Adrian Pargetta and Richard Burnley (Kingspan) questioned on misleading letters, false technical bulletins, and deliberately failing fire tests to influence government policy after Grenfell.
00:00:10 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing as usual i'm joined by my fellow panel members miss istafan
00:00:18 istafan and mr akbar good morning good morning everyone and today we're going to begin by hearing further evidence from mr
00:00:29 by hearing further evidence from mr parjita and so my first task is just to ensure that we are in contact with mr parchetta
00:00:35 parchetta i think we are but he asked him to confirm that he can hear me and see me clearly
00:00:40 clearly i can indeed good morning mr pageta thank you very much that's good um i think for the form's sake we should just go through the usual housekeeping so everyone's clear where we are so can you um
00:00:53 so can you um confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence i am alone thank you can you confirm that you don't have any documents or other materials with you i do not and can you confirm that your
00:01:05 i do not and can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you which is capable of receiving messages i don't have any devices on me at all
00:01:15 at all thank you very much you've got full control over the lights now haven't you yes so if it goes dark let me know and i can switch them on then very good thank you very much um well
00:01:26 very good thank you very much um well the procedure is the same as yesterday uh is there anything you'd like to ask me or raise with me before we carry on no thank you right thank you very much well in that case um
00:01:38 well in that case um i will invite mr millet to put some more questions to you yes mr miller when you're ready thank you very much mr chairman and good morning to you and to the panel and good morning also to mr parchita mr
00:01:50 good morning also to mr parchita mr parchita
00:01:51 parchita i'm now going to ask you about a letter dated the 19th of january 2021 so this year which was written by kingspan under the
00:02:02 which was written by kingspan under the hand of
00:02:03 hand of rafe or ralph mannion the managing director
00:02:07 director to uh three people namely clive betts mp the chair of the select committee brian martin the head of technical policy at mhclg and stephen garvin head of building
00:02:19 and stephen garvin head of building standards in scotland and those letters i'll read the references into the record are at kin24978
00:02:27 kin24978 79 and 80 respectively my first question is are you aware that those letters were written
00:02:38 yes let's look at the letter to clive betts
00:02:43 betts mp that is at kin30s 24978
00:02:57 uh and you can see that it bears the date 19th of january 2021 it's addressed to clive betts and its title
00:03:05 title is correction of misunderstanding during oral evidence provided to the grenfell tower public inquiry and uh if we go down to the bottom of the letter
00:03:16 the letter at page three if you just scroll to that please you can see that there is mr manion's signature uh as managing director of kingspan insulation uk
00:03:27 insulation uk and ireland did you see this letter before it went i don't think i saw it before it went i saw a copy of it afterwards right so does it follow that you didn't yourself have a hand in drafting it
00:03:41 yourself have a hand in drafting it no i should imagine based on the evidence in my witness statement as well
00:03:48 uh you you you imagine what based on your evidence well it covers it covers the same topic as my fifth witness statement
00:03:59 fifth witness statement were you involved in the decision to send
00:04:02 send a letter such as this to mr betts uh and indeed
00:04:06 indeed mr martin and mr garvin no i was not right
00:04:12 were you involved in the discussions uh about
00:04:15 about uh what the letters should contain i don't recall being involved in the discussions do you know who was involved in the decision
00:04:26 decision to send
00:04:33 right do you know who was involved in the discussions about what the lesser should say no i don't i don't when did you first discover that this letter had been sent i think it would have been the day it
00:04:44 i think it would have been the day it was sent i'm sure ralph sent a copy to me
00:04:47 me right
00:04:52 so i take it from that that you did not advise mr mannion about what this letter should say no it don't
00:04:59 don't be called and he didn't even send it to you in draft for your comment or correction is that right
00:05:07 i don't think so i can't recall i don't think you can't recall no i don't think you did you don't think you did
00:05:16 you did and this wasn't very long ago this letter was sent uh two months ago you can't recall whether you saw a letter you saw a draft of this letter and was asked for your comments
00:05:28 comments well i think well i've done my witness statement my fifth witness statement so we're having general discussions about the topic but i don't recall specifically
00:05:39 specifically um cnc in the letter right well let's uh see how far you can assist us with it can you please look please first at the paragraph 1.1 and also 1.2
00:05:54 1.1 says go back to it
00:06:01 we anticipate that you will be closely following the evidence provided to the inquiry and given the serious nature of the matters under discussion we are writing to draw your attention to a material
00:06:11 material factual misunderstanding that are raised during adrian pogetta's evidence to the inquiry on 9th december 2020 which was widely reported in the media and which pertains to evidence provided by kingspan insulation limited to the
00:06:22 by kingspan insulation limited to the select committee in 2018. this misunderstanding led to council to the inquiry suggesting to mr pardita that kingstown engaged in a wholesale attempt to mislead you in the select committee and a deliberate
00:06:33 the select committee and a deliberate attempt to deceive mr benson and the select committee this allegation was based on an assertion that king spanish submitted a test report on 6th july 2018 to you and the select committee of a system which had been designed to
00:06:44 of a system which had been designed to fail and the kingsman failed to inform the select committee of this fact this is not accurate we explain the misunderstanding and set out the true position in more detail below so that's what the letter was about
00:06:56 about now if we go down please to paragraph two you can see relevant background and if you read a little further down to the next
00:07:03 the next uh part of the screen uh let's pick it up at
00:07:07 up at 2.2 which starts in 2018 we were aware and then if you go down to the next page top of page two in the ema in the um electronic version
00:07:19 in the ema in the um electronic version of this document you can see that there are
00:07:21 are two letters letter a and letter b letter a deals with the may 2018 test and letter b
00:07:26 letter b deals with the july 2018 test and i'll just read those to you a the may 2018 test took place on 22nd may 18 at x over dubai
00:07:37 on 22nd may 18 at x over dubai the system incorporated limited combustibility a leukobond a2 cladding and rockwool duo slab non-combustible synthetic
00:07:44 synthetic mineral fiber insulation the intention was to test a system which might realistically be specified to be used on a building in the uk in accordance with the linear route compliance but which nevertheless contained certain
00:07:57 but which nevertheless contained certain design
00:07:57 design quotes imperfections on quotes which might be seen in practice and lead to a less robust fire performance than an optimally designed system
00:08:08 an optimally designed system in fact the system passed the test i.e the design imperfections did not adversely affect the performance of the system such as to result in a failure to meet the br-135 criteria
00:08:20 criteria b the july 2018 test of place on second july 2018
00:08:24 july 2018 at x over dubai the system which was tested closely replicated the department of communities and local government dclg post fire tests number two four and six which set the benchmark by
00:08:35 four and six which set the benchmark by which the uk government was determining national building safety but incorporated vitra core g2 cladding panels
00:08:42 panels and rockwool duo slab non-combustible synthetic mineral fiber insulation at the time of the july 2018 test vitricor g2 cladding panels were rated as of
00:08:52 as of limited combustibility stroke a2 and available in the uk market this system did not contain any deliberate design imperfections indeed if anything that tested construction was a more was more robust
00:09:04 construction was a more was more robust than the dclg tests it was therefore one a very robust construction and two a system which would have been compliant under the linear route the system failed the test i.e failed to satisfy
00:09:15 satisfy the br 135 criteria now just pausing there with these statements in this letter statement in b
00:09:26 in this letter statement in b that i've just read to you that the system did not contain any uh deliberate design imperfections five lines down within b the system did
00:09:38 five lines down within b the system did not contain any deliberate design imperfections conceals doesn't it the fact that it was constructed using a vitra core g2 panel with a poor test record that you hoped
00:09:51 with a poor test record that you hoped and intended would lead to test failure
00:09:55 no it doesn't conceal that it says their vitrocore g2 it states the performance criteria of the g2
00:10:02 the g2 um so it's not it's not concealing anything where does it say here that kingspan had
00:10:14 that kingspan had selected the vitracore g2 because or despite kingston's suspicions that it would lead to a failure of an
00:10:26 that it would lead to a failure of an 8414 test
00:10:30 but he doesn't say that no
00:10:34 do you accept that in omitting that fact this was a thoroughly misleading statement
00:10:41 statement no it's not i thought it would be much less it's quite open and transparent about the products that were tested and the results that they got
00:10:51 i would suggest to you that in telling mr betts that vitrical cloning panels were rated as limited combustibility a2 and didn't the system didn't contain
00:11:02 a2 and didn't the system didn't contain any deliberate design imperfections you are misleadingly omitting a critical fact which was that you precisely selected vitricord g2 cladding panels because of its poor test record in an 8414 test
00:11:17 it's not it's not misleading it's an a2 rated product so whether it's passed the test before or or not
00:11:24 or or not it was you know we we tested it in that system
00:11:27 system and in that particular system it failed
00:11:34 let's go to paragraph 3.1 c
00:11:41 uh three point one starts during the course of mr patrick's day's oral evidence on 9th december 2020. and let's look at c uh i'll read the whole of it to you so i can show you the
00:11:52 whole of it to you so i can show you the context of the part of it i want to ask you about
00:11:54 you about it was implicit in the subsequent questioning that council to the inquiry had understood that the april emails related to the 20 july 2018 tests when they did not this in turn led to the line of questioning in which it was contended
00:12:05 questioning in which it was contended that kingspan was engaged in a wholesale attempt to mislead you and the select committee the premise of the questioning was that kingspan should have informed the committee that the july 2018 test had contained deliberate design
00:12:17 test had contained deliberate design imperfections or that it was designed to fail
00:12:19 fail in the words of council in fact the system tested in july 2018 had been robustly constructed and contained no such design imperfections there was nothing
00:12:30 imperfections there was nothing therefore nothing to draw the committee's attention in this regard it follows that kingsman did not in fact mislead the select committee
00:12:37 committee and most certainly had no intention to do so
00:12:41 do so again that's right isn't it mr positive that's not true is it it's not true because the july test was deliberately set up using vitra call g2 which you knew or at least suspected would perform poorly
00:12:52 least suspected would perform poorly which it did
00:12:56 it's true that the system performed poorly
00:12:59 poorly but it is it's not withheld any deliberate design imperfections and it's true also that the purpose of the july test as you confirmed yesterday
00:13:11 the july test as you confirmed yesterday was the same as the may test namely to have a failed test with which to support your case to mr bets among others that was the question yes and you don't reveal that either do you
00:13:23 and you don't reveal that either do you in this letter mr mannion doesn't in this letter doesn't he oh that was clear why we've done that test
00:13:33 test that's clear i think in that in that letter oh you say it's clear is it that kingsman had set out to construct a test on both occasions that was intended to fail so as to
00:13:44 that was intended to fail so as to provide evidence to support its case you think that's clear from this letter dude i think it's clear why we would be testing it to challenge the assumptions i think that's clear yes it's true also
00:13:56 i think that's clear yes it's true also isn't it at least on what i've read to you
00:13:58 you uh that this letter doesn't reveal that the reason why the july test was conducted at all as kingspan's plan
00:14:06 plan b was because the may test had succeeded
00:14:13 uh no it doesn't and again that's i would suggest you a misleading omission or an omission which meant that the letter was apt to mislead
00:14:24 letter was apt to mislead no the letter is not misleading at all it's laying out the facts of what we've what we have found and just because it doesn't mention another test doesn't mean to say it's misleading now let's get back
00:14:35 misleading now let's get back to the the uh the paragraph 2.3 on the same page it's higher up the screen
00:14:44 screen you can just see the bottom part of it poking out paragraph 2.3 says subsequently uh kingston provided you and the select committee with a copy of the july 2018
00:14:55 committee with a copy of the july 2018 test result and the compilation of supporting documents along with two other third-party test results which had not been commissioned by kingspan but had come to kingspan's attention as examples of systems which would meet the
00:15:06 examples of systems which would meet the linear route to compliance but which nevertheless failed to meet the bl-135 criteria when tested to bsa414 the may 2018 test was not shared with
00:15:17 the may 2018 test was not shared with the select committee because it was not relevant as it did not illustrate the public safety point that kingspan was seeking to explain it is not in doubt that some systems
00:15:28 it is not in doubt that some systems comprising only a1 stroke a2 materials will meet br 135 requirements when tested to bs 8414 the point of public safety is that not
00:15:39 the point of public safety is that not all such systems will meet those requirements it was it not um well you claim here that
00:15:47 that mr mannion claims here that the may test was irrelevant because it didn't illustrate the point that kingspan was seeking to explain my question is surely that it was highly relevant
00:15:56 relevant that test was highly relevant for that very reason namely that it undermined your case
00:16:07 i i don't think it's relevant but obviously here i hadn't um recall that we did mention that test to them in this uh in this letter so for the previous question i think the previous question implied that we hadn't
00:16:19 previous question implied that we hadn't in this letter mentioned the may test but obviously clearly we we did
00:16:27 well clearly you mentioned the may test in this letter my point is that it seems from paragraph 2.3 that there had been a decision not to share
00:16:37 share the fact of all results of the may test with the select committee because somebody at kingspan had decided that it wasn't relevant now let's just break that down first is
00:16:49 now let's just break that down first is it right
00:16:50 it right as this letter suggests that there was a positive decision within kingspan not to share or to reveal to
00:16:58 reveal to the select committee the fact over results of the may test um well it's considered not relevant so in considering it's not
00:17:10 not relevant so in considering it's not relevant then to that case then yes it wasn't relevant yes
00:17:15 yes that decision not to share the may test let's look at that when was that made do you know i don't know who was privy or party to the decision not to share
00:17:27 or party to the decision not to share the may 2018 test with the select committee
00:17:30 committee i don't know were you no right
00:17:37 who can you tell us took the decision that the reason or the justification for not sharing the may 2018 test with the select committee was because of its perceived irrelevance
00:17:48 perceived irrelevance no i don't know who you've taken that decision
00:17:52 decision do you accept that the fact and results of the may test was highly relevant by which i mean something which the select committee would wish to know when considering your case because
00:18:05 when considering your case because it undermined your case
00:18:11 no i don't think it was relevant was not also relevant because the success of the may test was the very reason why the july test was necessary at all
00:18:26 no i don't think so and i have to suggest to you that although as you say you were you had no hand in this letter this letter was a misleading letter
00:18:35 letter because it misled the select committee about the robustness of the july test and misled the select committee about the real reasons for not mentioning the may test
00:18:42 may test do you accept that no it's not i think it's misleading at all and that in its attempt to claim that kingsman had not set out to mislead the select committee it simply made further misleading statements
00:18:53 misleading statements do you accept that your attempts following your evidence on the 9th of december 2020 to set the record straight have simply
00:19:04 to set the record straight have simply been to create a further record of dissembling and mendacity mr departure
00:19:11 departure no do you accept that kingspan's attempts to influence the government's consideration of the future of
00:19:19 future of fire testing policy in this country in the wake of the grenfell tower fire have been
00:19:24 been entirely self-serving and at times dishonest
00:19:27 dishonest no neither possibly nor decides mr chairman i've come to the end of my prepared questions this may be an appropriate moment for the usual break yes thank you very much mr minute well mr pajam
00:19:39 well mr pajam not very many questions to put you this morning but there we are mr millet uh thinks he's got to the end of them we always as i think you know have a short break at this point to enable council to check the position and
00:19:51 enable council to check the position and also to enable others who are following the proceedings to suggest further questions so we will take that break now we'll come back at um 10 35 please and see if we have any
00:20:05 10 35 please and see if we have any further questions for you at that stage and of course as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're on the break all right see you later on thank you very much
00:35:12 welcome back everyone we'll now see whether there are any further questions from mr parjita just check mr partitioner you can hear me and see me clearly i hope i can yes good thank you very much well
00:35:23 i can yes good thank you very much well then we'll uh see whether there are any more questions for you mr millet uh any more questions for mr parchetta yes mr chairman just one short run of questions and i invite
00:35:35 one short run of questions and i invite uh mr party to please to be shown the transcript for day 85 the 9th of december 2020 and within the transcript
00:35:46 2020 and within the transcript on that day to go to page 85.
00:36:02 now if you look mister page so if you look at the top of the screen you can see that um there's a question at line three and just to give you the context of the questions i'm actually asking you here
00:36:13 questions i'm actually asking you here about the letter to the select committee written on the 6th of july 2018 that we saw yesterday and indeed on the 9th of december
00:36:24 the 9th of december and uh at that stage of course as we know uh
00:36:27 know uh the inquiry did not know about the existence of or the results of the may test so i'm examining you on the april emails uh on the hypothesis uh that applied to the july test so
00:36:39 uh that applied to the july test so that's the that's the the background but let's see the questions and answers at line three and following all the weaknesses that were introduced into the system that we saw in the april email run which were designed to make the system perform
00:36:51 were designed to make the system perform poorly
00:36:51 poorly were not clearly identified as such in this document were they answer no question and that there for anybody reading it would think that the system was designed not as a worst case scenario or as a system designed to
00:37:02 scenario or as a system designed to perform poorly but just as a system answer correct as a system and that therefore anybody reading this letter would be misled wouldn't they into thinking
00:37:11 thinking that the test had not been set up to fail but was a fairly representative test
00:37:15 test no they wouldn't have been misled it was a system designed which would comply with the linear route so that's not misleading anybody that's what it was and then the chairman asks this question but if i may say so the key point the council is inviting you to
00:37:26 key point the council is inviting you to consider
00:37:27 consider is whether the system that was actually tested was designed so as to be fairly representative of what one might expect to be built is that your point just admit it on so yes mr chairman and then your answer is
00:37:39 yes mr chairman and then your answer is that it was designed to be the most challenging designed to be the met if we could scroll uh down please yes it was it
00:37:50 please yes it was it it you say uh
00:37:53 i've lost lost the point can we scroll back up again please yes an answer at line 25 then it was designed to be the most challenging for that
00:38:02 that and if we turn the page test and the chairman says so i think it follows that it was not intended to be fairly representative of what one might expect to see built answer i think i'd agree with that yes
00:38:14 answer i think i'd agree with that yes now i've shown you that because that was your evidence on the 9th of december and it's important that i remind you of that evidence before i show you a document i haven't shown you that evidence can i now show you the document that
00:38:28 k-i-n-3-24926 please
00:38:38 now this is the uh the email run from april 2018 that we looked at a very large number of times over the yesterday and on the 9th of
00:38:49 over the yesterday and on the 9th of december
00:38:50 december and if you um look down please at the bottom of page 1 and over onto the top of page two
00:39:01 page 1 and over onto the top of page two um you can see that the email run continues with an email on the 11th of april
00:39:07 april 2018 from mark harris to nick jenkins copied to among others to you and also to g murder and gilbert mccarthy
00:39:17 mccarthy and over the top of page two the text from mark harris reads thanks for all the effort you're putting in is it fair to state that the configuration and material selection
00:39:29 configuration and material selection reflects something that could be specified and built in the uk and then if you read up we'll scroll up to the next email up on page one nick jenkins responds the
00:39:42 up on page one nick jenkins responds the same
00:39:42 same day 11th of april 2018 to the same group of email recipients and same copy ease and says hi nick
00:39:57 and says hi nick no no problem mark he says i'm sorry i've lost my own place no problem mark yes it's absolutely fair to state that the configuration and material selection reflects something that could be specified and built in the uk in fact there are many
00:40:09 in the uk in fact there are many projects out there featuring very similar assemblies with both rw phenolic and pir rain screen insulation products the only difference that these existing projects have panels formed from fr
00:40:21 projects have panels formed from fr or pe grades of acm rather than a2 now it's right isn't it that the answer you gave to the chairman on
00:40:32 on day 85 that i've read to you that the system with the design imperfections in it
00:40:39 it was not intended to be fairly representative of what one might expect to see built that was correct no i think what this what this proves is probably
00:40:50 what this what this proves is probably the opposite i mean i don't have the experience of all the different combinations of um designs for registry including out there whereas
00:40:59 whereas as nick jenkins does um and i think this what this shows really is that it was probably far more fairly representative than than than i gave it uh credit for and i know
00:41:11 than i gave it uh credit for and i know nick jenkins has subsequently written into the inquiry separately of his own volition hasn't he to um to confirm that as well so i think um
00:41:21 um i think it was probably more fairly representative than i i gave you credit for
00:41:25 for right uh are you are you saying that when you saw this email you understood nick jenkins to be saying that the
00:41:37 nick jenkins to be saying that the design imperfections deliberately introduced into the system to be tested and it was tested in may
00:41:45 may were designed imperfections that would be introduced in into other systems fairly representative of those built in the uk i think what he was saying was that
00:41:56 i think what he was saying was that there are
00:41:58 there are just different types of assemblies as different ways of putting cladding systems together there are different fire barriers and there's obviously the most robust down
00:42:10 there's obviously the most robust down to the weakest and then there's quite a lot in between so i think what he was saying was what we were constructing there um would have would have been um representative of systems but they
00:42:23 representative of systems but they weren't those systems would not have been designed to be deliberately weak they just would have been
00:42:29 been um weaker and i think so he was he was saying of those elements we've put them together into this test yes and you're not saying are you but and when you answered the chairman
00:42:40 but and when you answered the chairman you weren't saying were you that people would deliberately design this system with the design and imperfections introduced into it that you had introduced
00:42:51 you had introduced i i don't think anybody would design deliberately design imperfections but they would be there um they would be there by the nature of the design if you
00:43:04 the nature of the design if you understand what i mean and i think that test um reflected that that potential right mr chairman i don't think i have
00:43:15 right mr chairman i don't think i have any further questions arising out of that
00:43:17 that um mr pageta subject to one matter those are all the questions i have for you uh there are outstanding document requests uh which uh with with
00:43:29 document requests uh which uh with with which have been the subject of correspondence overnight with kingspan uh i i i'm going to ask you whether you would
00:43:37 would agree to assist uh kingspan in assisting the inquiry in finding and producing the further documents
00:43:44 documents to which you referred yesterday during uh your examination which you thought might exist so that we can see the full picture would you do that yes yes yes thank you
00:43:55 would you do that yes yes yes thank you very much well subject to that mr chairman
00:43:57 chairman i have no further questions and in any remains for me to thank you very much mr partner for coming back to the inquiry uh and answering our further questions we're very grateful thank you thank you thank you mr million well it's
00:44:08 thank you thank you mr million well it's right mr party so that i should thank you as well on behalf of myself and the panel for coming on a second occasion to give evidence it's been
00:44:16 been very helpful to hear from you um i'm glad to hear that you're willing to uh assist kingspan in putting their hand on the documents to which you've referred and which we
00:44:27 which you've referred and which we haven't yet seen uh in the circumstances i i'm i'm going to release you in the sense that i'm not going to ask you not to talk about your evidence to anyone else if it becomes necessary
00:44:39 to anyone else if it becomes necessary to ask you back then i think we'll just have to
00:44:42 have to swear you again from when that becomes necessary but for the moment uh that's all we have for you thank you very much again for coming to help us and um that's all we have for you thank
00:44:54 and um that's all we have for you thank you thank you very much right well now we take a short break at this point while we make arrangements for the next witness
01:04:59 welcome back everyone our next witness is mr richard burnley who started giving it evidence as long as go as december but unfortunately was interrupted when we had to discontinue proceedings
01:05:11 we had to discontinue proceedings because of the pandemic but he's now back with us and the first task for me is to ensure that we are in contact and that he can see me and hear me so good morning mr burnley
01:05:22 and hear me so good morning mr burnley can you see me and can you hear me good morning yes i can good thank you very much and thank you for coming back on the second occasion i'm sorry that your evidence has been so disrupted and we would like to have avoided that
01:05:34 and we would like to have avoided that but i don't think we had very much choice
01:05:36 choice anyway i appreciate you saying that but i realize how difficult this been for everybody involved thank you very much now um just to remind you i think you made you
01:05:48 just to remind you i think you made you made the oath on your when you attended last time
01:05:51 last time so just to remind you you're still under oath today yeah um i should just also remind you that your legal representatives are here in the virtual hearing room with us
01:06:03 here in the virtual hearing room with us so they're following the proceedings they do have the ability to intervene if they think it's essential to do so although we have other means by which they can
01:06:13 they can contact our council if they think there's something that needs to be picked up
01:06:17 picked up so i'm asking them to keep their microphones and cameras switched off to avoid any technical problems um i think we won't have any technical problems but if we do we'll have a short break so that the engineers can
01:06:29 break so that the engineers can resolve them um we'll have a short break halfway through this morning and part way through this afternoon i think this morning we'll put it back until about quarter or 10
01:06:40 about quarter or 10 to 12. break the remainder of the morning roughly in half um before we continue your evidence is there anything you'd like to raise with me or questions you'd like to ask
01:06:52 me or questions you'd like to ask no there isn't right well thank you very much in that case i'll invite mr millet to
01:06:57 to put some questions to you yes mr millet thank you very much mr chairman good morning mr burnley and welcome back to the inquiry we're very grateful to you for coming back um i should just
01:07:10 to you for coming back um i should just i suppose start again with the uh introduction that i always start with all witnesses which is to thank you for coming to the inquiry and for assisting us with our investigations uh also just to ask you
01:07:23 investigations uh also just to ask you please to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who is also on the call can get down your evidence very clearly and don't nod or shake your head
01:07:32 head um you have to say yes or no as the case may be
01:07:35 may be uh if we need a break at any other time other than the scheduled breaks that the chairman has indicated then we can take a short break mr millet i think i'm sorry to interrupt you straight away but i think i really
01:07:46 straight away but i think i really should have gone through the housekeeping routine with mr burnley before he starts giving his evidence there are a few questions which we ask all witnesses just to deal with before they start really to
01:07:59 deal with before they start really to ensure that um you're able to give evidence without anyone being in contact can you confirm that you're alone in the room from which you're giving evidence i can yes thank you can you confirm that you have no documents or other materials
01:08:11 you have no documents or other materials with you
01:08:12 with you no i don't and finally can you confirm that your mobile phone is in another room
01:08:17 room and that you don't have any other electronic device with you that is capable of receiving messages i can and i don't good thank you very much lead i'm sorry sorry mr militant i should have doubled that earlier
01:08:28 that earlier now mr burnley when your evidence was stopped
01:08:31 stopped on the 9th of december 2020 we were looking at an email sent to you by tony milicha on the 12th of november 2014. i'd like to go back to that please
01:08:43 2014. i'd like to go back to that please it's kin30s21810
01:08:57 and you'll see that the subject title from the first email here on the
01:09:03 on the chat in the chain on the screen from in front of you uh is k15 testing direction uh and tony milichak had referred to a meeting earlier that day
01:09:14 meeting earlier that day and had discussed in that email a recent test success to bs8414 part 2 by celetex and if you go
01:09:25 by celetex and if you go down you'll see that do you remember that
01:09:30 i don't remember the specific details of it no but
01:09:34 it no but i mean i was aware at the time of what this was about right now if we look at the last main paragraph of that email and if you want me to read
01:09:45 you want me to read the whole of it again to you i can certainly do that because it's a long time since you saw it i accept let's see how we go if you look at the last main paragraph of the email it says
01:09:56 last main paragraph of the email it says the above approach assumes we continue to acknowledge differences between the tested products both blowing agent and facing thickness have significant impact all testing has been referenced back to precise
01:10:08 referenced back to precise batches with control samples as is a requirement of bre however this does not include a description of the physical differences
01:10:18 uh now can we go next please i've shown you that to the transcript for day 86.
01:10:30 that to the transcript for day 86. and i want to show you what the exchanges were between us leading up to the point when you stopped we stopped day 86 please i'm sorry day 85 i'm so sorry day 85
01:10:45 i'm sorry day 85 i'm so sorry day 85 day 85
01:10:50 and i'd like to go to page 195.
01:11:01 now at line 18 uh you can see that i've just read to you the paragraph from this very email that we've got on the screen or just had on the screen and then if we turn to page 196
01:11:18 we can see the exchange runs as follows now pausing there you realize surely by that stage november 2014 if not at an earlier stage that the blowing agent and face of thickness had significant impact on fire
01:11:29 thickness had significant impact on fire performance yes answer sorry could you repeat the question for me did you realize i'm putting to you that you must have done by this stage on seeing this email if not earlier but the blowing agent and the face of thickness
01:11:41 the face of thickness had significant impact on the fire performance of the k-15 as a product answer i don't know what time around this what time around this but face the thickness i can't pass comment on i do know that my
01:11:52 comment on i do know that my understanding was that we felt we would see an improvement from a blowing agent and then again from hearing evidence i do remember that we didn't see that question when he refers to acknowledging the differences between the tested
01:12:03 the differences between the tested products to whom was he suggesting that acknowledgement should be given pause i'm not sure i think he's just referring
01:12:10 referring that we accept that there are differences right question right and he is referring to differences isn't he between salsa display and new technology k15 answer yes and if we turn the page to
01:12:21 answer yes and if we turn the page to 197
01:12:22 197 uh question no acknowledgement was given to anybody in 2014 of those differences was it answer well no because we weren't selling solstice blowing foam this was a development project
01:12:33 development project question exactly and you knew that by this time answer yeah that was my understanding yes and that is where we that's where we stopped uh now i was about to ask you a question in
01:12:44 now i was about to ask you a question in the first sentence in that paragraph of this email when we were stopped and i want to ask you that question now and then continue from there so i'm trying to make this as seamless
01:12:55 so i'm trying to make this as seamless as possible mr burnley um my question is can we go back to the email
01:13:00 email perhaps that's the best thing to do go back to the email we were looking at a moment ago kin three zeros two one eight one zero looking at that last paragraph on that page the above approach assumes
01:13:12 page the above approach assumes do you agree that no acknowledgement of the differences between solstice blend k15 and standard new technology was given to the public
01:13:24 um well i think at this stage the solstice blown phone was a development project so i don't think it would have been
01:13:32 been or to the bre or the bba or the nhbc not that i'm aware of no and if we go
01:13:41 to the second sentence that i read to you from that last same paragraph all testing has been referenced back to precise batches with control samples as is a requirement
01:13:52 with control samples as is a requirement of bre however this does not include a description of the physical differences it's right isn't it that kingspan knew exactly what was tested uh under each fire test
01:14:03 what was tested uh under each fire test i would have expected and and you were aware weren't you of exactly what was tested in july 2014 no i wasn't i think that was my second month with the company so
01:14:14 month with the company so i i probably wasn't even aware in june july what a bs8414 test was do you know why kingspan didn't give a description of the physical differences to the bre no i don't
01:14:30 can i suggest that one reason was that the bre did not discover that you were testing a research and development product
01:14:37 product i mean i don't know i can't answer i don't know why they wouldn't have done that
01:14:41 that right and we can see at the top of this email if we go to the very top of the screen uh top of the page
01:14:53 which is it should be at the top of the screen there you can see that um either meredith forwards this email onto adrian projector the same uh on the um on the with the same
01:15:04 uh on the um on the with the same subject heading uh on the um friday the november the 14th
01:15:09 14th um at that stage it's right isn't it that adrian pagetta was the head of marketing
01:15:14 marketing not technical correct yes that's right you know why adrian parchetta would need to be aware of this discussion in his role as as head of marketing i
01:15:25 in his role as as head of marketing i don't know would it be let me suggest something to you and see what you say would it be that he would need to be kept in the loop
01:15:32 loop so that he could see how far to go in attacking
01:15:35 attacking the tests for celetex rs 5000 given the problems that have been experienced in testing k-15 has sold no i don't think that we're doing that it's more likely that i was
01:15:48 that it's more likely that i was informing adrian because it's it's a matter of interest in terms of the technical backup to any literature that would be considering preparing but at this stage it was a development product so
01:15:59 development product so i think it's more just for interest than anything else now i'd like to ask you some questions about the routes to compliance document published in august 2015. can we look at kin6086 please
01:16:22 uh and you can see that this is the first page of that document routes to compliance fire safety first issue top right hand corner august 2015. can you see that yes i can now adrian partner says in his second
01:16:36 now adrian partner says in his second statement and i summarize that he signed off on this document and sent it
01:16:41 sent it to you and richard bromwich on the 24th of july
01:16:45 of july 2015 for your final sign off that's what he says in his second witness statement of paragraph 4.19 and 4.21 do you agree yes no that happened
01:16:59 do you agree yes no that happened um did you sign off on it um uh whether i actually wrote back i can't recall but i mean i i would have certainly spoken to adrian i mean uh you
01:17:10 certainly spoken to adrian i mean uh you know my technical knowledge was not strong so i would purely be looking at it from a you know did it make sense was it readable perspective so and i'm sure i would have said yes that
01:17:21 said yes that um i was happy for the document to be released right i see did you discuss its contents with adrian carter or anybody else before you
01:17:32 before you approved it
01:17:37 um well i remember i i've seen the email that adrian forwarded the document to me i don't believe from receiving that email to them releasing the document i discussed the contents
01:17:48 discussed the contents no right did you sorry i i suspect i mean the the email to richard bromwich and i um i mean richard bromwich had been involved in the development of the
01:17:59 involved in the development of the document
01:18:00 document and and i think it was more of a matter of politeness that i was included on it as the md of the business to see it to make sure that i was happy with it yes i see bearing that answer in mind did you
01:18:11 bearing that answer in mind did you examine and seek to verify the claims in it by looking at any underlying test evidence um well no i didn't i mean i was relying on what was provided in there and i'm not sure i'm technically qualified or was then
01:18:23 qualified or was then to have said whether the information i was provided was right i was relying on other people so do we take it from that that you trusted your team to get such matters right
01:18:32 right completely and not to make any misleading statements in this document no absolutely can we go down to page 17 please
01:18:49 now this is appendix b and it refers to large-scale test data and as you can see from the screen in front of you there are three uh diagrams or models
01:19:03 uh diagrams or models showing uh the build up in three separate
01:19:07 separate tests do you remember reviewing this page of
01:19:11 page of this document i mean i did read through the document so yes i would have i would have been through the contents of the page it starts by saying buildups
01:19:23 it starts by saying buildups incorporating kingspan cool phone k15 rain screen board successfully tested to bs 8414
01:19:28 bs 8414 2002 uh and bs8414 part 2 2005. in accordance with the performance criteria set out in br 135 in all cases fire stopping is provided
01:19:39 in all cases fire stopping is provided by intus and fire breaks position to floor level and around all openings in accordance with the guidance given in approved documents b2 and technical handbooks section two and then
01:19:49 then you can see the diagrams if you look at the first build that which is the diagram on the left with report number two two zero eight seven six can you see that um uh and you can see the report number
01:20:01 um uh and you can see the report number at the bottom that was the 2005 test using the cement board cladding wasn't it
01:20:10 well that's what it says that i would not have known whether that was right or wrong
01:20:15 wrong when you say that when that was right or wrong whether what was right or wrong whether what i've just asked you yes i mean i i can see what it says but whether that is i mean i i can agree that's what it says
01:20:26 i mean i i can agree that's what it says in the picture i i i see now do you accept that the k-15 used in that test in
01:20:35 test in may 2005 was not the k-15 being sold in august 2015.
01:20:43 sorry could you repeat the question please yes do you accept that the k-15 product used in that test in may 2005 was not the same as the k-15
01:20:56 in may 2005 was not the same as the k-15 being sold in august 2015. no i didn't know that
01:21:00 know that right do you accept that that um to the extent
01:21:04 extent that this diagram represents uh or leads one to think that it was the same
01:21:11 same that it was factually incorrect and misleading
01:21:17 um at the time when i read it no i didn't think that because i wasn't aware of the
01:21:21 of the the difference that you're explaining no i understand that thank you for that on the hypothesis that i'm correct and that the k-15 used in the test the subject of the
01:21:32 used in the test the subject of the diagram on the left was not the same as the k-15 being sold in august 2015 would you accept that to that extent using that diagram was incorrect and misleading no
01:21:43 diagram was incorrect and misleading no yes i would i would thank you now the third build up in the bottom right hand corner yeah you'll you can see if we go back to it uh uh
01:21:55 uh uh i think we need that to see the whole thing please just if we can pan out a bit uh yes you can see that it's in the bottom right hand
01:22:06 bottom right hand corner the third of the tests now if we expand that again so that you can see it it's
01:22:13 it's a build up of terracotta tile cladding and sfs
01:22:17 and sfs report number 291642 and you can see that the brown rain screen material is 30 millimeters non-combustible terracotta tile clatty
01:22:28 terracotta tile clatty um did you know at the time that this was a reference to bre classification report of the 5th of march 2015 for the test conducted in july 2014
01:22:40 um i don't know i don't recall i don't think so no but but i can't be absolutely sure right you say you don't think so you don't think you knew that i don't think i joined those dots up at
01:22:51 i don't think i joined those dots up at that stage now okay now
01:22:57 in fact again the k15 in the diagram here on the bottom right is said to be k15 but in fact the material used in the test was a
01:23:10 the material used in the test was a non-standard board did you know that i didn't i think you agreed in december maybe you'd forgotten that the k-15 tested in july 2014 was a
01:23:21 that the k-15 tested in july 2014 was a trial product uh solstice blame k15 with a 50 micron foil face are perforated only on one side whereas the standard k-15 being sold at the time
01:23:32 the standard k-15 being sold at the time had a foil phaser perforated on both sides do you remember that yes but i think we should i mean we need the in terms of time frames i wasn't aware at the time that this was referring to that
01:23:43 referring to that test product that had been used whereas now i obviously am aware of that right i see do you accept now you know what it does refer to that again his technical bulletin in this respect was was wrong and misleading yeah in the
01:23:56 was wrong and misleading yeah in the preparation i did for attending in december i realized that that was misleading very good thank you very much
01:24:02 very much you accept that now i do yeah given what mr milichappa told you in the november 2014 email we've just looked at did you not ask yourself why the july
01:24:13 did you not ask yourself why the july 2014 test was being cited here in this august 2015 document when you well i would suggest you must have realized that it wasn't on standard k-15
01:24:24 realized that it wasn't on standard k-15 as
01:24:24 as sold i mean i had no reason at the time to think that what was being shown to me was incorrect i mean during the course of
01:24:34 of of a month i would see at least one of these types of documents across the whole range of products that kingsplanet sold so i was relying on on people to provide me with accurate information
01:24:45 information you realize didn't you that what would have been tested in july 14 wasn't a standard k-15 i think we would establish that that that being the case did you not realize when you signed off on this
01:24:56 realize when you signed off on this document
01:24:56 document that in representing the k-15 as k-15 has sold this was a false and misleading document at the time i was asked to sign the document off now right i see
01:25:08 document off now right i see and how can you account for not realizing that you were signing off on a document that at least in two respects was false and misleading
01:25:17 because i'm i was relying on the people that work for me their teams to provide me with accurate information and i had no reason to doubt that what they were providing was accurate
01:25:29 now i'd like to take you to an email that to adrian partial to send you and richard bromwich on the 24th of july that you've referred to i think earlier just now this morning it's a kin 406676
01:25:54 it's a kin 406676 and at the top of the screen you'll see the email from richard bromwich out somewhere
01:26:01 somewhere uh and the email immediately below it is from adrian parchetta to you and richard bromwich copied to reshma
01:26:08 reshma rudiment and the subject is k15 technical bulletin and i'll just read parts of it to you gents we've now finally i know got the bulletin ready for final review although we have
01:26:20 for final review although we have struggled with case studies people and people refusing because of the issues we have included three off to kick off the document and then you can see underneath that he
01:26:31 and then you can see underneath that he cites brook house riverside apartments tottenham
01:26:34 tottenham over 18 meters approved and signed off by relevant parties awaiting photography eta week commencing 27th july weather dependent max two weeks
01:26:46 dependent max two weeks and then the second one creating a new pendleton residential tower block salford over 18 meters permission requested
01:26:53 requested due back next week once signed off we will need photography eta 2.5 weeks and then the third barnsley college south yorkshire existing case study over 18 meters
01:27:05 existing case study over 18 meters awaiting sign off for updated text from one person eta one week
01:27:09 week now just pausing there what were the issues
01:27:13 issues if you go back to the uh second uh paragraph of the email that mr pargeter was referring to there um i think there were two from memory i think there were two main issues
01:27:25 think there were two main issues one was that um we were talking to other manufacturers who had got products involved in systems that were also doing testing
01:27:35 testing so we had to get their permission to um to use or not use the information and i think the second was that the the customers who had bought the product
01:27:46 the product weren't the owners of the buildings and so the owners of the buildings had to sign off on us using those properties as examples i follow did you go through uh the
01:27:59 did you go through uh the bulletin at that stage um i don't know that it was attached to this email so um i don't think i did no right
01:28:10 um i don't think i did no right now um can i ask you to look at your second statement to the inquiry then um kin30s22662 and i'd like us to go together to page 19
01:28:21 19 and look at question 18 and your answer to it
01:28:26 now question 18 reads as follows as far as you are aware prior to 14th june 2017 had k15 been used in any external cladding system incorporating acm panels with a
01:28:37 system incorporating acm panels with a pe
01:28:38 pe core other than grenfell tower if so please identify the building or buildings on which such a system was used if not please explain in detail what steps you have taken as managing director to satisfy yourself
01:28:50 as managing director to satisfy yourself that this is the case your answer is contained in paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9 below that let's look at that you say as at 14 june 2017 as far as i was aware k15 had not
01:29:03 2017 as far as i was aware k15 had not been used in any external cladding system incorporating acn panels with a pe core
01:29:08 pe core i was not also not aware it had been used on grenfell tower until after 14th of june
01:29:13 of june 2017. during my time as managing director insulation uk had a project tracking database crm tool to record details of specifications that insulation uk had
01:29:24 specifications that insulation uk had been directly involved in across its product range as part of insulation uk's investigations shortly after the grandfather tragedy installation uk searched this database for all k-15 specifications
01:29:36 for all k-15 specifications and did not find any example of k-15 being specified in any external cladding system incorporating acm panels with a pe core
01:29:47 do you accept going back to the first two case studies mentioned in mr pargette's email on the 24th of july brookhouse and pendleton spruce which featured in
01:29:58 and pendleton spruce which featured in your
01:29:59 your technical bulletin did you accept that those two case studies in fact did use k15 with acn panels with a pe core
01:30:10 core are we able to go back to the technical bulletin minute i i i maintain those statements as being correct so you'll need to show me that that wasn't the case uh yes let's go to kin four zero six six
01:30:22 yes let's go to kin four zero six six seven
01:30:22 seven six
01:30:29 those first two are brooke house riverside apartments tottenham and creating a new pendleton residential tower block salford yep now we can go back to the uh the bulletin itself but um
01:30:43 the uh the bulletin itself but um bulletin certainly says uh that they um uh well do you want to see that yeah if you could because there's nothing there that tells me that there were pe cores
01:30:54 that tells me that there were pe cores ah okay so you accept there were acm though don't you no i don't i i'd like to see what the bulletin says because i i'm not able to understand that at this stage yes
01:31:05 understand that at this stage yes absolutely we can do that if you go back to the bulletin you will find it at kin
01:31:14 6086
01:31:22 and case studies start on page eight and we can look at pages eight and ten you go to page eight first of all
01:31:35 there is the uh new pendleton residential tower blocks salford you see that i do uh and uh if you go uh
01:31:50 to the uh third paragraph down i'm just trying to find it on my system um
01:31:57 um it says the tired brick facades of the mid and high level apartment blocks are being replaced by modern aluminium rainscreen claddic
01:32:06 and there's a photograph see that i see it yes uh so it was clear to you from this bulletin that that aluminium cladding at the
01:32:17 that that aluminium cladding at the least
01:32:18 least was being uh applied to this building
01:32:22 you know yeah i can see that but i i don't link at the time that i was reviewing this document i wasn't linking modern aluminium rain screen clouding with acm
01:32:32 with acm and definitely not with acm pe core yes i see
01:32:36 i see i see and if we go to the next one page 10 brook house rivers apartments tottenham page 10 and go down to the paragraph
01:32:47 page 10 and go down to the paragraph just above the photograph uh you can see that it says this for the rivers apartments gypcraft installed 60 and 100 millimeter kingspan cool them k15 rainstream board with a
01:32:58 cool them k15 rainstream board with a within a steel frame in the field system to complete the building envelope gypcraft then fitted an aluminium composite material facade so for this one it was clear from the bulletin itself wasn't it that acm was
01:33:10 bulletin itself wasn't it that acm was being used except it doesn't say with a pe core but it certainly you would have realized reading this that acm itself was used i i i just wanted to clarify i would
01:33:21 i i i just wanted to clarify i would have read that it says an aluminium composite material facade i would not have understood what that was at that point right so you are you saying that when you read this
01:33:32 saying that when you read this on or perhaps shortly after the 24th of july
01:33:35 july you wouldn't have you might have read aluminium composite material so but it wouldn't have registered with you what that was or what it signified absolutely not i see
01:33:50 do i take it that you didn't know that as a matter of fact in relation to the pendleton development uh the one on page eight of this bulletin kingspan actually sanctioned the use of k-15
01:34:02 the use of k-15 with reyno bond acm panels in a bespoke letter did you know that
01:34:09 um not that i'm no i don't think i am right let me show it to you k.i.m specifically i'm aware that there were letters written but i'm not i can't recall the exact details of all
01:34:20 i can't recall the exact details of all them
01:34:21 them right uh right well let's let's look at that kin402731
01:34:39 this is a letter from kingspan the almost exactly the previous year uh 14th of august 2014 to graham smith of simcoe
01:34:50 to graham smith of simcoe and the heading is pendleton spruce court cool phone k-15 and if you read down the letter uh you can see it's if you go to page
01:35:02 uh you can see it's if you go to page two i should just show you who it's from it's from dan ball the technical project leader as you can see there and if we go back to page one um you can see that he uh says
01:35:13 um you can see that he uh says in the first paragraph there um in the second
01:35:17 second third line second part of the sentence we can confirm from checking through the build up listed in the query form attached separately kingspan insulation limited a happy that the buildup you propose is suitable to include k-15
01:35:32 and the same point is made in the next paragraph the query form is what we need to look at that's which is attached to this letter that's
01:35:43 which is attached to this letter that's at kin402729 just dig into that
01:35:54 2729
01:36:05 and if you go to page three in that email run there is the query form and if you uh have it expanded you'll see
01:36:19 that in the third item down after project name and full project address within the form you'll see there's a line for cladding out of face type and you'll see there it says renault
01:36:30 and you'll see there it says renault bond four millimeters thick now i'm not suggesting that you saw this document
01:36:36 document at the time unless you unless you tell me you did mr burnley um but looking at that do you accept on the face of it that kingspan itself was sanctioning the
01:36:47 that kingspan itself was sanctioning the use of k-15 with rayna bond four millimeter i mean i haven't i can't recall seeing either the letter or this document before
01:36:57 before um and i can only tell you what i believed to have been the case
01:37:04 i mean whether it probably wasn't when this was issued and it's probably certainly wasn't when the um roots to compliance bulletin was issued but my knowledge remains that i don't
01:37:16 but my knowledge remains that i don't think that we had sanctioned k-15 with a pure pe core acm i think there was it you it was used with
01:37:25 with a mineral content acm which did have a fire rate
01:37:30 fire rate but that's the limit of my technical knowledge
01:37:34 knowledge uh right well let's just pursue this a little bit more um you can see that in august 2014 dan ball of kingspan is sanctioning the use of k-15
01:37:46 use of k-15 on pendleton spruce with raynaud on four millimeters thick let's look at another document met three zeros four zero five six three
01:38:01 now this is email correspondence
01:38:06 between genius facades who is associated with
01:38:11 with um mr simmons uh and iconic in may 2015 so after the the date after the august 14 letter but
01:38:22 the date after the august 14 letter but before the sign off uh and again i'm not suggesting that you would have seen this for one moment um but it's a document that comes from um
01:38:31 um uh iconic and juniors facades and if you go to page two you'll see an email from liam harper to graham byrne at genius facades
01:38:45 graham byrne at genius facades and uh the subject is re rayna bond p e switch from transparent call to black core peter the only project we have ongoing would be pendleton
01:38:57 would be pendleton with this in mind any material for the following blocks will need to be transparent core as previous and then you can see spruce court so that's pendleton spruce there are a number of other pendleton
01:39:09 there are a number of other pendleton buildings
01:39:10 buildings named after um trees i think certainly hornbeam and whitebeam and uh so um it it i'm not asking you to comment
01:39:19 comment if this document shows on the hypothesis that it shows that what was being used as the rayno bond panels at as the rain screen of pendleton spruce
01:39:30 as the rain screen of pendleton spruce was running on four millimeter with a pe core regardless of whether it was transparent or not then that would show would it not that kingspan had in fact
01:39:42 kingspan had in fact sanctioned the use of k15 with an acm panel
01:39:46 panel with a pe core for pendleton spruce one of the case studies used in the august 2015 route compliance document you sanctioned
01:39:58 route compliance document you sanctioned that was a very long question but i think i get the gist of it i mean i would have to disagree um i think as a consequence of the process that we're going through now i would have to see what the exact specification is of the rayna bond
01:40:10 specification is of the rayna bond p e transparent core and black core is to pass comment
01:40:16 and i'm not sure even if i saw it that i'd necessarily know without asking somebody but i i wouldn't want i wouldn't want to assume anything all right you said in your statement
01:40:27 all right you said in your statement i read to you um that as part of insulation uk's investigation shortly after the grenfell tower fire installation uk searched your crm
01:40:38 installation uk searched your crm database for all k15 specifications and didn't find any example of k15 being specified in any external cladding systems incorporating acn panels with a pe core
01:40:49 panels with a pe core that was your evidence it was did it not pick up
01:40:53 pick up pendleton spruce
01:40:57 my understanding is that pendleton spruce
01:41:00 spruce as i understand it wasn't a pure pe core it was a it was one with a min some sort of mineral core as well well you say my understanding is that
01:41:11 well you say my understanding is that was that an understanding that you had at the time you signed your second statement you know and answered question 18 from the inquiry
01:41:20 inquiry yes so did you have a conversation with anybody within kingspan about precisely what the nature of the core used within the reynold
01:41:31 core used within the reynold four millimeter acn panels was at kendall spruce when i provided my statement you did did you no
01:41:38 you no i didn't i wasn't working at kingspun when i provided the second statement so uh my question again maybe uh we're at crossed purposes can you explain why it was that when
01:41:49 can you explain why it was that when insulation did its search of its database
01:41:51 database and failed to find any example of kingspan k15 being specified um in an external cladding system incorporating acm panels with a pe core as you say in your statement that search did not turn up pendleton
01:42:04 that search did not turn up pendleton spruce
01:42:06 i can't explain it what i put in this in the statement was exactly my understanding did anybody tell you well it was your understanding what was the source of your
01:42:17 what was the source of your understanding about uh the search of the database
01:42:26 i think well i i remember that adrian pardesha and i had a comment i mean we talked about look how do we try and find out where k-15 is being used and
01:42:37 used and the obvious place was in the in our crm system
01:42:40 system and so you know it was agreed that we would do a search and so my understanding would have come from whatever i was told that that search brought up you didn't do that search yourself i take it absolutely not no
01:42:54 it did i i don't know somebody within adrian pardis's team right you see when you say in your statement uh insulation searched the database
01:43:05 uh insulation searched the database for all k-15 specifications and did not find any example what is the source of your evidence that it did not find any example is that somebody's is that something somebody told you or
01:43:16 is that something somebody told you or something you know from yours for yourself it's something somebody would have told me who was that i don't recall right did you actually see a document
01:43:27 right did you actually see a document presenting the results of this search or or was this something no i didn't it was something i would have been told verbally right i see and and you don't know who that was i
01:43:38 and and you don't know who that was i can't recall no right you see in your statement you don't say
01:43:43 don't say i was told that that no example was found
01:43:47 found you're swearing to the fact that none was found but you can't now tell us how precisely that investigation was conducted i can't no but i you know i stand by
01:43:58 i can't no but i you know i stand by that statement when i made that statement
01:44:02 statement well when you say you stand by the statement when you made the statement are you telling us merely that you i had no reason to think that it was wrong correct but now i've shown you uh with some evidence that in fact it
01:44:15 uh with some evidence that in fact it was wrong
01:44:16 was wrong and that there was a case where kingspan had sanctioned use of k-15 with an acm panel with the pe core many pendles and spruce that in fact the the search that was conducted had missed that
01:44:30 that was conducted had missed that well i'm very sorry i've missed something that you've explained to me i still
01:44:34 still i'm not absolutely clear that we're talking about the same pe core pure pe core i i need to understand the exact nature
01:44:45 i i need to understand the exact nature of the panels that we're referring to in those three examples in the route to compliance well what did you understand in your in your witness statement when you referred to acm panels with a pe core
01:44:56 to acm panels with a pe core what did you think that was about i thought it was referring to the type of panel that was used at grenfell tower and what is it about the pendleton spruce panels the subject of the emails i've just been
01:45:07 subject of the emails i've just been showing you that makes all the difference and tells you that that isn't an acm panel with a pe core
01:45:12 pe core as you identified in your statement well i think what i'm generally showing in a very
01:45:19 in a very awkward way is my lack of technical understanding but are you any in any doubt on what i've shown you that in fact what was specified for pendleton spruce was in fact acn with
01:45:30 pendleton spruce was in fact acn with the pe corps you're not challenging that are you
01:45:36 i i can only see what you've shown me this morning so i'm not challenging you i'm saying i don't fully understand it and i'd like to see the specifications well that's let me believe and then i'm not sure but yes i can take if you want me to agree
01:45:47 yes i can take if you want me to agree with you i can agree with you well i i don't want you to agree with me for the sake of it i just want to agree with you where it's right let me just show you one more document then we'll move on this is
01:45:58 then we'll move on this is debbie french's metropolitan police witness statement met three zeros five three one six two
01:46:12 53162
01:46:18 and
01:46:24 uh this is a long statement and i may just have to come back to the reference in due course uh but
01:46:41 uh but take it from me that she well i think we'll just come back to that in due course if we need to um but she makes it clear that it was a pe core used at pendleton spruce
01:46:52 spruce um you have no reason you would have no reason to disagree with that if that's what the lady said then i would have no reason to disagree with this
01:47:01 this uh i'll i'll come back to that and put that right off the break it's a 34-page statement
01:47:14 do you agree that in general on what we've seen this morning that this roots to compliance document of august 2018 was was dangerous in its general descriptions of the cladding systems
01:47:25 descriptions of the cladding systems built up for pendleton spruce because it masks the fact that acm with a pe core was being used as the cladding with k-15 as the insulation product when you didn't know that i would agree that
01:47:38 you didn't know that i would agree that it's misleading yes
01:47:42 yes do you accept that you had the means to know that no the pendleton spruce although a case study
01:47:50 study was k15 together with an acm with a pe core
01:47:54 core me personally yes no i don't
01:48:08 uh now if we go actually i could i think i can take you to this reference because i've just been assisted with it very helpfully but if we go back to the um statement from deborah french
01:48:21 met3053162 and go please to page 31 paragraph 96.
01:48:34 uh we can see uh that she's covering a topic there genius facades and simcoe uh and uh if you um go down about uh
01:48:47 um go down about uh just above halfway down the screen about a third of the way through the paragraph she's talking about uh reyno bond and genius being a customer of reyna bond
01:48:58 genius being a customer of reyna bond customer of arconic in the uk and she says
01:49:01 says one of those projects was called pendleton which was a large project in manchester or salford involving three buildings
01:49:07 buildings it was an unusual design which i think incorporated both rivet and cassette systems
01:49:11 systems the product supplied was rayna bond p e i gave a
01:49:14 i gave a presentation to simcoe on this project in around may 2011 which included reference to both the bba certificate and to the product having both uk and european bar certificates
01:49:25 european bar certificates um now on the basis of that she's correct about that would you accept that um the cladding used at pendleton including pendleton spruce was rainer bond four millimeters
01:49:36 bond four millimeters uh pe called acm i would i would agree that that is the product that was supplied the the piece that i'm missing is i'm
01:49:47 the the piece that i'm missing is i'm not
01:49:48 not agreeing with the fact that that is necessarily what kingspan signed off on that's what i can't consolidate in my mind i can see that it was supplied
01:49:59 mind i can see that it was supplied i still haven't seen anything that i need to go back and see what kingspan have said
01:50:04 have said that they're signing off as the system well i showed you the letter sent by dan ball on the 14th of 2014 as what it was the king's band was sanctioning and signing off on which attached the query form which
01:50:15 which attached the query form which identified four millimeters rhaeny bond
01:50:19 well i put all the pieces together for you i'm not sure i can do much more do you accept as a fact that at pendleton spruce k-15 was used with
01:50:31 pendleton spruce k-15 was used with acm the pe corps supplied by our colleague
01:50:35 colleague under the rhinobond brand as we've seen and that was something signed off on by dan ball
01:50:40 dan ball of kingspan in august 2014. i can't agree with that now i can agree that the rayna bond pe appears to have been supplied and that k15 was also installed
01:50:57 uh it's true isn't it as a fact that as at the date of the grenfell tower of fire k-15 had never in fact as sold past
01:51:09 k-15 had never in fact as sold past even a full system test on the bs8414 with any type of acm as the panel
01:51:19 no i could agree i don't ever tested it with an acm
01:51:25 mr chairman is this a convenient moment for a break yes i think it is well mr burnley i said we'd have a break part way through the morning i think we'll take it now roughly halfway through the morning's evidence
01:51:36 through the morning's evidence uh we'll come back please at five past 12 and as with everybody else i have to ask you
01:51:43 ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right yeah i understand thanks very much we'll see you
01:52:00 later
02:05:44 welcome back everyone we're going to continue hearing from mr burnley so i'll just check that mr burnley can see me and hear me clearly mr burnley i hope you can i can yes thank you very much and i take
02:05:56 i can yes thank you very much and i take it you're ready to carry on i am thank you very much then mr miller when you're ready yes mr burnley um by 2016 it's right isn't it that adrian parchetta had become the head of
02:06:08 parchetta had become the head of technical and marketing and he became he took that role in that's correct yes now i want to ask you about a bs 8414 test a full system test
02:06:19 8414 test a full system test that adrian pogita and members of the technical team were undertaking uh in respect of the low lambda solstice blown version of phenolic foam
02:06:30 solstice blown version of phenolic foam which was called k-115 do you remember that
02:06:35 uh i remember the product yes right do you remember how if at all k115 differed from the solstice blend k15
02:06:46 differed from the solstice blend k15 tested in 2014.
02:06:50 i don't know how it differed i would have assumed it was similar i guess right do you know how it differed to the 100 salts displaying product that kingspan had wanted to produce but were unable to produce
02:07:04 let's go to kin407492 please
02:07:19 kin407492
02:07:23 this is an email to you among others if you look down a third of the way down the screen
02:07:34 the screen uh from adrian pogetta dated the 9th of december 2016. and the title of it is k115 8414 test
02:07:48 and he says guys following the latest eight four one four part one for k-115 we observed sustained flaming at the top of the rig so you knew it would be a
02:08:00 of the rig so you knew it would be a fail
02:08:02 fail we have now received the tc data and it's not looking good the insulation layer saw temperatures of 900 degrees i have attached the data from the test and the report from the previous test for comparison
02:08:13 for comparison and he then goes on if you can see below that to draw some comparisons between the test in 2005
02:08:21 2005 and the test in 2016. and at the bullet points um he says level one initial thoughts the level level one external thermocouple seems
02:08:32 level one external thermocouple seems fairly consistent although one thermocouple spiked over 1000 degrees in the 2016 test level two external thermocouple didn't exceed 500 degrees for the whole
02:08:43 didn't exceed 500 degrees for the whole duration in the 20 in the 2005 test in the 2016 test four of the thermocouples exceeded this with one rising as high as 870 degrees level two cavity thermocouple didn't
02:08:55 level two cavity thermocouple didn't exceed 400 degrees in the 2005 test in the 2016 test nearly all the thermocouples exceeded this with sunrising as high as 1000 degrees level 2 insulation thermocouple didn't exceed 400 degrees
02:09:06 thermocouple didn't exceed 400 degrees in 2005 tests in 2016 test nearly all the thermocouples exceeded this with sunrising as high as 900 degrees we may just have scraped the 15-minute criteria for br br135
02:09:18 criteria for br br135 all level two thermocouples seem to hit 600 degrees around 900 seconds the only known difference the only known difference from part one from first part one is obviously the
02:09:30 from first part one is obviously the insulation and the fire barriers original had stainless steel 1.5 to 2 millimeter thick vented barriers which were removed from the market as they did not comply with today's performance requirements so we
02:09:41 performance requirements so we effectively replaced them with better performing ones from siderise mf bats with intimes and strip from the observations the k-115 seemed to continue to burn for longer after the
02:09:53 to continue to burn for longer after the crib was extinguished compared to previous tests and completely disintegrated all the way to the top of the main wall the wing wall had to be extinguished there were several very loud pops stroke bangs stroke
02:10:06 very loud pops stroke bangs stroke pocking noises during the test not heard before
02:10:10 before if you could go the page the cladding and insulation came away from the wall all the way to the top on the front face unlike the first test declining came away from the wall all the way to the top of the front phase unlike the first test presumably
02:10:22 unlike the first test presumably because of the increased temperature and then he says this i have a concern that we just do not know really do do do not really know what product was tested in the first test 10 years
02:10:34 was tested in the first test 10 years ago
02:10:34 ago so i would like to compare the performance of k115 against k15 as it is today in a known test one option is to replicate the above part one test with k-15
02:10:47 above part one test with k-15 which will give best direct comparison but that leaves us hoping it is worse than k115
02:10:53 than k115 and we will then have two failed tests in which to convince the bre to assess k115 based on it's not as bad question mark i read a lot of that to
02:11:04 question mark i read a lot of that to you mr burnley um do you accept as a very general point that at this point so this is december um in 2016
02:11:15 um in 2016 um mr partiter was keeping you among others
02:11:19 others up to date and in some detail with the progress
02:11:22 progress of testing k-115 and t and k-15 and the issues that were facing the technical team in respect of those tests
02:11:33 team in respect of those tests um well if you look at the you go back to the previous page i mean i'm actually copied on the email so he's updating a number of people and he's sending it to me for information yes well did you read this email when you
02:11:45 well did you read this email when you received it do you think i i would it would have been like that i would have scam scan read it yes right even from the scan red was it read was it would it not have been or was it not clear to you that what was
02:11:56 or was it not clear to you that what was tested in 2005 was not being sold in 2016.
02:12:05 um it was but i hadn't realized that we were relying on the 2005 test to sell the product today or at that date
02:12:14 i thought it was just referring to a test that they had done they were comparing test results what test
02:12:21 test did you think kingspan were relying on to sell the product as it was in late 2016 a valid one well
02:12:32 a valid one well uh yes which one when date yeah i can't answer that no no so from that answer just now do we take it that you
02:12:45 answer just now do we take it that you you actually simply assumed that kingspan was selling k15
02:12:50 k15 into the market in late 2016 on the basis of a valid test but didn't know which it was or when it had been undertaken yeah i i had no reason to doubt anything that i
02:13:01 i had no reason to doubt anything that i was being
02:13:01 was being told it was other people's responsibility and i assumed that it was correct
02:13:07 correct let's um see how we go with the next few questions what's the plan here to subject
02:13:11 subject a standard k-15 to the same part one test that
02:13:14 test that that k-115 uh had been subjected to and performed so badly in
02:13:21 badly in in the hope that k-15 would perform worse and then could to be able to persuade the bre that k-115 was better in some way um i i know you're referring
02:13:33 in some way um i i know you're referring to something that was said in that email i don't know that you probably have to ask mr pardon
02:13:38 do you know what the possible justification was for hoping that k-15 would perform worse than this very poor test performance for k115
02:13:49 k115 no i don't i mean mark my understanding from the 115 testing was this was a new development product that we were wanting to bring to market in which we knew we would have to have a an eight four
02:14:02 we would have to have a an eight four one four
02:14:03 one four pass so i was linking this work to trying to bring that product to market and nothing else since the k-15 being sold in 2016 wasn't the same as the k-15 tested in
02:14:14 wasn't the same as the k-15 tested in may 2005
02:14:15 may 2005 are you able to explain how any extrapolation from the 2005 test could be used to draw any conclusions about a different product whether it was k-115 or the k-15 being
02:14:27 whether it was k-115 or the k-15 being sold in 2016. absolutely not i think i can you can see from my limited technical knowledge i wouldn't even attempt to do that now if we go to the top of the email chain you'll see that you
02:14:40 chain you'll see that you send this email on
02:14:45 get back to the email chain please i saw it i forwarded it to peter wilson indeed uh the next day 10th of december and you say hi peter quite some detail attached there is a call with the bre
02:14:56 attached there is a call with the bre next week to discuss the results after that we will arrange to call to discuss the next steps um am i right in thinking that that would indicate that you had read this uh email if not word by word
02:15:10 uh email if not word by word and digested it word by word then and then taken it in sufficiently to understand what it was talking about
02:15:18 well i think i'm saying to peter there's a lot of detail there i'm not saying whether i understand it or not but i'm forwarding it to peter because hey i thought he'd be interested in b i probably thought he'd understand it more than i did why is
02:15:30 understand it more than i did why is that
02:15:31 that why would he understand it more than you well because he'd been around i mean he'd done the job before me as md of the uk
02:15:40 uk and he'd certainly been around since the product was originally developed uh what was your role in general in the fire testing of k115 at this time my role in the fire testing i have no
02:15:52 my role in the fire testing i have no role in the fire testing i see and did was there a call with the bre the following week do you remember there may well have been i wouldn't have been involved in that
02:16:03 i wouldn't have been involved in that call i think i'm referring to i mean it's quite likely that i've spoke i mean i'm i guess i'm guessing i'm assuming i've spoken to adrian he's told me about the email he sent me
02:16:14 email he sent me he said that they've arranged a call with the bre so i'm updating peter saying
02:16:18 saying here's an email there's some information in this um i believe there's a call with the bre
02:16:23 the bre after that the broader group will arrange a call to discuss the next steps that approximately what i've said yes i see
02:16:30 see and was there a call in which you discussed the next steps
02:16:37 i don't remember there may have been one that i wasn't involved in but i don't i don't recall that actually you remember what peter wilson did
02:16:49 you remember what peter wilson did in response to this email
02:16:53 no did you have a discussion with peter wilson about the contents of this email not specifically now
02:17:07 did peter to your knowledge did peter wilson know that kingspan was attempting to extrapolate data from a test that was undertaken with a different product from the product being sold on
02:17:18 product from the product being sold on the market at the time i mean i don't know i mean peter was my boss so it was within his rights to ring any of my team or any of their teams to ask his own questions so i i
02:17:29 teams to ask his own questions so i i don't know whether he did that or not do you know what the result of the ultimate result of all the testing of k115 was from the perspective i mentioned before
02:17:41 from the perspective i mentioned before we were trying to bring this product to market and i think my understanding was we said well we can't we can't take k115 to market yet it's not ready
02:17:51 was it ever released to the market do you know 115 but not while i was there no
02:18:01 to your knowledge was the k-15 which was being which was being sold to the market changed significantly whilst you were employed during your time at uh drinks not that
02:18:13 during your time at uh drinks not that i'm aware of now i'd like to ask you one of your questions about class naught and did you know that both before and during your time at kingspan kingston claimed that k-15 uh had
02:18:26 kingston claimed that k-15 uh had achieved class naught um i was told that it had achieved class naught yes who told you that
02:18:39 who told you that i'm not entirely sure i mean it could have been one of a number of people those people between tony miller john garbert
02:18:47 garbert adrian palgetta
02:18:51 in what context do you remember being told
02:18:54 told that k-15 had achieved class north i don't remember what did class naught mean to you at the time you were told that k-15 had achieved it
02:19:06 achieved it it didn't mean anything it was probably part of a
02:19:10 part of a series of information i was given so it was clearly being used as part of the specification for for k-15 did you yourself ever either at the time you joined or later undertake any
02:19:22 you joined or later undertake any uh investigations uh of whether the claim that k15 had achieved class naught that was underpinned by any test data i
02:19:33 that was underpinned by any test data i don't know that wasn't my responsibility so i had no reason to are you ever made aware of any continuing problems in relation to k-15 achieving class naught
02:19:46 i don't know whether i'm getting confused i think subsequent to i can't remember the exact time but i've seen emails i think where adrian maybe tells me there's a problem
02:19:58 there's a problem i can't recall exactly were you made aware at any stage of the fact that fire retardants were being added to k-15 in order to help it
02:20:09 order to help it achieve class naught no not that i recall
02:20:13 recall were you made aware of king span relying on test reports for class naught which were in fact undertaken on research and development products no i don't believe so were you aware of
02:20:24 no i don't believe so were you aware of the practice of kingspan testing the foil phaser only uh the foil phaser of the product only and then claiming class naught for the entire product
02:20:35 the entire product i think back when i was the the managing director not but i think either through hearing or reading evidence i've read that they were testing it separately were you ever aware did you ever hear when you
02:20:46 ever aware did you ever hear when you were at kingspan a view expressed that in england for a composite product you only had to test the foil face itself under the relevant british
02:20:58 itself under the relevant british standards in g-class north i don't believe so
02:21:10 i'd like to show you an email chain that you were not copied in on uh but but you may be able to help us with
02:21:24 kin40s4168
02:21:31 it's a long email chain involving members of the technical team and adrian partridge as well um from the 27th of
02:21:38 27th of june 2016. but that's at the top of the screen the date on which the chain ends uh and the subject matter and i will summarize
02:21:49 the subject matter and i will summarize it
02:21:50 it is that k15 can't achieve class naught in some cases the core has achieved class two
02:21:56 class two but the participants in this email discussion appear to agree that as the foil facer can achieve class naught then class naught will be claimed for the entire product i've summarized the gist of of the discussion i hope accurately
02:22:10 if you go if you go to the second email down
02:22:14 down you can see that there's an email from aaron chalmers uh dated the 27th of june 2016 to dan ball adrian parjita adrian brazier and others including reshma rudiment
02:22:27 and others including reshma rudiment and he says yeah does seem a bit of a cheat
02:22:31 cheat though doesn't it claiming class north for just a face a test when you said it's meant to be a product as placed on the market but like everything in adb it depends on who is interpreting the wording
02:22:42 interpreting the wording like the whole k15 issue and whether filler material includes the cladding if a fire engineer believes the core will affect the facing performance though should we be claiming class naught based off face of performance alone
02:22:53 alone if 40 millimeter k15 then fails to get class naught and above this we can see that reshma rudiment
02:23:02 rudiment responds to aaron chandler's and says perhaps it would be better if you had a meeting to discuss this matter verbally uh you're not copied in on this email chain uh
02:23:13 chain uh but d did you see it at the time did somebody send it on to you do you think
02:23:20 i don't recall seeing it um
02:23:25 so no i don't think so did you ever get involved in a a discussion an oral discussion with mr pargeter or mr ball or indeed mr
02:23:38 with mr pargeter or mr ball or indeed mr chalmers
02:23:39 chalmers about claiming class north for the facer i don't think so did did adrian partiter ever raise with you this bit of a cheat
02:23:50 ever raise with you this bit of a cheat practice or the approach being proposed by kingspan to claiming class naught for the whole product k15 based only on a test on the face up i don't recall it
02:24:06 could we go please to kin40s 7445
02:24:18 uh now this is a an instant messenger chat between two of your technical team peter moss and aaron chalmers uh on the 9th of november 2016
02:24:30 uh on the 9th of november 2016 and we saw it in a bit more detail when we were
02:24:33 we were uh asking mr partiter about this in december
02:24:37 december i'm not going to read it all out to you again i just want to show you a part of it
02:24:41 it if we go to line 24
02:24:47 uh so it's about looking at your screen it's about uh uh halfway down
02:25:01 uh you can see that pete moss at 1633 says and if we can have it expanded thank you
02:25:07 thank you at 1633 so aaron chalmers says 1633 doesn't actually get class naught when we test the whole product product though lol pete moss what we lied
02:25:19 though lol pete moss what we lied question mark honest opinion now dw aaron chalmers yeah tested k15 as a whole got class one well hey lol pete moss way product
02:25:30 well hey lol pete moss way product scrap it
02:25:31 scrap it al aaron chalmers but england wales is worded in such a way that it quotes implies
02:25:35 implies uh that facing can give you class naught scotland has written better therefore our product is not class naught in scotland haha but then tell anyone that now just pausing there that is what your
02:25:47 now just pausing there that is what your own technical team thought of the bit of a cheat did you know any of this yourself no i didn't
02:25:56 if we go to the top of page two of this communication uh it starts off way look
02:26:07 communication uh it starts off way look who knows their aaron chalmers yeah all lies mate peter moss just tickling your balls mate aaron chalmers so it's class one on k seven k 12 eight dan glock cast two i'm retesting to hope
02:26:20 dan glock cast two i'm retesting to hope uh fire performance kingspan call them k7 pitch roof ball is class one aaron chalmers balls all we do is lie in here
02:26:27 here peter moss i and then it goes on to something more personal now again my question is and obviously these messages were never intended to see the light of day but when mr
02:26:38 see the light of day but when mr chalmers says all we do is lie in here um do you agree that that was an eloquent
02:26:44 eloquent summary of kingspan's culture at the time
02:26:49 time i mean first of all i would say it's a very disappointing exchange um but no i don't i do not agree that all we do is lie absolutely not now you had been managing director
02:27:00 director for some two and a half years by this point so this is happening on your watch uh do you how can you account for allowing uh what is going on and being described by
02:27:12 what is going on and being described by these messages to occur
02:27:17 to occur well first of all you know i wasn't aware of those messages and as i've said it's a very disappointing exchange you accept that a culture of lying about fire safety of products is particularly serious
02:27:29 of products is particularly serious because you're taking risks with people's lives and the safety of their homes i do agree that a culture of lying is dangerous but i don't agree that that was what was evident at kingspan
02:27:44 evident at kingspan so are you saying that notwithstanding the
02:27:48 the tone and content of this exchange um robust uh and rustic though it may have been you were completely
02:27:59 were completely unaware that this kind of thing was going on within your technical team absolutely and uh what is your reaction to seeing this document
02:28:11 document it's as i said it's incredibly disappointing and having seen it i would want to do something about it
02:28:17 yes so you but you reject do you my suggestion that there was a culture of lying and dishonesty within kingston even during your time i do
02:28:29 even during your time i do are you telling the inquiry that the culture at kingdom absolutely
02:28:36 right uh immediately after you joined kingspan in 2014 you were made aware of certain difficulties about k-15 uh that had grown up as between the nhbc on the one hand and
02:28:48 between the nhbc on the one hand and king spin on the other that's right i think isn't it yeah it is late i think it was late in 2014 i started to be made aware yes uh well uh let's see kin30s10729
02:29:07 now this is an email to you
02:29:24 okay in three zeros one zero seven two nine
02:29:30 oh yes here it comes and uh it's from richard bromwich on the 20th of june 2014
02:29:43 on the 20th of june 2014 uh and he says to you fyi as discussed and then beneath that there's an email from steve evans at nhbc to richard bromwich copied
02:29:54 evans at nhbc to richard bromwich copied to
02:29:54 to others about king's bank a15 with high importance and june 2014 20th of june 2014 you i think it only
02:30:07 20th of june 2014 you i think it only just joined didn't you that's correct yes
02:30:11 and if you look at the email which is being sent on to you by richard bromwich the steve evans 16th of june email he says uh dear richard it's richard bromage
02:30:22 uh dear richard it's richard bromage further to the recent discussions between kingspan and nhbc i'd be grateful
02:30:26 grateful if you could provide me with an update on the use of kingspan k-15 on buildings with a height exceeding 18 meters as a matter of urgency the latest version of the bba certificate extracted below
02:30:38 certificate extracted below makes it clear that only a construction similar to that tested can be considered as meeting the requirements bs 8414 part 1. k-15 backed directly onto a masonry wall it is noted that the additional wording
02:30:49 it is noted that the additional wording of the earlier bba certificate whereby advice on alternative constructions could be sought from kingspan
02:30:56 kingspan has now been removed nhbc has not been provided with anything further that is based on bs 8414 part one to prove performance from an accredited independent testing
02:31:07 independent testing in accordance with br135 recommendations as such as a building control body nhbc building control services is is in a difficult situation
02:31:18 difficult situation whilst we do not wish to prejudice the construction of a large number of tall buildings
02:31:22 buildings in which with k-15 is being used as an incident
02:31:26 incident we do not have any suitable basis under regulation seven for the acceptance of the external envelope design where it moves away from the construction used to compile the bba certificate
02:31:37 certificate and then he says in bold and in red therefore i must advise you that unless additional tests evidence supporting the use of k-15 in constructions which differ from the bs-8414 part one test
02:31:49 bs-8414 part one test can be provided before 30th of june 2014.
02:31:53 2014. nhpc building control services will need to reconsider its acceptance of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters as fit for purpose
02:32:02 purpose now having read all of that to you to prompt your recollection did you have any discussion with mr bromwich
02:32:10 bromwich about the subject of this email
02:32:14 um you know i'm thinking that the reason he forwarded this email is probably because this was discussed between myself and tony milica because that's what would suggest from the
02:32:26 that's what would suggest from the the way he forwards it indeed do you remember
02:32:30 remember the contents of that discussion no i don't i mean i think i was just over two weeks into the company so this was probably one of a number of matters around the business that i was being made aware of
02:32:41 that i was being made aware of can we take it that by this very early stage
02:32:45 stage as you say a couple of weeks into your career at kingspan you were well aware that k-15 was being used above 18 meters in external wall construction systems
02:32:56 in external wall construction systems which differed from uh the system that had been tested under the bs-8414 test referred to no i hadn't understood that no
02:33:11 i can't say that i didn't know i mean i can see that it says it there but i the absolute relevance and importance i hadn't
02:33:18 hadn't it probably hadn't depended dropped when you got this email from uh richard and bromwich what did you do
02:33:31 i mean i don't recall i i i would imagine i had i would have asked him and tony are you dealing with it do you need any help or support from me and i would think they would have
02:33:42 and i would think they would have politely told me that they didn't given that i'd been there two weeks and you know probably couldn't have been much help
02:33:49 much help did it strike you at the time that what the nhbc was saying was a matter of extreme importance to kingspan and indeed to the wider
02:34:00 to kingspan and indeed to the wider public
02:34:01 public well i could see it was very important to nhbc because of the way that the email was written yes did it concern you uh that the additional test evidence that
02:34:12 that the additional test evidence that they were seeking was lacking um it became a concern and that's part of the reason i i sort of insisted in being involved and going to meet the nhpc
02:34:23 going to meet the nhpc later in the year um i'm not entirely sure
02:34:27 sure at that stage of that june that you know it was as clear as it probably became
02:34:35 became did you know from this email that even if you didn't know much else that all that they pass under a test uh conducted
02:34:46 under a test uh conducted in accordance with bs8414 part one would allow you to do is to use the insulation product only in exactly the same wall build up as that which had been tested
02:35:02 i mean it sounds very logical to say that i don't know whether i i mean i'm having to remember and i can't remember but i mean my engineering background you you'd expect
02:35:13 engineering background you you'd expect that to be likely yes yes and therefore uh you would have realized this is right that any divergence from the system has tested would not be covered by the test and would not comply with the building
02:35:24 would not comply with the building regulations i would i wouldn't have been able to join that up to the building regulations no
02:35:30 no all right but leaving aside the building regulations any test configuration or design or ingredients components that differed from the system as tested would not be
02:35:41 from the system as tested would not be covered by the test no that's yeah that sounds very logical yes
02:35:52 when you saw this email would i be writing thinking that you you saw this as bad news from kingspan's point of view because you only had test results from 2005.
02:36:04 2005. no i didn't i think the way i probably would have interpreted it is it was something that was clearly very important and being very new to the company
02:36:12 company i was questioning whether it was something that i needed to get involved with immediately right and you told us before i think that you spoke to tony miller chap about it and possibly richard
02:36:22 richard bromwich um how did you take this concern forward the concern that the nhp had expressed in this email again i can't call exactly but it would
02:36:34 again i can't call exactly but it would seem logical in the way that i think i work i would have asked them if they needed any specific help or if they felt that they were going to be able to i mean it was in their area of responsibility so i said do you need any help from me or
02:36:46 i said do you need any help from me or are you okay to go on and and try and resolve this issue richard bromwich had uh escalated it so to speak to you in his 20th of june email haven't you
02:36:58 is it you referred that's the one that you showed me yes the one fyi has discussed when he attaches steve evans's email to richard bromwich richard branch sends it on to you so he was putting this wasn't he in in your sphere of responsibility
02:37:12 your sphere of responsibility yeah i think you would refer to that as escalation that's confirming a conversation that we've had and probably providing more background information
02:37:21 all right well forget escalation do you accept that richard bromwich was placing this the topic to use a neutral word the subject of the email in your sphere
02:37:33 the subject of the email in your sphere of responsibility
02:37:37 he's he's placing it in my sphere of knowledge there's no request for action in the email and since the the work and what had been the interactions between the nhbc at that point were
02:37:48 that point were being handled by richard bromwich and his team and tony milichap and his team then it was being brought to my attention
02:37:56 attention did you take any steps after 20th of june 2014 to monitor or supervise
02:38:04 supervise what tony miller chap and richard bromwich were doing about the additional test data requested by the nhvc
02:38:15 by the nhvc well i'm pretty sure that i would continue to ask them if they were making progress in resolving the problems and issues that existed
02:38:24 do you have any specific recollection of doing so
02:38:28 doing so well i would imagine i i'm trying to remember because in the preparation before christmas i did look at some notes of meetings and things so i would have thought it would have been on meetings when it was being discussed or just for updates on what progress we
02:38:40 just for updates on what progress we were making
02:38:46 what would the commercial consequences have been for kingspan had the nhbc reconsidered their acceptance of k-15
02:38:59 well in terms of commercial consequences i don't think we would have ever done a calculation to see what the commercial consequences were
02:39:06 were i mean it would have it would have meant that k-15s use in that application was was being severely questioned and what would the commercial consequences even in outline have been for kingston
02:39:18 even in outline have been for kingston had that happen well it's very likely that people would have stopped using the product and the commercial consequences of that
02:39:29 i'm not sure i mean we wouldn't have sold the product right that would have happened
02:39:33 happened i mean this was one of 30 or 40 products so it wasn't going to the company wouldn't have shut down yeah it would have been it was you know uh yeah it would have
02:39:44 it was you know uh yeah it would have been a problem but it was would have worked to solve the problem can we go to kin30s eight sorry four zeros eight eight four one please k i n four zeros eight eight four one
02:40:08 now this is an email uh from iva meredith
02:40:11 meredith to uh you among others as well as tony miller chap and gwyn davis and malcolm rochefort and um it's dated the 21st of august of
02:40:24 and um it's dated the 21st of august of 2014
02:40:25 2014 and the subject is comment required by monday 5 p.m please k15 update there's an attachment uh which is uh bca gn at
02:40:39 uh bca gn at buttons nate 18. and he says as the key stakeholders for the current cool phone k15
02:40:44 k15 fire certification issues i have taken five
02:40:47 five to update you all on the current situation since our last meeting a month ago
02:40:52 ago that month ago would have been something about the 20th 21st of july uh just pausing there do you recall being
02:41:00 being at a meeting with either meredith to discuss k-15 and the nhbc in mid-july i don't recall it no and he goes on uh
02:41:14 and he goes on uh i have limited the speculation of this email as there are a couple of questions in red i would like feedback stroke agreement on once these issues are clarified i will send a wider update
02:41:24 update one nhbc bca a meeting has been held with the nhbc whom are still pushing for someone to provide job-specific test data they are still sanctioning the use of k-15 as long as they get a bespoke
02:41:37 k-15 as long as they get a bespoke letter off kil which technical products are turning around in 48 hours on receipt of the drawings and confirmation of the fire barrier dimensions they've also given us an extra three months to get some further assessments
02:41:48 months to get some further assessments on the test data to meet their needs
02:41:52 we've also requested two weeks notification if they decide to change their stance steve evans was also involved in the bca publication attached which has been driven by them following the confusion and
02:42:03 following the confusion and interpretation of our high-rise regulations i've highlighted some parts of this document as it clearly singles out polyurethane is not being suitable but doesn't mention pf we should consider whether this would be
02:42:14 we should consider whether this would be a document we would ever consider referencing for commercial reasons
02:42:20 reasons now just pausing there were you as managing director concerned that kingston was sending out bespoke letters on a 48-hour turnaround confirming the
02:42:31 on a 48-hour turnaround confirming the use
02:42:31 use of k-15
02:42:35 no i wouldn't say i was concerned i was aware that it was being done and the people in the technical teams were
02:42:43 were comfortable with what you know what they were doing did you ask yourself or them how it was that
02:42:50 that the technical team could sanction the use of k-15 in build-ups which were different from the build-up that had been tested
02:43:02 been tested i didn't know why i don't know i didn't it wasn't something that came to my mind to ask
02:43:13 something that came to my mind to ask them
02:43:16 again i mean you know this was i was working with people who i had no no reason to doubt their integrity and i was relying on their technical knowledge
02:43:30 were you aware that
02:43:35 the nhbc had been asking for further test data
02:43:39 test data from 2013. well i think this is august 2014 this is probably when i was starting to hear that
02:43:48 that this had been going on for some time um and as i subsequently found out i mean the work that at the nhpc were putting into this was was good because they were trying to add
02:43:59 was good because they were trying to add clarity
02:44:00 clarity to some very difficult to interpret parts of the building regulations
02:44:06 do you remember uh the the nhbc finally got uh i would say exasperated is the word i might choose but you might get a word with a lack of evidence from kingspan about the use of k-15 over
02:44:17 kingspan about the use of k-15 over 18 meters no i think exasperated is exactly the word um and and i probably shared it because i was you know as i was getting more involved between
02:44:28 as i was getting more involved between around july august and i think when i first went to meet them um you could sense their frustration and that's why i was very keen because because i was clearly we weren't
02:44:39 because because i was clearly we weren't doing something that they wanted and i wanted to hear it for myself and a let them know that i was taking it seriously and then b made sure make sure that we got it sorted out for them yes now let's go to nhb uh five zeros nine
02:44:52 nhb uh five zeros nine two two please
02:45:12 this is a letter from the nhbc addressed to tony milichap on the fifth of february 2015 and he says um i refer to the progress
02:45:25 and he says um i refer to the progress of discussions concerning this product which have been ongoing since december 2013 which i recently discussed with our standards and technical manager graham perry or and sales area technical manager steve evans he's the same steve evans uh as we
02:45:38 evans he's the same steve evans uh as we saw
02:45:39 saw uh sending the email of the 16th of june the year before
02:45:45 now i'll read it to you it's quite a longish document but i'll just read you the key parts of it i should just say before i do that this is this a letter that you saw at the time do you think
02:45:56 that you saw at the time do you think say february 2015 yeah i mean i i don't recall seeing it but i i'm pretty sure i would have seen it um in the second paragraph he says kingston
02:46:07 in the second paragraph he says kingston market k-15 rain screen board with the claim that it quotes has been successfully tested to bs 8414 2002 and can meet the criteria within br 135 which makes it acceptable for use above
02:46:19 which makes it acceptable for use above 18 meters this wording appears on the front page of the k15 product literature dated march 2011 which is on your website being aware that the current bba certificate for the k-15 product dated
02:46:31 certificate for the k-15 product dated december 2013 does not provide the necessary evidence to fully support this claim
02:46:36 claim we've been requesting evidence from kingspan since early 2014 we're disappointed that despite commitments from kingspan to engage fire engineer expertise or carry out substantial additional testing
02:46:48 substantial additional testing to demonstrate that alternative typical wall buildups are acceptable to br 135 to date none of this has come to fruition and no evidence has been provided to us that demonstrates that k-15 can be used
02:46:59 that demonstrates that k-15 can be used in facades over 18 meters in any other configuration than that detailed in the current bba certificate i'm just pausing there it's is it correct factually or was it
02:47:11 it's is it correct factually or was it correct factually for the nhbc to say uh that they had not been provided with the additional test evidence uh which they have been asking for
02:47:22 they have been asking for which you saw in june the previous year
02:47:27 i i don't know that is factually correct you'd have to ask the hpc well i'm asking you because you said you said that you were um you were you knew that they were exasperated by the lack of
02:47:39 exasperated by the lack of test evidence i wanted to put it right and summarizing your evidence just a moment ago can you think of any additional test evidence that had been generated by kingspan
02:47:50 generated by kingspan and provided to the nhbc between uh june or august 2014 and early february 2015.
02:48:03 and early february 2015. not that i can remember i mean this was around the period where i was starting to get involved in meetings with them and i think it's also around a period where tony milicep left the business and adrian got more involved but but as tony
02:48:16 adrian got more involved but but as tony was leaving and as adrian was coming in the one thing that i had said and we'd all agreed was we we have to the only way of moving forward with this is to do more testing right so do we take it from that that
02:48:29 right so do we take it from that that you can't
02:48:29 you can't or don't uh disagree uh with what is being said by the nhbc
02:48:38 the nhbc in this paragraph but never i wouldn't disagree with it no thank you then it goes on the absence of evidence from kingston means we will soon be faced with with having to decline to accept
02:48:49 with having to decline to accept buildings which are currently under construction and have specified the k-15 product in facades above 18 meters for risk management purposes as a provider of defects liability insurance and in many cases also as the approved
02:49:01 and in many cases also as the approved inspector unless the builders concerned can provide evidence themselves in accordance with bca guidance note 18 use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings
02:49:12 residential buildings copy enclosed the absence of evidence also means we now have to advise builders registering new developments with us that if they specify the k-15 product for use in facades above 18 meters
02:49:22 meters they will have to provide this evidence themselves in accordance with bca guidance note 18 preparing our communications now do you remember what the response
02:49:33 now do you remember what the response the immediate response from kingspan was to this letter
02:49:42 um i know that my response was i need to go and see them i remember telling tony look i want to i don't know specifically about this letter but i remember at the time i was going i need to go and see them i mean i shared there
02:49:53 to go and see them i mean i shared there as you used the word exasperation i was exasperated because i didn't understand why we were failing to provide them with information that they found useful if you scroll down to the page two of this letter you'll see that
02:50:04 page two of this letter you'll see that it's signed by ian davis operations director
02:50:08 director and in the last paragraph he says that he's copied it to gene murtagh in the hope that he can assist uh and look forward to your earlier response um if we go to kin408283 next please
02:50:24 we can see what the response from kingsfan
02:50:34 was
02:50:38 uh it's a letter from fennick elliott you are solicitors aren't they they are yes yeah and it's dated the 13th of february 2015.
02:50:49 13th of february 2015. written to ian davis at nhbc uh we act for kingspan insulation limited
02:50:57 limited we refer to the above matter and in particular to your your letter to our client dated 5th of february 2015. so just help me was this kingspan's
02:51:09 so just help me was this kingspan's written response first written response to mr davis's letter of the 5th of february i don't know if this was the first response
02:51:20 response can you remember whether there was any discussion between either you and mr davis or anybody else at kingston and the nhbc before this solicitor's letter was sent to the nhpc
02:51:32 sent to the nhpc i don't know but i remember when i was preparing at the end of last year i did see an email that i don't think i was copied on until the end but i think this letter was drafted up between tony miller chap and
02:51:43 drafted up between tony miller chap and peter wilson
02:51:49 was it you who decided that the response to the nhbc's letter of the fifth of february
02:51:54 february was to come from your solicitors no do you know whose idea that was i think it was peter's peter peter wilson
02:52:06 peter peter wilson did you sign off on this letter no i don't think i saw it until it actually was on it would god you know they could have been sent i think i was then copied on it
02:52:16 can you explain what it was that the nhbc was doing that justified this hostile reaction from kingspan rather than a measured response from management seeking to allay the nhbc's
02:52:27 management seeking to allay the nhbc's concerns
02:52:29 concerns no i think they were exasperated with the lack of information that had been forthcoming and i was i was desperately trying to engage with them to fully understand what that was and make sure we put it right but forgive me mr
02:52:41 put it right but forgive me mr burnley but threatening to sue them as your first reaction in response to a a letter which would come from an exaster exasperated counterparty was not exactly
02:52:51 exactly a way in which you were going to be able to
02:52:54 to engage with them and fully understand what it was to put it right was it no i don't think it particularly was but i think following this we did manage to get together and find some common ground yes i'm just
02:53:06 find some common ground yes i'm just interested in your first reaction can you explain why it was that kingspan's first reaction instead of engaging constructively with the nhbc to solve the problem mr threatened to sue them
02:53:17 them i can't explain that no no can you explain why this wasn't your idea that's somebody else's idea
02:53:28 well i can't explain it no but i mean peter wilson was in a position where if that's how he wanted to react then i couldn't have done much about it when you saw this letter and
02:53:39 you saw this letter and seen that peter wilson uh it appears without your knowledge had uh instructed fennick elliot to send a letter before action because that's that is what this is when you saw that
02:53:50 that is what this is when you saw that what did you do i can't remember exactly what i did but i know i know that i was very keen to get to see them because i wanted to try and resolve it face to face and again understand their exasperation now
02:54:03 again understand their exasperation now at this point as you told us uh you you agree that they were exasperated you agree that that's precisely the right word to use and you can see that there that there
02:54:15 and you can see that there that there had been no additional testing done between the june of 2014 and the february of 2015 to allay their concerns why was kingspan continuing to sell
02:54:28 why was kingspan continuing to sell k-15 at all during this period as opposed to suspending it pending further investigation
02:54:36 because the belief within kingspan was it could still be used but the belief in the nhbc was that that might not be right um isn't that right
02:54:49 um isn't that right they were doubting that there was sufficient evidence yes and given that they were doubting that there was sufficient evidence and given that you hadn't done any additional testing uh what was the basis on which you you
02:55:00 uh what was the basis on which you you could you could continue to market and sell k-15 because they were willing to engage in conversations about how we could move forward i mean they'd signed off on
02:55:11 forward i mean they'd signed off on buildings
02:55:11 buildings where it had been used so they weren't at this point questioning anything about that they were saying we've got an issue with a lack of evidence so we went to see them to understand
02:55:22 so we went to see them to understand what is it you need to see moving forwards
02:55:26 forwards at this point and i say at this point during this period june 14 your early days admittedly but up to february 15 you've been there seven months did you yourself take
02:55:38 months did you yourself take or ask to be taken any steps independently to verify the test which supported the continuing of selling k15 into the market no i didn't why is that
02:55:52 no i didn't why is that i think as i said before because i i was relying on people around me who were far better technically qualified than i was to decide if the product was suitable
02:56:01 suitable did you ask anybody the question i just asked you
02:56:07 i don't recall asking that exact question but i'm sure conversations were taking place as managing director were you not concerned to have before you the relevant technical people and ask
02:56:19 the relevant technical people and ask them the direct question look what is the basis in testing what is the test data which supports the continued sale of k15 in light of the nhvc's concerns
02:56:32 well i think the people that so the people above meet a divisional level i think we're having those conversations and they were confident that the product was suitable for purpose did anybody tell you do you remember
02:56:45 did anybody tell you do you remember that
02:56:46 that not to worry about this because there was test evidence which supported the continued sale of k-15 well i don't think those exact words but i was certainly i was
02:56:58 i was certainly i was made to believe that it was fit for purpose yes you were made to believe that it was fit for purpose who made you believe that well i don't know that i can't remember
02:57:10 well i don't know that i can't remember people but in in in either things i read or meetings that i was in people were talking about well it can be used and so it is fit for purpose i was more concerned about trying to provide evidence to the nhbc
02:57:22 provide evidence to the nhbc about what they wanted to move forwards yes i understand that but until that evidence
02:57:29 evidence had been provided by kingspan to the nhbc
02:57:33 nhbc what did you have in your hands which justified
02:57:37 justified the continued sale of k-15 on high-rise buildings above 18 meters well we were relying on bs841 test results
02:57:47 results which ones ones that were outlined in our
02:57:51 our well the ones we were using and uh referred to in the roots compliance document that was issued later in 2015. it was issued later in 2015 but it wasn't i think it was june
02:58:04 2015 but it wasn't i think it was june july was it august 2015 did anybody tell you between june 14 and february 15 that the tests that have been done up to
02:58:15 that the tests that have been done up to that stage supported the continued sale of k-15 did anybody actually tell you that
02:58:24 i'm sure they must have who was it well i don't recall i mean i'm just i'm sure that
02:58:30 that i was certainly given the reason to believe that was the case but i don't i don't remember being called to a meeting someone was going to explain to me exactly the reasons and and the rationale behind it it was
02:58:42 and and the rationale behind it it was it was accepted that that was the way yeah
02:58:46 yeah just a question or two before the break uh
02:58:49 uh if you go to page two in this letter you can see that
02:58:56 i'm so sorry this is the fennick elliot letter
02:59:00 letter of the 13th of february 2015. now on that page you can see that uh fennic elliott say as regards the specific points made in your letter we make the following points
02:59:11 make the following points in relation to the use of k-15 boards then if you look at paragraph two it's like paragraph one first of all our client statement that the k15 product has been successfully
02:59:22 the k15 product has been successfully tested to bs 841 for 2002 and can meet the criteria within br135
02:59:28 br135 which makes it acceptable for use above 18 meters remains true and accurate in support of this our client relies upon fire tests undertaken by way of example we refer you to bre
02:59:40 by way of example we refer you to bre test reports number 220 876 and pn297099 now take it from me mr burnley
02:59:51 now take it from me mr burnley that those are the two reports which kingston eventually withdrew in october 2020 after you left kingspan do you accept on that footing that was the assertion by your solicitors in this
03:00:03 the assertion by your solicitors in this letter
03:00:04 letter uh that the k-15 had product had been successfully tested to bs 841 for 2002 and can meet the criteria within br135 which makes it acceptable
03:00:15 within br135 which makes it acceptable for use above 18 meters was not true and not accurate
03:00:21 i think they're making an assertion that based on test results that they could make that statement but i think we subsequently now i mean i think they were uh removed after i'd left but
03:00:34 uh removed after i'd left but clearly that is not what they think now but at the time when i would read that i would assume that given that i wasn't of a technical level
03:00:45 given that i wasn't of a technical level to decide i read that and believe that to be the truth are you able to tell us who it was who instructed fennec elliott to make that statement
03:01:03 if you look at paragraph two mr chairman i'm i'm about three questions or four questions away from the end of this line for a moment uh if you look at paragraph two of your
03:01:14 uh if you look at paragraph two of your letter on page two here it says cladding systems comprise a number of different components such cladding systems as a whole are tested and assessed against the acceptance criteria of br135 not their
03:01:25 acceptance criteria of br135 not their individual components as we understand the position your concern is that a cladding system which includes
03:01:30 includes among numerous other components kingspan's k-15 boards has failed a fire test with respect that patently does not mean the k-15s boards as a whole whether one taken individually or two as part of any other
03:01:41 individually or two as part of any other cladding systems are unsuitable and to make that leap and suggest that it does it's plainly not a fair sensible or appropriate conclusion to draw
03:01:48 to draw from the test undertaken indeed it is a very surprising one now that that it was a complete travesty of nhbc's own
03:01:59 a complete travesty of nhbc's own position wasn't it can you explain why you think it was a travesty uh well let me put it differently nhbc were not saying were they that
03:02:10 nhbc were not saying were they that because k-15 had failed a test k-15 was unsuitable what they were saying was that they couldn't bless any system using k15 which differed from the system as tested in 2005. i think the point that
03:02:25 in 2005. i think the point that was made here in paragraph two is a point that kingsplan have maintained consistently which is you should test the system as a whole and not individual components
03:02:39 well and the point that authentic elliot are attributing to the na to nhbc is not in fact the point that nhbc was making was it
03:02:52 um i'm not entirely sure i'd need i i'm not sure of the reference to where they say the kingsman's k-15 boards has failed a fire test it's in the middle of paragraph two i can see it but what are they so
03:03:04 can see it but what are they so exact well you made the point it's not actually an allegation that nhvc have made
03:03:09 made nhbc were complaining simply that they couldn't bless any system using k-15 which differed from the system as tested in 2005.
03:03:24 i'm sorry i didn't could you what was the question there
03:03:30 i'll put it one more time we what fennick elliot are doing inc in complaining that nhbc was saying that k-15 shouldn't be
03:03:41 nhbc was saying that k-15 shouldn't be used because it had failed was not the point that nhbc was making the point that nhbc was making was that they themselves nhbc
03:03:52 that they themselves nhbc could not sanction could not bless a system
03:03:56 system uh which incorporated k-15 in a configuration or with components that differed from the system tested in 2005.
03:04:06 okay well so i've i've read it differently i think the point that they were trying to make was you can't single out k-15 it is the system that has failed and therefore to specifically single out
03:04:17 and therefore to specifically single out the kingspan k15 product for the system that had failed would
03:04:22 would was not correct and some people might see this letter uh as evidence that kingspan had through its solicitors attributed to the nhbc
03:04:34 the nhbc a groundless argument that nhbc weren't in fact making in order that kingspan could then use it to concoct a basis for litigation would you agree with that no i think i think the general purpose of this
03:04:46 i think the general purpose of this letter was to try and encourage them to get together which is i've said all along with what i was trying to do to sit down around a table and find out how we move it forwards
03:04:54 forwards and it's right isn't it that in fact you never told kingspan never told the nhbc that the 2005 test was done on a version of k15 that wasn't being sold in the market
03:05:05 sold in the market in 2015.
03:05:08 i don't think at this stage we had told them uh i don't know what stage we did do you remember yourself ever telling them or anybody else at kingspan ever telling them that
03:05:21 kingspan ever telling them that i don't recall mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is we'll have a break now for lunch
03:05:27 for lunch uh mr burnley we'll come back again at five past two please and again please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break and we'll
03:05:40 relating to it over the break and we'll see you at five past two yep i understand thank you very much
03:06:07 you