in the end of course we know as we've as we've seen that you don't actually correct you don't actually declare medium risk for k-15 until october 2017 so that's 11

00:46:23 for k-15 until october 2017 so that's 11 months later what accounts for the delay uh i can't explain the delay were you simply keeping quiet in order to allow sales to continue as

00:46:35 in order to allow sales to continue as industry had not expressly been told that the classification of the product had changed no that wasn't the intention did you not consider that your actions in delaying this change in classification extremely dangerous or

00:46:47 in classification extremely dangerous or risky

00:46:50 no i didn't can you explain why why not because if it wasn't low risk then the difference between

00:47:01 difference between being medium or high risk was that there was there was no difference so

00:47:09 so it was only if it was low risk would it be put into buildings which would need or have the lower barrier content so if it wasn't

00:47:20 lower barrier content so if it wasn't low risk

00:47:21 low risk then it couldn't be used in that that was that was the logic at the time do you know how this particular problem that had arisen in scotland was resolved

00:47:32 was resolved yes

00:47:35 no sorry no what impression in the end did the uh owner of the building in scotland who was asking the question about the cavity barriers

00:47:47 about the cavity barriers uh what did they end up with about whether k-15 really was class naught or not

00:47:52 not i can't recall did it occur to you that unless they were told that k-15 was not class naught

00:48:03 that k-15 was not class naught as a composite product and was not low risk

00:48:07 risk as a composite product they would be misled into thinking that it was and would therefore apply k-15 in a dangerous location not in

00:48:19 in a dangerous location not in accordance with adb

00:48:23 no it didn't

00:48:26 so you didn't occur to you that people were making decisions about the position of

00:48:30 of for example cavity barriers as we've seen

00:48:34 seen based on the false advice that kingspan was giving it didn't occur to me now

00:48:43 and is it really right that you never stopped and thought about what effect your approach might have on the safety of those in buildings on which k-15 was to be applied where a class naught certification or low-risk

00:48:54 a class naught certification or low-risk classification mattered

00:49:00 it didn't i just as it wasn't designated as low risk i i thought that would would cover us

00:49:10 i'm bound to suggest to you mr punter that your approach to this issue was not only dishonest but displayed a reckless disregard for human life and safety

00:49:19 safety do you accept that no i disagree [Music]

00:49:24 [Music] we don't see any evidence that you advised paige park in scotland that k-15 was medium risk can we take it that you didn't

00:49:32 didn't no i don't recall what the outcome of that was

00:49:37 that was let's look at a different topic i want to ask you about bca technical guidance note

00:49:43 note and kingspan's route to compliance document to which we're now going to return

00:49:47 return uh it's right just came going back in time a couple of years that not long after the july 2014 test you were promoted to head of marketing in november of that year and

00:50:00 in november of that year and we can see what that role entailed can we go to your second statement please at page 3

00:50:05 page 3 and look at paragraph 2.2 c

00:50:11 and you explain there that that you were promoted ahead of marketing and and you you explained in the fourth line down uh that the role included the design and production of all marketing materials such as product brochures and newsletters

00:50:22 newsletters the team was also responsible for the development of technical research products

00:50:26 products in kingspan's fire safety compliance campaign regarding the use of k15 and main screen specifications k15 is primarily marketed via literature technical bulletins and associated professional development presentations

00:50:37 professional development presentations to architects and specifiers now you've told us before that you were responsible essentially for the creation of kingspan's roots to compliance documents or document

00:50:49 documents or document as part of the fire safety campaign that you created um i just want to ask you about the way in which k-15 was marketed from the time you started in november 2014.

00:50:59 2014. so we're going back a little bit in time i'm afraid can we go over the page to paragraph 4.2 of this same statement please uh and i say it's page it's over the

00:51:10 uh and i say it's page it's over the page it's page 12.

00:51:15 and you say at the bottom of page 12 by the time i was appointed as head of marketing in november 2014 kingspan strategy was primarily to try and increase and expand the safe use of k-15

00:51:25 k-15 as part of compliance systems and external

00:51:29 external clouding systems including do we have that on the screen including for buildings with a floor uh over 18 meters um as of november 2014 what percentage

00:51:41 um as of november 2014 what percentage of the sales of k15 were for use on buildings over 18 meters even roughly can you remember no i think it's it's difficult to to break that down because of the route to market right

00:51:56 was it a substantial percentage of sales or was it an insubstantial percentage of sales even roughly give us an idea i think by 2014 it was quite a substantial right

00:52:07 substantial right and how did you seek to expand the use of k15 in the over 18 market over 18 meter market

00:52:18 over 18 meter market do we expand yes um yes

00:52:25 um yes yes it's your word you say your the strategy was primarily to try and increase and expand the safe use of k-15 what was how did you seek to expand the use of k-15 over 18 meters

00:52:38 the use of k-15 over 18 meters um by um the route to compliance um campaign so people were aware of the roots of compliance and the

00:52:49 the roots of compliance and the promotion of the you know that root the bca guidance right does that tell us does that mean desktops

00:53:00 desktops yes right now if we look at the next paragraph kingspan's strategy as to how to achieve such increase in expansion was helped by the issuance of the bca technical guidance note 18 useful combustible

00:53:12 guidance note 18 useful combustible cladding

00:53:13 cladding materials on residential buildings in june 2014

00:53:16 june 2014 and then you explain uh that a little bit more in paragraph 4.4

00:53:24 and just for everyone's benefit the bca uh released a technical guidance note cool technical guidance note 18 in june 2014

00:53:33 2014 which gives three routes to compliance doesn't it for combustible materials over 18 meters either you use non-combustible materials

00:53:45 either you use non-combustible materials or you you if you're using combustible materials a build up by being tested under a system test under bs8414 or thirdly a desktop analysis those are

00:53:56 or thirdly a desktop analysis those are the three

00:53:57 the three weren't they correct and i think you've identified this but the technical guidance might help your strategy

00:54:04 strategy because it expanded the kinds of rain screen clouding systems into which you could sell k15 by the extrapolation analysis done by a proper desktop correct right now let's go to page 77 of

00:54:17 correct right now let's go to page 77 of this statement paragraph 8.8 in the middle of the page there

00:54:23 there you are asked about your awareness of the content of bca's technical guidance note 18 as you naught or issue one is it in june 2014 and 15 respectively

00:54:35 2014 and 15 respectively and your answer as you can see is i was not aware of the content of bca tgn18 issue not all one prior to its publication and i have no knowledge of any other employee or agent of kingspan having any such prior knowledge

00:54:49 having any such prior knowledge um can we look in the light of that evidence to

00:54:55 bre-404073 please

00:55:02 this is an email and i at the top of the chain it's the longest chain it's in july 15 and we can see here either meredith writing to uh the bre

00:55:16 phil clark stephen howard and debbie smith dr debbie smith and if you look at the third paragraph down he says this we are slowly educating the nhbc and worked with them and the bca to produce bca technical note 18 the

00:55:28 to produce bca technical note 18 the june issue of this document should be available through the bca website that promotes bs8414 and assessments relating to br135 kingspan4 see a need for a massive

00:55:39 kingspan4 see a need for a massive amount of assessments over the next 12 months

00:55:41 months however this project is a little tricky as it's fallen foul of their policy change and they've moved the goal posts and they're refusing to sign it off without a revised assessment of the facade even though they originally

00:55:52 facade even though they originally sanctioned the construction kingsman incidentally were not contractually involved unless was only made aware of the job and it became an issue

00:55:58 issue now i should have pointed out to you that this is in the context of a particular project it's the cue bridge west project that's so that's what the last part of that paragraph is referring to but i want to ask you about the first

00:56:09 but i want to ask you about the first part of that paragraph he says we're slowly educating the nhbc were you aware of that at the time i don't recall that no were you not aware that members of the nhbc were also members of the bca

00:56:20 the nhbc were also members of the bca i knew nhbc were members of the bca yes and was it the case that both nhbc and kingspan were keen to expand the routes to compliance

00:56:31 to expand the routes to compliance um yes i would think so yes did tony millerchat not mention this fact to you uh when he left in may 2015

00:56:40 2015 just two months before this the fact that

00:56:44 that we were involved yes the fact that kingspan had been educating the nhbc slowly and working with them and the bca to produce bca technical notation i don't recall right let's look at nhb six five zeros

00:56:57 right let's look at nhb six five zeros 977

00:56:59 977 i'd like to ask you about a meeting that took place in march 2015 with the nhbc this is two months or so before mr milichap left king spans employment

00:57:11 milichap left king spans employment and we can see that you are not there but from kingspan we have richard burnley md managing director tony miller chap and

00:57:23 managing director tony miller chap and diver meredith and we could see the agreed actions from that march meeting

00:57:30 and if you look at action number three from the meeting it says nhbc to discuss widening stroke amending scope of options for demonstrating compliance stated in bca guidance note were you aware that that was an action

00:57:41 were you aware that that was an action note agreed with the nhbc at the meeting i don't recall seeing that at the time right now this is march 2015 so you're a head of marketing but you

00:57:53 so you're a head of marketing but you haven't yet taken on the had a technical role

00:57:55 role you took that on from tony miller chap yes

00:57:58 yes so does that explain why he didn't report this to you at that time

00:58:07 possibly or i don't recall it did richard burnley have a conversation with you at this time about meeting an hbc generally uh

00:58:20 meeting an hbc generally uh i think i was aware that had a meeting with nhbc

00:58:25 with nhbc but with looking at the chronologies um without discussions with nhbc i'm not sure exactly when i would have known that so i'm not sure i would have known about that

00:58:36 about that fifth of march meeting and when you prior i'm so sorry

00:58:42 did you want to finish your answer prior to looking at documents for for the inquiry when you took over the job of

00:58:50 job of head of technical and conjoined it with the head of marketing did mr milichap on his departure brief you

00:58:57 you about his meetings that he had had earlier that year with the nhbc i don't recall you don't recall no you didn't do it recall one way or the other or you don't recall it happening i don't recall it happening

00:59:11 did mr milichap hand you his file when he left

00:59:19 he left [Music]

00:59:21 [Music] there were some there was some paperwork but i don't remember nhbc notes in that file right um when mr milichap left did he give you

00:59:32 um when mr milichap left did he give you uh access to his files whether they were paper form or electronic files so that you could carry on where he had left off

00:59:41 left off in the role of head of technical um yeah i think there was some uh some paper files i think um that were in the office

00:59:54 um that were in the office uh but i can't recall i can't recall exactly what was in them there right did you read them did you take the trouble to go through his file and pick out what you needed to continue with the job

01:00:06 you needed to continue with the job i think probably yes but i can't recall it but

01:00:10 it but you recall seeing this document at the time no i don't um now let's go back to the roots to compliance technical document um can we go to kin3020824 please

01:00:34 uh this is your second statement page 23 please i'd like to go to that and i'd like to go to paragraph 4.21 on that page at the bottom and you say my role in preparing the technical content

01:00:45 content of this first issue of this bulletin was limited as by the time i took over of head of technical in may 2015 most of the drafting and compilation of relevant test data had already been completed by either meredith

01:00:57 completed by either meredith technical project manager antonie milichap head of technical once my role expanded to include

01:01:04 include head of technical i worked with the team to ensure the document reflected the guidance provided in bca tgn 18 and also became involved in reviewing the drafts of the root compliance document

01:01:15 document now the last part of this paragraph is something we've been through a little bit earlier in your evidence on signing off the drafts so let's just take it on a bit in by reference to the contemporaneous material can we go to kin406464 please

01:01:32 this is an email you sent to cathy barlow at the pr firm smith and goodfellow on the 6th of may 2015 where you attach a draft of the document and we could see you say at the top of the page

01:01:43 the page we've now put together a brief of our thoughts on a mini campaign to cover the routes to compliance for k-15 addressing the fire issues as previously discussed we agree with your view below regarding the approach the main focus

01:01:54 the approach the main focus is on producing the technical bulletin and we've attempted a basic structure and mind dumped our thoughts around what it needs to say pages four to six now you can see that what's attached to

01:02:05 now you can see that what's attached to your email to kathy barlow uh is uh a document called routes to compliance for high-rise v2 pdf that's the second of the attachments up there isn't it

01:02:16 up there isn't it yes and in fact that document let's just put it in front of you kin 408257

01:02:27 is is the draft and i'm i'm saying that can you confirm that that's the first page vid yes and you can scroll you can scroll down to the

01:02:38 can scroll you can scroll down to the second and third pages just to confirm that that's what you sent kathy balor in that email on the 6th of may 2015. yes yes right it's not right to say is it therefore

01:02:49 therefore that the document was already written because you're sending a draft to smith and goodfellow

01:02:58 i think the information was there but and we were looking to good fellow to compile it all right and you're

01:03:09 right and you're you're agreeing the view regarding the approach

01:03:14 approach if we look at the bottom of the email chain if we can just go back to that but we can see that there's an earlier correspondence but if you go back to page two in that email

01:03:25 if you go back to page two in that email run

01:03:26 run you can see that you send her on the first of may something called the attack the nhbc communication regarding combustible insulation above 18 meters

01:03:38 was that what was that document i think it may have been their technical advice

01:03:47 advice document it will issue naught from june 2014 and 14. possibly right now that's right isn't it that smith and goodfella's advice was to

01:03:59 smith and goodfella's advice was to support the nhbc in your marketing material wasn't it

01:04:08 um did you say that well let me let me show you

01:04:11 show you let me show you what she says at the um bottom of page one she sends an email to you on the fifth of may

01:04:19 of may in response to yours and she says this is not as bad as i feared and i think the way forward is to send out a communication and then in bold in support of what the nhpc is saying the letter talks about limited

01:04:30 the letter talks about limited combustibility not non-combustible and it reinforces the use of 8414 or under the fire engineering approach yes that's correct right so was the bulletin that you then produced

01:04:42 bulletin that you then produced um as part of a wider campaign designed to adopt the bca routes to compliance and thereby partner with the nhbc on widening the scope of k-15

01:04:56 i don't i wouldn't say it was to partner with them but it was to support that bca document right if we can go to the final version

01:05:08 right if we can go to the final version of the roots to compliance document then at kin403148 which we've seen before and was released in august 2015 and i just

01:05:19 in august 2015 and i just want to take you to page three in it and there it refers to common misconceptions it starts by

01:05:30 common misconceptions it starts by giving an introduction about this document

01:05:33 document and um it says

01:05:40 uh in the second paragraph however choosing the best route compliance with fire safety regulatory requirements in great britain necessitates a clear understanding of the complexities and the common

01:05:52 the complexities and the common misconceptions that surround the use of insulation in these constructions the route that best serves the purpose of the building and the needs of stakeholders while producing a well-balanced result may not always be the most obvious option

01:06:05 always be the most obvious option what were they common misconceptions that you're referring to here i think that there was a view that it was

01:06:15 generally misunderstood the options of the bca guidance so we were looking to um clarify that from from our perspective

01:06:29 when you say you were looking to clarify the misconceptions about the bca guidance

01:06:33 guidance do you really mean that you were looking to support the expansion of the application of the 8414 test by use of the desktops yes i think that would be yes and let's

01:06:44 yes i think that would be yes and let's look at page five of the bulletin the um the roots to compliance document

01:06:51 document in the first paragraph on page five we can see that there is as part of a long uh analysis of the bca material you say

01:07:02 analysis of the bca material you say with the aim of addressing common misconceptions as regards to the use of combustible materials within the facade system of residential buildings containing a story 18 meters or greater above ground level

01:07:13 18 meters or greater above ground level industry group bca issued its technical guidance note 18 use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings issue 1 june 2015. you see that yes

01:07:26 and then it goes on uh to explain and i'm summarizing i hope accurately the fact that because of the number of possible facade buildups you can't have fire test data for every

01:07:37 you can't have fire test data for every single one and you need you need desktops as a result to expand the application i've summarized that probably rather crudely but that's the effect

01:07:45 effect that's the said yes and if you go to page six in the middle of the page there there's a reference to linear route and it says uh although kingspan cool therm k15 rain screen

01:07:56 therm k15 rain screen board and its rigid thermostat insulation core r-class naught as defined by the building regulations the linear route compliance is not open now

01:08:09 uh can you explain why class naught is mentioned

01:08:14 mentioned there at all um

01:08:25 there at all um no not really um i think

01:08:30 the the limited combustibility is not open uh it's not limited combustible therefore it's not open from the linear route but

01:08:40 route but um i think it was just to reiterate that it was class so but it's not yeah so it's not part of the linear route so well right let's just take it in stages

01:08:51 well right let's just take it in stages again

01:08:52 again you told us before that this document was signed off by you on the 24th of july 2015 but before sending it to richard bromwich and richard burnley so you would have read it with care and i

01:09:03 you would have read it with care and i put that to you earlier yes can i assume that were you read this page with care particularly under linear route

01:09:14 um i would like to think so yes so never mind the point about class naught

01:09:22 naught as defined by the building regulations we've been through that i'm not going to ask you about that again my question is why are you referring to class naught here at all when cast naught has

01:09:33 naught here at all when cast naught has got nothing to do with the linear route to compliance

01:09:46 i can't i can't really explain it was part of the drafting i think it's correct um but what's its relevance i can't explain

01:10:00 well it's not actually even correct is it because it gives the impression

01:10:07 that but that class naught might have something to do with the linear route to compliance and i have to suggest to you that this

01:10:18 and i have to suggest to you that this was

01:10:18 was in there because you knew that many people in the industry thought that class naught was a passport to use above 18 meters i i wasn't aware of that at that time

01:10:31 i i wasn't aware of that at that time and the reason why class naught is referred to at all is to continue

01:10:37 continue to make use of that perception it's part of a positive message isn't it no well this this kind of dispels that

01:10:48 no well this this kind of dispels that message in a way so i don't think there was an intention to keep referring to class so so that it is

01:10:55 is misunderstood as being of limited combustibility so i asked the question again

01:11:00 again what what is the point of referring to class naught here at all

01:11:08 i looked at and now i think it must be to clear

01:11:11 to clear clear that potential up

01:11:17 sorry i didn't clear that potential between

01:11:22 between classo and limited combustibility i don't understand that i'm afraid what potential up clear what potential up that there was a a misconception

01:11:35 a misconception between class i and limited combustibility but you're perpetuating the the misperception by continuing to refer to clark north where it's exactly not wanted aren't you

01:11:48 it's exactly not wanted aren't you no i mean we're here we're clearly defining it as not so

01:11:58 [Music] when you must when you read this document with k you must have asked yourself well why are we referring to class naught here under the linear route didn't you i didn't no

01:12:12 and why not simply say k-15 is not a product of limited combustibility and therefore can't meet the requirements of part b two of the building regulations unless it's part of a successful 8414 test

01:12:23 test uh or part of a desktop why not just say that we

01:12:27 that we could have said that but you didn't even chose to introduce the concept of class naught and i'm suggesting a rational reason for that which was that you saw that as a selling point

01:12:41 potentially is that a convenient moment yes i think it is you haven't finished with this document i take it but uh

01:12:51 yes yes um mr positive we'll have another short break at this point we'll come back at 20 to four please and usual business don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room please yes

01:13:03 the room please yes thank you very much

01:13:12 right 20 to 4 please

01:30:13 would you ask mr padgett to come back in

01:30:18 please

01:30:32 all right mr pogita yes all right ready to carry on yes mr chairman thank you mr partridge i'd like to ask you about some case studies in this bulletin so we're going to stay with the same document can we go to page eight please

01:30:46 this is the section of this document entitled case studies

01:30:54 i'm so sorry i should perhaps have given the reference it's kin 403148

01:31:01 thank you and uh here we have case studies

01:31:04 studies and uh the first of those is a building called uh or a blo a project called new pendleton in salford residential tower blocks

01:31:15 residential tower blocks you see that and um it says in the first paragraph

01:31:20 paragraph nine 1970s residential blocks in central southward are being given a new lease of life

01:31:25 life with both the inside and out being revitalized thanks to a major retrofit scheme

01:31:29 scheme which incorporates premium performance kingspan cool them k-15 rain screen board in the overcladding of external walls

01:31:36 walls and in the third paragraph down it says the tired

01:31:39 the tired brick facades of the mid and high level apartment blocks are being replaced by modern aluminium rain screen clouding the first tower the 12-story white beam was completed in july and is soon to be followed by the

01:31:50 and is soon to be followed by the 23-storey spruce and if we go to page 9 we can see a full picture of the building one of the buildings and the cladding

01:32:01 one of the buildings and the cladding there

01:32:01 there is in fact um as we can see later rayno bond acm isn't it uh i believe so yes were you aware that there were different

01:32:12 there were different versions of rayna bond acm panels

01:32:17 no not at that time

01:32:20 were you aware if the rain a bond on the pendleton buildings had a pe call or whether it was an fr core fire retardant

01:32:30 retardant i don't recall did you ask anybody um no i don't think so right did you make any inquiries at all about this cladding rain screen product before it was featured in your marketing

01:32:42 before it was featured in your marketing material

01:32:43 material no i think um we would we've done the we'd have contacted the owners of the building and asked if we could do a case study on it and that would have been done through um

01:32:54 and that would have been done through um our agent smith and goodfellow yes and and uh if we can pursue that a little bit can we go to kin40s 2729 please

01:33:07 this is

01:33:10 uh an email uh from simcoe sorry i should show you the um

01:33:18 um the the middle like middle email on page one

01:33:21 one is an email from ben bishop at simcoe to dan ball

01:33:25 dan ball about the fire certificate and this is in the context of a lava longer email chain

01:33:29 chain about this this project um if we go to

01:33:42 page three

01:33:45 we can see that here is ben bishop's email to john simmons at simcoe the 23rd of july 2014 k15 fire certificate john uh please

01:33:58 k15 fire certificate john uh please fill that kingspan questionnaire below and if you look at the fourth box down you can see there's the cladding there and

01:34:12 it it's rainer bond four millimeters thick

01:34:16 thick i say the fourth box down it's in the third box down in fact on that page you see that yes yes uh and you can also see that the building is 33.09 meters

01:34:29 building is 33.09 meters high and there's a block of flats you see that a little bit lower down 61 meters is pendleton spruce court yes um and

01:34:40 yes um and the other one is the uh and pendleton white beam over the page is 33.09 so these are high rises

01:34:49 rises um so at least if not you then certainly kingspan would know that this was rain upon four millimeters going in on these buildings over 18 meters

01:35:00 over 18 meters can i that's right isn't it yes yes i accept that you don't see whether that's pe core or not i accept that um but just to show you that evidence and then if we go to kin40s 2731

01:35:15 and then if we go to kin40s 2731 kin403 237 2731 this is a letter from kingspan to simcoe dated the 14th of august 2014 written by dan ball to simcoe

01:35:27 dan ball to simcoe and we know it's dan ball from page two um have you seen this letter before i i don't recall it i mean you were dan

01:35:38 i i don't recall it i mean you were dan ball's line manager at this point weren't you 2000 and august 2014

01:35:45 uh no i was you weren't but now it would have been

01:35:48 have been from may 2015 right okay um let's see how we go with it then maybe you can't help me with it but it the first section of the letter reads

01:35:58 reads dear graham re pendleton spruce court cool film k15 uh in reference to our telecon of 13th of august 2014 regarding use of cool thumb k-15 in pendleton's bruce court in a facade

01:36:09 a facade that has a habitable space of 18 meters or more above ground level we can confirm

01:36:13 confirm from checking through the build-up listed in the query form attached separately kingspan insulation limited are happy that the build-up you propose is suitable to include k-15 and then it

01:36:24 is suitable to include k-15 and then it goes on

01:36:24 goes on kingspan insulation limited have a comprehensive bank third-party accreditation labc registered details and successful testing to both bsa414.1 and two has discussed documentation

01:36:35 and two has discussed documentation relating to bsa414.2 is with the testing facility

01:36:39 facility and then in the halfway down that paragraph he says in order for things to progress

01:36:44 progress kingspan installation limited would like for you to take this letter as confirmation the cool thing k15 has been specified correctly and the facade buildups of this project follow suit with the requirements of approved document b's alternative

01:36:55 approved document b's alternative compliance root and therefore kingspan insulation limited test regime regime carried out at the bre

01:37:05 this letter is a straightforward and clear

01:37:08 clear confirmation i would suggest of correct specification and compliance of the particular external facade buildup by kingspan isn't it

01:37:26 it appears that way yes it's right isn't it that the king the k-15 which is actually going to go on to the

01:37:35 on to the into the structure at pendleton spruce court

01:37:38 court had had not in fact been successfully tested on the bs8414

01:37:51 yes that's correct and therefore this letter was misleading

01:38:05 i would agree

01:38:08 now this query form was completed was sent to kingspan in july 2014 as we've seen and this letter is august 2014 so this is just about a year before the roots to

01:38:19 just about a year before the roots to compliance document was released wasn't it

01:38:21 it as a matter of chronology yes yeah and as we've seen this project certainly pendleton spruce was clad in raino bond panels were you aware

01:38:35 panels were you aware by 2015 that the renault bond panels were actually acm panels with a pe core uh no i don't think so

01:38:49 do you dispute the fact that they were in fact

01:38:52 in fact acn panels with a pe call no i don't know what the core was on them

01:39:01 let's just have a look and and see a document to see if it jogs or your memory at all m e t three zeros four zero five six three please met three zero five

01:39:14 this is a an email run in april 18 from graham smith at simcoe and if we get a page two of the email

01:39:25 and if we get a page two of the email chain

01:39:26 chain we can see

01:39:31 that here is an email from liam harper

01:39:38 on the 4th of may 2015

01:39:43 to graham byrne at genius facades uh copied to peter fraley so i just mentioned that for the moment for different reasons and he says

01:39:57 xt this is the subject x3 reyno bond p e switch from transparent chord to black core deadline fourth may 15 peter the only project we have on going would be pendleton with this in mind

01:40:08 would be pendleton with this in mind any material for the following blocks will need to be the transparent core as previous

01:40:12 previous spruce caught hornbeam whitebeam thorne malice ruby red now those are all pendleton blocks aren't they

01:40:21 i don't know you don't know no all right you don't know and i'm not suggesting for a moment that you would have seen this email at the time but but looking at that it appears at least that the

01:40:30 that the rhino bond acm panels going on to the pendleton spruce building were ones with a pe core you weren't are you telling us you weren't aware of that in 2015 when you used the pendleton

01:40:41 in 2015 when you used the pendleton spruce as your case study no right did you not think it incumbent on you as head of marketing and by august 2015 head of technical as well

01:40:51 well to ensure that you were not promoting the use of k15 or other products with an acm pe core

01:41:00 no i wouldn't it wouldn't have occurred to not to me um i wasn't aware of the the differences um in the acm options right can we go back then to the

01:41:14 options right can we go back then to the roots to compliance document and look at another case study page 10 now this is kin403148 please

01:41:23 page 10 here is

01:41:31 here is another case study brookhouse rivers apartments tottenham uh and the first paragraph says cool kingspan cool thumb k-15 rain screen board

01:41:41 board has been installed as part of a multi-million pound development in north london providing 222 new affordable dwellings along with commercial space and a new primary school

01:41:51 school and then just above the image of the facade on the same page we can see some text

01:41:56 text which says for the rivers apartments gypcraft installed a 60 and 100 millimeter kingspan cool thumb k15 rainscreen board with a steel frame infill system

01:42:07 infill system to complete the building envelope gypcraft then fitted an aluminium composite material facade did you know that that project also featured k15 along with an acm panel with a pe core

01:42:21 acm panel with a pe core no uh

01:42:25 no uh or at least if not a pe core than an acm an acm facade as you can see from that yes from the element yeah did you investigate what the composite material was

01:42:37 material was with the aluminium no i didn't and can we then go to kin407769 which is an email you sent to john

01:42:48 which is an email you sent to john garbert

01:42:50 garbert about this building rivers apartments tottenham

01:42:56 tottenham shortly after the grenfell tower fire on sunday the 25th of june 2017 and you say hi john i've been reviewing the case studies on the website and kathy has been providing some info

01:43:08 and kathy has been providing some info is that kathy barlow from yes that would be right see attached word dark

01:43:14 word dark with all the above 18 meter case studies on i thought you may need for meeting tomorrow however as i was going through this process alarm bells rang when we established the rivers apartments is also called brookhouse

01:43:25 apartments is also called brookhouse brookhouse is featured in the first edition of our rigid compliance bulletin as a case study but not the latest last week we were contacted via jack ditton kil area sales manager by the contractor galliford tri partnerships in

01:43:37 contractor galliford tri partnerships in relation to this project searching for answers

01:43:39 answers apparently the client neulon housing trust haringey council had contacted them and they're worried about the build up and are looking to see if we have any desktop studies featuring this material they have told jack that they are pe

01:43:50 they have told jack that they are pe course they are the pe core panels recalling my conversations with adam apparently the original desktop study by xover was for fr core we planned to respond in essence saying we couldn't do this but i know

01:44:02 saying we couldn't do this but i know they contacted xover directly also we were intrigued but to see what xev would say not her what their response is yet

01:44:08 yet i will dig out our actual response in more details on the dst but we will need we will need to be tomorrow but will need to be tomorrow as it came from adam was there in fact a desktop study by

01:44:19 was there in fact a desktop study by xover

01:44:21 xover i asked because we've not been able to find it oh i was under the impression there was one for an fr call right you were under that what were you under the impression from

01:44:32 you under the impression from i think with discussions with um with adam i think adam had had the direct right discussion is that adam heath

01:44:38 heath yes so you had a discussion with adam heath about it did you yes it is one reason why you couldn't locate a desktop study or perhaps we can't locate desktop study in your

01:44:49 we can't locate desktop study in your disclosure is that you wouldn't have prepared one for k-15 with acm panels with a pe core we wouldn't have done no

01:45:00 we wouldn't have done no they may have um obtained one for themselves right

01:45:06 unlikely with a pe core in our experience unlikely the pe corps in your experience why

01:45:14 um because i think when we were looking at

01:45:18 at um desktop studies um xover would only do fr rated cores uh they wouldn't do pe rated cause

01:45:33 and how far back in time was that experience of yours oh i think

01:45:45 i think i can't recall exactly i think i mentioned it in in my witness statement not not further back than june 2014

01:45:53 2014 clearly don't think so no is that because

01:45:59 because live aside the industry kingspan's view was that

01:46:02 was that k15 should never be used with an acmp cause as the exterior rain screen i think we weren't um particularly how far with the difference in

01:46:13 far with the difference in fire performance between a pe an fr or an a2 obviously they were there was a difference um but i don't think we had an appreciation for what that difference might be right but

01:46:26 that difference might be right but the obviously the fire engineering community

01:46:29 community doing the desktop studies had got a better understanding right right were you aware of any desktop studies being done using it with a system or in relation to a system using k15 and

01:46:40 or in relation to a system using k15 and acm with a pe core after july 2016 when the nhbc amended their guidance to allow aluminium range screen facades without a desktop i can't recall at the

01:46:53 without a desktop i can't recall at the moment

01:46:54 moment and let's look at a further example same document page 14 this is a building called the fold in sid cup

01:47:06 kent um and this is uh described as follows kingspan

01:47:13 kingspan a stunning new 6500 square meter mixed-use development in sid cup is the latest project to benefit from the outstanding thermal performance provided by kingspan's insulation k-15

01:47:26 provided by kingspan's insulation k-15 see that and the building is described as a 29 meter building so it's a high-rise um do you remember that this this building

01:47:37 do you remember that this this building came to your attention in april 2015 because of a complaint being raised on the wording of a draft press release which also featured the fold as a case study you remember that i don't recall it all

01:47:49 you remember that i don't recall it all right let's look at kin408262

01:47:53 kin408262 please

01:47:58 um this is a draft press release development sets the gold standard with kingspan 3rd of march 15 this is about the stunning new six and a half thousand square meter mixed use development in sid cup you see that

01:48:10 sid cup you see that yes uh and the text looks very familiar uh

01:48:13 uh can we go to the email chain about this document kin four zeros one please

01:48:21 the first email uh on that page there is from you to tony miller chap of the the 28th of april 2015 uh where you say guys uh please see

01:48:32 uh where you say guys uh please see note below regarding a case study on k15 we're trying to get through i think this needs to be looked at and responded to urgently

01:48:38 urgently and if you run down run your eye down the page you can see that you're responding to an email from kathy barlow the same day and she's sending you the information about the complaint and asking you to get in touch with um

01:48:50 and asking you to get in touch with um juan alberts from kds associates and you can see that from the last email in the chain and the project he's talking about is the fold and he says and if you look at the bottom of the page page one he was

01:49:01 bottom of the page page one he was saying he wasn't happy with the draft because of this sentence and over the top of page two um he's you can see uh that there's uh an extract from the press release

01:49:13 uh an extract from the press release that we've just looked at very briefly indeed and there are two parts which are highlighted in yellow and he's highlighted the part that says the product has also been successfully tested to both psa four one four two

01:49:24 tested to both psa four one four two thousand and two and bs842005 and can meet the criteria within br135 you see that and there's another part you didn't like and then underneath that extract sophie fox at smith good

01:49:37 that extract sophie fox at smith good fellow who's sending this email on says he said they've always used kingspan products in the past but they're having issues with k-15 at the moment because the local building controller said that k-15 was unacceptable for testing by the nhbc

01:49:49 unacceptable for testing by the nhbc main crux of it is that because k-15 ball burns it didn't pass successfully tested therefore is wrong

01:50:00 you see that yes and you then get that and as i've shown you send it to mr miller chap and mr meredith

01:50:08 meredith do you know how this complaint was dealt with

01:50:12 i i can't recall now i don't do you know what the outcome was in relation to the press release

01:50:21 no i don't recall if we go back to page 14 of the roots to compliance documents at kin40s

01:50:27 at kin40s 3148 we can see that juan alberts from kds associates is quoted in red there you see and we can see that uh the first offending sentence of which

01:50:39 uh the first offending sentence of which mr alberts complained about passing 8414 does not feature but the second one does fire performance does

01:50:51 so you responded to mr albert's complaint about representing cool firm k-15 as having passed

01:50:57 passed the relevant test was that because you had been um as it were outed and didn't want to put something

01:51:08 outed and didn't want to put something out

01:51:08 out that somebody who was related to this building

01:51:12 building knew was misleading and would complain about if you persisted no i think we just complied with his request um

01:51:23 request um not to use that description in in the document that's what we did

01:51:32 you didn't take out the second part of which he complained which relates to the far performance as it says we knew we could rely on the product to deliver both the thermal and fire performance we required i showed you there were two admittedly

01:51:43 i showed you there were two admittedly quite quickly two parts of the press release that he'd complained about the second related to fire performance do you know why that remained in there even though he complained about it i don't can we now go to kin406676

01:51:57 i don't can we now go to kin406676 please

01:52:00 this is an email where we see at the top of the chain you writing to richard burnley and richard bromwich copying in reshma rudiment on the 24th of july attaching the draft of the roots to compliance

01:52:11 the draft of the roots to compliance technical bulletin and you say gents we've now finally i know got the bulletin ready for final review although we've struggled with case studies and people refusing because of the issues we've included three off three off to

01:52:23 we've included three off three off to kick off the document why have you been struggling with the case studies um i think potentially because

01:52:34 um i think potentially because people didn't want to um highlight how their buildings had got um had got built potentially um and i know smith goodfellow would

01:52:47 um and i know smith goodfellow would just get people not wanting to talk about

01:52:50 about um their properties right when you say people refusing because of the issues what issues uh i can't recall exactly what i meant

01:53:01 uh i can't recall exactly what i meant to buy because of the issues was it were some of the issues the fact that nhpc were not allowing k-15 to pass it might be right okay so it might be i mean was that one

01:53:13 okay so it might be i mean was that one of those factors potential yes right now you sent the first draft as we've seen i think to cathy barlow uh of smith goodfellow in may 2015

01:53:24 uh of smith goodfellow in may 2015 and we've now come to july 2015 and here is the final draft is it is it safe for us to proceed on the basis that you and your team have worked on this document now for the two intervening months may to

01:53:37 for the two intervening months may to july

01:53:38 july 15. yes that's correct can we go to your second witness statement then and look at page 50 please

01:53:49 you can see inquiry question 23 in the middle of the page which goes as follows as far as you were aware

01:53:58 aware prior to 14th june 2017 had k15 been used in any external cladding system incorporating acm panels with a pe core other than grenfell tower and as at 14th june 2017 i was not aware

01:54:12 and as at 14th june 2017 i was not aware of k15 having been used in any external clouding systems incorporating acm panels with a pe core

01:54:20 now you were aware i think that pendleton and brook house from the marketing literature were um external planning system systems incorporating acm panels weren't

01:54:32 systems incorporating acm panels weren't you

01:54:33 you because that's clear from the yes so when you say you weren't aware of incorporation of acn panels with a pe core

01:54:43 core your denial there is only in relation to the pe core isn't it yes so you were taking the question

01:54:54 as a whole and answering it literally

01:55:02 yes

01:55:06 you hadn't seen a desktop study which had extrapolated the safety of the systems actually being used in any of those three case studies i've shown you had you

01:55:17 shown you had you i don't think so was it safe at the time did you think to present these case studies to the market without either an applicable bs8414 test for each of those systems

01:55:28 those systems uh or without a desktop study that you had seen for each such case i didn't think we necessarily needed to see them we would have assumed that they'd taken an appropriate

01:55:41 assumed that they'd taken an appropriate route

01:55:42 route to compliance with for that particular building

01:55:53 so anyone reading your roots compliance document

01:55:57 document would have to make an assumption that a desktop existed for the build up in place in those buildings

01:56:07 buildings or a compliant uh and successful eight for one full test that's correct but you didn't take the trouble yourself to find out whether either of those conditions pertained

01:56:18 either of those conditions pertained no i didn't was that not risky no i would just assume that if they were they were built they would have taken one of those routes

01:56:31 i want to turn to either meredith's disciplinary and appeal hearings if we can please now you i think held a disciplinary

01:56:44 now you i think held a disciplinary meeting with him on the 17th and 18th of august 2015 didn't you yes and you made the decision to terminate his employment on the 19th of august 2015.

01:56:55 august 2015. that's correct and it's right isn't it that i've

01:56:58 that i've meredith and appealed that termination and met richard burnley who was the managing director of kingspan on the 3rd of september 2015 with elaine gale from human resources i believe so yes and that that that

01:57:11 i believe so yes and that that that appeal hearing his termination was upheld wasn't it that's the brief story yes yes now you've been asked about these meetings by the inquiry and you've responded in your third witness statement to that uh uh and i think you

01:57:24 uh uh and i think you you you agree that in relation to the meetings which you were involved in you agree i think that the notes taken at those meetings are an accurate representation of what was said is that have i got that right yes as far

01:57:35 is that have i got that right yes as far as i can recall yes no absolutely now let's look at the notes of the disciplinary meeting from the 17th of august first of all that's kin30s 22322

01:57:51 and let's look at the first page just to orientate ourselves in what we're looking at it's a formal document statement stroke interview document uh interviewer adrian pagetta that's you

01:58:03 uh interviewer adrian pagetta that's you position head of testing and marketing date 17th of august interviewee i would either meredith and susan newt was the management rep there

01:58:11 there and this is one of 18 pages and if we go to page nine

01:58:28 at the second eye three lines down uh mr meredith is noted as saying in relation to a meeting with the nhbc in 2014

01:58:38 2014 he said i had to be careful a lot of responsibility tricky line some would

01:58:46 would question playing in market not suitable for

01:58:52 now you said in your third witness statement and we don't need to go to it but

01:58:55 but if you want to we can it's paragraph 2.10

01:58:59 2.10 at the bottom of page 5 in that document that you believed here that mr meredith was referring to k-15 and its use above 18 meters can you confirm that yes that's correct

01:59:10 can you confirm that yes that's correct now taking into account the lack of fire testing on standard k-15 and the results that you'd encountered in the class naught testing did you believe that kingspan had been specifying k15 in a market that it

01:59:22 specifying k15 in a market that it wasn't suitable for um i i didn't believe that now you didn't believe it so you so is it right that mr meredith was telling you something

01:59:32 something that you didn't believe was true or correct no he said some people right some would question playing in a market not suitable for yes i see um but you weren't one of those people

01:59:43 people no right let's turn to page eight page 10 of 18

01:59:48 10 of 18 next page and look at the sixth line he says there

01:59:56 after group choir business put me in a very difficult position last year it was doing my technical integrity no good

02:00:04 good and say that our product was okay my mission was to derail whole process and not much fun see that yes pretend you are stupid got a bit of help

02:00:16 pretend you are stupid got a bit of help from matt ball reams of paper coming through on a monthly basis i don't miss anything

02:00:22 anything now you say in your witness statement that you thought those comments were being made in relation to kingspan k5 is that right that's correct okay

02:00:33 all right why k5 only and not also k15 because in the lines above he's very specific there about k-5 issues um governor of pu europe or

02:00:47 k-5 issues um governor of pu europe or convener of pu europe so he's talking there about the ewi issues not not k15 issues

02:00:58 issues not not k15 issues we can find the reference if need be but uh

02:01:04 mr uh meredith said that he was talking about k-15 as well as k5 there

02:01:11 that was not my interpretation of that right

02:01:15 right not your interpretation of what he said at the time or not not your interpretation of the note both right looking at page 14

02:01:28 the first eye there in the middle of the first line he says i have to be on top of it

02:01:38 and then and then looking at the

02:01:45 second eye he says uh why not uh sorry uh he says time definitely k15 project

02:01:57 he says time definitely k15 project making sure none of that being pulled off wall my main goals and this one was full failing not sure of answers and not sure what to do

02:02:08 of answers and not sure what to do making up us going a lot or going along i was trying to keep it on track

02:02:13 on track and something could complain pw could complain

02:02:21 now you say at paragraph 2.13 of your third witness statement that you thought over meredith was referring to a large number of high-rise projects which were live which he was keeping track of now that that was about 200 projects also wasn't it

02:02:34 200 projects also wasn't it i believe it was at that order yes and in your let's go to your third statement uh to paragraph 2.13 page six within that

02:02:47 page six within that you say there uh in the fourth line down i believe that for each of the projects on this list installation uk had to provide test and certification evidence for consideration

02:02:58 certification evidence for consideration by the project architect straight fire engineers

02:03:00 engineers to support the use of k15 above 18 meters in the proposed application as required by the nhbc otherwise case k-15 would not be used now how could kingspan do that how could

02:03:11 now how could kingspan do that how could kingspan provide test and certification evidence

02:03:14 evidence uh for consideration by project architects fire engineers in all these projects

02:03:21 projects uh it was providing whatever evidence it we got in terms of the 8414

02:03:29 the 8414 testing how could either meredith be given a

02:03:32 given a sensibly given or anyone sensibly be given the role of trying to ensure the use

02:03:36 use of k-15 on every project

02:03:47 it was it was a lot a lot of project projects

02:03:50 projects that were starting to come in or had started to come in so it was a it was a it was a big problem at the time yes and indeed it was a big problem wasn't it because

02:04:01 it was a big problem wasn't it because without any br 135 certificate in place for any build-up using standard k-15 there was no certification or any evidence which could support the use of

02:04:12 evidence which could support the use of k-15 in any of these projects it was just the bs8414 data that we got at the time exactly which mr meredith

02:04:23 meredith new at the time and you've confirmed was in fact a test done on a different project product

02:04:32 yes that's correct and you go on in your statement to say although either had this five lines up from the bottom of page six although i ever had the technical knowledge to answer these questions

02:04:43 knowledge to answer these questions insulation uk had not necessarily had to provide equivalent information previously so he was determining appropriate responses as queries were received i think it was this lack of standard templates that ivor was referring to

02:04:54 templates that ivor was referring to rather than suggesting that there was any fabrication of the truth right we've seen that it clearly was a fabrication of the truth rather than lack of templates wasn't it

02:05:05 rather than lack of templates wasn't it uh at the time i i didn't think that at the time of what of his um of his hearing he didn't think that but

02:05:16 of his hearing he didn't think that but he was telling you that we go back to the uh

02:05:21 the uh notes of the uh

02:05:25 certainly we go back to the note page

02:05:32 14. what did you think he was talking about in the middle of the page

02:05:54 yeah i think he was talking about responding to the the queries that were coming in

02:05:59 coming in right let's move on through the notes can we go to page 15 [Music]

02:06:07 and the second i

02:06:14 uh he says uh time flies my priorities sat with live projects shafted by tm that's tony miller chat kept

02:06:23 kept me sweet damaged my integrity when just being told to book a test so 50k wasted each time might take longer and works all that matters in my eyes anyhow

02:06:35 so you were aware at that point but of course we've been to nhbc meetings with mr milichap um were you aware at that point of the pressure

02:06:45 pressure either meredith was under that's that's clear what he's telling you here isn't it

02:06:51 it yes i knew when i not long after i took over that

02:06:54 over that he was it was extremely busy and you knew the background to this because you knew the threat there was a threat by the nhbc that they would not continue to approve k-15 because of the lack of fire testing

02:07:06 because of the lack of fire testing that's right isn't it that's correct and this is so certainly by the middle of 2015.

02:07:11 2015. was it ivor's either meredith's responsibility to produce successful fire tests to satisfy the nhbc it was yes it was part of his responsibility yes yes

02:07:22 responsibility yes yes and when mr milichap left was either meredith given any support for that work um i actually proposed that we take on a fire engineer to help support

02:07:36 take on a fire engineer to help support iva in his role because he was managing a team

02:07:40 a team of people and i i could see he needed some support i could see he and it was the fire side of the projects that he needed support on so i suggested

02:07:53 that he needed support on so i suggested we

02:07:53 we recruit a fire engineer to support him now by this time you've been head of technical for three months or so

02:08:04 for three months or so did you not recognize the situation that mr meredith was describing here did you not begin to have an inkling as to what he was telling you

02:08:14 an inkling of what well let's look at the middle of paragraph of page 15 he says he says damaged my integrity and just being told to book a test what do you think he was talking about

02:08:32 i don't know about damaging his uh integrity um but i i guess he was saying that he he wasn't being given any direction

02:08:43 he wasn't being given any direction or support previously yeah and did you not take away from this interview at least the impression that either meredith was under pressure uh to produce successful 8414 tests for

02:08:55 uh to produce successful 8414 tests for k15 for the simple reason that there wasn't a reliable test for a k-15 under 8414 that could be used to pacify the market uh or placate nhbc no

02:09:09 uh or placate nhbc no not that point but i think the there wasn't there wasn't enough evidence

02:09:16 right let's look at the appeal hearing um kin four zero is eight six eight one

02:09:41 and these are the notes similar template third of september 2015 chair richard burnley others president elaine gale

02:09:53 you weren't present at the meeting but uh did you get to see these these meeting notes afterwards no not directly afterwards how long afterwards it was i think

02:10:06 how long afterwards it was i think september 2017 right when i saw these okay now if we go to page five and pick it up from the second eg there

02:10:20 he says as i understand it said as i understand it your role all the work you do has been fairly critical in terms of kingspan's product being approved in terms of fire safety i am yes i would say that i'd be put in

02:10:32 i am yes i would say that i'd be put in a situation where i've had to maintain performance that perhaps our products don't deserve i have the ability to show that our products can be used in areas where you would normally require material which would be non-combustible

02:10:43 would be non-combustible from a like critical lifesaver perspective i performed in a number of tests in 2005. kingspan changed the technology of our phone and we couldn't repeat those tests we were outed by a consultant

02:10:54 were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story that to that product still said well it did not on the tin although i bucked at that point and said to my manager at the time that we are stretching the truth here and that we are going into an area where

02:11:05 and that we are going into an area where we cannot support the performance of the product i wasn't the senior person there we produced the documentation and we inferred to the industry that our product could do something that potentially it couldn't with

02:11:16 that potentially it couldn't with respect this is ten years ago it says eg no this was about eight years ago now you just said to me this was 2005. this is when the testing was done what's happened in the last 18 months longer than actually that actually a lot of

02:11:27 than actually that actually a lot of those projects which we've sold into have started to come back and start to question that performance i've been under a great deal of pressure to actually maintain that performance when it is evident through testing that our product struggles with that

02:11:38 our product struggles with that we've obviously had to i've been very busy doing a large amount of testing there was technology that could pass but we were struggling to get the technology to pass to justify our lie

02:11:50 now you agree in your statement your third statement of paragraph 3.5 page 17 if you want to go to it that mr meredith is talking about k-15 here that's right isn't it yes

02:12:02 that's right isn't it yes and we looked at this uh earlier on in your evidence but having undertaken the work in reviewing the historic fire testing of k-15 you do recognize that mr meredith is here explaining the issues that

02:12:13 is here explaining the issues that kingspan had when they changed from old technology to new technology

02:12:19 yes yes i believe so and it's right isn't it he is right that kingspan were struggling to get k15 to pass an 8414 test which they claimed that they've had in their marketing material

02:12:34 they've had in their marketing material that's correct isn't it

02:12:37 no i think we've they've got the passage but they're obviously those um so tech tests that i think you may be referring to there

02:12:47 there right and when he says or said to mr burnley at that hearing that you inferred to the industry that the product could do something that potentially it couldn't

02:12:59 potentially it couldn't and then goes on to the next passage to say doing a lot of amount of testing struggling to get the technology passed to justify our lie the lie there was that

02:13:11 the lie there was that k-15 had passed a full-scale 8414 test when in fact i think yeah potentially that was what he was talking about yes

02:13:28 and do you agree looking looking back on it that kingspan had been stretching the truth

02:13:34 truth that put it mildly of the performance of

02:13:42 k-15

02:13:47 i'm not sure it was stretching the truth but

02:13:50 but it was

02:13:54 providing the evidence of the testing but then

02:13:59 but then trying to support projects that were not strictly in line with that that test evidence

02:14:10 it's right isn't it that ivor meredith was under pressure to perpetuate falsehoods when and because k-15 kept failing

02:14:18 failing full-scale fire tests [Music]

02:14:23 [Music] i don't think he's perpetuating falsehoods but he was

02:14:28 for whatever bit of phrase he was hamstrung by the test evidence he got at the time to

02:14:36 to cover the range of applications that were starting to to come through what had started to come through i'd agree with that let's look at page seven

02:14:49 in the middle of the page there about two thirds of the way down he says and it's hard to it's fortified you could see there's a large black redaction mark and five lines below that he says uh in

02:15:01 and five lines below that he says uh in the middle of the paragraph because my boss tony miller chap was moving to another job role so in his last month he removed all of his responsibilities and said that's your choice now there was no one out there there was no specialist in the marketplace

02:15:13 specialist in the marketplace it was on my shoulders to make all of the decisions and if anything i kept our heads above water during that time and although i might have been accused of parking some of my important projects at least of 230 high-rise buildings that were being

02:15:24 were being that could have asked to remove the kingspan insulation off them they were never as far as i'm aware we managed to evade the problem kingspan couldn't say that we were completely happy with the construction because we weren't we couldn't highlight it to the person

02:15:35 we couldn't highlight it to the person we sold it to and the person at nhbc that it was an issue so i meant i mean adrian was very busy as soon as he took over the role sales team i like to think they were pulling fast ones they were pushing optima into

02:15:47 ones they were pushing optima into inverted roofing was not acceptable they were pushing tech into flat roofing which was not acceptable there were a number of things that were obviously being slipped they were taking advantage of adrian's new position unfortunately i took kind of took that responsibility on myself to show adrian

02:15:59 responsibility on myself to show adrian why these things were an issue and highlight them to him what do you say about that what do you say about him highlighting these issues to you

02:16:10 to you he's really there he's referring to um can you go back like a page let's go back to page eight seven please

02:16:21 let's go back to page eight seven please so he's talking about these projects here tech into flat roofing and and up to mar and i think what he's trying to say is

02:16:32 and i think what he's trying to say is the sales team um we're looking to try and get applications um supported by the technical team which

02:16:45 supported by the technical team which or to sort of expediate

02:16:50 these applications through the technical team

02:16:53 team um without a thorough review and so he felt that's why i interpret into that that they potentially saw an opportunity in me who was knew in the role and not experiencing

02:17:06 knew in the role and not experiencing all of these different applications that they may be able to do that i don't think that was that was true but obviously it seemed like his perception so he felt he was having

02:17:17 his perception so he felt he was having to

02:17:18 to um block those attempts it's the way i read that

02:17:24 we've seen quite a lot of this and i know you were not this at this hearing and didn't see the transcript until later um

02:17:31 later um did richard burnley come to you after this hearing in early september 2015 and ask you yourself about what

02:17:42 and ask you yourself about what you knew of what mr meredith was telling him about

02:17:45 him about not doing what it said on the tin justifying our lie and matters of that nature no we never had a discussion about the detail did you have a discussion about

02:17:56 did you have a discussion about generalities um just about his his overall demeanor and how he was and i know i was interested to see what

02:18:07 i know i was interested to see what richard's opinion was on whether he agreed with my decision to dismiss you didn't are you didn't

02:18:18 didn't richard burnley didn't say to you well he's told us some extraordinary stuff about being under pressure having his integrity

02:18:24 integrity compromised and justifying a lie of some kind

02:18:27 kind and he's he explained to me that he told you all about it so richard burnley didn't come back to you and ask you any of the detail is that right no i think richard would have been aware that ivy was under pressure

02:18:38 that ivy was under pressure um so i think you would have already been aware of of some of that and did richard burnley come back to you and ask you i'll tell you that he'd been told that k15 had changed in 2000

02:18:50 k15 had changed in 2000 after the bsa414 test in 2005. no

02:18:59 [Music] when you saw this appeal note in september 2017 as you say you did for the first time were you not surprised that mr burnley had not

02:19:10 surprised that mr burnley had not actually asked you all about any of these things or told you about what mr meredith told him um i

02:19:23 um i i don't recall whether i've thought that or not at the time

02:19:32 right

02:19:38 do i take it that whatever richard burnley did or didn't tell you about this appeal hearing regardless of what we now see mr meredith said in these

02:19:50 we now see mr meredith said in these notes both the disciplinary hearing and the appeal hearing

02:19:55 hearing that no internal investigation was done after september 2015 to follow up on what mr meredith had said to you to um try to understand

02:20:07 to um try to understand what issues he was facing and why and to interview other people in the technical team and indeed the marketing team to find out whether there was any truth in what

02:20:18 out whether there was any truth in what he was telling you um i think from the this the original dismissal hearing um i don't think there was anything new

02:20:29 um i don't think there was anything new in what he was saying that that was new to me i was aware of the the project the project's coming through i was aware of the workload i was aware of his team

02:20:42 the workload i was aware of his team feeling under pressure so my immediate um steps and i tried to take those steps even before we left so with um trying to support him with a um a fire engineer which he

02:20:56 um a fire engineer which he he didn't like the idea of really um but um and i continued to pursue that and we did eventually employ a fire engineer was

02:21:08 eventually employ a fire engineer was doing a masters and i appointed um adrian brazier into the role to bring some steadiness and some continuity into the team

02:21:19 and some continuity into the team um which was adam heath where he mentions was under pressure and i think adam was certainly feeling it but my impression he was feeling it that he just never got any support from ivan never knew where i ever was

02:21:30 ivan never knew where i ever was um and it's it all started to settle down

02:21:34 down um once ed braze was in place so i'd already started to take actions and we continued with that after after ivor left did richard burnley tell you that he'd been told by by over meredith

02:21:47 that he'd been told by by over meredith that in

02:21:48 that in the that kingspan changed the technology of the film and he couldn't repeat the tests

02:21:53 tests as no

02:21:56 you didn't no

02:22:01 and is that because you can't look into mr burnley's mind but perhaps i shouldn't ask you but but can you explain why it is that he wouldn't have told you that given that

02:22:12 wouldn't have told you that given that it wasn't something you you said learnt until 2016. i think maybe because it was it was old news if you like it was 10

02:22:24 news if you like it was 10 years before so you may have assumed that

02:22:27 that that was sorted out at the time but it was clearly relevant in 2015 because it was something that mr meredith was putting talking at yes agreed

02:22:41 mr chairman i i've come to the end of this line and maybe one or two further questions

02:22:46 questions on it but i can look at those overnight and think and shorten this a natural break i think well that would be a good time to stop because not only at the end of the afternoon it's been a long afternoon mr president so i think

02:22:58 long afternoon mr president so i think we should stop there partially i think i'm afraid there are more questions that we need to ask you and um although you weren't originally asked to make yourself available for a third day i think you have been warned

02:23:10 third day i think you have been warned have you that yes necessary i'm sorry about that but um

02:23:14 um yes please we'd like you to return tomorrow we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow

02:23:18 tomorrow and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it while you're away of course and we look forward to seeing you tomorrow

02:23:26 tomorrow thank you thank you very much

02:23:39 very good 10 o'clock tomorrow please