Kingspan Evidence - Wednesday 25th November 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:07 thank you i appreciate your courtesy but we decided at a very early stage that when the room was particularly full we couldn't have everyone standing up when we came so thank you all the same yes would you ask

00:00:19 thank you all the same yes would you ask mr mills to come back in please

00:00:39 right mr mills are you ready to carry on yeah yeah thank you very much yes it's great

00:00:44 great yes thank you i've just got a few more questions now about the the use of bba certificates staying with that theme um so we know that a bba certificate was then issued dated the

00:00:56 then issued dated the 17th of december 2013. can you help us as to when it was actually

00:01:02 actually issued was it issued in december 13 do you remember um i i don't know offhand you don't know you can't help let's go to kin kin403830

00:01:15 let's go to kin kin403830 and this is a series of emails between you and

00:01:20 philip borovec of of arab in january 2014.

00:01:29 in the top email

00:01:34 we can see on the 15th of january 2014 it's from you you're responding to him

00:01:45 it's from you you're responding to him and if we look at the fourth line down you say this you say the attached file is the new version of the cool firm k15 bba certificate which has been issued

00:01:55 issued today do you see that there

00:01:59 do you see that in the fourth line down uh

00:02:02 uh yep so you're saying that the attached file

00:02:06 file is the new version of the call them k15 bba certificate which has been issued today do you see that yeah

00:02:15 and then you pick out section 8.2 of the certificate and you copy and you paste it into your email which says when tested to bs eight

00:02:26 email which says when tested to bs eight four one four part one the following specific cladding construction met the criteria as stated in bre report br135 do you see that there yeah now before that if we scroll down to page two

00:02:40 that if we scroll down to page two mr borowicz in his email sent at 9 10 on the 10th of january we can see that he says this

00:02:51 we can see that he says this he said good morning gareth thanks for the helpful information it's about um we see the subject title k-15 approvals the russ quin ruskin square development in croydon

00:03:03 ruskin square development in croydon and he asks a number of questions we'll come back to those in one and two but i want to ask you about little three there

00:03:11 there in his email so he says to you why are there two certificates both attached sent by yourselves on the same product with the older one 2008 saying it passed the bs

00:03:22 2008 saying it passed the bs 135 criteria but the newer one 2010 is silent on the matter has anything changed or is this an error do you see that there and it would appear that you sent him the bba

00:03:34 appear that you sent him the bba certificate both the first one dated the 27th of october 2008 and the amended version of the 6th of april 2010. can you help us why did he do that why

00:03:45 can you help us why did he do that why did you send both certificates to him um i don't know i'm not sure no i don't know

00:03:51 know you can't help us no is there an email with both of those attached is there [Music]

00:03:58 [Music] um i think there is if we go further down but i mean that's certainly what let's go down to the email below this [Music]

00:04:10 [Music] you say with regard to the query outlined in your most recent emails i'd refer to the final sentence of the paragraph relating to 8414 testing at 7.1 of the certificate

00:04:21 [Applause] and it would appear that you've sent him both versions of the certificate both the earlier versions but by january 2014 that 2008 version wasn't valid was it

00:04:34 2008 version wasn't valid was it let's go back up to his email [Music]

00:04:40 [Music] why are there two certificates both attacked sent by yourselves on the same product with the older one 2008 saying it passed br 135 can you help us on that uh no no it appears yeah possibly there's

00:04:53 no no it appears yeah possibly there's been one sent by me and one sent by my colleague perhaps as there's one of my who used to be another technical advisor who's copied on the email so possibly they sent one and i sent one possibly okay that i see now if we look down

00:05:06 okay that i see now if we look down that page um that you're you're quoting there from the first version from the 27th of october 2008 if we go at the very bottom of page two to that email we just looked at yeah

00:05:16 at yeah to your email timed on the 9th of january it's at 5 17.

00:05:24 at 5 17. what you're doing there is you're quoting

00:05:27 quoting from the first version of the certificate from 2008 with that wording therefore displaying limited grass spread away from the fire source

00:05:35 source and that the product meets the criteria stated in bre 135 now that's the wording that we saw removed in the next version of the certificate that you then wanted to try add an ad back in in the

00:05:47 wanted to try add an ad back in in the third version which didn't get added back in

00:05:50 back in so can you help us as to why in this email

00:05:53 email you're quoting from a certificate which is very out of date by this time um i'm not entirely sure no didn't they put something similar to that effect

00:06:04 put something similar to that effect back in them the more recent one didn't they so it was added back in again later on wasn't it

00:06:09 it related to reference to br135 well you've said in the top email of the chain that was the 9th of january go back to the top email of this chain

00:06:21 the top email of this chain [Music]

00:06:23 [Music] you've said on the 10th of january that the latest certificate has been issued [Music]

00:06:32 [Music] today sorry the top email back on page one

00:06:36 one you you've said in the fourth line down there

00:06:39 there on the 15th of january so six days later you've said here's the version of the certificate which has been issued today yeah

00:06:50 which has been issued today yeah so you can't have had that we would have known that we would have known the format before that though because we yeah is that that we would have agreed it with them prior to that date

00:07:01 with them prior to that date so we would have known the form of what was going to be in it before that day i see is it possible that you were sending that very first version of the bba certificate because it was

00:07:12 of the bba certificate because it was much more favorable to kingspan um i i don't know the exact reasonings but it might have been perhaps because it more

00:07:19 it more closely reflected what was going to be in the

00:07:22 in the document issued in a couple of days

00:07:26 i see but you'd have been well aware by january 2014 that you ought not to be sending out or relying on the first version of the certificate can you help us as to why you would have

00:07:38 can you help us as to why you would have done that

00:07:42 um i yeah i don't i don't know which person sent which certificate so i don't know

00:07:47 know were you ever told by your superiors to carry

00:07:50 carry carry on issuing out-of-date certificates because they were more favorable to kingspan no now going back to mr boricek's email on the top of page

00:08:02 mr boricek's email on the top of page two

00:08:04 two if you look at his points one and two there

00:08:07 there i said i'd come back to these questions he asks this he says has the exact proposed system in every way been tested to the bs and achieve the required performance in br135

00:08:19 required performance in br135 yeah as i'm sure you appreciate the facade specification needs to be installed exactly as the tested system which has been shown to meet the required performance of br135 do you see that there yeah and he's

00:08:31 do you see that there yeah and he's absolutely right about that isn't he right yeah yes and then he says in point two if not what precisely is different and how have you assessed the impact that would

00:08:43 the impact that would that would have on the performance of the product in the fire test so he's asking some important questions there would you agree yeah yeah and if we go back to your response at the top of

00:08:54 at the top of page one and if we look at um what you say after you've said in the fourth line the attached file is the new version of the call firm k-15 bba certificate which

00:09:07 the call firm k-15 bba certificate which has been issued today you say the extract below is taken from page six of the certificate and illustrates that the wording confirming that the typical rain screen cladding buildup that we tested

00:09:18 buildup that we tested met the criteria in br135 is included in this newer version yeah and then you say as you will appreciate for rain screen cladding systems

00:09:26 systems where many components obtained from different manufacturers and combined to form the overall construction ensuring that all possible combinations of materials products

00:09:37 of materials products for the many components were individually tested is unfortunately not feasible for us to undertake both financially or in terms of the time involved

00:09:46 involved and then you go on you say to try and aid our clients in this area we selected a construction which we felt reflected a common type of construction so that we could illustrate the inherent performance

00:09:57 performance of our product within the bba certificate based on this data we believe that the testing illustrates that when combined with suitably performing ancillary components eg's

00:10:08 performing ancillary components eg's substrate and cladding materials combined with appropriately spaced cavity barrier that a construction containing the cool therm k15 could meet the required level of performance do you see that there

00:10:20 performance do you see that there yeah now when you're talking there in in that

00:10:25 that um paragraph beginning to try and aid our clients yeah and you're talking about so we could illustrate the inherent performance of our product in the line below that do you see that there yeah what do you

00:10:37 do you see that there yeah what do you mean there by the inherent performance of our product um is to give an example of how it would perform in that type of test but isn't that meaningless in the context of a system test

00:10:50 context of a system test um i it's not ideal but you know when it's the only information available um you know it's what we've got to give them some information and we've provided it we provided it

00:11:01 and we've provided it we provided it along with the certificate and referred them to the section which listed the exact construction we tested

00:11:10 i see it's simply not true is it that kingspan had selected a common type of construction for that 2005 test visit and that wasn't representative of a

00:11:23 and that wasn't representative of a real-life cladding system was it didn't have a range screen on it it didn't have a render on it it just had a building board on the outside and yeah it wasn't wasn't necessarily the most like the cladding panel but the type of construction in how it was built

00:11:35 type of construction in how it was built up

00:11:35 up in terms of the substrate brackets rails uh positioning of cavity barriers and things like that was fairly typical of how that type of system is built up when you say there kingspan had selected

00:11:47 when you say there kingspan had selected a common type of instruction we don't see buildings do we with just building board on the outside cement particle board or fiber cement board whichever it was but it's the type yeah it's saying the type of

00:11:58 yeah it's saying the type of construction how it's made up and that yeah but but how it's made up is important it didn't have a rain screen exterior on it and it didn't have any render on it so it wasn't actually an exterior they

00:12:10 so it wasn't actually an exterior they don't

00:12:10 don't they don't use render on this type of construction i see and then you say this uh carrying on with your email you say we do suggest consulting with the building control officer for the project to

00:12:22 control officer for the project to verify the precise requirements although from previous experience along with lab the labc registered details documents forwarded by my colleague on one of their previous emails many of

00:12:33 on one of their previous emails many of the officers we have dealt with have typically taken a practical approach to meeting the principles in approved document b yeah what do you mean by that what do you mean when you say that

00:12:44 mean when you say that many of the officers we have dealt with have typically taken a practical approach

00:12:48 approach to meeting the principles in approved document b well it seems from what we've seen that some of them may accept some minor variations we it wasn't something that we had any control over

00:13:01 that we had any control over it was just left to them so we present the data we had and they would decide if it was acceptable or not these weren't minor variations were they um well it's down to their discretion

00:13:14 um well it's down to their discretion it wasn't something that we controlled so it's for them to decide and by this time you knew that the k-15 that was being sold was a different technology k-15 didn't you i knew it was the new formulation yes

00:13:26 i knew it was the new formulation yes but we had discussed this morning that we didn't know that it was the old i didn't know it was the old formulation in the test right did you discuss this response with anybody before sending it to arab

00:13:38 anybody before sending it to arab i i i'm not sure i can't remember now let's move on you've referred to it there in that paragraph we were just looking at it to the labc registered detailed certificate yeah for

00:13:51 registered detailed certificate yeah for uh the k15 product and if we look at your witness statement at page 19 paragraph 70. yeah

00:14:04 you say this you say i was aware that the labc

00:14:07 the labc had asserted in a registered detailed certificate that k-15 might be considered to be a material of limited combustibility when considering some specific sections of the building regulations

00:14:18 of the building regulations which i believe related to using the product on buildings with floors above 18 meters

00:14:23 18 meters from ground level as per the 8414 test report

00:14:27 report they did not state that the product was limited combustibility yeah and then you say i first became aware of this assertion when the certificate was first issued in 2009

00:14:39 certificate was first issued in 2009 i understood this assertion to be correct

00:14:42 correct i did not take any action as a result of this assertion and then i did not take any action as i understood the assertion to be correct so i think we can take it from that can

00:14:53 so i think we can take it from that can we that you did read the labc certificate and the summary attached to it

00:14:56 it in 2009 yeah can we go to it it's at kin405705

00:15:05 [Music]

00:15:09 and that's the front page of the certificate and if we can go then to page four under the heading requirement b five safety considerations

00:15:20 what we can see is it it lists k-15 has been a test tested in accordance with and then a number of test standards are listed including bs 8414 part 1

00:15:31 including bs 8414 part 1 as the first of those and then a number of

00:15:35 of other tests fire resistance tests and then national class naught test seven four seven six part six and part seven yeah and then we see this it says from

00:15:46 yeah and then we see this it says from the result it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of flame

00:15:56 flame do you see that there yeah now just looking at that now do you agree that the most natural reading of it is that k-15 can be considered to be a material of limited combustibility

00:16:09 a material of limited combustibility um yeah i'm saying it can be considered yeah it's it's sort of it's not saying it is but yeah it is can saying you could consider it like one yeah

00:16:16 yeah you say it's not saying that it is but isn't that the yeah most of what is there i suppose it it sort of yeah it's probably not the best wording but yeah yeah yes thank you and then if we look on page five

00:16:28 on page five we see a section headed requirement b4 external fire spread at the top of there and if we read that it says since k-15 can can be considered a material of limited

00:16:40 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of adb including those parts of a building more than 18 metres above the ground

00:16:50 ground yeah in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is applied must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility

00:17:01 requirement for limited combustibility do you see that there yeah and i would suggest you that that's even clearer that the most natural reading of that the thrust of it is that it can it is a material of limited combustibility and can

00:17:13 limited combustibility and can considered be considered to be that yeah you could read it like that yeah

00:17:23 now in your witness statement if we go back to that page 20 paragraph 72 you say this it's right at the top of

00:17:35 you say this it's right at the top of that page

00:17:36 that page you say i was slightly concerned about the wording of the first labc registered details certificate for k-15 relating to pharah which was issued in 2009

00:17:47 in 2009 as i seem to recall that some of my colleagues in the sales department were misinterpreting this in that they believed it to be a product of limited combustibility when strictly speaking it wasn't

00:18:01 strictly speaking it wasn't it was only in circumstances where the construction mirrored that which had been tested to 841 for that it could be treated as though it was a product of limited combustibility now i've asked you about that latter bit already

00:18:12 already but i want to ask you about that that first part of that paragraph what do you mean that strictly speaking it was not a product of limited combustibility what do you mean by that

00:18:23 combustibility what do you mean by that well that it wasn't of limited combustibility quite not just strictly speaking it wasn't was it no no no

00:18:35 [Music] and and then looking at what you say about your colleagues there in the sales department can you help us how did you become aware that your

00:18:47 how did you become aware that your colleagues were misinterpreting the labc certificate and treating it as though it said it was a product of limited combustibility um i suppose there probably would have been some

00:18:58 been some sort of discussions conversations and i believe there was one email chain that seems to ring a bell which i think was included in the disclosure where one of the sales managers might have informed the customer and they had to go

00:19:10 informed the customer and they had to go back to them and correct them right i see and approximately how how many colleagues did you become aware of uh had that what you call a

00:19:21 of uh had that what you call a misunderstanding um i i don't don't know definitely no i can't remember no having looked at it now can you understand why those colleagues might have

00:19:31 have taken the certificate as meaning that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility i suppose yes it's possible not be you know i suppose i'd probably look at it slightly differently because i was okay with the testing and the regulations and

00:19:43 with the testing and the regulations and things i knew about this sort of surrounding information whereas i suppose perhaps someone who didn't may read it differently yeah does that mean that you you never sent that that certificate to

00:19:54 you never sent that that certificate to customers you didn't rely upon it yourself

00:19:56 yourself is that what i'm saying i i i'm not saying i i i'm not saying i've never sent that to any customers no well if you're saying now that you knew that to be incorrect how could you be sending it out to customers

00:20:07 sending it out to customers i didn't say i didn't just say that

00:20:11 well you've just said i think i thought you just said that you you couldn't tell us here now that you never sent it to customers yeah so are you saying you just can't remember

00:20:23 remember well so you didn't ask me about if i'd sent

00:20:27 sent following what you're asking here because have you ever sent that labc certificate out to customers possibly so that they could understand the properties of k-15 yes yes possibly yes and i'm asking you

00:20:41 yes yes possibly yes and i'm asking you if you understood that to be incorrect certainly very very misleading why were you sending it out to customers i i i didn't say that i said that some people i said some

00:20:53 i said that some people i said some people may have read it differently i didn't say that i knew it was incorrect

00:20:59 incorrect when you became aware that these other colleagues had as you say misunderstood the position what did you do to correct their understanding of the position i i

00:21:10 their understanding of the position i i would have sort of told them what the regulations were did you take any other action at this time did you bring it to the attention of

00:21:17 of your superiors and say we've got a problem here people in the technical team

00:21:22 team are saying it is a product of of limited combustibility it's wrong did you do that

00:21:27 that um i don't know definitely yeah what conversations i had with people no i can't remember exactly no did it occur to you that if technical advisors within

00:21:38 to you that if technical advisors within kingspan

00:21:39 kingspan who worked in the insulation business day in day out were taking the certificate to mean that it was a material of combat limited combustibility it said the sales people not the technical advisors

00:21:50 technical advisors i see well did it occur to you that if sales individuals within kingspan were taking the certificate to mean that it was a material of limited combustibility that others

00:22:02 combustibility that others outside kingspan might draw the same conclusion i suppose it's possible yes yeah did you not take any action because it was in kingspan's interest in terms of sales to have that assertion made by an independent

00:22:14 assertion made by an independent certification body um well i i don't know i don't remember what

00:22:19 what you know what actions i've done but i said i couldn't remember i'm going to suggest to you that you you would have known at the time that it was false and misleading but that you and others at kingspan let

00:22:31 but that you and others at kingspan let it stand because it was highly advantageous to kingspan's commercial interest to do so is that right um no i would i wouldn't say that that's that's the case i can't comment on everybody else but

00:22:42 i can't comment on everybody else but that's not what i was doing now i see can we go to kin405385

00:22:57 this is an email sent on the 5th of june 2009 from mr meredith to mark swift and you're copied into this email do you see that there

00:23:08 this email do you see that there and andrewpak is also copied

00:23:11 and mr meredith says adb b4 diagram 40 personally i would just say

00:23:19 say that we now have the labc document and as long as the guidance within it is followed

00:23:24 followed there are no limitations of use for k-15 in high-rise external ventilated facades this document will be available to all labc therefore we will not get any problems in the

00:23:35 we will not get any problems in the future when seeking approval for use from local authority building control offices

00:23:40 offices from now on and when challenged i'm simply going to send the labc document and let that do the talking yeah and then it says i've copied ap andrew pack and gm

00:23:52 andrew pack and gm gareth mills that's you to allow them to comment

00:23:55 comment do you see that there yeah and did you comment on that when that was sent to you i don't know that's over it's 11 years ago i don't remember

00:24:07 ago i don't remember do you remember sending the labc certificate out to let that do the talking um i i probably have sent the certificate to some people i don't remember the specifics

00:24:20 isn't the truth that this gave kingspan a reprieve it gave them a period of a few years where they had an easy answer to any queries about k15 because that certificate strongly

00:24:33 because that certificate strongly suggested it was a material of limited combustibility that's right isn't it it looks it looks from that like that with some people's opinion yes yeah and are you saying that that wasn't an opinion that you held no i i i didn't consider it was limited

00:24:46 no i i i didn't consider it was limited combustibility now so why do we not see any email i mean you've been asked for your comment here why don't we see an email going back from you

00:24:54 from you saying we can't let it do the talking because

00:24:57 because it's not a material of limited combustibility it may have spoken to people

00:25:01 people because you know i wasn't aware at the time that i was having to provide a written

00:25:04 written record of everything we discussed so we could have just spoken in the office

00:25:13 and when he talks about um he says when challenged i'm simply going to send the labc document

00:25:21 document where you aware at this time this is 2009 that there have been a number of people challenging the use of k-15 above 18 meters yeah they've definitely been queries about it yeah yeah can we go now to kin3020714

00:25:43 yeah can we go now to kin3020714 and if we look at the second email actually the third email down on that page from philip peace on the 7th of may 2009 and it's copied to a number of generic

00:25:54 and it's copied to a number of generic technical services email addresses is it right that you're likely to have been on on one of those it's gone to technical services uh yes business development

00:26:06 business development i would have been on the technical services one yeah do you remember getting this email and receiving it at the time

00:26:11 the time well it's not one that rings a bell no no it doesn't ring a bell no so he's saying in there great news about the local authority building control approval and we can see the bottom of that page that he's

00:26:22 the bottom of that page that he's highlighting in the certificate certain wording including the words in bold

00:26:28 bold material of limited combustibility do you see that

00:26:33 oh yeah yeah yep and you're saying you can't remember getting that email no no it's 11 years ago yeah do you remember it being celebrated

00:26:44 do you remember it being celebrated within kingspan that this labc certificate had been issued

00:26:49 issued i know they were happy with you getting an additional approval yeah yeah yeah yeah and were you happy with it as someone in the technical department i wasn't a big fan of the labc approvals because they didn't

00:27:01 labc approvals because they didn't really say a lot in them but you know it wasn't something i dealt with i had much involvement with so i didn't give a great deal of thought it didn't trouble you that it was misleading um well i suppose perhaps i

00:27:14 misleading um well i suppose perhaps i you know because i knew the full details maybe i looked at the information a bit differently to someone who wasn't and was just coming at it as just reading that document i suppose i sort of maybe read it differently because i knew the surrounding

00:27:25 because i knew the surrounding information and things like that but maybe yeah maybe that was a you know a little bit of a jump switch but yeah

00:27:33 but yeah well i mean i'd quite like to understand this did you think it was misleading or not

00:27:37 not it didn't mislead me no no no that's not what the question i asked yeah did you think it was misleading well yes i said it since that it was liable to mislead someone who didn't have the same degree of technical knowledge

00:27:48 knowledge that you had it's possibility looking back yeah

00:27:52 back yeah did you think it was responsible for uh you

00:27:55 you or kingspan generally to send this out to people who didn't have the same degree of

00:27:59 degree of technical knowledge i certainly would have i suppose in that way it would have needed some additional explanation if you were going to use it yeah

00:28:06 yeah [Music]

00:28:11 you've admitted sending it out yeah are you saying that every time you sent it out you did include some additional explanation caveatting i i i i because of the time scales i don't remember every single

00:28:22 scales i don't remember every single email

00:28:23 email i've sent so no i can't i couldn't say i just want to deal with a few emails now which

00:28:29 now which are relevant to the the lapse of that system approval you can go to kin four zeros five five five two and i want to look at the

00:28:40 five five two and i want to look at the bottom email on page two first it's from martin taylor of the labc to justin davis within kingspan do you see that

00:28:52 davis within kingspan do you see that there yeah sent on the 14th of september 2011 at 11 53

00:29:00 and we can see that martin taylor is obviously in this email responding to queries raised by justin davis about the labc

00:29:08 labc registered details certificates now those labc registered detail certificates replaced the earlier system or type approval certificates didn't they yes yeah

00:29:19 yes yeah and if we go up the next email in the same chain at the top of page two we can see on the same day martin taylor's email is forwarded to you

00:29:28 you at 1209 on the 14th of september 2011. yeah and then if we move up again to the bottom of page one we can see

00:29:39 to the bottom of page one we can see that on the 29th of september 2011 that tony militech writes to iva meredith

00:29:46 meredith saying this he says this is another project to be tracked gareth's list it required a team meeting to progress do you see that there yeah can can you help us

00:29:57 help us what was gareth's list is that i mean that appears to be referring to you you're the only gareth that crops up on these emails i i i'm not sure no we then see

00:30:09 no we then see after that email where tony milicep saying

00:30:12 saying it needs to go on gareth's list or a project to be tracked on gareth's list we can see at the top of that page a year later so this is now september

00:30:23 a year later so this is now september 2012 on from september 2011. yeah that iva emails you saying hi mate what's the status of this project was it done

00:30:33 done yeah do you see that there yeah and by that then

00:30:37 that then the september 2012 labc system approval had lapsed yep yes that's right isn't it

00:30:45 isn't it yeah and then if we can go now to kin405562

00:30:58 and if we go to page three i want to look at mr mera this email of the 19th of october 2012 sent at 13 22 to you joel clark and andrew pack

00:31:12 joel clark and andrew pack and he says and he's copied in tony militapp and others and the subject is labc for k-15 and he writes in the first paragraph with regards to trying to get something

00:31:24 with regards to trying to get something out of the labc to replace our old out of date question mark

00:31:29 mark labc k-15 type approval can i ask who is planning to take this on

00:31:36 on and then he says this as wintec are now aware our labc document is no long not valid anymore we are coming up against all sorts of issues which will inevitably mean

00:31:47 which will inevitably mean we are going to lose a lot of work do you see that there

00:31:54 now pausing there were you aware at the time that uh wintec were on to the fact that the lapse of the certificate

00:32:05 the certificate meant there was an absence of evidence for why k-15 was on tall buildings which do you remember being aware of that and the wind tech concerns at this time um i was aware that winter wind tech had

00:32:18 um i was aware that winter wind tech had raised a number of queries with the department yeah if wind tech hadn't noticed it was kings band planning to continue to rely on an labc certificate that was no longer

00:32:30 an labc certificate that was no longer valid

00:32:31 valid can you help us on that um i wouldn't have thought so now because if it's if it's lapsed then it wouldn't be something you could use i see and then if we go on to paragraph three of his emails he says there are

00:32:43 three of his emails he says there are several very big projects that i believe are going to come unstuck because we no longer have this information therefore it's important we understand how much and how long it will take to get a replacement i appreciate we may need

00:32:54 replacement i appreciate we may need some further test work and the replacement may not be as useful as the previous version however can we ask the question as to how much and what we need to supply

00:33:02 supply if we have not already do you see that there

00:33:06 there yep and

00:33:09 yep and what did you understand him to mean when he said that the replacement might not be as useful as the previous version

00:33:17 um well i suppose perhaps judging from our daily

00:33:21 our daily ivor's previous email he sounded like he was going to send it out quite a bit so maybe

00:33:25 maybe that might if the wording was different he may have had a different opinion on how he would use this one yeah i see so did you understand at the time why he was saying

00:33:37 why he was saying that it might not be as useful as the previous version did you understand why he was saying that to you um well i i i would have i i had an idea of which bits he was referring yes

00:33:48 referring yes yeah the bit about limited combustibility yes yeah yeah and then at paragraph four he says as the technical note and the literature reference

00:33:57 reference reference the labc approval we need to make a decision as to whether we should still send out this document or not have we had anything official to advise that it's no longer relevant do you see that there yeah

00:34:12 and if we look at the next email up in the chain at page two going into page three at 1348 on the same day

00:34:20 same day 19th of october 2012. you reply and you say this at the very bottom of that page you say i'm in contact with labc

00:34:29 labc regards updating this i've been in contact with labc headquarter regards removing the project moving the project forward and i'm just waiting for them to check with the various local authorities to

00:34:41 with the various local authorities to see when each would be able to fit the update in yeah you see that there does that mean um that you then took responsibility for this project

00:34:53 responsibility for this project after that point uh not definitely no no but i it sounds like i had made some contact with them to regards getting a quote or a project proposal from them

00:35:04 quote or a project proposal from them but i i yeah i

00:35:08 i see well we're going to go to some emails that you send about this but but i wanted to check whether you saw yourself as taking responsibility for this moving forwards um yeah yeah i

00:35:20 for this moving forwards um yeah yeah i don't remember it well but no but it looks like i certainly started getting some quotes for the for the approval by the looks of it yeah and then you ask andrew pack in in that same email um you can see the

00:35:33 in in that same email um you can see the last line you say andy with regards to the original approval which local authority was this produced with was it herefordshire do you see that

00:35:40 that yeah and why would you want to know that um just because they would already have some of the supporting information so it may be quicker to probably do an update with

00:35:52 quicker to probably do an update with them rather than start from scratch right and at this point were you aware that there had been uh complaints about the uh original wording of the

00:36:04 about the uh original wording of the labc certificate um to to who sorry complaints to kingspan

00:36:11 kingspan about the original wording of the certificate or complaints to the labc um i don't remember seeing the complaints or certainly the labc i don't remember them sharing with me

00:36:22 remember them sharing with me okay if we can move now to kin zeros

00:36:30 and we go start on page three this is an email from you on the 10th of january 2013 at 10 12. and in the first paragraph you

00:36:41 at 10 12. and in the first paragraph you say this you say personally i don't think we can rely on getting any greater scope of approval from the labc given the complaints they received following the issue of the their original certificate and only

00:36:53 their original certificate and only having the same data available whose asset acceptation at all is in question due to its age acceptation do you see that yeah so you're referring there very

00:37:05 yeah so you're referring there very clearly on the 10th of january 2013 to complaints that the labc received following the issue of their original certificate do you see that there yeah does that help you it looks then

00:37:18 yeah does that help you it looks then perhaps that they might have mentioned it during some phone call when i was inquiring about the quote then by the looks of it yeah yeah and does that help you recall now what complaints the labc had had

00:37:28 had had about that original certificate what what's the thrust of those complaints i i don't know i to be honest i don't have any recollection of them actually sending me the complaints or giving me full details of it no

00:37:40 full details of it no you can't even tell us now what the thrust of the complaints was

00:37:45 um i i don't know for definite i would assume

00:37:48 assume that because looking at that they've made some inquiry about the bs8414 report or something it looks like they may have related specifically to that section but they didn't i'm not as i'm aware send or give me the

00:38:01 i'm not as i'm aware send or give me the details of the complaints no i see you certainly do seem to be aware at this point that there were complaints and that

00:38:07 and that realistically you're not going to be able to get a great escape of approval only having the same data available that's right isn't it yeah

00:38:22 can you remember whether anyone else within kingspan was aware of complaints being made to the labc i i don't know on that there's the obviously there's the people i've mentioned

00:38:33 mentioned i've sent that email to that who would then

00:38:37 then um but yeah i don't know off hand no if we go now to labc 3018 [Music]

00:38:54 we can see that on the 24th of january 2013

00:38:57 2013 you send the labcs completed assessment to david ewing and kathal brennan of the labc do you see that there

00:39:09 and it's a it's about cool firm k-15 in the subject of the email labc approval registered details and the attachments is an application pack registered details application form

00:39:21 details application form [Music]

00:39:22 [Music] march 11. okay and then you say in the first

00:39:26 first lines please find attached a copy of the completed application form regards producing the registered details for our cool thumb k15 product yeah [Music]

00:39:38 [Music] and you say i've included a copy of the latest literature for this product to give an

00:39:44 give an overview of the application into which this product is typically used yeah and then you say with regards to undertaking the assessment the original assessment was undertaken with herefordshire labc

00:39:55 herefordshire labc and due to their location close to our office

00:39:58 office it would be preferred to undertake this updating process with them as well as this makes any required meeting discussion etc easy to accommodate okay and then you go on about invoicing

00:40:09 okay and then you go on about invoicing for work

00:40:10 for work yeah and you appear at this point to send them one document which is the ninth issue of kingspan's product literature for k-15 is that

00:40:21 product literature for k-15 is that right

00:40:22 right yes yeah that's listed as an attachment that's what's attached yeah

00:40:28 and then if we can turn to kin40s 5647 we can see that draft copies of the new registered details certificate and associated documents

00:40:41 associated documents were then sent to you to you for comment let's have a look so kin 405647

00:40:52 let's have a look so kin 405647 [Music]

00:40:57 so kathal brennan at the labc is sending you documents for comment on friday the 28th of june and he says hi gareth the final peer review section of the registered details

00:41:09 review section of the registered details process has now been completed for the k-15 system please find attached draft copies of your registration certificates if you require any changes please let me know and i'll then arrange for final copies to be issued

00:41:21 copies to be issued do you see that there yeah and can you remember discussing those drafts with anyone else at kingspan

00:41:28 kingspan oh they would have been yes yeah so they're probably sent around to the proofreading i would imagine and discuss with mr militap at that stage uh he'd be on that group

00:41:39 uh he'd be on that group [Music]

00:41:41 [Music] and the terms of that certificate were extremely important to kingspan weren't they

00:41:46 they um yeah yeah they would they would have they would have been interested in what it said certainly yeah yeah and if we can go on now and look at labc

00:41:56 labc 40961

00:41:59 40961 where are you providing your detailed comments on the draft to the labc on the 1st of august 2013. so this is on page 7. if i go

00:42:10 so this is on page 7. if i go this is a long email so there we can see an email you send at 11 22 on the 1st of august

00:42:18 august to castle brennan

00:42:21 and at the start of that email you write we had a look over the documents and wondered if we can add some more detail into some of the sections regards where

00:42:32 into some of the sections regards where the product can be used do you see that there yeah and who would the we

00:42:38 the we be relating to there is that is that kingspan's technical department or is it technical and sales department who are you writing um i would imagine it was probably the proofreading one which had some people from a few of the

00:42:50 which had some people from a few of the departments on it i see yeah so this will have come as a cross-department set of comments yeah and then what you do is you go on we would

00:43:02 what you do is you go on we would welcome your advice on the most appropriate sections for including this information for example would it go in the limitations of use advice notes etc sections yeah but a few of the

00:43:14 etc sections yeah but a few of the points we would like to cover are noted below

00:43:17 below and then you say with a number of the items i've included some notes after the comments in brackets which we don't need to include in the final certificate but i've included for yourselves as some references to documents

00:43:27 documents where additional information can be found on the relevant items if required do you see that there yeah and then i want to look at um point three what you've said there in

00:43:38 point three what you've said there in item three on that page do you see in the middle of the page and you say the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters can we note how you've spelt stories there

00:43:51 you've spelt stories there in that line the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters

00:43:57 meters from ground level provided it is used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components and then you say note bs 8414 testing referenced in

00:44:08 say note bs 8414 testing referenced in section 7.1 of the bba certificate is noted as meeting the requirements of bre 135 i

00:44:15 bre 135 i alternative compliance route referenced an approved document b or scottish technical handbook do you see that there so you are suggesting aren't you at this point that you want the words

00:44:26 at this point that you want the words the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it is used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary

00:44:36 ancillary components do you see that there

00:44:40 yes something sort of along those lines yeah i don't think we've said that that is the exact wording we wanted putting in we've just said these are some bits we want more detail on but yeah and we've referred them to the

00:44:51 but yeah and we've referred them to the specific test information yeah

00:44:55 i see well let's see what we'll see what ends up in the certificate but um that wording the only limitation about the use over 18 meters is using it

00:45:07 about the use over 18 meters is using it in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components do you see that

00:45:15 yeah it's not saying can only be used in one specific configuration which was tested to bs eight four one four part one is there the note does go on to refer them to the

00:45:26 the note does go on to refer them to the specific tested construction the note after in brackets yes but it doesn't tell you in the note does it whether it's eight four one four part one or part two yeah but that's in the document that we

00:45:37 yeah but that's in the document that we refer to

00:45:42 well you're referencing section seven one of the bba certificate there yes yeah which lists it as bs eight four one four part one and this the full construction how can you be suggesting at this time

00:45:55 how can you be suggesting at this time that it can they should include wording either this wording or wording to that effect given the limited testing you'd done and given that k-15 as a product had changed since then

00:46:06 had changed since then [Music]

00:46:07 [Music] haven't we sort of we we've gone over it twice that we didn't know i didn't know that the product that was tested

00:46:14 tested was different to what we were selling we've done said that twice already um i thought you said earlier today that you did know that there was a change to the case of gene technology yes and i'd said at that

00:46:25 gene technology yes and i'd said at that time as well that they've been doing trials beforehand so i didn't know that the tested product which one it was i see if we go to point six you also say we have two images

00:46:36 six you also say we have two images which we would like to include within the drawing section if possible which i will follow up with shortly i would have the images available to send either as a bitmap or jpeg format

00:46:47 either as a bitmap or jpeg format which of these is preferable for you do you see that and we're going to go to those images in a moment yep and if we go then to the top email in the chain on page one

00:46:57 we can see that after a number of further emails you confirmed to the labc on the 28th of august 2013 that kingspan are content with the draft certificate and the documents do you see that there okay yeah and how

00:47:10 do you see that there okay yeah and how do you check the final draft with anyone by that point would you have been checking the drafts all the way through with others in kingspan yeah yeah those would have wouldn't have just been me looking at them now

00:47:22 just been me looking at them now let's go now to the certificate which was issued following your detailed suggestions it's at kin409546

00:47:38 suggestions it's at kin409546 we can see there on that page looking at the bottom of the page that it's dated the 28th of august 2013 and it's signed on behalf of the labc it's signed by barry turner of the labc

00:47:51 it's signed by barry turner of the labc do you see that yeah and the expiry date is given there's a valid until date just above that is given of the 28th of august 2014 do

00:48:02 is given of the 28th of august 2014 do you see that there yeah and if we can go now to kin-409547 this is the drawing and documents list

00:48:13 this is the drawing and documents list for the certificate

00:48:17 [Music] and we can see there in the supporting documentation reference numbers do you see that three lines down so this is the supporting documentation

00:48:29 so this is the supporting documentation which is listed for the certificate we've got um three documents the herefordshire council type approval summary

00:48:40 summary yes that's the original from the original labc certificate at the ninth issue 2011 kingspan publication that's your marketing literature yes and then we've got the uh

00:48:54 yes and then we've got the uh 28th of october 2008 bba certificate so that's the original bba certificate isn't it the first one um could have been yeah yeah the the

00:49:05 um could have been yeah yeah the the certificate numbers stayed the same all the way through until they went to a group one after i had left the company and that date i suppose i don't know definite because they list that on the cover of all the certificates and then put

00:49:15 put a reissue date underneath it well more on the more recent issues so that date would have been on the newer ones as well so it's possible i can't remember which version they had

00:49:27 i can't remember which version they had to be honest but i see well i mean on the face of it there

00:49:32 there it's saying 27th of october 2008 it's not saying yeah no it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't list which issue specifically no because by that point by july 2013 there was an amended issue

00:49:44 there was an amended issue of that certificate wasn't there yes uh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah can we agree there's no test data there's no test reports listed there are there no no

00:50:00 [Music] the amended issue of the bba certificate by that stage said that k-15 had been tested to 8414 part one for one specific construction

00:50:12 part one for one specific construction on masonry walls do you remember we've looked at that earlier [Music]

00:50:19 [Music] but you can't help us as to now as to which version you send i i i don't know i i i don't you know i don't know what fans no no we're looking sort of looking at this about 10 years ago so i don't know what

00:50:31 about 10 years ago so i don't know what attachment was on the email now but that was the version that ought to have been sent wasn't it the the up to date yeah so we had a folder with all the current certificates in it so i'd imagine whenever the email was sent it would have been the one which

00:50:42 sent it would have been the one which was the the more recent one at the time yeah and also it's listed on the you know it's on the bba website as well the current ones as well which are publicly available which is the latest document yeah if we could go now um to appendix a

00:50:58 yeah if we could go now um to appendix a of the certificate this is kin409547 page two sorry it's the same actually it's the same reference page two of this document

00:51:10 page two of this document and we've got this appendix a do you see that there which is attached to the certificate

00:51:18 [Music] and here if you look at point three well if you look at all these points what we can see is they have literally been cut and pasted into this labc document

00:51:32 cut and pasted into this labc document so if we look at point three the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it is used in combination with do you see that there

00:51:43 do you see that there yeah that they've cut and paste it including that your misspelling of the word stories do you see that right it's spelt i-e-s not e-y-s

00:51:54 right it's spelt i-e-s not e-y-s do you see that right so your wording has

00:51:58 has gone straight through into this annex to the certificate and the two images that you attached for inclusion

00:52:09 are on page three of this document yeah do you see that steel frame terracotta tile yeah do you see that there

00:52:19 there yeah so we've got a steel frame terracotta structure now at this point k15 had never been tested

00:52:28 tested to bs 8414 in a system where the outer cladding was terracotta tiles had it no and kingspan also had no test data to bs 8414 part

00:52:40 bs 8414 part 2 showing that it passed with a steel frame structure with k15 did it no no [Music]

00:52:49 [Music] did you think it was appropriate for those pictures to be included uh well they're at the product ratio because this and the brochure didn't specifically just cover buildings above 18 meters

00:53:00 above 18 meters but do you agree that used in combination with that wording that we saw

00:53:04 saw earlier in the certificate of 0.3 the brackets have to do specifically relate they reference the person to the particular construction and test

00:53:13 and test data sorry if i can just finish my question do you agree that used in combination with that wording about can be used in 18 above 18 meters that it's suggesting that you can use

00:53:26 that it's suggesting that you can use k15 and steel frame structures over 18 meters

00:53:29 meters and not specifically no you don't accept that no

00:53:33 that no but there's no qualification is there on these pictures we don't see a qualification saying steel frame but by the way not above 18 meters we haven't tested it to that

00:53:43 to that and it's not safe to use it for that is there

00:53:46 there not not on those pictures no there is there is some reference in the section about the 18 meter thing saying to the build up that was tested

00:53:57 saying to the build up that was tested well we've seen what the wording was that was added in and it was the wording you suggested we go back to it one page up

00:54:03 up point three

00:54:06 [Music] it's even got your note included and that there doesn't say bs84114 part one testing does it no no but it refers to the section in

00:54:19 no no but it refers to the section in the bba certificate that has the full test standard and the build build-up yes and it talks again about meeting the requirements of bre-135 and we've talked

00:54:30 requirements of bre-135 and we've talked about that before haven't we there was no there was no further br135 classification there never was one was there no but it doesn't say there was one

00:54:38 one it says it it met the requirements it doesn't say there was a classification report from the vre i appreciate that but there's no classification report from anybody it doesn't matter about the bre saying

00:54:49 it doesn't matter about the bre saying it met

00:54:50 it met all of the past criteria in br135 is there

00:54:54 there kingspan never had such a document did it about the 2005. i didn't actually not not at this point it didn't i'm not aware of them doing anything external no no no but they may have i was under the

00:55:05 no no but they may have i was under the impression they checked it internally that it met the requirements

00:55:13 [Music] that reference to section 7.1 of the bba certificate do you see that there

00:55:22 there yeah if that's section 7.1

00:55:29 of the original bba certificate where it was at section seven rather than section eight

00:55:40 sorry if we go to section seven one of the updated version of the bba certificate bba 60 37 at page five so

00:55:52 37 at page five so let's go to the that front page of bba six zeros 37 bba 6037

00:56:08 [Music]

00:56:17 that's the updated version of the bba certificate yeah and we go to section 7.1 of that

00:56:29 do you see there there's no reference to testing to bs eight four one four and that's yeah so looking at that yeah it looks like so when when did that one come out so it

00:56:40 so when when did that one come out so it looks like that should have been updated to 7.5

00:56:43 to 7.5 yeah in this updated version the details of the system tested have been moved to section 7.5 below that do you see that yeah

00:56:55 below that do you see that yeah do you remember spotting that at the time no no [Applause]

00:57:05 now i want to take you now

00:57:09 to paragraph 88 of your witness statement moving slightly in terms of topics

00:57:15 topics and it's on page 22 of your statement

00:57:22 and it's about seven lines down in that

00:57:28 you say um it's kind of in the middle there just above the middle it begins in response to the question of do you see that you say in response to the question of whether there were any

00:57:40 the question of whether there were any difficulties or disagreements between kingspan and the bre i was told that an issue had arisen when the bre carried out one of the bs 8414 tests in 2005.

00:57:51 tests in 2005. a colleague at kingspan who was responsible for arranging the test had made it known internally that there had been some misunderstanding regarding the scope of approval within the bs-8414 testing report

00:58:06 within the bs-8414 testing report and you say essentially prior to receiving the report it was anticipated that this would cover all non-combustible cladding panels whereas when it arrived it only covered the use of one specific type of non-combustible cladding panel

00:58:18 type of non-combustible cladding panel which was a cement particle board i believe that it may have been iva meredith he told me this as he helped plan and arrange the test do you see that there yep now can you help us as to when you

00:58:31 yep now can you help us as to when you were told about that misunderstanding with the bre um and that they had decided that you couldn't use that test for

00:58:40 for all non-combustible cladding panels well they didn't specifically the bre didn't tell me anything i had didn't have any contact with the bre in relation to this it was no it was an internal conversation i

00:58:52 it was an internal conversation i appreciate that when were you told internally within kingspan you think it was mr meredith can you recall roughly when you were told that um well it probably would have been somewhere around that test time

00:59:04 around that test time but it was i was told that they were expecting to have something different written in the test report and they didn't get it that test report arrived on the 9th of december 2005. the

00:59:15 arrived on the 9th of december 2005. the test had been done in may 2005. does it follow from what you've just said that it was some time around when that report was issued that it was likely to be in late

00:59:28 issued that it was likely to be in late 2005 or early 2006 that mr meredith told you about this misunderstanding with the bre

00:59:33 bre it could have been yes it's possible

00:59:38 and do you remember just hearing from this verbally from him or did you get anything in writing um i would i would imagine it's probably just verbally yeah and can you remember what his reaction had been to that

00:59:50 his reaction had been to that no no

00:59:53 if it was understood by you at some time in 2005

00:59:57 in 2005 late 2005 or early 2006 that the one bs 8414 test report that kingspan had could not cover all non-combustible cladding types

01:00:08 cladding types and could only apply to the specific cladding type used in the test can you explain why none of the literature for k-15 that we've looked through

01:00:17 through actually says that uh well specifically yeah i only said that the scope the test report covered a smaller range of approval than he was expecting

01:00:28 range of approval than he was expecting to get so i didn't discuss all the reasons behind it and what um and also on the literature um the literature covers all heights of building so it covers

01:00:39 all heights of building so it covers situations where the s8414 is not relevant so that's why it covers

01:00:44 it covers various different constructions which haven't been tested

01:00:49 can you help us as to why all of kings fans marketing literature uses the word the generic wording non-combustible cladding in relation to that test

01:00:58 that test to eight four one four we can see that if we go

01:01:02 if we go to kin four zero three five four five um i

01:01:08 five um i i don't know specifically with regards to the literature offhand i would imagine it some come may have been similar source to like the email that you showed from phil about the substrate

01:01:19 about the substrate so it may have been a similar sort of something similar to that but i don't know specifically if we look at uh page six of this we've got

01:01:28 got sorry on page one we've got this is the march 2011 version of the kingspan literature yeah and we know that this stayed in circulation until 2016

01:01:41 circulation until 2016 and we can see there it says on that bullet point three lines three bullets down successfully tested to bs 8414 2002 it doesn't tell us part one or part

01:01:52 2002 it doesn't tell us part one or part two does it and can meet the criteria within br135 and is

01:01:56 and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters do you see that yeah that's misleading isn't it looking at that

01:02:03 at that um yeah it's not got the full picture there in that sort of submarine though yeah and you were part of the proofreading team were you not yeah throughout those years yeah did you ever pick up on that

01:02:14 ever pick up on that i can't remember exactly what comments i'd sent on all the brochures no i'm not i don't recall that no do you remember ever saying we can't say that on the front of our literature because it's not acceptable in all circumstances for use

01:02:25 acceptable in all circumstances for use above 18 meters do you remember that i i don't i don't remember what comments i've sent on the literature no and if we go to page six of this under the heading construction

01:02:42 do you see um it's on the right hand side

01:02:45 side that the whole column is dealing with fire performance do you see that there yeah that's it and under the heading construction it's saying six millimeter non-combustible cladding yeah do you see

01:02:56 non-combustible cladding yeah do you see that there

01:03:00 and can you help us as to why it's been described as non-combustible cladding not building board cement particle board fibre cement board um no so it would

01:03:11 fibre cement board um no so it would have been like the marketing director and manager who would have been primarily deciding what was in the literature so they'd be your best best ones to answer that

01:03:22 be your best best ones to answer that i see and again as part of the proofreading team that's not something you ever

01:03:26 you ever picked up on or queried with your superiors

01:03:29 superiors um i don't know again again yeah i don't remember what comments i'd sent on all the

01:03:33 the literature so no i can't say definitely either way and then results on the right hand side the tested product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 and is therefore acceptable for use

01:03:44 and is therefore acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the building regulation standards that's misleading as well isn't it

01:03:52 um it's probably it is probably not as descriptive as it should be no no no this is probably you could put more information in it yeah now i want to move on to another topic

01:04:03 now i want to move on to another topic and this will be the the final big topic i'm going to come to today but i'm going to look at a number of examples which is of technical advice that you gave on specific projects

01:04:15 gave on specific projects paragraph 13 of your witness statement for the transcript that's on page five you tell us that the technical department would advise customers about approved document b and the alternative route to compliance

01:04:27 the alternative route to compliance through bs8414 that's right isn't it

01:04:31 and would it be fair to say that advising on the use of k15 on buildings over 18 meters was a substantial part of your own work at kingspan in the technical department

01:04:42 at kingspan in the technical department um not a substantial part no no how would you describe it in terms of a proportion of your work um it'd be a relatively low amount of it just because there were generally larger

01:04:53 just because there were generally larger projects so the number of them were not as big as the smaller projects

01:04:57 projects i see this is an approximate figure roughly how many i did i couldn't see i can't remember numbers from that long ago no well i'm going to take you to

01:05:08 ago no well i'm going to take you to some of that

01:05:11 do you accept that you did personally advise clients on the use of k15 in buildings over 18 meters in height i would have sent some responses to customers on projects like that yes

01:05:22 customers on projects like that yes yeah can we go to kin3018368

01:05:35 now this is a very dense email i'm afraid

01:05:38 afraid um and the subject this is this is all we have of it this is the version that's been disclosed to us and it just says um subject at the top

01:05:49 and it just says um subject at the top athletes village do you see that there yeah kingspan four-faced insulation specification call them k-15

01:05:56 them k-15 k-8 do you see do you see that there and it would appear and we'll see from the first few lines of this that this was about the athletes village project in stratford

01:06:07 athletes village project in stratford was that the olympic village in stratford

01:06:10 stratford uh remember it would sound as if it is yes yes

01:06:16 and we can see your name at the end of this on page two if we go to that now

01:06:23 yeah do you see there you've got with regards for kingspan gareth mills do you see that and if we go back up then to the to the

01:06:34 and if we go back up then to the to the top of this email

01:06:38 you say further to our telephone conversation yesterday regards the specification for a number of the prod products which have been investigated for use on the athletes village project in stratfor we can confirm the following

01:06:51 in stratfor we can confirm the following do you see that there now yeah do you think you wrote this email is it likely you wrote this email it would look as if it is yeah yeah do you remember writing it no

01:07:03 and you say at line three there we can confirm the following after you've done some investigations and then you say in the next paragraph it's the second paragraph down the

01:07:14 it's the second paragraph down the product put forward by ourselves initially was the cool theme k15 this product is a rigid thermoset phenolic insulation core with reinforced forced foil facings

01:07:26 with reinforced forced foil facings as noted in some of our previous correspondence this product is commonly used in high-rise buildings with external cladding systems and as such we have tested this product to bs 8414 the results to this test were

01:07:39 to bs 8414 the results to this test were assessed against the criteria stated in br135 and met these requirements

01:07:48 and then you go on you say as described in our previous correspondence this testing

01:07:52 testing standard and assessment criteria for the results are based primarily around the use of lightweight external insulation and cladding systems such

01:08:01 such as or insulation behind ventilated rain screen panels or externally insulated render systems and the cool theme k-15 was tested with a ventilated cavity between the insulation

01:08:12 insulation and a lightweight external cladding board

01:08:16 board due to the robust sealed concrete between the insulation and a lightweight external sorry and the outer skin in your system usually at least 150 millimeters in

01:08:27 usually at least 150 millimeters in thickness

01:08:28 thickness and the fact that any cavities adjacent to the insulation between the insulation and internal lining are non ventilated would make an application using your system much less extreme

01:08:39 system much less extreme than the system tested with the k15 product to bs 8414 and you go on a copy of the bba certificate which includes confirmation of the test and results in 7.1 on page

01:08:52 of the test and results in 7.1 on page five has been included for information and then the two other products which have been discussed you see that there yeah so you're you're saying there in that email i'm sorry it's so dense

01:09:03 in that email i'm sorry it's so dense it's quite hard to read on the page the k15 is commonly used in high-rise buildings with external cladding systems and as such you've tested it to 8414. yeah do you see that there

01:09:17 so k-15 was clearly being suggested for the 18 me

01:09:22 the 18 me over 18 meter market here wasn't it it was suggested that it was commonly used in in such it has been over the years yeah and you're specifically referring to that there aren't you yes

01:09:33 yes [Music]

01:09:35 [Music] do you agree that that kind of wording is commonly used in high-rise buildings uh would at the least have caused others to believe that k-15 as a product

01:09:47 to believe that k-15 as a product had been tested to the right test standards and could be used in buildings over 18 meters in height it doesn't specifically list any building height there in that statement it just says high rise

01:09:59 it just says high rise doesn't say specifically over 18 meters but they were certainly i suppose some of the ones it's been used in historically have been over that height yeah

01:10:09 yeah you go on in your email to say that k15 was tested with a lightweight cladding board yeah what test are you referring to there that would be the well there's it was only the one test

01:10:20 only the one test yeah why are you referring to it as a lightweight cladding board rather than a building board or a cement particle board or a fiber cement board it's because the construction that's being discussed on this project is a

01:10:31 being discussed on this project is a different type of construction that uses a sealed concrete outer panel so so we're sort of referring to the difference in fire resistance of the outer

01:10:43 resistance of the outer part of the construction because this is a sealed heavyweight construction on the outside we've got 150 ml of concrete protecting the insulation compared to a small building board just to illustrate the difference in fire resistance of those two components

01:10:56 fire resistance of those two components but on what basis did you consider yourself to be qualified to compare and contrast the build up in an eight four one full test with what someone's proposing to put on their building

01:11:06 building i'm not not referring to the eight for one foot test i'm just saying that 150 ml of concrete is more fire resistant than a six mil building board but you are referring to the eight four one four test in this is

01:11:18 the eight four one four test in this is email you say well you say that k said that k 15 was tested with with that building board and then we'd say that the 150 ml concrete that you use

01:11:28 use would be more resist fire resistant than this lightweight building board yes but the point i want to put to you is you don't have any qualifications to be able to extrapolate from an 8414 test to a building

01:11:40 from an 8414 test to a building construction another tall building do you

01:11:43 you or did you at that time um well we've not said that we're extrapolating 8414 results we've just said that the actor cladding has greater fire resistance

01:11:53 well you've used the words and we would say that you've said it would make an application using your system much less extreme than the situation tested with the k15 product

01:12:04 situation tested with the k15 product so you're making that comparison in this email you're not saying this is what we've tested over to you whether that means you can use it you're not saying that are you

01:12:19 but well we're saying that yeah there's a there's

01:12:22 a there's less exposure when you've got sealed concrete 150 mil thick protecting the insulation from exposure to fire saying that that is a different situation to a ventilated cavity with a lightweight cladding board

01:12:35 cavity with a lightweight cladding board the fact that the tests say that when you have a sealed masonry leaf on both sides say that you don't even have to do the test

01:12:41 the test because it's a lot less extreme would sort of indicate that to be the case did you read the bre's 8414 test report for the test carried

01:12:53 8414 test report for the test carried out on the 31st of may 2005. i would have had the time yeah yeah did you understand that at the time it was not considered to be a representative test of a real live cladding

01:13:04 test of a real live cladding system i i knew that the cradling panel was not the most common one you know not they were

01:13:10 they were sort of certainly cladding panels which you know were more commonly used so that was one of the issues i'd referred to in some of the statement where there had been discussions about what padding panel to use and some differences on what was

01:13:21 use and some differences on what was written in the test report so i believe that's where some of that issue arose which we referred to a little while ago yeah

01:13:32 referred to a little while ago yeah did you or anyone else at kingspan check this type of advice with any external expert or fire engineer before sending it out um on this i would say it probably

01:13:43 um on this i would say it probably wasn't checked with anyone external no no mr chairman i think that's a good moment for a break i'm going to go to some more examples on different projects after the break yes just before we break can you

01:13:55 yes just before we break can you just tell us a little more with the nature of the construction that you say was under consideration yeah when you wrote this it was you say there was a thick concrete outer

01:14:06 you say there was a thick concrete outer skin

01:14:06 skin yep and then a cavity no then the insulation directly on the inside of that so it was a sealed concrete actor skin 150

01:14:14 skin 150 mil thick which formed the basically the whole outer leaf of the building yeah and then the insulation was fixed against that and then there was an independent steel frame which the lining is fixed too

01:14:25 frame which the lining is fixed too so it's effectively like a solid masonry wall

01:14:29 wall but it's a steel frame system uh well the steel frame isn't like a structural component the insulation isn't fixed to it in this it's it's a separate lining on this

01:14:40 it's it's a separate lining on this so it's not a it's not a masonry substrate was it well the insulation is fixed to the masonry

01:14:46 masonry on the outside yeah what about on the inside i think that's what we're getting at

01:14:51 at yeah so the inside then it would be a steel frame and that so that but the steel frame only spans between the concrete floors so you only have ever have like a couple of meters of steel

01:15:02 have like a couple of meters of steel frame just between each concrete floor to support the plasterboard

01:15:09 right thank you very much well we'll we'll stop now for a short break yeah we'll come back at um uh again say how past three and uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence

01:15:21 don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're at the room yep right okay

01:15:36 uh of us three then please

01:30:56 [Applause]

01:31:01 yes would you ask mr mills to come back in please

01:31:20 right ready to carry on yeah yep good thank you yes yes thank you so we're going to go to some more examples now of technical advice that you were giving about the k15

01:31:29 k15 product and this one's in relation to a building in scotland if we can look at um kin four zeros five three zero eight

01:31:41 kin four zeros five three zero eight it's from 2007. and i want to start the bottom of page four and on to page five

01:31:49 five right at the end of this chain this is from a lady called beatrice bryant i've heard roland july 2007. and then she says to alistair lambie at

01:32:00 and then she says to alistair lambie at kingspan

01:32:02 kingspan thank you for sending this information through it's about call for mk15 and she says we are considering specifying this for a ten-story project residential and our fire consultant has asked me to ask you to send us a copy of the

01:32:14 ask you to send us a copy of the assessment that was carried out in accordance with br135 do you see that there yeah and then up the chain

01:32:21 the chain page two we see a response from iva meredith

01:32:25 meredith to alistair lambie um when alastair's asked for some advice on this it's copied not to you at this point to andrew pack

01:32:37 so it's sent to andrew pack as well as alistair lambie and mr meredith we don't need to read all this email but he basically says we're a little reluctant to go public

01:32:48 we're a little reluctant to go public with the actual test information at the moment as this is only to bs 8414 part one and i suspect this job would be an eight four one four part two project at this moment i'm doing

01:32:59 two project at this moment i'm doing vast amounts of work to produce a very robust situation where cool them k-15 can be used on all substrates and with most generic types of cladding we appreciate this as a particular issue

01:33:10 we appreciate this as a particular issue in scotland and over the next 12 months we'll be performing at least 15 large-scale tests to 8414 with a total capex of well over 200k do you see that there yeah and then

01:33:22 do you see that there yeah and then if we keep going down this email look right at the bottom you can see he says right at the end there

01:33:30 there when you're next in come and have a chat and i'll show you what i can present if the job's big enough fortunately nine times out of ten they accept our word do you see that there yeah and then if you go to the top email in this chain on

01:33:42 you go to the top email in this chain on page one

01:33:46 [Music] we can see um well if we pick it up one email below that aleister lambie is saying back to iva on the 9th of october

01:33:57 saying back to iva on the 9th of october either below is a copy of an email sent to me by an architect information required by yourself to write a letter of suitability of k-15 with regards to fire as discussed a few months back please

01:34:08 as discussed a few months back please can you urgently respond to this and copy myself in on anything as this is becoming more of an issue in scotland and then in the top of that email we can see from iva to aleister lambie

01:34:20 we can see from iva to aleister lambie and to you this time on the 10th of october 2007. iva says aleister i'm out of the office for the next few days gareth is your man

01:34:31 for the next few days gareth is your man for letters like this gareth please do the honours do you see that yep

01:34:37 that yep and is it right that you would from time to time write letters of suitability on projects for the k-15 project product um possibly yeah there would

01:34:48 product um possibly yeah there would have been some yes let's go to your letter that you write in this case it's at kin four zeros nine zero one one

01:35:03 we can see at the top there

01:35:07 to beatrice bryant heard roland it appears to be a draft at this point and we can see at the end if we look at the end of the letter

01:35:18 the end of the letter [Music]

01:35:21 you've signed it there can you recall whether this letter was actually sent i don't remember straight off no no well let's look at the the draft and go

01:35:32 well let's look at the the draft and go back to page one um so you're saying back to bryant further to your recent discussions and correspondence with aleister lambie as regards the above motor project and

01:35:44 as regards the above motor project and the most appropriate insulation product for the areas of rain screen cloud wall we can confirm the following and then you say from your email it's been indicated that the intended construction is a concrete inner leaf

01:35:55 construction is a concrete inner leaf with the cool therm k15 insulation fixed to the outer surface of this with an outer weathering surface of a rain screen cladding system and then it says it's a cfc hc-fc

01:36:07 and then it says it's a cfc hc-fc free rigid phenolic insulation core and you're talking then about its thermal conductivity and then a little bit further down there you start to talk about bs476 part 7 and

01:36:19 you start to talk about bs476 part 7 and part 6

01:36:20 part 6 testing do you see that yeah and then right at the bottom there you say in addition to this the product has also been tested at the building research establishment to bs

01:36:32 building research establishment to bs 8414 part 1 2002 and when assessed in accordance with bre 135 it is acceptable for use above 18 meters in accordance with the scottish building standards technical handbook

01:36:44 building standards technical handbook yeah do you see that there and then if we keep going with the letter

01:36:51 you say in that last paragraph there with the scottish building standards technical handbook section 7 2.7.2 the guidance states in a building with a story at a height above more eight than 18 meters the

01:37:03 above more eight than 18 meters the ground

01:37:04 ground above the ground any insulation material should be

01:37:08 should be non-combustible and you say this information is complemented by additional guidance uh relating to br135 second edition do you see that there yeah and then if

01:37:21 do you see that there yeah and then if we can go

01:37:22 we can go over the page i want to read what you say

01:37:30 if i pick it up in the second line down from the top you say therefore under this

01:37:34 this alternative guidance cool clown k15 would meet the criteria to be used in a ventilated cavity behind rain screen cladding on a building with stories above 18 meters in height

01:37:45 above 18 meters in height to meet the requirements for use of the product horizontal ventilated cavity barriers must be introduced at every floor level above the 18 meter point and then you say this

01:37:55 say this a particular problem when fighting fires in multi-story buildings can be the starting of multiple secondary fires one process by which these secondary fires can become ignited is influenced by the external wall covering

01:38:07 by the external wall covering and therefore this risk can be limited by the selection of appropriate systems and materials the process of fire breakout through a lower story window the spread of the flame either up the external surface of the building

01:38:19 external surface of the building or through a concealed cavity followed by re-entry at a higher story igniting secondary fires and potentially bridging the building compartmentation is modeled partly by bs 8414 part 1 2002

01:38:33 is modeled partly by bs 8414 part 1 2002 i.e the flame spread through a concealed cavity or in the external surface of the building

01:38:38 building do you see that there yeah now just pausing there i did ask you earlier in your evidence this morning whether you understood the significance in terms of life safety of the choice of products in

01:38:50 life safety of the choice of products in external walls i think you said well i'm not a fire engineer

01:38:55 engineer would you agree based on that paragraph you certainly do appear to understand the importance of external raw materials

01:39:06 the importance of external raw materials and the potential for external surface spread of flame and and ignition of secondary fires in the building do you see that um i i was aware of some of the

01:39:17 um i i was aware of some of the information um i wasn't i wouldn't claim to be an expert on it that particular text and that process is taken from the bre is molded on their paragraph from the bre 135 guidance

01:39:29 paragraph from the bre 135 guidance document which runs through that fire spread process and what they intend to model with the 8414 testing but what that shows that paragraph doesn't it that you were well aware of

01:39:40 doesn't it that you were well aware of the life safety risks that were engaged by the choice of materials in an external wall

01:39:49 um i i i knew sort of from reading the br135 what they were sort of trying to model with the testing regime yeah yeah and then if we carry on and look at the third paragraph on that

01:40:00 look at the third paragraph on that letter

01:40:01 letter you say from the results achieved by the cool firm k15 the flame spread and resultant thermocouple temperature rise at level two was limited to within permissible levels and therefore the risk of secondary

01:40:12 and therefore the risk of secondary fires is assessed to be minimal due to limitation of flame spread throughout the cladding system it would be suitable for use in potentially higher risk applications such as high-rise building

01:40:23 applications such as high-rise building with stories above 18 meters do you see that there yeah and then for your information we've included a copy of a report detailing the test and measurements confirming compliance with the criterion bl-135

01:40:36 the criterion bl-135 we trust that you find the foregoing of assistance yeah now did you know that on this project the outer cladding here was to be either terracotta luca bond or metal cladding i i

01:40:49 luca bond or metal cladding i i i don't i don't know for looking from this it doesn't doesn't specify on here so no i'm not i'm not sure i don't remember the project in question okay if we go back to the email um kin the email chain kayak kin40s 5308

01:41:03 the email chain kayak kin40s 5308 look at the bottom of page one of that

01:41:11 this is a chain that if we go up to the top

01:41:15 top okay yeah so yeah no it lists a few possible types of crowding that's quite so that there you are it's being sent to you this chain and we go just to the bottom of page one

01:41:26 of page one yeah and we look at that email from the architect

01:41:31 architect they're telling you what the outer layer do you see that yeah it's 150 millimeter precast concrete with insulation to the outer face currently rock wool

01:41:43 outer face currently rock wool and then an external cladding this is either terracotta rain screen a luca bond rain screen or a profile of metal cladding do you see that there yeah so assuming you read down a little when this was forwarded to you to do the

01:41:55 when this was forwarded to you to do the letter

01:41:57 letter you would have known that the possibilities for the outer rain screen were terracotta a luca bond or a metal cladding wouldn't you do you agree that looks like that's the existing spec when it was based on a

01:42:09 existing spec when it was based on a rock fiber insulation yeah yes now none of those cladding materials are the same type of construction as used in the may 2005 test to bs8414 part

01:42:21 used in the may 2005 test to bs8414 part one are they no no but we did send the test report with this letter and referred to the exact construction we tested

01:42:34 yes but go back to the letter that you've written

01:42:39 going back to that and the paragraph in the third down that i've read to you yeah but you're saying in the second half of that paragraph so you know they've the architects told you what

01:42:50 they've the architects told you what they're proposing to use there's different possibilities and you've included a sentence at the end of that third paragraph there that says due to limitation of flame spread throughout the cladding system it would be suitable for use in

01:43:02 it would be suitable for use in potentially higher risk application such as high-rise buildings with stories above 18 meters do you see that there so the whole tenor of this letter is we think our k-15 is suitable for your

01:43:14 think our k-15 is suitable for your project that's why you're writing the letter isn't it i'm thinking this possibility it could be used yeah yeah not just a possibility kingspan are positively pushing their k-15 product forward as appropriate on

01:43:26 k-15 product forward as appropriate on this job aren't they um yeah we're saying that's the prod the product we have for this type of application and we've sent them the test data we've got and we've detailed the exact construction we've tested it in

01:43:37 construction we've tested it in well you do but you don't mention that in the letter do you uh it does refer to the letter than saying that we've sent a copy of the test report which referred to the fact that it's owned the test results oh we don't listen to the cons we haven't listed the

01:43:48 listen to the cons we haven't listed the construction in the letter no but they were sent together it wasn't something that was sent in isolation they were sent together but it depends on the recipient reading the test results and understanding them doesn't it and

01:44:00 understanding them doesn't it and understanding also the limits of the 8414 test

01:44:06 8414 test suppose possibly yeah yeah yeah so i suppose but and by this time you knew because we talked about it earlier that the bre's position was that

01:44:18 earlier that the bre's position was that you couldn't extrapolate from the 8414 test that had been carried out into other types of constructions you knew that didn't you um we we knew that they weren't going to

01:44:29 um we we knew that they weren't going to give wide scopes of approval yes yeah now i just want to go to paragraph 33 of your witness statement again on page 10.

01:44:38 page 10. [Music]

01:44:44 and i want to look at what you say there from the end of line three onwards you you say there depending on the type of construction that the customer was proposing to use we would either explain

01:44:55 proposing to use we would either explain to customers that we had carried out a test

01:44:57 test in accordance with 8414 that indicated compliance with br135 for that same type of construction yeah or if the type of construction was different

01:45:06 different we would explain to customers that we only had a test result for an alternative type of construction do you see that there yeah now based on the letter we've just looked at

01:45:16 looked at that's that's not right is it but the letter wasn't sent in isolation it was sent with the test report which detailed the the construction we tested we sent the test report with the letter

01:45:28 we sent the test report with the letter so we're sort of taking it out of context

01:45:29 context you're taking it away from the other information that was sent with it well you're assuming that the test report was sent with the letter but it says in the letter at the bottom well let's let's just focus on the terms

01:45:40 well let's let's just focus on the terms of the letter itself you're not in that letter are you explaining to customers that we only had a test result for an alternative type of construction you're not saying in that letter you're proposing to use terracotta or a

01:45:52 you're proposing to use terracotta or a luca bond or another metal system we have only tested with a cement particle board or a fiber cement board back in 2005 to part one you're not saying that are you

01:46:04 saying that are you well the existing spec that they've written there is the existing spec using an alternative insulation so that is that's not the spec with our product

01:46:14 product we've sent information on our product along with the test report detailing the test we've done the test report had the construction in it saying what it was tested with and we've said this is the information

01:46:25 and we've said this is the information we've got

01:46:28 i see well i'm suggesting to you that what's in that part of your witness statement is simply not correct based on the example we've just looked at and we're going to come to some others the first part of what you say there you

01:46:39 the first part of what you say there you say we'd either explain to customers that we carried out a test that indicated compliance for that same type of construction did you ever come across that situation where someone said we're going to use

01:46:52 where someone said we're going to use your k-15 and in front of that we're going to put a cement particle board or a fiber cement board on the outside of our i can't remember no but but that would have been ludicrous wouldn't it because

01:47:04 ludicrous wouldn't it because that type of board it doesn't have an external finish on it does it it doesn't have a rain screen finish it doesn't have a render finish so if you put that type of board on a building it

01:47:15 put that type of board on a building it would just got soggy and and have all sorts of problems wouldn't it and they do some uh i suppose yeah that probably that exactly they do some very similar ones to it but it may not be the

01:47:26 similar ones to it but it may not be the exact sort of type of one they do some sort of thin building board rain screens so they do something that's quite similar to it which yeah

01:47:42 this morning you were seeking to distinguish between what kingsman had said in some of its certificates and what was said on a project by project basis would you agree with me though that when we look at what you're

01:47:53 though that when we look at what you're saying on a project-by-project basis you are invariably in fact always recommending k-15 again and again and again on tall buildings um well we've said

01:48:04 buildings um well we've said yeah that was the product that they used for rain screens yes yeah that's i don't think there's been any debate on that i don't think no approximately how many of these letters did you write

01:48:15 did you write would you say in your time at kingspan i i

01:48:18 i no idea no idea tens possibly yes i was there for 12 years so yeah it could have been yeah hundreds i will probably not but

01:48:33 hundreds i will probably not but did anyone check the letters of suitability that you drafted for k15 yes who would have checked them uh probably would have been maybe either phil

01:48:41 phil or something like that one of those either or philip he's yeah or tony military possibly yeah yeah okay

01:48:52 now if we can go back to k-i-n or sorry we can go to a new document k-i-n-four zero three six nine six

01:49:04 and the second paragraph of page two so um this is at the bottom of the page it's an email on that page beginning on the 11th of march 2008.

01:49:15 march 2008. do you see that there and it's about a project called bristol broadmead yeah and iva says to you please do not email the report if you can help yep we sorry i should have noted as well

01:49:29 yep we sorry i should have noted as well in the subject it's for cool them k15 use on projects above 18 meters in height bristol broad mead and he says please do not email the report if you can help instead ring up directory inquiries or

01:49:40 instead ring up directory inquiries or speak to roofing sales and get hold of their main office fax number then ring and if we can go over the page the chat up and tell them you had to fax it that's and he's talking about how you

01:49:51 it that's and he's talking about how you can get it to them in the first part of that paragraph and then he says to you

01:49:57 to you if this report gets into the wrong hands we could lose a lot of work and also make these sorts of jobs a lot more difficult for us to justify phenolic phones use

01:50:08 for us to justify phenolic phones use that means a lot more and longer letters exclamation mark richardson roofing cannot always be trusted

01:50:14 trusted do they do many facades yeah do you see that there yeah so what did you understand mr meredith to mean when he said that the 8414 report could make it more difficult

01:50:26 8414 report could make it more difficult to justify the use of phenolic foam and could result in king's band losing work do you understand that to mean i'm not 100 sure really

01:50:37 you weren't sure no that that's your evidence is it you didn't know why he was saying that i don't know exactly what he was referring to yeah yeah as but yeah he's

01:50:50 yeah as but yeah he's you knew didn't you that that was the soul test report that king spam was relying upon and if people realized what the buildup was in that test report it could lose

01:51:01 in that test report it could lose kingspan a lot of work because people would realize that their systems were entirely different that's that's the truth isn't it i wouldn't say that would make a lot of difference because the bba certificate that was publicly available listed the exact

01:51:12 publicly available listed the exact construction in it so it was in the public domain already it was widely known what the construction was so why was there a need to write any of these letters or give any of this advice to clients at all if you could just

01:51:25 to clients at all if you could just point to the bba certificate well i suppose it's just as a comfort to help clients out you know we're just sending information it's a supporting letter just to you know advise what information you're

01:51:36 you know advise what information you're providing and just tie all the different bits together and list what they refer to and things like that

01:51:43 like that can we then look at the final paragraph of this email there on the page and he says um while on the subject of fire phil has said we should watch what we say to the bdms is that the

01:51:57 bdms is that the what what bdn business development manager i would think that yesterday he says i don't know what it was that was said but i suggest we be over cautious with what we say to them from

01:52:08 cautious with what we say to them from now on

01:52:08 now on i just say that things are delayed and not what we are having trouble getting a result

01:52:13 result on in the meantime i will try and find out if

01:52:17 out if what exactly we can and can't tell the business development managers do you see that there yeah now what did you understand that to mean he's telling you to say things are delayed and not what we are having

01:52:30 delayed and not what we are having trouble getting a result on i i don't remember exactly um it could have been that maybe they'd given a time scale on some additional testing or something i don't i'm

01:52:41 something i don't i'm yeah which possibly then we may may not have been able to follow through with or something like that i don't i don't know exactly but maybe something along those lines but this email we know is in the context of the use of k15 on buildings over 18

01:52:54 the use of k15 on buildings over 18 meters

01:52:55 meters yeah i'd suggest you it's very clear and you would have understood it this way at the time

01:52:59 the time that what he's saying is you're having trouble getting a result by getting a an 8414 test result that you can rely on for these other projects that's right isn't

01:53:10 these other projects that's right isn't it

01:53:10 it and they met yeah they may have had some problems with different construction types yes

01:53:15 types yes [Music]

01:53:18 [Music] and it suggests here that the business development teams within kingspan shouldn't be told about that do you agree

01:53:27 agree is that how you understood it um i didn't

01:53:30 didn't know specifically saying about what results i didn't i don't know i don't know if it was that or if it was to do with time scales or when tests were being done or yeah it sort of says about you know

01:53:41 or yeah it sort of says about you know not

01:53:41 not sort of going into all the details with them about the programs coming up yeah it's clearly not about time scales is it it's about we're having trouble getting a result

01:53:52 well yeah but that would assume possibly that they got some tests planned and it hadn't gone to plan so perhaps someone had told them we're doing a test and they promised a result to a customer and then they couldn't provide it because the test

01:54:03 because the test so you'd have to wait for them to do another test or something which might have delayed a project perhaps i'm i'm speculating because i don't know the specifics of this project often yeah right was it the normal practice of

01:54:15 yeah right was it the normal practice of kingspan's technical teams to hide information from other teams within the business

01:54:20 business um they wouldn't always uh tell the sales department all of the upcoming tests

01:54:25 tests because they maybe they might have promised things to customers before the tests have been done and results were achieved which then you know you look a bit silly if you promise something and then can't provide it

01:54:36 it so you're better off not to promise it and then just give it you know if you have it then you can provide it at a later date but rather than

01:54:45 than saying you're going to get something and then delay them paragraph three there one paragraph up from what we were just reading it says also i've noted below in your text the use of the term

01:54:56 use of the term third party accreditation when referring to the bs 8414 data i would be very cautious when using this term as i don't think it will wash with the bre

01:55:05 the bre what did you understand him to mean by he misunderstood something because there's something in another email about this the third party accreditation with the bre is in relation to an off-site system report that they've been

01:55:16 off-site system report that they've been sent it's not to do with the 8414 testing well um that's certainly not how this email chain reads because if you look at the email below you're saying this client has requested details of the br135

01:55:28 requested details of the br135 info and you're talking about the 8414 report

01:55:33 report yeah but i think they've been sent there's a kingspan off-site system bre approval which covered metal frame rain screen systems yes we've looked at that document that makes no reference to br 135 or no

01:55:46 makes no reference to br 135 or no no it's not related to bs eight four one four yeah it's not no ivor assumed it because it saw the bre in accreditation had sort of assumed that but that wasn't the case he got the wrong end of the stick about something

01:55:57 wrong end of the stick about something i see but isn't it right that um the way you would have understood it at the time is that he's saying be very careful about using that br135 term in relation

01:56:09 about using that br135 term in relation to 8414 because you didn't have a br135 classification report from the bre

01:56:15 bre yes that's right yes are you saying you can't claim you've got one when we haven't got one no exactly if we look at your response to iva meredith your response is halfway down page one

01:56:28 your response is halfway down page one of this document in an email that you send on the 11th of march at 9 33 you say there with regards to the third party accreditation statement this is referring to the bre accreditation

01:56:40 is referring to the bre accreditation off-site facade do you see that there yeah so that's the election yeah and then you say so we shouldn't have to worry about the bre causing problems because we are claiming bre 135

01:56:51 bre 135 accreditation without paying for it do you see that there yeah but what i'm suggesting to you is there was no reference to br135 or 8414 in that kingspan off-site document at all

01:57:02 that kingspan off-site document at all no no because so we're not claiming we're not claiming that that the bre document i referred to in the email with a different document it was nothing to do with 8414 that's what i'm saying we're not making any claims of that type so there's no

01:57:14 claims of that type so there's no problem

01:57:17 well but we know that you do regularly refer to the br135 assessment don't you in your emails we've seen we've said we've said that if you assess the results against brw

01:57:28 the results against brw 135 but we've never claimed that the bre did an assessment for us let's look at some more technical advice you gave after you became a senior technical

01:57:39 technical advisor once you were promoted so you as we discussed earlier in your evidence

01:57:45 evidence in around 2006 2007 you were promoted to a

01:57:49 a senior technical advisor role and you tell us that you didn't then spend as much time on the phone speaking with contractors and architects but you instead focused on assisting

01:58:00 but you instead focused on assisting other less experienced technical advisors that's right isn't it yes yeah that would have been some of the role yeah yeah and and part of that assistance you gave to less experienced technical advisors was by going through

01:58:11 technical advisors was by going through specific customer inquiries and referring them to relevant sources of information and applicable regulations yes yeah yeah yeah and then and we we discussed it earlier but just to

01:58:23 discussed it earlier but just to clarify you were responsible for around 16 employees at that time weren't you i wasn't directly no no that was to do with the bba calculation competency scheme which is to do you value calculations

01:58:34 calculations i see so how many less experienced technical advisors were you now responsible for assisting in this new role as senior technical advisor

01:58:45 advisor i didn't have a direct managerial responsibility for any of them but there would have been there was two teams of four in the office who would have you know and some of those i would have

01:58:56 and some of those i would have assisted as and when they needed it i see let's look at some more advice you gave if we can go this is a project called city lost in sheffield

01:59:06 sheffield if we go to kin409042 this is an email from july 2008. between um you iva meredith and a

01:59:18 between um you iva meredith and a customer called roof deck limited about a project called city loss in sheffield do you remember this do you remember advising on it i no i don't

01:59:27 i don't know so if we can go to page two to an email date of the 17th of july 2008 at 1609

01:59:38 do you see there so richard kirsch has sent an email to anthony makin

01:59:49 about city lofts in sheffield u-value condensation risk analysis calculations for kingspan k15 rain screen insulation do you see that there

01:59:59 there and he says we are proposing to use your k-15 insulation on a project we have secured in sheffield approximately 3 000 square square meters however we have received negative comments from wintec the client's

02:00:11 comments from wintec the client's representative could you please digest and comment as appropriate and then you're told this that the spec is as follows 400 millimeter thick concrete shear wall

02:00:24 400 millimeter thick concrete shear wall k15 insulation and then terracotta fixed to helping hand brackets do you see that there yeah

02:00:33 and then if we go up to the bottom of page one this email is then forwarded to you

02:00:37 you on the 28th of july 2008 at midday

02:00:43 from anthony macon and he says to you can you do this one urgently please respond

02:00:51 respond rich and copy to all do you see that there

02:00:54 there what would respond rich mean

02:00:58 can you help us no no i don't know on that

02:01:02 that um might have been he meant to send it to richard bromwich perhaps he was another one of the bdms i don't know yeah and then if we go to your response which is the next email up on page one

02:01:14 which is the next email up on page one sent to the client at 1643 on the 28th of july oh eight you see to anthony making every and richard roofdeck.com maybe it was actually to rich

02:01:25 actually to rich actually at roof deck that's probably why it says respond to rich do you see that there he's he's one of the recipients of the this email can you see that it's anthony makin

02:01:38 can you see that it's anthony makin and richard at reefdeck.com that you send this to

02:01:46 and then you say in the first couple of lines you say my colleague mr iva meredith was supposed to be meeting steve lee

02:01:53 steve lee stuart's college last monday at their offices in wenzefield but unfortunately steve had to cancel at the last minute but it's hope this will be rescheduled for this thursday

02:02:01 thursday do you see that there yeah so a meeting i think between wintec and mr meredith and then you say line three onwards you say the intention

02:02:12 line three onwards you say the intention of the above mentioned meeting is to present kingspan insulation's test data relating to call firm k15 and high-rise rain screen facades one of the tests we intend to present to wintec is to bs 8414 part one

02:02:25 wintec is to bs 8414 part one and details call them k15 fixed onto a non-combustible substrate yeah so you don't say uh masonry do you with a non-combustible rain screen cladding

02:02:36 cladding yeah so you don't say cement particle board

02:02:39 board fiber cement board do you there and then he says the construction was successfully tested to bs8414 part one thus it met the criteria of br135 we believe in this particular situation

02:02:51 we believe in this particular situation the test evidence is directly applicable to the construction used on the city lofts project

02:02:59 do you see that there yeah

02:03:02 and there were no other tests that could be presented to wintec about the use of k-15 in high-rise rain screen facades weather other than the 2005 one no it would have

02:03:14 other than the 2005 one no it would have been that one yeah

02:03:19 and in this email you're clearly indicating that the results are directly applicable to a system using a terracotta rain screen well it's a it's the part one which would be the

02:03:30 it's the part one which would be the right type of test on to the type of substrate they've indicated there is that

02:03:33 that slight difference yeah but we're referring to the fact again that we're going to give them the test report with the full construction results with respect mr mills it's not a slight difference is it a terracotta

02:03:44 slight difference is it a terracotta rain screen exterior is entirely different to a cement particle fibre cement board isn't it and on that it's not the same type of rain screen no no no but again the uh the approved

02:03:58 no no but again the uh the approved document b is not the only method of compliance with the building regulations there are other methods so as well so there is possible other routes they may have followed on the project

02:04:07 project so we sent the information the test data we had which showed the full construction and then they had to make a choice on how they proceeded but what we're seeking to understand is how you can go so

02:04:17 so far as to say that you believe in this particular situation the test evidence is directly applicable when you also say you knew that a bs 8414 test was a system test

02:04:28 that a bs 8414 test was a system test and an

02:04:28 and an exact unless you exactly replicate the system

02:04:32 system it's not applicable is it um well it's the it's the specific test for their that sort of type of construction with a masonry substrate yeah i'm not going to repeat myself the

02:04:43 yeah i'm not going to repeat myself the external

02:04:44 external uh cladding surface is entirely different wasn't it

02:04:55 and then scrolling up to the top an email in this chain mr meredith asks um g did i prove this do you see that there yeah and he says

02:05:06 do you see that there yeah and he says reading it back we should be careful what we say about

02:05:11 now it's not clear what he thought you should be careful about what did you take him to be saying there what should you have been careful what you said about it i i i don't know i'm i'm not sure i'd suggest to you that

02:05:24 i'm i'm not sure i'd suggest to you that you fully understood at the time that what he meant is be careful about referring to that 8414

02:05:30 8414 test and the specifics of it because it's

02:05:33 it's obviously not the same construction as what they were proposing on their building

02:05:38 building yeah but we're talking about we're going to give them the report with the construction in it we're not deceiving anything from them we're going we're saying about we're going to give them a copy of the report which has the tested construction in it we're not hiding what

02:05:51 construction in it we're not hiding what we tested but i would suggest you are deceiving them because you know full well

02:05:56 well that that test isn't representative of other cladding systems you've been told that by the bre you've said you understand that and yet you're going out on projects like this and you are saying that k-15

02:06:08 like this and you are saying that k-15 is appropriate for use despite that

02:06:18 um on that well that's you know we had the

02:06:22 the the test information we had to that's what we had to provide for it we're not doing the specification for the project we just had to show what information we had and let them decide if they proceeded or not okay

02:06:34 not okay can we go now to kin409157 and i want to start on page four the bottom

02:06:41 bottom third of that page

02:06:46 where you're sending out a response to a lady called pat stanley or a man called pat stanley on the 14th of october 2009 and the heading is fire combustibility do you

02:06:57 heading is fire combustibility do you see that there yeah and you say with regards to the call them k-15 product in spite of the excellent application fire performance demonstrated by the product it is not technically classified

02:07:09 product it is not technically classified as non-combustible yeah the product is a thermoset material so will not melt run or drip when exposed to fire or heat and achieve a class naught low risk classification when tested to bs 476

02:07:21 classification when tested to bs 476 part 6 and 7 which is the best rating achievable under these two tests in addition to this it has also performed well in test rigs undertaken to bs 8414 as noticed in my

02:07:33 undertaken to bs 8414 as noticed in my previous

02:07:34 previous email do you see that there yeah and then you're talking about a particular extract from the scottish handbook hope this information is assist resistance yep

02:07:45 resistance yep what was it that you say demonstrated the products excellent in application fire performance um we've got a number of fire resistance tests i suppose they've done the

02:07:56 tests i suppose they've done the the bs8414 test so

02:08:01 can you explain what you meant when you said that k15 is not technically classified as non-combustible it's well it's not classified by the regulations as non-combustible no but saying it's not technically

02:08:13 no but saying it's not technically classified as non-combustible sounds like it's

02:08:15 like it's quite close to being non-combustible when it's nothing of the sort is it no it's not non-combustible no

02:08:24 why have you referred to test rigs in the plural i don't know it may have been a typo in addition to this it has also performed well in test rigs undertaken to bs 8414 as noted in

02:08:38 rigs undertaken to bs 8414 as noted in my previous email do you see that there yeah now that wouldn't be accurate would it at this point because you've only got one test from 2005. yes yeah and it yeah so i think we've already covered the test

02:08:49 already covered the test and by the sounds of it in the email before or somewhere further in the chain we've already provided the test path stanley as well is actually an interim this is not something that's gone externally this is to an internal employee of kingsman

02:09:02 nicely i see but you're you're expecting somebody to then use that information aren't you by sending in combination with the other bits that have been sent yeah i think let's look at another

02:09:14 yeah i think let's look at another project now this is the middlesbrough middle haven project another building over 18 meters if we can go to kin four zeros 9188 this is from

02:09:26 four zeros 9188 this is from august 2010 and moving forward in time and if we could look at the top of that

02:09:37 and if we could look at the top of that email we can see it's from you to anthony making so that's another kingspan

02:09:42 kingspan employee so by this point we know you're a senior technical advisor and you're supporting those junior to you was anthony making one of those uh technical offices that you were

02:09:53 technical offices that you were supporting at this time and no no he was a business development manager or a sales manager one of the two he would

02:09:59 would he would have been and then you've copied in

02:10:02 copied in the technical inquiries email address yeah and then others marks with peter morgan

02:10:07 morgan yeah and you say in the subject do not forward direct to client middlesbrough middle haven project do you see that there yeah so you're giving advice to

02:10:19 yeah so you're giving advice to someone in the development the business development department you advise on various other aspects of the product at points one to three of your email and it's point four i want to

02:10:30 your email and it's point four i want to ask you about so you're advising about thermal performance in point one acoustics point two breathing nature of the products point three and then far performance you deal with it point four

02:10:42 deal with it point four and you say this on the fire performance side we have the advantage of potentially having the high performance material

02:10:48 material being used throughout the wall area rather than a low performance material for a large area of the building and the high performance product only used on the higher level stories therefore providing a more robust system

02:11:01 therefore providing a more robust system the other item which the clients may need to consider is that the paver firm bba certificate quotes the fire classification as class e under the euro class classifications therefore

02:11:12 therefore if this product is facing into the cavity behind the cladding they will require the centers for their cavity barrier to be no greater than 10 meters

02:11:20 meters whereas with k-15 being class naught in accordance with bs 476 parts six and seven

02:11:27 seven the cavity barrier centers can potentially be installed at the maximum separation of 20 meters they may potentially require double the quantity of cavity barriers and then you say with the type of cladding they are using we know we may

02:11:39 cladding they are using we know we may not be bulletproof on our stance for bs8414 br135 so i would suggest not making a big issue of this unless we are specifically asked questions by the client

02:11:50 asked questions by the client do you see that there yeah

02:11:55 when had you first become aware that kingspan was not bulletproof on the stance being taken in relation to 8414 and br135 well we didn't have data to cover lots

02:12:07 well we didn't have data to cover lots of different construction types so we were quite limited on what we could sort of what information we could provide so quite so in truth you were well aware that

02:12:18 so in truth you were well aware that kings fans stance on the use of k-15 over 18 meters was misleading and inaccurate in many instances weren't you

02:12:29 i'm saying they were they were probably ambitious in what they were sort of expecting

02:12:33 expecting to use the product in yeah is ambitious the right word here wouldn't wouldn't it be that they were they were misrepresenting they were lying about k-15 they may

02:12:44 they were lying about k-15 they may some some people may have been yeah but but you don't think you ever were i'm i think i'd provided the information on the constructions and things like that when

02:12:53 that when and what test data we had i don't think i made any false claims about what test data we had and is it right that the strategy as you've set out here was to not make a big issue

02:13:04 big issue of that aspect unless being specifically asked questions by the client well yeah i would have said not to you know not to be overly sort of going you know big about

02:13:15 overly sort of going you know big about sort of you know that we have lots of approval or testing to be at eight for one for because we have a relatively small amount of it so we would have been better just to see what specific questions they had rather than

02:13:26 questions they had rather than saying that this is something that can be used everywhere you know there's no problems

02:13:30 problems or whatever when they would have had to refer specifically to the you know the specific test and construction and was it the case that the majority of clients didn't challenge kingspan's

02:13:41 clients didn't challenge kingspan's generic statements about the use of k15 over 18 meters um on this i suppose um there were some queries that came back

02:13:53 there were some queries that came back um i don't know what conversations they had with building control and things because you know we are only we only see one side of things but yeah did it occur to you at any stage after

02:14:04 did it occur to you at any stage after you became a senior technical advisor that kingspan's position on the use of k-15

02:14:09 k-15 on high-rises could present a risk to public safety um i suppose you know i i knew that they would be better to do more tests and things like this which i did propose

02:14:21 things like this which i did propose to the company yeah but you know i i didn't know the exact i don't didn't claim to know the exact sort of effects of you know tests or what the outcomes of

02:14:32 you know tests or what the outcomes of you know different types of tests would be things like that or in a real life application compared to a you know a lab test

02:14:41 let's go to another example let's go to

02:14:46 kin403799

02:14:50 and i want you to look at the first page this is you and we've moved forward in time again now so i've shown you examples from 2007

02:15:01 so i've shown you examples from 2007 2010 2013

02:15:04 2010 2013 and this is you email emailing alice and morrison do you see that there somebody called s workmen yeah in april 13

02:15:15 s workmen yeah in april 13 about the use of k15 and the subject is saint andrews block kingspan k15 insulation do you see that there

02:15:22 there yeah and and you make clear in the first paragraph further to our earlier correspondence with your colleagues and the potential use of call for mk15 within the wall constructions please find and close the information discussed

02:15:34 find and close the information discussed during our telephone conversation and you've attached a copy of the bba certificate outlining various construction types which the product has been assessed and approved for use by the bba

02:15:46 approved for use by the bba yeah and then you say document covers the use of cool therm at point one in construction is provide comprising a

02:15:57 in construction is provide comprising a steel frame in a leaf and an outer cladding and masonry outer leaf and then what i want to do is look at the final paragraph of your email on page one

02:16:14 beginning additionally you say additionally if the project is complying with the principles of the building regulations with regards to control of fire

02:16:22 fire by following the guidance outlined in approved document b for buildings which have stories greater than 18 meters from ground level document b2 outlines two possible routes to demonstrate suitability of constructions where the

02:16:34 suitability of constructions where the installation is not enclosed between two leaves of masonry the alternative guidance route is based on testing to bs 8414 to show suitability of the products in question the emails below and our earlier email

02:16:46 the emails below and our earlier email chains cover these items in more detail although in summary the call firm k15 has been tested following this procedure and the required levels of performance were achieved although there are some

02:16:57 were achieved although there are some differences between the construction tested and what is proposed for this project considering the nature of the differences and that we would expect a number of the differences to improve the fire performance of the construction

02:17:08 construction such as the removal of full cross-flow ventilation from the cavity and the use of a mortar jointed 102 millimeter brick masonry outer leaf in place of a six millimeter open

02:17:19 in place of a six millimeter open jointed rain screen panel it is our opinion that the proposed system in question described above and illustrated in new value calculations provided for the project would perform similarly or better than the tested

02:17:30 similarly or better than the tested build up with regards to 8414. do you see that there yeah

02:17:36 so here you are pointing out that there are differences between the proposed buildup

02:17:40 buildup and the 2005 test yeah but do you agree you don't spell out precisely what those differences are and we have listed the construction we tested

02:17:50 we tested in in there and we've included the bba certificate as well which has got the full construction in it attached to the email yes but that often refers to just a

02:18:01 that often refers to just a non-combustible substrate or a non-combustible outer leaf

02:18:06 leaf and you go on in this email and you're giving an

02:18:10 giving an assessment of those differences and you're saying that you conclude that the proposed build up for that project would perform similarly or better yes i said it's in our opinion

02:18:21 yes i said it's in our opinion that we thought they would improve it yeah because it's got instead of like a six mil building board you've got a hundred mil closed joint mortar jointed system so you've got something which

02:18:32 system so you've got something which provides a large level of fire resistance on the outside you've got completely closed off cavities rather than open ventilated cavities and was this system a steel frame system

02:18:44 and was this system a steel frame system or

02:18:44 or a masonry uh

02:18:48 this was looks like this was steel frame on the inside yeah yeah so you didn't have any test data to bs eight four one four part two so how could you be well no

02:19:01 so how could you be well no on how this system would be we've not claimed that we've got a test for that build up we've we've we've said what we've tested and we've said that it's different from his build-up

02:19:10 build-up yes interestingly you've not referred there to the difference between eight four one four parts two or part one in that paragraph have you no

02:19:21 no would you agree that that the advice i've been showing you this afternoon is entirely at odds with what you've told us in your evidence about the way in which queries were dealt with about the use of k-15 over 18 meters

02:19:33 about the use of k-15 over 18 meters none of them say that k-15 has only been tested on a different construction giving the details of that construction which does not relate to their proposed build-up

02:19:42 build-up none of them say that do they uh well every single inquiry you've brought up we've sent the construction with it we've either sent the test report or the bba certificate listing the construction the test information has been sent with

02:19:54 the test information has been sent with every single one of these emails yes but let's go back to page 10 paragraph 33 of your witness statement we've looked at it before you say

02:20:05 we've looked at it before you say that uh six lines down there or if the type of construction was different we would explain to customers that we only had a test result for an alternative type of construction

02:20:16 type of construction yeah that's not a fair characterization of the advice that you would you were giving was it i i i wouldn't know i would interpret that sending the test showing what we've tested

02:20:28 test showing what we've tested and the build up of what we've tested illustrates that we've tested a different construction if it doesn't match their construction

02:20:38 if we can look at your width sorry before we leave that do you have anything to say about the next sentence which one particular sorry it begins in those what it reads in those circumstances we would advise

02:20:50 circumstances we would advise customers that they would either need to rethink their type of construction or speak with building control to see whether their proposed type of construction was acceptable or not i don't recall seeing advice of that

02:21:02 i don't recall seeing advice of that sort in any of the letters we've looked at

02:21:05 at um i suppose i didn't i think there was there was any it was i suppose a bit about building control i think there's only in one of them there was something referenced to sort of you know just liaise with their control officer and see their opinions in one of

02:21:16 officer and see their opinions in one of them but yeah that wasn't specifically in all of them that little bit no it wasn't any of them was it there was one which mentioned yeah advising the customers to rethink their type of construction

02:21:29 type of construction um i suppose it specifically hadn't been put in those words although we've sort of said that you know we haven't got approval for the construction which matches theirs so this is the only data we've got so it

02:21:41 so this is the only data we've got so it yeah whoops yes thank you if we can look at your witness statement paragraph 13 at the top of page five

02:21:53 you say this during the period i was employed at kings by kingsville i don't know for certain how they decided what technical advice to give to customers in relation to the use of k-15 in buildings with a floor over 18 meters in

02:22:04 buildings with a floor over 18 meters in height

02:22:05 height do you see that there yeah all i can reiterate is that the technical department under the supervision of the technical manager would advise customers that k15 did not meet the limited combustibility test

02:22:15 test in adb and therefore it was necessary to look at the alternative method of compliance yeah do you see that there well again that that's certainly not the advice you've given in all of the examples you've looked at

02:22:26 all of the examples you've looked at well we've referred them to the all of them referred to the alternative method of compliance all of them referred to like the bs eight four wonderful routes all of them refer to that let's go to

02:22:39 kin405738 this is an email chain that starts with a query by a nick jenkins of euroclad about the use of k15 in buildings over

02:22:50 about the use of k15 in buildings over 18 meters we can see that from the bottom of page one on the fourth of september 2013 nick jenkins

02:22:57 jenkins 1042 and we can see the subject matter of the email is permissible use of k15 for building over 18 meters yeah and it's forwarded to you and iva meredith and then at the very top email on page

02:23:09 and then at the very top email on page one ivor meredith sends an email to you and joel clark and you're asked by mr meredith for an update

02:23:18 update and and he says as follows um no gareth should have a draft of the faqs which you could use g have you made any headway yeah and

02:23:30 g have you made any headway yeah and then he says this i suggest you circulate the stock answer just to make sure we're all communicating our stock answer in the best way yeah do you see that yeah and do you agree that this email shows that you're

02:23:41 agree that this email shows that you're part of a team devising a stock answer to questions about the permissible use of k15 for buildings over 18 meters um i would potentially it looks like there was a project there to write up

02:23:53 there was a project there to write up some

02:23:53 some common bits you know based on standard answers we were providing out of the department yeah i wouldn't necessarily have been producing the the sort of stock answer myself but i would have been sort of putting those

02:24:04 i would have been sort of putting those into a single document

02:24:07 let's go now to kin-409542 this is the the last email chain that i need to take you to

02:24:19 and second email down is an email chain between you iva meredith and joel clark and the email subject is k15

02:24:27 k15 faqs for review do you see that there at the top of the page yeah and then in this email sent by joel clark to you and mr meredith there are proposed answers to draft

02:24:39 are proposed answers to draft frequently asked questions faqs at the top of the email joel clark says answers in red below assume the building has habitable stories above 18 meters in height and

02:24:51 stories above 18 meters in height and less stated otherwise do you see that there

02:24:53 there yeah did you have a hand in drafting these faqs i'm not sure not sure you're not sure

02:25:02 [Applause] so contrary to what you said in your witness statement where you said you don't know for certain how you decided what technical advice to give you actually had faqs that were drafted didn't you yes

02:25:15 faqs that were drafted didn't you yes but they're just using sort of previous that sort of common questions that have previously been answered that's just putting them together in one they're already common answers so it's not sort of producing the answers it's

02:25:27 not sort of producing the answers it's sort of just collating common questions and putting them all in one group together as if we look in the second paragraph starting at um little roman little four

02:25:39 um little roman little four do you see that there at the top of that page in black it says do we have test data or suitable assessments to demonstrate compliance for their proposed construction yeah and then the the suggested answer

02:25:51 yeah and then the the suggested answer is this cool firm k-15 and call them k-5 have been tested to bs-8414 part 1 and when assessed in accordance with br135 are acceptable for use in buildings over 18 meters in height

02:26:04 buildings over 18 meters in height successful testing to bs 8414 means that the products can be used in areas normally limited to non-combustible and limited combustibility products yeah i'm just pausing there on that line

02:26:18 yeah i'm just pausing there on that line that's thoroughly misleading and inaccurate isn't it to state that successful testing to 8414 means that the products can be used in areas normally limited to non-combustible and limited

02:26:30 non-combustible and limited combustibility products yeah so this is a draft sort of internal document this is not the finished version

02:26:36 version which has been sent to a customer so this is something in process of being written

02:26:41 written i see but you accept that that's thoroughly misleading isn't it it's not the whole picture in there no you can't take a product

02:26:52 in there no you can't take a product that's been in a system test and then say well that product can be used in areas where you would normally use non-combustible or limited combustibility products can you no they would need to refer to the

02:27:04 no they would need to refer to the construction or something yeah that has been tested in there to give a fuller sort of answer yeah and then in the fourth paragraph of this email in red um if you go

02:27:15 in red um if you go down there's a heading or it starts in brackets with extra question from jc for clarity do you see that there yeah and there's the question but my construction is different from the one

02:27:27 construction is different from the one you tested and then you're coming up with proposed faqs

02:27:32 faqs which reads our testing has demonstrated that cool firm k15 is suitable for use as a component in a compliance system in compliance system the overall performance of the assembly

02:27:43 the overall performance of the assembly will depend on the suitability of all the components used did you see that there

02:27:48 there yeah are you prepared to accept now that king spans one test to 8414 from 2005 demonstrated no such thing

02:28:01 um well it it doesn't show that it can be used in all types of construction no i don't think i don't think we've claimed it has

02:28:12 claimed it has well you say our testing has demonstrated that k-15 is suitable for use as a component in compliance system yeah this is an internal draft of a document in production it's not something that's sort of a finished document or piece of literature that's

02:28:24 document or piece of literature that's being sent to customers this is an even process document this is and then the fifth paragraph in red there's a there's some metallics in red that read final throw of the dice for

02:28:35 that read final throw of the dice for when all else fails and then it says if required kingspan can assist in gaining a third-party assessment of the proposed construction do you see that there yeah and what did you understand final throw of the dice to mean there

02:28:52 um i'm having to speculate a bit really um

02:28:55 um [Music]

02:28:58 [Music] would you agree with me that kingspan were actively seeking to have k15 specified using any means available to it

02:29:07 to it how they were looking to use it on on all of the projects where it was deemed suitable yeah yeah would you agree that kingspan actively pursued all available options to demonstrate the compliance of k15 for

02:29:19 to demonstrate the compliance of k15 for buildings over 18 meters without relevant test evidence on which to base those claims and they did look at all the different routes of compliance yes i'm suggesting that they pursued

02:29:32 yes i'm suggesting that they pursued options without relevant test evidence on which to base those claims yes or no um in in terms of that i i i only commented specifically on what

02:29:43 i i only commented specifically on what i've done

02:29:43 i've done but yeah i've always supplied the construction information with when you've sent information out and would you accept that kingspan did that aggressively

02:29:54 aggressively and they well they they did go out to try and gain a lot of projects so they were

02:29:59 were sales people were contacting lots of potential specifiers and things like that

02:30:04 that and and handing out brochures and doing things so they were sort of i suppose yeah they were sort of aggressively looking to gain work yes certainly mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions yes sorry that i've taken till

02:30:16 questions yes sorry that i've taken till half past four but i think if we had a 10-minute break for any final question yes well mr mills when council thinks she's finished her questions we need to have a short break so she can take stock

02:30:27 short break so she can take stock and also to enable those who are following the proceedings but not from this room

02:30:31 this room can suggest questions that might need to be put to you so we're going to break now until 20 to 4.

02:30:38 4. sorry 20 to 5 yeah and then we'll come back and see if there are any more questions we have for you okay and uh again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room um if i'm

02:30:51 while you're out of the room um if i'm if we're told that a little longer is required we may have to extend the break but uh anyway we'll keep it as short as we can okay all right thank you very much

02:31:14 strange i'm going to say 20 to 5 but as usual if you need more time thank you very much

02:42:00 yes would you ask mr mills to come back in please

02:42:15 right mr mills well we'll see if there are any more questions for you ms grange do you have any more questions no further questions thank you

02:42:23 so it just it just goes to say thank you very much mr mills for coming today to assist us with our enquiries thank you yes well i would add my thanks on behalf of the panel mr mills thank you for coming

02:42:33 coming spend the day here answering our questions it's been very useful to hear from you okay thank you very much right well now you're free to go say would you like to be over the usher okay

02:42:56 right thank you very much that must be it for today it is and then tomorrow morning mr millett will be taking the last

02:43:02 last celetex witness uh ms debbie berger and then we will hopefully start mr philip heath for kingspan in the afternoon

02:43:09 afternoon right good 12th we'll break there and resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank you very much

02:43:27 you