Tony Millichap, former Head of Technical at Kingspan (2010-2015), gives evidence about K15 insulation product testing, marketing literature, and understanding of building regulations for external cladding systems.
00:00:21 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:24 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from another
00:00:28 another witness who used to work for kingspan yesterday
00:00:31 yesterday yes because we have mr tony milichap
00:00:42 please
00:00:49 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr militant sit down please make yourself comfortable
00:01:03 all right there's some water and a glass for you if you want it thank you yes we're strange yes thank you can you give the inquiry your full name please tony christopher milica yes and if i can thank you
00:01:14 thank you very much for attending to give your evidence today it's very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions i ask you please ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way
00:01:27 put the point in a different way if you feel you need a break at any time please let us know and if you can keep your voice up so that the lady just transcribing to your right
00:01:35 right can take a clear note of your evidence that would be great now you've provided one witness statement to the inquiry we're going to bring it up on the screen and it's in a folder on the desk in front of you as well
00:01:46 front of you as well it's at kin3020821
00:01:52 if we could go to page 63 of that statement we can see it's dated the 18th of october 2010 now is that a typographical error
00:02:05 2010 now is that a typographical error i believe that should be 18th of october 2019
00:02:08 2019 is that right yes it is yes so can we correct that um and is that your signature it is have you read that with a statement recently i have and can you confirm that
00:02:20 recently i have and can you confirm that the contents are true yes and have you discussed your statement or the evidence you're going to give with anybody before coming here today
00:02:27 today no now to start with i want to ask you about your your background if we pull up um paragraph 2.1 of your witness statement on
00:02:37 on page three
00:02:43 you tell us that your career began when you assumed an entry-level role in 1995 working as a technical advisor at kingspan
00:02:53 kingspan that's right isn't it it is yes and prior to that you tell us in the second line you previously completed an hnd in civil engineering yes right
00:03:04 an hnd in civil engineering yes right and you tell us that at that time you reported to philip heath and you worked with andrew pack and justin davis yes yes and in that role as technical advisor
00:03:17 and in that role as technical advisor is it right that you were providing advice to customers on kingspan's products
00:03:22 products it is yep
00:03:25 and did you provide advice on all of kingspun's products during that time or did you specialize in particular products
00:03:32 products no it would have been the the full range of products yeah and then you tell us in the next paragraph 2.2 that in 2000
00:03:43 next paragraph 2.2 that in 2000 after five years you left kingspan and you joined a company called metclad as a contract manager is that right yes yeah and then you return to kingspan
00:03:57 and then you return to kingspan you say in the second line there in 2004 to undertake a similar role within the kingspan
00:04:04 kingspan tech business can you just help us what is the the kingspan tech business tek
00:04:11 tek yes i think uh lastly you'll have probably known it as off-site um yes tech's an actual product um and i i believe there was a business unit actually just supporting tech
00:04:22 unit actually just supporting tech yeah it's a structurally insulated panel system yes so it's a company producing structured insulated panel
00:04:30 panel systems so a whole system correct yes is that right yes great and then in 2006 looking at 2.3 at the bottom of
00:04:41 in 2006 looking at 2.3 at the bottom of that
00:04:42 that page we can see that you were promoted to become the manager of kingspan's tapered roofing department is that right yes it is
00:04:52 yes it is [Applause] and in that role you reported to you say in the second line peter wilson the managing director of kingspan uk
00:05:03 kingspan uk is that right it is and you also informally reported to philip heath and chris guest yes yes mr miller satisfy my curiosity if you would what's the tapered room
00:05:14 if you would what's the tapered room um so it's flat roof insulation that introduces a drainage fall at the same time oh right thank you yeah and then in if we look at paragraph 2.4
00:05:29 and then in if we look at paragraph 2.4 further down page 3 of your statement you then tell us that in 2010 you were promoted again to the role of head of technical for kingspan's uk
00:05:40 kingspan's uk and ireland businesses with responsibility for tapered roofing and technical services that's right yes yes and is it right that this role in
00:05:51 yes and is it right that this role in 2010 gave you your first involvement with and responsibility for k-15 as a product is that right it is yes
00:06:02 and then you tell us at paragraph 2.5 below that that in 2015 you left kingspan on good terms to pursue a career progression again at metclad
00:06:13 metclad is that right where you became a director first of their flat reefing business before assuming the role of safety health environment and quality director at metcloud yes yes and are you still in that role at
00:06:25 yes and are you still in that role at metclad i am yes you are yeah now i'm going to be focusing on your
00:06:32 your role and responsibilities at kingspan between 2010 and uh middle of 2015. sure the purposes of my questions and during that time you managed and oversaw the
00:06:43 that time you managed and oversaw the technical services team within kingspan is that right yes and the technical projects team yes yes and did that include overseeing the technical advisors who
00:06:55 overseeing the technical advisors who were handling customer queries about for example k-15 it did there was another tier of management between myself
00:07:03 myself and the front line advisors yes and who was that tier of management uh matthew evans for the largest part right
00:07:11 right yeah and in that period as head of technical who did you report to malcolm roachwood yeah
00:07:23 and how often would you report to dr rochford
00:07:26 rochford how frequently were you in contact with him reporting back i would say we would have a face-to-face weekly and probably communication more
00:07:38 weekly and probably communication more often than that
00:07:42 and that more often communication would that be by email email or phone call yes yeah were you physically located near to him at the pembridge yes yes i live
00:07:52 live local to pembridge i'd have been physically in the office around three days a week yeah and your office within penbridge was that close to
00:08:00 to dr rochford's office it was in the same building um it was probably a two or three minute walk um so he was on the ground floor i was on the upstairs yeah
00:08:13 upstairs yeah and you explain in paragraph 2.4 of your witness statement we can still see it there up on the screen that you managed a team it's in the third line down a team of up to 30 people
00:08:24 people including the technical advisors that's right isn't it yes and did that include mr meredith throughout that period it did
00:08:34 and how frequently would the individuals you manage to report back to you we all worked in in the same office some of the roles involved traveling so
00:08:45 some of the roles involved traveling so we wouldn't have seen each other every day but definitely every week it was an open plan office uh deliberately there were three to four offices
00:08:57 there were three to four offices within that glass offices within that space
00:09:01 space i think it was seen and i definitely hold with
00:09:05 hold with being close to the people that are working around you and there's a lot of cross-fertilization between the team yeah and is it fair to say that you work closely with mr meredith during that
00:09:16 closely with mr meredith during that period 2010 to 2015. yes
00:09:21 and would you agree that he in particular during your time as head of technical was tasked by you with the day-to-day responsibility for handling a number of important areas of work within the technical team
00:09:32 of work within the technical team yes yeah now in terms of the particular responsibilities you held in relation to kingspan's k15 product while you were head of technical
00:09:43 product while you were head of technical um
00:09:45 um i want to ask you first about your recollections about how marketing material and product literature for k-15 was produced and checked if we can look at paragraph 4.4 on page 8 of your statement
00:10:03 you tell us in the second line there that you did have some limited involvement in marketing and promotion which you've gone on to explain um so is it right that your involvement in
00:10:14 so is it right that your involvement in that was was limited it was yes and then in paragraph 4.6 of your statement if we could look further down the page at that
00:10:26 further down the page at that you explain that there was a standalone marketing team that's in lines one and two there he would produce marketing literature and promotional materials
00:10:37 promotional materials and then if we look at the second sentence the third line down you say however the technical team would be consulted with regards to the technical content of marketing literature including product
00:10:49 literature including product descriptions physical properties of products fire testing and thermal performance the technical team would review this information to ensure its accuracy
00:11:01 information to ensure its accuracy and was that because the technical teams would know in a way that the marketing team would simply not how for example the fire testing and
00:11:12 how for example the fire testing and performance in fire should be described in order to be clear and accurate yes absolutely there was a technical oversight
00:11:22 oversight an awful lot of that work was producing calculations that populated the literature for you value typically fire performance
00:11:33 performance wasn't as
00:11:38 i suppose it wasn't as difficult to include fire performance because typically it was against a test certification and therefore it was pretty straightforward what would need
00:11:50 pretty straightforward what would need to be included in the literature around you values we had to decide what thicknesses we were going to promote uh what constructions that would be built up so there's a bit
00:12:01 that would be built up so there's a bit more input into that side of it than fire yeah yeah paragraph 4.7 on the next page you tell us a little bit more about
00:12:12 you tell us a little bit more about marketing literature and one of the things you say it's about um two-thirds of the way down that paragraph
00:12:21 paragraph there's a sentence beginning on the far right you say as far as i recall the marketing literature in respect of all kingspan products was subject to a robust review process
00:12:32 robust review process do you see that there yes and is that right that it was subject all the marketing literature was subject to a robust review process yes
00:12:43 did you consider that kingspan understood throughout your time as head of technical the importance of the technical content of marketing literature being clear and accurate particularly in
00:12:54 being clear and accurate particularly in relation to matters of safety such as fire safety yes
00:13:01 now
00:13:05 you make the point again at paragraph 4.13
00:13:08 4.13 and page 10 of your witness statement that you had a limited involvement in reviewing or specifying the granular
00:13:19 in reviewing or specifying the granular detail of the content of the marketing literature that's in that first line
00:13:25 and then you go on in that paragraph um in the next sentence to say this you say generally i only intervened to give my input on this from a supervisory perspective
00:13:36 perspective in circumstances where there was a difference of opinion amongst those in the technical team who reported to me as to such content do you see that there yes now
00:13:47 do you see that there yes now with reference to the k-15 product can you give us any examples of when that occurred when you did intervene because there was a difference of opinion
00:13:58 a difference of opinion amongst the technical team who were reporting to you i don't recall any specific circumstances with k-15 you can't you can't recall anything relating to k-15 which fell into that
00:14:09 relating to k-15 which fell into that category
00:14:10 category no now moving on um to look at your role in terms of testing now and in particular testing of k15 if we look at paragraph 4.4 on page 8 of your
00:14:22 look at paragraph 4.4 on page 8 of your statement
00:14:27 you tell us that as head of technical your remit primarily related to the testing and certification of k-15 is that right yes
00:14:38 and that would include the far testing yes
00:14:42 yes yes yeah as an overview
00:14:46 and then in the next paragraph you tell us a little bit more about uh testing you just show up the whole of that
00:14:56 that paragraph
00:15:02 and you say you were involved in fire focus group meetings etc as part of these meetings deadline dan you established a program of testing and certification
00:15:13 and certification with the time schedule and construction type for each test and then you tell us that the oversight of the execution of each test was delegated to iva meredith as a technical project leader
00:15:24 project leader is that right who reported to you yes and you tell us that your role was to set clear deadlines for fire tests to be completed and for certification to be achieved
00:15:32 achieved yes yes
00:15:38 and can
00:15:41 and then paragraph 11.8 of your statement on page 55
00:15:58 you you tell us a little bit more you say you work with colleagues in the fire focus group to set the program of testing and once that was agreed ivor would implement the program and would update me
00:16:07 update me as and when deadlines were met or if they were not met he would report that to me
00:16:11 to me so that's how it works in practice is it you would set the set the program for the testing and then either would be involved in the day-to-day running of it yes i think the this test
00:16:23 running of it yes i think the this test program for k15 was um quite high profile at the time i'm sure for reasons that we'll come on to
00:16:32 to um it was important that there was buy-in from the business as to what was being tested but day-to-day it was my role to make sure that we got that testing done through either yes
00:16:47 and the colleagues in the fire focus group those include dr rochford yes yes and andy pack uh
00:16:57 i'm not sure honestly
00:17:01 and on occasion perhaps when you talk about
00:17:05 about setting the program of testing did that include discussions and decisions about the materials to be tested yes and including the outer cladding for each
00:17:15 each yes and is it right that each test was carefully planned and as far as possible carefully timetabled where possible yes yeah
00:17:26 and then at paragraph 11.23 on page 58 of your statement you say out of interest you attended a couple of tests
00:17:37 yes do you see that in the third line down
00:17:40 down out of interest i attended a couple of tests
00:17:44 tests um can you remember which test those were were they bs 8414 large scale tests they were yes i believe uh definitely the 2014 trespa test
00:17:57 the 2014 trespa test um and potentially the terra cotta test as well
00:18:00 as well in the same year yes so the trespa test was in march 2014 does that sound right it does yes and the terracotta test was in july 2014. i don't have as clear a recollection of
00:18:11 i don't have as clear a recollection of that one but definitely the first one yes yeah
00:18:19 and if we could look what page is for if we could look at page 14 of your statement now just want to look at paragraph 4.23
00:18:32 just want to look at paragraph 4.23 so i think it might begin on this page before
00:18:39 you say that on a day-to-day basis i relied on either marriage for iva meredith for directing and implementing this policy assisted by his colleagues jill clark matthew evans andrew pack
00:18:50 matthew evans andrew pack matthew ball and dan ball all of whom were senior employees in this department and andrew pack was the most senior advisor within the technical team at this time is that right yes yes
00:19:07 now your in terms of your role uh giving technical advice to customers about k-15 was that another area that fell under your remit is that right
00:19:18 fell under your remit is that right yes yes and i want to ask you about technical queries about the use of k15 over 18 meters you were asked by the inquiry about how
00:19:29 inquiry about how those sorts of queries were handled and if we look at your answer paragraph 4.19 on page 12.
00:19:41 [Applause] and you explain there that um basically what you say there is depending on the complexity of the technical queries they'd be directed to the person with the appropriate level of technical
00:19:53 with the appropriate level of technical knowledge is that is that a fair summary i mean i'm going to read out what you say but that's in essence what you're saying
00:20:00 saying and if i if we can read what you say here
00:20:04 here um and i want to start by looking at the seventh line down [Music]
00:20:10 [Music] beginning if the on the right hand side and you say this you say if the frontline technical advisors that picked up customer queries were not comfortable answering a
00:20:21 were not comfortable answering a particular inquiry for example an inquiry relating to the use of k15 over 18 meters they would escalate the inquiry appropriately we had dedicated advisors
00:20:32 appropriately we had dedicated advisors within the technical team whose responsibility it was to address these types of queries queries relating to the use of k-15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters would be directed to these specialists
00:20:45 would be directed to these specialists by the group of non-specialized technical advisors i think we had a standard few operate opening paragraphs included in each response which set out the physical
00:20:56 each response which set out the physical characteristics and properties of k-15 and the building regulations and approved document b however the rest of the response would be tailored to respond to the customer's
00:21:07 be tailored to respond to the customer's specific query and their proposed build up it was not possible to give completely rigid responses
00:21:14 responses so we could see you've told us that in detail there
00:21:20 and just going back to to look at the middle of that paragraph you you tell us that queries go back a
00:21:31 you you tell us that queries go back a page you tell us that queries relating to the use of k15 on floors over 18 meters would be directed to specialists within the group of non-specialist technical advisors
00:21:44 non-specialist technical advisors who were those specialists that were answering those types of queries typically the senior team that we outlined previously they would be more experienced advisors
00:21:57 they would be more experienced advisors yeah and
00:22:01 yeah and so that was either meredith ivor as the backstop to be honest he was uh definitely the most um yeah expert um yeah and others such as jill clark
00:22:14 yeah and others such as jill clark andrew pack yes dan ball yeah um yeah a few now you asked some questions about any checks on the technical advice being
00:22:25 checks on the technical advice being given
00:22:25 given by kingspan's front-line advisors in relation to k-15 and if we look on page 17 at paragraph 4.38
00:22:39 if we could look at that the first few lines here you tell us in that paragraph the checks were undertaken by making sure that members of the technical team
00:22:50 members of the technical team were appropriately trained and queries were directed to the correct people who were qualified to answer them so was it the same group of people
00:23:02 so was it the same group of people who were checking that other members of the technical team were appropriately trained and queries were being directed to the correct people yes that same group of people
00:23:13 people yes that same group of people collaborative yeah effort and when you say
00:23:17 say um that they were um the checks were undertaken by making sure members of the technical team were appropriately trained
00:23:24 trained what did that training consist of
00:23:27 training was uh tracked against a competence matrix um the majority of the training was in house it was quite difficult there weren't really dedicated courses
00:23:39 there weren't really dedicated courses that were entirely relevant um various advisors would come with qualifications um that would all add value but typically the training was on the job
00:23:50 typically the training was on the job peer-to-peer by experience
00:24:00 now in terms of the technical queries that kingspan received you were asked about kingspan's overall policy or strategy about those queries and you tell us about that at paragraph 4.22
00:24:11 paragraph 4.22 on page 13 of your statement you say so the question was who by
00:24:22 you say so the question was who by reference to job titles and or individual names was responsible for directing kingspan's policies and strategies in this regard that's about technical advice and you say as head of technical i was overall responsible for
00:24:33 technical i was overall responsible for this between april 2010 and may 2015. however when i was appointed i did not change the way in which the technical team operated in this respect do you see that
00:24:44 operated in this respect do you see that yes
00:24:47 yes and you you've already told you tell us as well that on a day-to-day basis you relied on iva meredith for directing and implementing this policy is that right it is
00:25:01 is that right it is and then if we can look at paragraph 4.1 on page 7
00:25:05 on page 7 of your statement
00:25:12 you tell us this you say kingspan had the very simple strategy of promoting k-15 in applications in which kingsman could support its use in accordance with the building regulations standards and best practice
00:25:29 regulations standards and best practice and and as we've seen you've made clear that when you were appointed you didn't change the way in which the technical team operated so i think what you're telling
00:25:42 operated so i think what you're telling us is that was the simple strategy and it didn't change in the time that you were
00:25:47 you were head of technical is that right it is when you say you made no changes had you
00:26:00 when you say you made no changes had you satisfied yourself that the
00:26:05 that the strategy for giving advice was clear and the system was working properly
00:26:13 properly over a period of time yes um as i said earlier
00:26:17 earlier i was new to this particular application when starting the post um and therefore there was a period of my own self-learning yeah how long would you
00:26:29 self-learning yeah how long would you estimate that period lasted for i think it carries on today but i mean to get to a um a competent level within
00:26:40 um a competent level within the first few months six months yeah but yeah you never stop yeah
00:26:48 and were you satisfied once you were up to speed with the relevant regulatory regime were you satisfied that the advice that kingspan was giving was satisfactory and appropriate yes now
00:27:06 was satisfactory and appropriate yes now moving on to third-party certification of k-15 by both the bba and the labc um do we understand it correctly that in terms of your role you had oversight of both and overall
00:27:19 had oversight of both and overall responsibility for both is that right it is yeah
00:27:26 but again in respect to both the bba and the labc
00:27:30 the labc is it your evidence that the actual day-to-day dealings and ongoing responsibilities were delegated to others within your team yes
00:27:38 team yes and who would that have been let's take the bba who who would you delegate dealing with the bba to
00:27:45 bba to it changed over the period i believe initially it would have been gareth mills and then latterly joel clark yeah and then with the labc was that a different
00:27:56 different team within your technical advisors yes my recollection isn't as clear um i think from evidence very recently i know andrew pack
00:28:10 very recently i know andrew pack originated that work but i believe iva meredith
00:28:13 meredith and gareth mills continued it yeah
00:28:18 and you you tell us um if we can look at page 32 of your statement paragraph 7.18
00:28:27 this is about um bba um certification
00:28:33 you say this you say ivan meredith and joel clark would have had these discussions with the bba as far as i can recall i was generally made aware of these discussions but i was not involved in them however my
00:28:44 was not involved in them however my input may have been required in very limited circumstances my role as a manager was to oversee the relationship ensuring the flow of information from kingspan
00:28:55 kingspan to the bba and vice versa is that right yes and when you you say that was about ensuring the flow of information from kingspan to the bba was that
00:29:07 kingspan to the bba was that the flow of information relevant to test data say on fire performance and other criteria
00:29:14 criteria yes absolutely yeah
00:29:22 now i want to come on to ask you now about your understanding of the building regulations and associated guidance while you were head of technical
00:29:34 head of technical if we look at paragraph 5.1 on page 19 of your witness statement
00:29:47 you're being asked about this topic and your understanding of the relevant requirements for external cladding systems under the building regulations and you explain at the beginning of that paragraph as head of technical
00:29:58 paragraph as head of technical i understood that the functional requirements for england for external cladding systems were set out in the building regulations for england
00:30:07 england and wales approved documents and various guidance notes including the bca technical guidance note 18
00:30:16 note 18 and then you you go on within that paragraph to detail your understanding of the
00:30:21 of the routes to compliance for external cladding systems which we'll come to in a moment um during the period between 2010 when you took over in
00:30:32 took over in may 2015 did you ever attend any training on the building regulations or approved document b not dedicated training no
00:30:44 training no during that period did you read the guidance set out in a pre-document b on fire safety yes um absolutely all of the relevant sections
00:30:55 absolutely all of the relevant sections i i don't recall reading it cover to cover right so you would have read carefully section b4 and external fire spread yes and and did you do that right from the
00:31:07 and and did you do that right from the outset of your role uh it would have been within months yes yeah and was that a document that you would go back to from time to time
00:31:18 you would go back to from time to time to remind yourself yes yeah so you had it available as you were working we did yeah and does it follow that you were aware throughout your time as head of
00:31:30 throughout your time as head of technical that there was particular guidance about the use of combustible insulation material in external constructions of buildings over 18 meters
00:31:38 meters yes
00:31:41 in terms of the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility we could look at this point at paragraph 511 on page 23 of your statement
00:31:57 you explain that the term came from approved document b pursuant to which material would achieve limited combustibility classification if it met certain criteria when tested to bs 476
00:32:08 to bs 476 part 11 and then when you explain that with respect to the european test standards the material will be classes of limited combustibility if it's class a2 s3 d2 or better
00:32:20 class a2 s3 d2 or better yes so you've helpfully set out for us um that that was your understanding can you help us as to precisely when that was your understanding did you
00:32:31 was your understanding did you understand that throughout your time as head of technical 2010 through to 2015 uh for the vast majority of that time period yes as as i said
00:32:42 period yes as as i said i wouldn't have known that when i started the role um but it would have been something that i learned within the first six months i couldn't be any more precise i'm afraid
00:32:53 more precise i'm afraid yeah and did you understand that k-15 was not
00:32:58 was not a material of limited combustibility as defined there yes it's a combustible insulation isn't it it is yeah
00:33:10 isn't it it is yeah and you confirm that in your statement 5.12
00:33:14 5.12 just below the paragraph we were looking at k-15 could not be cast as non-combustible or of limited combustibility but then you go on and say it is a product with national class naught
00:33:25 product with national class naught classification i'll come back to that
00:33:30 was it your understanding that those working on the front line as technical advisors
00:33:35 advisors also knew that k-15 was not a material of limited combustibility yes
00:33:44 there would have been occasionally new starters within the department that would have had to have gone through a learning curve but definitely the senior team all the advisors were
00:33:55 team all the advisors were generally arranged in pods so they would have
00:33:58 have somebody more senior sat with them yeah
00:34:03 now back to routes to compliance um if we could look back at paragraph 4.15 on page 11 of your statement and where you've explained different
00:34:16 and where you've explained different routes to compliance what you explain in this statement is that there were four avenues by which compliance was achieved
00:34:27 by which compliance was achieved uh you say that in the top line and then you go on
00:34:33 to say you so you say there are four avenues by which compliance was achieved and with a general absence or at least insufficiently of insufficiency of knowledge in the industry as a whole
00:34:44 industry as a whole i firmly believe that kingspan were thought leaders in this sphere i just want to ask you about that what did you mean when you said there was a general absence
00:34:55 was a general absence or at least insufficiency of knowledge in the industry as a whole can you explain what you mean by that yes through our experience of of taking
00:35:06 yes through our experience of of taking a high volume of calls generally i think we were recognized as you know a source of knowledge uh generally particularly around insulation um
00:35:18 insulation um it was our experience that very often we were having to explain some of the the fundamentals um you know particularly around this this area yes and what kind of professionals were you
00:35:29 and what kind of professionals were you having to explain those fundamentals to can you give us some examples the the entire raft from installers right the way through to specifiers and architects yes yes yeah
00:35:44 and architects yes yes yeah and then you say that you firmly believe that kingspan were thought leaders in this sphere what do you mean by that what do you mean by thought leaders in this sphere i don't it's probably not the best
00:35:57 i don't it's probably not the best phrase honestly reading it now but just from the point of view that we actually had quite a lot of input into influencing
00:36:09 how this could be understood um and interpreting the regulations as we saw them and and how did you have that input into
00:36:20 and and how did you have that input into influencing how this could be understood and interpreting the regulations in what ways did you have that input through uh inquiries on specification for k-15
00:36:30 for k-15 right let's see yeah
00:36:38 now you've explained that there were four avenues uh to compliance for external cladding systems
00:36:46 systems um if we could look at paragraph 5.1 on page 19.
00:36:59 we can see from the fourth line down that you say that you understood there were four routes to compliance and then you go on to explain what each of those routes
00:37:10 of those routes were so you say the primary route just below that the primary reach compliance was for the individual components to achieve the required level of fire performance either non-combustible or
00:37:21 performance either non-combustible or limited combustibility the secondary route to compliance was by a large-scale fire testing to eight four one four parts one or parts two resulting in achieving the br135 criteria
00:37:32 criteria the third week to compliance which became available after the bca technical guidance note 18 was published in 2014 was via a fire performance assessment
00:37:43 was via a fire performance assessment which involves a fire engineer collecting evidence of the performance of each individual component within the system which has been successful successfully tested to bs 8414 and based
00:37:54 successfully tested to bs 8414 and based on that carrying out an assessment of the compliance of the design of a similar construction type are just pausing there do you mean desktop assessments yes effectively in there lately
00:38:07 and then the fourth route you go on four lines up right at the bottom of that page you say the final route was the fire engineering approach where a fire engineer considers the fire
00:38:19 a fire engineer considers the fire performance of all aspects of a holistic system
00:38:22 system as well as human behavior and fire protection measures in order to determine whether a proposed system will be compliant
00:38:30 now was it your understanding from 2010 when you started as head of technical to june 2014 when that bca
00:38:41 technical to june 2014 when that bca technical guidance note came out that at that time there existed two routes to compliance i.e the limited combustibility route or the 8414
00:38:51 the 8414 route or did you think at that time that there were three routes to compliance i'm just trying to understand when you when you actually understood each of these routes to compliance to be available
00:39:01 available i i think all four routes were available over that period of time i see so even before bca technical guidance note 18 was out yes your understanding was that
00:39:12 out yes your understanding was that desktop assessments could be done extrapolating from 8414 test results yes yeah i see
00:39:23 did you understand there to be um that the primary route to compliance in non-combustible or limited combustibility was an alternative to the other routes
00:39:37 was an alternative to the other routes to compliance including the 8414 route i they were separate routes to compliance you say
00:39:45 you say my insulation is of limited combustibility and that's one route to compliance yes alternatively you could test the system to 8414 and that was a different route of compliance did you understand them to be different and alternatives i
00:39:57 them to be different and alternatives i did
00:40:03 if we can look at this point at paragraph 4.36 of your witness statement on page 16
00:40:14 at this point
00:40:18 you say this the approved documents technical handbooks and guidance were not black and white fire performance was not an exact science
00:40:29 science it was open to a certain amount of interpretation which therefore led to ambiguity
00:40:38 ambiguity now i just want to ask you what you meant by that can you help us as to what you meant by the fact that the approved documents and guidance were not
00:40:47 not black and white we definitely experienced um different interpretations from
00:40:55 from from clients that were um coming to us for product advice i can't think of any specific
00:41:06 i can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head right um but but i think it's it's something that is
00:41:14 is understood that you know the regulations aren't as clear as they can be on occasion right i mean you've said then fire performance is not an exact science
00:41:25 is not an exact science it was open to a certain amount of interpretation which therefore led to ambiguity
00:41:31 ambiguity can you give us any examples of of where there was ambiguity about fire performance requirements not necessarily about the requirements
00:41:42 not necessarily about the requirements but definitely in the way professional project teams would interpret
00:41:49 interpret information in context of their project
00:41:55 did you think that the guidance in approved document b about insulation products was ambiguous
00:42:06 which bit in particular is there a specific
00:42:09 specific well the bits we've just been talking about let's take those so the requirement for either to be of limited combustibility or to be tested to 8414 with a br 135
00:42:21 or to be tested to 8414 with a br 135 classification did you regard those parts of approved document b to be ambiguous no i think they're they're very straightforward there was nothing ambiguous was there
00:42:33 there was nothing ambiguous was there about the available routes to compliance as they stood between 2010 and 2014 would you agree
00:42:44 2014 would you agree yes i think what i was trying to explain was the ambiguity ambiguity is around how a fire safety professional may interpret um
00:42:55 um product performance in context of his project
00:43:00 because that comes down to a professional opinion are you talking about once you've started extrapolating from test results is that what you're meaning that there
00:43:11 is that what you're meaning that there might be
00:43:12 might be a fire safety engineer yes yes i see
00:43:24 but just to be clear were you were you clear in your own mind that the the starting point was either the system either the material had to be of limited combustibility the insulating material or it had to
00:43:37 the insulating material or it had to have been tested to 8414 parts one or two and been assessed to vr135
00:43:43 vr135 yes
00:43:48 now given that k15 is not a material of limited combustibility do you accept that kingspan had to rely upon the alternative route to compliance offered by 8414 and a system meeting the criteria
00:44:01 8414 and a system meeting the criteria in br135
00:44:03 in br135 yes did you read the test standards eight four one four parts one and two during that period 2010 to 2015. i did
00:44:16 and at paragraph 5.2 on page 20 of your witness statement you explain that your understanding is there were two tests
00:44:27 there were two tests a part one test on a masonry substrate and a part two test on a steel frame substrate again was that your knowledge throughout the period 2010 to mid-2015
00:44:39 throughout the period 2010 to mid-2015 yes
00:44:42 did you understand throughout that same period that bs 8414 was a system test i did
00:44:53 and in the final two sentences of that paragraph picking it up three lines up you say for example a manufacturer may double up the
00:45:05 example a manufacturer may double up the bracketry for a system to be compliant clients would then have to build in the way that the system passed the test with the double bracketry so are you giving that example to demonstrate that you knew that whatever
00:45:17 demonstrate that you knew that whatever system
00:45:18 system you tested then had to be replicated on your building yes if you were to take that um direct route to comply yeah so can we agree that in order to
00:45:32 yeah so can we agree that in order to rely on a particular set of test results to 8414
00:45:36 to 8414 the client relying on those results would need to use the exact same materials
00:45:41 materials tested and arranged in the same specific configuration if that was your route to compliance yes yeah
00:45:51 and you've also explained a bit further down on that page 5.4 of your statement
00:46:02 you explain if we look at the third line down on the right hand side you say bs 8414 testing was designed to determine whether a system was appropriate for use on
00:46:13 appropriate for use on a building
00:46:17 and then at paragraph 11.14 on page 57 of your statement
00:46:29 of your statement if we can just look at what you say there you say either meredith was responsible for the design of the test rig including the preparation of drawings and plans i would have overseen this process
00:46:40 i would have overseen this process providing technical input and feedback if necessary particularly with regards to whether the test rig design was realistic and can you help us what do you mean by realistic
00:46:52 you mean by realistic um just through uh experience of my uh other role working for um a cladding contractor um sometimes it was just to understand how uh
00:47:06 it was just to understand how uh a material may actually be hung on the wall
00:47:09 wall yeah so you were able to bring that knowledge and expertise to your design of the test rigs yes yeah
00:47:20 and then just turning now to br 135 did you read um br135 at any stage yes and would that have been the second
00:47:31 yes and would that have been the second edition
00:47:32 edition from 2003 can you remember reading that edition uh yes and then the third edition
00:47:40 edition came out in 2013. do you recall reading that as well during that time you were head of technical yes i don't recall the the changes honestly
00:47:50 honestly yeah and if we look at paragraph 5.4 a of your witness statement and following um
00:47:58 um at the bottom of page 20 and over to page 21 so if we start on page 20. right at the bottom there you begin to
00:48:09 right at the bottom there you begin to explain
00:48:09 explain your understanding is that the fundamental pass fail criteria of br135 is that and then if we go over the page at a b and c
00:48:21 at a b and c you've set out the pass fail criteria and in the first paragraph you've set out effectively the criteria regarding early termination
00:48:33 early termination you see that there yes test will be terminated early if the test rig's facade cladding fails to resist fire propagation to the top of the rig within the first 30 minutes and then the second 30 minutes is for observation to determine
00:48:45 minutes is for observation to determine how the system to design it for the protection of life and protection of property the test can still be terminated early during this second half of the test
00:48:56 during this second half of the test and then you explain the criteria in respect of temperatures and thermocouples at b and then you explain at c the test rig
00:49:07 and then you explain at c the test rig must not have been burnt through within the first 15 minutes that's for the part 2 testing so you give us your detailed
00:49:15 detailed explanation there of the pass fail criteria
00:49:18 criteria was that your level of knowledge throughout the period 2010 to 2015 again not from day one but yes yeah i would have quickly got to that
00:49:32 and then at paragraph 6.8 on page 25 of your statement
00:49:45 your statement you you're talking about br135 we can see that from the heading just above these paragraphs and at 6.8 you say we went to significant lengths to make sure that the relevant senior
00:49:57 to make sure that the relevant senior members of the team those who participated in the fire focus group as i set out in my response to question 7 understood br 135 criteria and all of the standards that were
00:50:08 and all of the standards that were applicable to k15's fire performance by way of training and the compilation of a technical library of information now just taking that in stages did those
00:50:20 just taking that in stages did those senior members of the team did that include malcolm rochford yes
00:50:29 so you went to significant lengths to make sure that he understood the br135 criteria and all the standards applicable you recall that do you yeah it would have been um
00:50:40 have been um via the fire focus group meetings um either would have given presentations to explain the br 135 criteria yeah um that group were setting the test
00:50:53 um that group were setting the test program going forward so it was important that they understood uh you know what the path fail criteria were yeah and would that have included andrew pack as well
00:51:05 as well i don't recall if andrew was included in that group i think he may have been early on
00:51:13 and you say that you went to significant lengths
00:51:17 lengths to ensure that relevant senior members of the team understood the criteria was that just through the work you've just explained in the fire focus group or were there other actions that were done in that
00:51:29 other actions that were done in that respect
00:51:30 respect it was um at the same time we were um trying to better collate um our understanding of of past tests um
00:51:43 of of past tests um there there wasn't an awful lot of access to the prior test information um iva's way of working um
00:51:56 could be quite erratic at times um so often you know it was important that he stored his information centrally so that it was available to all
00:52:08 it was available to all yeah and did that include trying to make sure you'd collated together all of the information about previous 8414 tests uh yes in terms of the actual uh
00:52:20 uh yes in terms of the actual uh what was tested there was something called a
00:52:24 called a certification matrix i think which was a spreadsheet essentially listing the chronology of what already been tested i see yeah
00:52:36 of what already been tested i see yeah and that technical library of information that you refer to there you say it was there was training and then there was the compilation of a technical library of information what documents were contained in that
00:52:48 what documents were contained in that that technical library of information
00:52:52 the whole raft to be honest this is a central
00:52:56 central server location that was available to all again it was
00:53:02 really about just making sure that that information was organized and and you know could be defined so would that have say approved document b on it yes it would yeah
00:53:13 b on it yes it would yeah copies of the 8414 test standards it would
00:53:16 would what about cwct were any of their pieces of guidance ever collated as part of that group not that i recall specifically
00:53:29 not that i recall specifically and br135 would you have copies of br135 yes yes
00:53:36 did you understand between 2010 and 2015 that a classification to br135 is applicable only to a tested system yes and did you understand that it's not
00:53:49 yes and did you understand that it's not intended as a guarantee of the fire performance of any individual component part of that tested system yes and did those in the technical
00:54:00 yes and did those in the technical advisor roles underneath you also understand that as far as you could tell
00:54:05 tell as far as i could tell particularly the senior team again
00:54:12 if we look now at paragraph 411 of your statement on page 10.
00:54:26 you say during my time as head of technical the technical team at kingspan had a very good understanding of these routes to compliance however it was not uncommon for kingspan to get questions from other
00:54:37 to get questions from other professionals within the industry who clearly did not understand the requirements within the building regulations and associated guidance documents to achieve compliance to the same extent
00:54:48 achieve compliance to the same extent we hope that our routes to compliance document would assist in the industry's understanding of this
00:54:56 now would you say that a lack of understanding about the requirements within the building regulations and approved document b was widespread among professionals in the industry at this time
00:55:09 i don't think i'd be in a position to comment on the whole industry but there was definitely experience of that yes
00:55:17 yes it does bring to mind something i said earlier actually which i think is is wrong i
00:55:21 wrong i i think i mentioned that um we would influence
00:55:24 influence specifiers whereas i think i meant to say in form right um influence is is too strong a word and right i don't think we were in a position to influence honestly yeah they came for us for product advice
00:55:37 yeah they came for us for product advice i see
00:55:39 i see but given what you've said there and what we discussed earlier do you think that reliance was being placed by professionals on the advice given them to by by kingspan about these matters
00:55:51 by kingspan about these matters definitely reliance but um i hope i wouldn't have thought over reliance um it doesn't absolve them with their own responsibilities
00:56:02 responsibilities yeah now just turning now to a different aspect of the far performance of k15 and this is about national class naught we could look at paragraph 5.7 on page 22 of your statement
00:56:22 you say that during your time as head of technical your understanding was that class naught was a designation in appendix a of approved document b relating to surface spread of flame
00:56:33 surface spread of flame based on achieving two british standard test results bs 476 part six and seven if a material had achieved class naught classification it meant that it showed limited surface spread of
00:56:44 that it showed limited surface spread of frame and fire propagation characteristics
00:56:49 a material would achieve class naught if it was and then you've explained the the definition of class naught and then you say in 5.8 you say
00:57:00 and then you say in 5.8 you say i understood that kingspan undertook 476 part 6 and part 7 tests on k15 and k15 achieved class naught classification
00:57:11 now is it your understanding that at all times between 2010 and mid-2015 test data from tests to 476 part 6 and part 7
00:57:23 tests to 476 part 6 and part 7 existed on the basis of which k15 could be said to have a class naught classification yes that would be my understanding who was responsible for that testing
00:57:35 was responsible for that testing to those two parts of 476 part six and part seven during that period predominantly uh it fell on the technical
00:57:44 technical production team to carry out those small scale tests uh they were occasionally and uh assisted with by iva and the wider team as well
00:57:55 team as well but predominantly it was through the technical production team yeah what did you understand the relevance of class naught to be for insulation products
00:58:08 for insulation products there i know there is um some reliance on classo in determining fire barrier separation [Music]
00:58:19 [Music] other than that it is a very well established property that i think most specifiers would recognize
00:58:30 recognize did you understand at the time that a class naught classification does not tell you anything about whether or not a product is one of limited combustibility yes
00:58:42 were you aware that there existed in the industry at this time some confusion about class naught including the difference between the meaning of class naught and limited combustibility
00:58:55 combustibility yes um specifically i i believe there were a few comparison tables
00:59:02 tables that were floating around in um that tried to bring correlation um i think this is in specific contexts
00:59:14 i think this is in specific contexts i don't recall the specifics but i believe that did lead to some confusion um in that i i think people wanted to be able to draw a parallel
00:59:26 a parallel i clearly understood there wasn't one yes
00:59:29 yes was it for that reason that the product literature for k-15 throughout 2010 to 2015 does prominently highlight the class naught classification
00:59:41 i don't think it was specifically for that reason um as i said previously yeah it classo was a very well recognized uh fire performance property and for that
00:59:53 fire performance property and for that reason we maintained it in the literature did you understand that some some in the industry thought it was the highest classification for these types
01:00:04 highest classification for these types of materials class nor that it no you didn't understand that no did you think others in industry might have understood that
01:00:15 have understood that it's possible i suppose um classo typically
01:00:18 typically related to a designation for internal surfaces so it may well be the it was the only designation that some people were familiar with
01:00:30 people were familiar with but somebody in in this profession looking at cladding for example
01:00:37 example would have been aware of other fire performance classifications
01:00:44 did you become aware during your time as head of technical that kingspan was testing just the foil phaser only in those 476 part six
01:00:56 in those 476 part six um no i'm not aware of that specifically you were never made aware that that was what was going on within kingspan is that right
01:01:06 they were testing the foil facer only i know that happened i i believe there is some wording in the building regulations that allows
01:01:17 in the building regulations that allows the the definition to be on the the surface
01:01:22 material what view did you take about testing only on the foil facer for class naught uh if that were accepted um
01:01:33 uh if that were accepted um then i didn't see a problem with that is that the view you took at the time i'm not saying hypothetically i'm asking you at the time
01:01:45 time did you take a view on whether it was acceptable to be testing on the foil facer alone i can't recall what my thoughts would have been at the time
01:01:56 time did you or anyone else to your knowledge ever check bs 476 part 6 to see whether it said that the substrate ought to be tested as well
01:02:07 tested as well as part of any test did you ever do that check
01:02:12 personally no
01:02:16 now i want to ask you now some questions about your early period as head of technical when you took over from philip heath yes okay and i'd like to understand what
01:02:27 yes okay and i'd like to understand what you came to learn from mr heath or from others at that stage about k-15 in particular about its testing and certification history
01:02:38 testing and certification history now in terms of tests to bs-8414 on systems incorporating k-15 were you told in 2010 about the 8414 test
01:02:48 test that had been carried out on the 31st of may 2005
01:02:53 may 2005 uh by mr heath well by anybody when you started but i mean yes as part of some kind of handover or induction process no there wasn't a handover
01:03:06 did you come to learn about the may 2005 8414 test
01:03:12 8414 test yes after being appointed headed technical yes and who told you about that test uh i don't recall specifically but most likely it would have been either
01:03:23 likely it would have been either and can you remember what you were told about that test uh yes it was the test which obviously we based an awful lot of our advice on
01:03:33 advice on um i'm aware the test was a part one i'm aware that it was designed to replicate as far as possible
01:03:44 replicate as far as possible a non-combustible construction of the other components
01:03:51 do you know what the outer layer was were you told what the outer surface was on that test yes i'm aware more lately that there was
01:04:02 i'm aware more lately that there was some confusion over that but i was
01:04:08 it was described to me that it was intended to replicate a uh a building board of that was non-combustible yeah and were you told any more by mr meredith or others about what that
01:04:19 meredith or others about what that building board was at the time no not in detail
01:04:28 if we look at your witness statement at this point if we go to paragraph 11.38 on page 61.
01:04:40 on page 61. you you say that the system tested was a fiber cement board system i believe that a fiber cement board system is is representative of an external cladding system
01:04:51 external cladding system as far as i am aware these systems are still used in the real world today and then you say during the course of preparing this witness statement it's been explained to me that the written report for this test
01:05:02 that the written report for this test incorrectly describes the system as a cement particle board system i was not previously aware of this now you you obviously didn't have any involvement in that test at all
01:05:17 how did you come to understand that it was a fibre cement board system uh i think that is uh more recently um through disclosures and who who told you that
01:05:30 disclosures and who who told you that i think that came through some of the documents that were supplied as as part of the
01:05:37 of the um evidence for the trial for this for this inquiry yes when you were preparing your witness statement yes
01:05:47 and prior to that um had you understood it to be
01:05:51 it to be a cement particle board that was used yes uh something that would typically be non-combustible and representative a cladding battle
01:06:02 and and which documents um told you more recently that it was in fact a fiber cement board what what documents were you looking at to tell you it was in fact a fiber cement board
01:06:15 cement board i i don't i don't know specifically whether it was that or whether it were a testimony i'm not sure and we can see you've told us that you believe a fiber cement board
01:06:26 believe a fiber cement board system is representative of an external cladding system as far as i'm aware these systems are still used in the real world today can you help us what you mean by that
01:06:38 what you mean by that yeah that there are um systems today that would be as a similar dimension to the to the panel that was used um and a decorative cladding panel
01:06:51 um and a decorative cladding panel they're not as commonly used these days as as they have been in the past to my knowledge
01:06:59 knowledge see i understand you're saying that it might have been representative in terms of its dimension its thickness yes yep are you saying that that's representative in in any other way fiber cement boards
01:07:12 in in any other way fiber cement boards i i understand are used as cladding panels yes on external surfaces of buildings you understand that from from where do you get that knowledge from
01:07:24 you get that knowledge from um just
01:07:27 um just through working for a cladding manufacturer and uh sorry cladding uh installer
01:07:34 what kind of rain screen yes would that provide in the real world wouldn't it soak up rain go soggy fall off
01:07:46 soak up rain go soggy fall off how would a how would a fiber cement board fare on the outside of a building on your understanding
01:07:55 whether i i'm not sure i i can't recall the
01:07:58 the um exact material composition of those um cladding boards but they are generally referred to as um a cement reinforced board
01:08:10 as um a cement reinforced board okay
01:08:14 in terms of then going back to your awareness um when you took over as head of technical and what you were told were you made aware of any changes to
01:08:25 were you made aware of any changes to the k-15 product which had taken place after that test in 2005.
01:08:31 2005. no i can't recall i was specifically made aware
01:08:37 where you may made aware that there had been a change over from old technology k15 to new technology k15 before you took over as head of
01:08:49 before you took over as head of technical
01:08:50 technical not before i took over no when did you first become aware of that change from old tech to new tech specifically it would have um
01:09:01 specifically it would have um probably been around the period that we re-engage with the testing program so would that have been around 2014 i would have thought 2013 2014
01:09:12 would have thought 2013 2014 yeah so at that point you were made aware that there was old tech and new tech yes uh yes i i was aware of that i don't recall being
01:09:23 was aware of that i don't recall being specifically made aware of that um i i could have been come across that information in in various ways through
01:09:35 various ways through perhaps through the fire focus groups and looking at past minutes
01:09:42 minutes i also did a piece of work on redeveloping the ppds system so i would have had to go through all of that data i was aware that that change had
01:09:53 i was aware that that change had happened
01:09:54 happened yeah and did anyone ever discuss with you or did you see it in any of the documentation concerns about the fire performance of new technology k-15 no that's not something i was aware of
01:10:09 so mr meredith never said to you after the change in technology we had real problems with the testing of k15 that was never said to you no not that i recall no and mr heath
01:10:21 no not that i recall no and mr heath didn't say that to you either no um i i'm very aware of obviously all the documents that were disclosed
01:10:29 disclosed through iva's testimony and i don't recall knowledge of those documents
01:10:36 documents obviously they predated my time in the role but i don't recall them being shown to me whilst i was in the post so when you were reading you said you
01:10:47 so when you were reading you said you obviously read past minutes and the ppds you didn't ever come across any documents which was we're talking about the
01:10:56 about the 2007-2008 8414 tests yeah did you not come across any documents about those no not that i specifically recall did you know that there had been 8414
01:11:08 did you know that there had been 8414 testing
01:11:09 testing in 2007 and 2008 as well as in 2005. yes and did you know that those had been all test failures i did
01:11:21 all test failures i did and did you know that the k-15 was recorded as being concerning in and of itself
01:11:29 of itself in some of the documents stemming from those tests no i hadn't taken that inference from that
01:11:40 i hadn't taken that inference from that did you have any information about the nature in which the test had failed
01:11:46 i i don't recall reviewing the um the test report specifically um i know they
01:11:54 they um they weren't close um you know fails if you like uh i know that they were significant fails
01:12:05 thank you when you say you know there were significant failures that significant fails do you know that now or did you know that then when you were ahead of technical um
01:12:18 then when you were ahead of technical um no i knew that then
01:12:21 and who told you that they were significant fails uh that that would have been through either yeah did you ever learn about um any testing
01:12:33 did you ever learn about um any testing that had been done in conjunction with kingspan off-site
01:12:39 i'm aware it happened i'm not familiar with
01:12:43 with how it came about or the detail of it did anyone at kingston offsite ever discuss with you any concerns they had
01:12:51 had about the far performance of k-15 no we um whilst i did have a role working with that side of the business um i don't believe i i ever actually
01:13:02 um i don't believe i i ever actually worked with any of the people that were raised in some of the the communications that have come out recently so far as you were aware was the k-15
01:13:15 so far as you were aware was the k-15 product which was being sold when you became head of technical were you aware that that was the same product which had been tested to eight four one four in may 2005
01:13:31 i knew uh that there was the 2005 test was old technology um so could you rephrase the question as far as you were aware was the k-15
01:13:43 as far as you were aware was the k-15 product
01:13:44 product which was being sold when you became head of technical the same product that had been tested to 8414
01:13:51 8414 in 2005. uh i'm sorry man just in trouble
01:13:56 trouble is that what you intended to ask whether the witness was aware that it was the same product or was did it was the under the impression that it was the same product let's put it that way were you under the
01:14:08 let's put it that way were you under the impression that the product you were selling to the to market when you became head of technical
01:14:14 technical was the same product that had been tested in 2005. yes absolutely that the 2005 test represented the product that was being sell sold
01:14:27 you said that you were aware that that was
01:14:30 was old tech though and that you became aware of that in 2013 2014 did there come a time when you became aware
01:14:40 aware that the product that was being sold was not the same as that that was had been tested in 2005.
01:14:50 i think what i'm trying to say is i was aware of
01:14:53 aware of old technology being used in the 2005 test
01:14:57 test i what it didn't appreciate it was that that
01:15:00 that didn't represent um or wasn't representative of the product that was being sold lately when i was in the role the difference i i must admit the
01:15:13 difference i i must admit the difference between old and new technology is lost on me i don't know other than i know it was intended to
01:15:21 increase production speed um but beyond that i'm not aware of what old and new technology means and did you ever ask anybody to explain that
01:15:32 did you ever ask anybody to explain that to you did you ever say what what are the differences old tech new tech no uh specifically uh i don't believe i'm not sure what context i came to
01:15:44 i'm not sure what context i came to understand um that the 2005 test was old technology um but
01:15:53 um but i i worked on the assumption that the the test which had been established um and used in the business for you know over five years was representative of what was being
01:16:04 representative of what was being supplied in the market
01:16:08 knowing what i know now you know i that should have been looked into it in
01:16:15 in more detail at the time but i wasn't aware that um that could should or or did have an impact on its fire performance right so are you aware now that
01:16:27 right so are you aware now that that test report from 2005 has been withdrawn it was withdrawn in october 2020 you're aware of that yes and it was withdrawn on the basis
01:16:39 yes and it was withdrawn on the basis that the k-15 product tested was not representative of the product sold from september 2006 onwards yes yes so is it your evidence that the
01:16:50 yes so is it your evidence that the first time you became aware of that was what in the last few weeks yes upon hearing that yes and was that a surprise to you to come to be aware of that yes it was
01:17:05 mr chairman i think that would be a good moment for a break yes all right thank you well uh we have a break during the course of the morning sure mr miller we're going to take it now
01:17:16 to take it now so we'll we'll break now we'll come back if you
01:17:19 if you would please at 25 to 12. yep okay and i have to ask you please not to talk to anyone
01:17:24 anyone anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it no all right thank you thank you very much you'd like to go with the usher please
01:17:42 25 to 12.
01:41:06 would you ask mr miller chapter come back in please
01:41:22 right ready to carry on mr chef thank you yes ms grange yes thank you so we were discussing um whether you knew about the worst fire performance
01:41:34 knew about the worst fire performance of the new tech k-15 while you were head of technical that's what we were discussing before the break and just a few more questions on that did dr rochford
01:41:45 did dr rochford never say to you at any time between 2010 and 2014 before he retired that there had been reports that the new tech k-15 had
01:41:57 reports that the new tech k-15 had performed worse in fire no not my knowledge did he never tell you about it performing worse in 8414 tests
01:42:06 tests no in class naught testing they were struggling to get class naught particularly bought bs 476 part six for the new tech was that never said to you
01:42:17 to you um i'm aware that there were um difficulties in in maintaining the the classo
01:42:25 classo i think there were i can recall that there were variations in results that they were getting through various test laboratories for various reasons
01:42:36 test laboratories for various reasons and there was a lot of work into why there would be variation
01:42:41 variation between laboratories were you ever told that one of the differences and one of the reasons why you might have been getting those varied results with class naught testing was the fact you changed over to the
01:42:53 was the fact you changed over to the kester end technology no i don't i wasn't specifically told that i was aware of that um for and i don't know
01:43:05 um for and i don't know precisely how it could have been through as i say my investigations through
01:43:14 through remodeling the ppds system it may have been through historical minutes but not something that i i
01:43:25 minutes but not something that i i specifically recall being told so i want to be absolutely clear what you were aware of you were aware that you were getting uh varied results with the class naught testing yes
01:43:36 testing yes yes through various uh what i recall from
01:43:41 from documentation i've reviewed since is is that it was uh variations between different test laboratories right but i i'm very much interested in what your knowledge was at the time
01:43:52 what your knowledge was at the time so if you can try and keep that in mind when i'm asking you questions that's what's most important for us is what you knew at the time as head of technical sure not what you've come to know in more recent times sure
01:44:03 more recent times sure so just to be clear you knew did you that they were struggling to get vs476 part six passes for the new technology k-15 did you know
01:44:15 for the new technology k-15 did you know that
01:44:15 that yeah through through the discussions that were um documented in the um technical lamination minutes yeah and did you know that one of the reasons for that was the changes that had been
01:44:27 for that was the changes that had been brought about or one of the possible reasons for that was the changes that have been brought about with the new technology from the old technology no i hadn't made that connection what about the perforations to the foil
01:44:39 what about the perforations to the foil facer
01:44:40 facer were you aware that the new technology had brought with it perforations to the foil facer and that that was one of the reasons you were said to be struggling with
01:44:51 you were said to be struggling with getting bs 476 part six i've only ever been aware of the product with perforations right so you weren't aware that the old tech was unperforated foil
01:45:05 old tech was unperforated foil no i wouldn't have been aware of that
01:45:12 and what was your reaction when you discovered very recently that in fact the 2005 test was on a different product
01:45:24 um i i was surprised absolutely i'm not sure that i entirely understood what that meant at this time
01:45:35 this time um obviously reviewing um mr rochford's evidence um i i'm still not sure if i understand what the implications
01:45:47 if i understand what the implications are between the two technologies on fire performance but you must have appreciated did you not that you were relying you've already mentioned it this morning you were relying
01:45:57 relying very heavily on that 2005 test yes for much of the time that you were head of technical yes yes so were you not extremely surprised
01:46:08 yes so were you not extremely surprised to learn
01:46:09 to learn that that 2005 test was based on old technology k-15 yes uh i only temper that with um malcolm's
01:46:20 temper that with um malcolm's explanation yesterday um in in that i don't believe it's his belief that the difference is is as marked as um potentially it's being portrayed i'm not
01:46:31 potentially it's being portrayed i'm not sure right well we we have his evidence on that
01:46:34 on that yeah um if we could go now um i'm still um trying to follow through what your knowledge was and understand what your
01:46:45 knowledge was and understand what your knowledge was when you took over as as head of technical and i want to ask you now about the absence of a br 135 classification report for the 2005 test
01:46:56 classification report for the 2005 test if we can look at paragraph 11.43 of your
01:46:59 your witness statement on page 62 been asked about the the lack of a br
01:47:10 been asked about the the lack of a br 135 classification report and you say um as i say at my response to inquiry question 7 above if that is the case that we did not get a br 135 classification report for
01:47:21 a br 135 classification report for this test at the time that it was done i was not aware of this
01:47:28 so that's right is it that during the whole of your time as head of technical you weren't aware that there was no br135 classification report for the 2005 test
01:47:48 i don't think i was initially aware of that i think i i did come to understand that but from the point of view that iva um
01:48:00 but from the point of view that iva um had a very firm belief that he had enough knowledge to interpret a test report i do remember having that conversation with iva and can you remember roughly when that
01:48:11 and can you remember roughly when that conversation was was was it early on in your time as head of technical or later again it will have been around the uh
01:48:19 the uh the time of the new testing schedule so 2013 2014 yes
01:48:30 yes and um did you never question why there was no separate documentation with that br 135 assessment
01:48:42 with that br 135 assessment you've told us that you knew full well what the criteria were you've set those criteria out in detail in your witness statement yes did you never question why there was no
01:48:53 question why there was no documented assessment to bl-135 yes it was questioned um and i believe we considered actually getting that
01:49:04 we considered actually getting that classification report retrospectively i don't think that was done whilst i was still at kingspan but it was so you say yes it was questioned who questioned it
01:49:16 was questioned who questioned it and when i will have questioned either on that and i know his his view was very strongly that he didn't believe it was entirely necessary and what was your view
01:49:27 your view when you had these discussions with him did you think it was necessary to have a br 135 classification report given the reliance you were placing on that 2005 test yes given the investment we'd already made i
01:49:39 given the investment we'd already made i think iva's rationale at the time was it was an extra 4000 pint that was unnecessary and you know in the context of what we were doing um that wasn't going to make a difference did anyone ever say to you
01:49:52 difference did anyone ever say to you well it's going to be very difficult to get a br 135 classification report because that wasn't actually a full real life system that was just part of a program of testing we were
01:50:03 part of a program of testing we were doing at the time to explore this area no i wasn't aware that we couldn't get one having said that i don't think we'd actually tried at that point i don't know what iva's opinion would
01:50:15 i don't know what iva's opinion would have been
01:50:18 did you have any awareness of the four tests to bs 8414 part 2 on systems incorporating k-15 which had been carried out
01:50:29 been carried out in december 2007 april 2008 and june 2008
01:50:36 yes some awareness um not to a detailed level uh there was a summary document that um mapped the chronologic chronology of of
01:50:48 mapped the chronologic chronology of of the tests
01:50:49 the tests yeah um that had a level of detail in it that
01:50:53 that basically described uh the construction that was tested and you i think you said earlier that you were aware those were significant failures is that right at least yes some of them were yes
01:51:05 of them were yes but is this right at no stage did anybody tell you that what had been observed in those tests
01:51:12 tests was the k-15 itself performing badly under fire conditions no that that wasn't the conclusion that i was told so what was the conclusion you were told
01:51:23 so what was the conclusion you were told about those tests that it related to the system failing um it i think it was a common understanding that it was very difficult to
01:51:34 that it was very difficult to see um exactly what component had what influence on the test it was obviously something that we were you know keen to understand and trying very hard to understand
01:51:46 very hard to understand so and we'll come to it later so even though
01:51:49 though when you're testing in 2014
01:51:53 there are varying different k-15s that you're testing with different research and development products yes did that not alert you to the fact that the standard k-15 that was being
01:52:05 that the standard k-15 that was being sold
01:52:07 sold was not considered to be able to perform well in those conditions no no not specifically the one of the primary drivers behind the um
01:52:20 one of the primary drivers behind the um development products with solstice was actually lambda value it gave a significant thermally performance improvement and and that was
01:52:31 performance improvement and and that was um very attractive to uh the sales arms of the company um production were very keen to to move to that technology as well
01:52:42 to move to that technology as well um it was seen as the way forward at the time
01:52:46 time i see did you just i'm sorry yeah no carry on when you could just help me with this a little bit um you told us a little earlier that you were under the impression that the
01:52:57 you were under the impression that the product
01:52:58 product remained the same um between 2005 when the successful test was carried out through until let's say 2010 or bit later
01:53:10 let's say 2010 or bit later i'm just wondering did it not trouble you that although you'd had one test which had passed in 2005 what you thought was the same product it failed on three successive tests
01:53:22 failed on three successive tests in 2007-2008 did that not cast some doubt on the reliability of the test in 2005 no not specifically uh the test in 2005
01:53:35 no not specifically uh the test in 2005 was potentially the least onerous test every component other than the consistent component k15 was engineered to give us the best
01:53:46 was engineered to give us the best chance of getting a result the tests lately in in 2007 and 8 i believe were the partially sponsored tests so i i
01:53:58 the partially sponsored tests so i i had a concern that actually they perhaps weren't the next logical tests um it was something i was trying to improve my understanding and you know to to actually learn about
01:54:11 and you know to to actually learn about this test we needed to test in in my view in it in a logical way so that we could um begin to understand what the drivers are for for a pass or a fail
01:54:22 are for for a pass or a fail um yes but as you rightly point out these are system whole system tests yes
01:54:29 tests yes and so if you are responding to customers with requests for suitability of k-15 yeah this series of tests would suggest
01:54:40 yeah this series of tests would suggest that one ought to be very cautious about giving any positive advice unless you could be confident that the system that they were going to introduce was directly comparable if not identical
01:54:52 was directly comparable if not identical to
01:54:53 to the one tested in 2005 yes i obviously uh not necessarily obviously but our concern with um
01:55:07 giving that um as a way forward was that there was it was never going to be practical to to provide an exact test um
01:55:19 to provide an exact test um for for every construction in the industry it's um it's it's a widely known that you know you rarely install the same cladding
01:55:30 install the same cladding system twice aren't on occasion there's normally something that changes from that point of view to support the product in that application um we felt it was necessary that
01:55:42 um we felt it was necessary that the evidence we could give would need to be assessed to match systems that were actually being built right thank you sorry i've taken you a little bit no no absolutely that's absolutely fine thank you mister
01:55:56 absolutely fine thank you mister um
01:55:59 still thinking about your understanding and knowledge about uh k-15 when you became head of technical
01:56:05 technical we're going to move on now to some questions about third-party certificates which were in place for the product when you took over and i want to start with the labc you understood is this right that a
01:56:17 you understood is this right that a system approval certificate had been issued for k-15 in 2009 so before you were appointed head of technical in 2010 is that right yes were you told anything
01:56:28 is that right yes were you told anything about that certificate when you took on that role in 2010 no i didn't know much about that at all at the time
01:56:37 the time if we can go at this point to paragraph 8.20 of your witness statement on page 45.
01:56:49 there are some paragraphs here where you're responding to a question about on what basis do you understand the labc to have asserted
01:56:56 asserted that k15 was or may be considered a material of limited combustibility and you you tell us in 8.20 that you understand this is a reference to a
01:57:07 understand this is a reference to a phrase
01:57:07 phrase used in the labc system approval that k15 and then you set out that phrase can be considered as a material of limited combustibility you say in the following paragraph i
01:57:19 you say in the following paragraph i don't know how or why the labc used this phrase
01:57:22 phrase this document was used before i stepped into a relevant role i was not involved and then you say this for the purposes of preparing this witness statement i've been shown this document as far as i can recall i was not aware
01:57:34 as far as i can recall i was not aware of this phrase being within the labc system approval during my time as head of technical when i was appointed as head of technical i recall there being some internal liaison taking place relating
01:57:45 internal liaison taking place relating to an labc document but i was not involved either meredith was handling this now i just want to be absolutely clear about your knowledge of this certificate did you actually read that labc system
01:57:57 did you actually read that labc system approval certificate in 2010 when you took over i don't recall doing so specifically no wasn't that a very important document to
01:58:08 wasn't that a very important document to read
01:58:10 read given the significance of it for the sales of k15 yes it would have been um i will have got to i don't recall reading it straight away do you recall
01:58:22 reading it straight away do you recall reading it at some stage after you became head of technical i do but i
01:58:28 but i seem to recall that it was pretty much immediately under review um i i think there was correspondence which relates
01:58:39 there was correspondence which relates to
01:58:39 to um that phraseology being changed can i just look at an email kin405383
01:58:51 can i just look at an email kin405383 this is an email of the 9th of may 2009 by philip heath we can look at the top half of the page
01:59:02 half of the page what we see is that this email is sent to a number of technical services divisions within kingspan including the roofing division
01:59:17 including the roofing division do you do you see that it's three lines up from the bottom of the recipients the two list yep
01:59:26 now can you recall it the the email is headed great news and it's all about the labc system approval certificate
01:59:37 system approval certificate and if we look up a bit further down into into the body of the email mr heath has highlighted the phrase material of limited combustibility in this email and set out what the
01:59:50 in this email and set out what the benefits are what it was now you were managing the roofing division in 2009 is that right no no no i was managing a very small part of the
02:00:01 managing a very small part of the roofing division which was the internal function that supported the tapered roofing that was it was more of
02:00:12 that was it was more of a um a designed product and therefore there were uh designers that i managed alongside an estimating function um to support the the sales of that
02:00:23 um to support the the sales of that product
02:00:25 product do you remember receiving this email now you've looked at it do you remember getting it in 2009 when it was sent no i don't recall it
02:00:35 when you took over from philip heath in 2010 where you were aware were you made aware by others of the statement in it about limited combustibility in this labc
02:00:45 labc system approval certificate no i don't recall specifically being made aware of it
02:00:51 it so nobody discussed that with you do your attention to it explain the importance of it no no
02:01:00 did you read any of the later labc certificates for k-15 there were certificates which i'll take you to later that were issued in 2013 2014 and early 2015. did you read
02:01:12 2013 2014 and early 2015. did you read any of those later versions yes i did come to be aware of them yes can you remember the words k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility being used again after the may 2005
02:01:26 being used again after the may 2005 system approval certificate
02:01:31 sorry could you rephrase yes can you remember the words k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility being used again after that may 2009
02:01:42 being used again after that may 2009 system approval certificate in a later version do you remember that no not specifically we'll come back to that
02:01:53 turning now to the bba when you were appointed in the role of head of technical there was a certificate in place from the bba for k-15 do you remember that yes
02:02:07 and you tell us in your witness statement this is at page 29 paragraph 7.5
02:02:18 paragraph 7.5 you say a bba certificate was valuable as an independent third party approval of a product its value was as an independent investigation of a product and on the same page at 7.6
02:02:32 of a product and on the same page at 7.6 you say it was valuable in that it was perceived
02:02:35 perceived in the marketplace as an independent third-party verification it was significant for the marketing and sales of k-15 because it verified k-15's fire and thermal performance now what do
02:02:47 fire and thermal performance now what do you mean there by that it verified k15's fire and thermal performance we um as as part of the process we had to provide
02:02:58 to provide the evidence we had on the product's performance the bba would review that i i presume in their internal processes and and therefore republish
02:03:11 and and therefore republish independently to confirm our claims
02:03:22 i see did you think that the bba itself would do some testing on k15 as part of that process potentially they could highlight gaps if
02:03:33 potentially they could highlight gaps if if
02:03:34 if it were required against a particular product in a particular application so they could highlight gaps did you ever
02:03:41 ever think that they might be doing themselves some testing on k15 as part of that process
02:03:51 no no no so the bba would be depend dependent wouldn't they on the test evidence provided by kingspan yes yes and and you clearly understood
02:04:02 yes yes and and you clearly understood that throughout your time as head of technical i did yeah now the first issue of the bba certificate for k-15 was on the 27th of october 2008 which was
02:04:13 on the 27th of october 2008 which was over a year before you became head of technical
02:04:17 technical and when you were asked about the content of that certificate if we can look at paragraph 7.27 of your witness statement on page 34
02:04:33 we you were asked about your understanding of some of the wording in that certificate and the answer you gave in your statement was i cannot comment on my understanding of this wording and whether it was correct
02:04:44 this wording and whether it was correct at the time i.e in 2008 as i was not in a relevant role until 2010
02:04:50 2010 did you actually read that certificate when you took over as head of technical i would have done at some point yes because it remained in place is this
02:05:02 because it remained in place is this right
02:05:02 right until mid-2013 didn't it yes
02:05:10 let's look now at that certificate it's at bba
02:05:18 6038
02:05:22 in that first page if we can look at the bottom half of the page we can see it was issued 27th of october 2008 and under key factors assessed three headings down we
02:05:34 headings down we see behavior in relation to fire and the words there that we can see after that say the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present
02:05:46 development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard now just leaving aside the smoke and toxic hazard can you help us with what those words mean will not contribute to the
02:05:57 mean will not contribute to the development stages of a fire
02:06:04 i don't specifically know um what evidence the bba would reference to to come up with that wording um i i would assume it's related to
02:06:18 i i would assume it's related to surface spread of flame or propagation
02:06:22 when you first read this did you ask that question did you say can someone tell me what test evidence supports that statement in our bba certificate no i've taken it as a standard phrase
02:06:34 no i've taken it as a standard phrase that the bba use against this factor did you understand what it meant when you read it
02:06:46 yes but i don't think it it prefers specifically um it's not quantifiable in the way that it's written
02:06:59 in the way that it's written what does that mean it's not quantifiable in the way that it's written
02:07:02 written do you mean it's vague and ambiguous
02:07:06 yes i think it it is it should reference back to
02:07:09 back to um a test that you know can be measured more specifically and can you explain why as head of technical that wasn't something you ever pursued no i can't
02:07:23 pursued no i can't did it ever occur to you that that wording was vague and unspecified and ought to be more precisely based on
02:07:35 ought to be more precisely based on test evidence no i don't recall that i did
02:07:39 did we go to section seven of this certificate now at the bottom of page five
02:07:45 five this deals with k15's performance in fire it's the detailed section at 7.1 we see a detailed description of the 2005 test
02:07:58 the 2005 test and what was tested
02:08:02 and then
02:08:05 at the end of the description in the last sentence it states within the stated test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c therefore
02:08:17 did not exceed 600 degrees c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 now
02:08:27 135 now would you agree that that statement the product meets the criteria stated in bre 135 is simply not correct is it strictly no not according to to the
02:08:39 strictly no not according to to the system test no because no product can meet
02:08:42 meet that criteria that is a system test yes yes product as part of a system would be a better wording
02:08:52 and when you read that did you appreciate that that was inaccurate when you read it did you realize that
02:09:04 realize that no i don't believe i did at the time i think i was reading it in the context of it being
02:09:09 it being a product agreement approval or be it referring to a system in this
02:09:16 case what does that mean you read it in the context of it being a product agreement approval albeit referring to a system in this case the the agmont is is specific to the
02:09:29 the the agmont is is specific to the product and and therefore i think it's referencing performance against the product whilst it's not strictly accurate because the product in this case was part of a system
02:09:40 system yes and it's right isn't it that you can't ex extrapolate away from a system test how one individual product has done in that test i couldn't no
02:09:53 in that test i couldn't no no now if we could look um at paragraph 7.28 at page 35 of your witness statement
02:10:04 you were then asked about amended issue 1 of the bba certificate dated april 2010
02:10:13 and you say as far as i can recall i'd only just stepped into the role of head of technical and so i was not involved in this in any event the precise content of bba
02:10:24 event the precise content of bba certificates would have been the responsibility of either meredith and joel clark who handled the day-to-day correspondence and liaison with the bba regarding k15s and other products certification
02:10:35 certification it is important i emphasize that as head of technical my role was managerial in nature i managed a team of around 30 employees and my key responsibilities were ensuring that the team functioned
02:10:46 were ensuring that the team functioned well and deadlines were met now did you ever read this certificate amended issue 1 dated april 2010 i will have done yes
02:11:01 2010 i will have done yes let's go to it bba it's at bba 6037 at the bottom of page one it says date
02:11:13 at the bottom of page one it says date of first issue is october 08 and then underneath that in in fainter writing we can see it says certificate amended on the 6th of april 2010
02:11:23 2010 with revisions made to scottish building regulations references the behavior in relation to fire and maintenance sections so we can see that there
02:11:34 and then at page one it it still says under under behavior in relation to fire it still says the boards will not
02:11:45 it still says the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire
02:11:49 a fire and then we can see some wording that's been added which was not included in the previous issue where it says the product has been tested to bs 8414 part 1 for one specific construction on
02:12:03 part 1 for one specific construction on masonry walls c section seven
02:12:07 now are you able to help us when as to when it was that this certificate was actually published and circulated for use can you help us with that
02:12:18 with that no i don't recall two bba employees mr denyer and mr alban have told the inquiry in their witness statements that this certificate was not
02:12:29 statements that this certificate was not published
02:12:30 published until july 2013. now does that sound right to you
02:12:40 uh that would seem like a
02:12:44 very long delay even in the context of the bba
02:12:48 the bba yes we
02:12:53 yes we for some time were very frustrated around um
02:12:57 around um the turnaround of these types of certificates um we held quite a few of them against most products in most applications um and it was always
02:13:08 um and it was always frustrating to um [Music]
02:13:12 [Music] try and and progress you know getting the certificates released it would very often take um over a year um three years seems an
02:13:23 over a year um three years seems an exceptional long time even in that measure in your experience did kingspan always get back to the bba quickly when suggested amendments were proposed to certificates
02:13:35 were proposed to certificates yes um on the basis that we were frustrated that very often the information was requested in series rather than parallel so we would think we were making
02:13:48 so we would think we were making progress and then we would get another question that we could have been asked perhaps earlier yeah
02:13:55 if we can look now at page five of the certificate and the the the detailed section seven on behavior in relation to fire
02:14:04 and if we read section 7.1 it says the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in
02:14:17 the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and then we see for england and wales those provisions are approved document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and
02:14:28 paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraphs 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 volume 2. see also diagram 40. and note references to paragraphs 12.5
02:14:40 and note references to paragraphs 12.5 and
02:14:41 and 12.7 there of approved document b
02:14:48 now i just want to turn up what you say in your witness statement about this at this stage if you go to paragraph 7.30 on page 35 of your statement
02:15:02 you were asked about that very wording and what it meant and you say i think that a reader with knowledge of the subject matter would understand that this wording means
02:15:15 understand that this wording means that k-15 can be considered for buildings for use on buildings with a floor over 18 meters subject to compliance with approved document b paragraphs 12.5
02:15:26 paragraphs 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 volume 2. however i can i also can see that the use of
02:15:34 use of may in the wording could be misunderstood to imply that k15 will always meet the requirements of approved document b paragraphs 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 volume 2.
02:15:47 12.6 and 12.7 volume 2. that is not what the wording set out at inquiry question 40a says that it is possible that the wording could be misinterpreted in that way so that that's what you've
02:15:59 in that way so that that's what you've said
02:15:59 said in your um witness statement let's just go go back to the certificate so we can just see the wording again bba 6037 page five
02:16:16 7.1 we can see 7.1 says the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and then we get 12.5 12.6 12.7 as
02:16:28 of and then we get 12.5 12.6 12.7 as well as other provisions now k15 could never comply with or be used in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
02:16:41 paragraph 12.7 of approved document b could it
02:16:42 could it uh you'd have to refresh me on that paragraph
02:16:46 paragraph sorry i don't recall them
02:16:50 yes um if we go to clg 50224
02:17:01 clg 50224 and look at around page 97
02:17:09 actually it might be 96 let's try 96. there's 12.7 it's specifically about insulation materials in a building with a story 18 meters or
02:17:21 in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material used in external wall construction should be of limited combustibility now you've already explained to us that you were aware of approved document b
02:17:32 you were aware of approved document b you were aware of the different routes to compliance and you were aware that the primary route to compliance was for the product to be of limited combustibility that's right isn't it yes so that's paragraph 12.7 of approved
02:17:45 yes so that's paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
02:17:49 k 15 could never comply or be used in accordance with the requirements of that paragraph could it no it's not limited compatibility no because it is not a material of
02:18:01 no because it is not a material of limited combustibility we agree that we have yes yeah
02:18:07 let's go back to the certificate again bba 6037
02:18:12 bba 6037 page five
02:18:16 do you accept that the wording of this certificate is inaccurate and misleading to include 12.7 yes yes
02:18:27 and you accept that readers could very easily have understood the technical content of this certificate to be advising that k15 was a material of limited combustibility given the inclusion of 12.7 in that
02:18:39 given the inclusion of 12.7 in that paragraph
02:18:40 paragraph i wouldn't have said very easily no you would have had to have quite an involved
02:18:47 involved knowledge of of all of those documents surrounding it and therefore likely you know a specialist in cladding in this instance
02:19:00 and in that case it i don't think
02:19:08 k15 as a material of limited combustibility i know there was a statement in the labc document um that is word it can act as but that
02:19:20 that is word it can act as but that isn't statin it's a material of limited combustibility but wouldn't you agree that the reader of this certificate would read that it may be used in accordance with those provisions c 12.7 go and look at 12.7
02:19:34 c 12.7 go and look at 12.7 and say to themselves ah it's a product of limited combustibility because it can can be used in accordance with 12.7 of adb
02:19:43 of adb do you not see that that was a natural way to read and understand the certificate
02:20:01 yes it could be read that way yes can you explain why kingspan allowed this inaccurate and misleading statement to be made in the bba certificate
02:20:15 i can't in your witness statement you've been at pains to emphasize the care that the technical team would take over
02:20:24 take over checking the technical content of marketing literature etc and other party certificates can you explain how
02:20:32 how that's got into this certificate
02:20:36 no um it wouldn't have been done deliberately um i don't know why it would have appeared in there in the first place
02:20:48 in there in the first place could i could i see 12.5 and 12.6 to to give it some more context yes absolutely um if we go back to um clg 50224
02:21:01 um if we go back to um clg 50224 and go to the page before
02:21:06 12.5 is there it starts with a general warning
02:21:10 warning about the external envelope not providing a medium for fire spread if it's likely to be a risk to health and safety and it says the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may
02:21:21 system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings and then it goes on external walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9
02:21:32 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the bre report br135 using full-scale test data from 8414
02:21:41 8414 that's 12.5
02:21:46 12.6 is then about the external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions in diagram 40.
02:21:57 so that's about the external surface so your range screen cladding panel um and there's various guidance given in diagram 40 and then we get 12.7 which is
02:22:09 diagram 40 and then we get 12.7 which is about insulation materials
02:22:13 does that help
02:22:17 it doesn't change the fact that 12.7 is wrong in the context of that certificate yeah can you remember a time
02:22:29 yeah can you remember a time as head of technical where people were discussing the fact that that certificate was inaccurate and that 12.7 had been mistakenly included in there was that ever discussed
02:22:43 no i i wouldn't have been involved in a conversation at that level of detail that i can recall
02:22:56 you tell us if we look at your witness statement paragraph 7.42 page 39.
02:23:05 page 39. you say that um if we look at that first line at the end of that first line picking it up there you say kingspan was offered the opportunity to comment on draft bba
02:23:16 opportunity to comment on draft bba certificates before they were finalized as part of this kingspan was expected to check the factual information pertaining to the physical characteristics of the product
02:23:25 product and test build up details but not the conclusions about the product arrived at by the bba now i appreciate you say that there but if a conclusion reached by the bba
02:23:37 if a conclusion reached by the bba in a certificate was demonstrably wrong do you agree that kingspan ought to have alerted the bba to that era yes and particularly where something
02:23:48 yes and particularly where something like fire safety and life safety was concerned
02:23:50 concerned absolutely
02:23:57 but is it right i think if we move on to paragraph 7.45 of your witness statement still on page 39 that what you tell us is that those checks were not your area of responsibility it was either meredith
02:24:09 responsibility it was either meredith and joel clark who would have been responsible for carrying out those checks yes at that level of detail i mean obviously they report to me so it's still
02:24:17 still my responsibility um
02:24:23 i don't know the the
02:24:27 the sentence almost doesn't make sense because to refer to those clauses together
02:24:32 together um contradicts um you know they can't all be true it's going to be one of the other so it does feel like a mistake to me rather than something deliberate
02:24:44 to me rather than something deliberate right
02:24:47 i want to ask you some questions now about what kingspan's technical advisors were saying to customers in the period from 2010 to july 2014 about the suitability for use of k-15
02:24:59 about the suitability for use of k-15 in the external walls of buildings over 18 meters in height and first is it fair to say that in your witness statement and i've taken you to a lot of it already you're keen to
02:25:10 a lot of it already you're keen to emphasize
02:25:11 emphasize that kingspan's role in advising on the use of k-15 in any given high-rise project was a limited one that's what you say in your statement yes sorry could you say that again is it
02:25:23 sorry could you say that again is it right that in your statement you're keen to emphasize that kingspan's role in advising on the use of k-15 in any given high-rise project was a limited one yes let's look
02:25:35 yes let's look in a little bit more detail about what you say about that if we can go page 7 to paragraph 4.2
02:25:50 you explain we provided customers with the information they needed about k15 and the available routes to compliance in order for them to design compliance structures
02:26:01 compliance structures kingspan was a manufacturer of just one component in an entire system k-k-15 it was not our place to advise as to whether or not a holistic system complied with the
02:26:13 holistic system complied with the building regulations standards
02:26:18 and then you make a similar point if we look on
02:26:21 look on page 13 paragraph 4.21
02:26:29 you say it's important for me to be clear that the technical team at kingspan did not fulfill the function of building control the technical advisors gave advice to customers
02:26:39 customers on the products that kingspan made and their potential uses but did not give advice on the compliance of buildings and construction systems used on those buildings
02:26:51 and at 4.29 page 15
02:26:59 you you say there our technical advisors were not trained to confirm that k15 was suitable
02:27:06 suitable because this was not there or kingspan's responsibility
02:27:12 and then i want to look at paragraph 4.36
02:27:16 4.36 at the top of page 17.
02:27:21 i want to just look at the last few lines of that paragraph
02:27:27 you say kingspan had a good grasp of these documents and the processes involved but i think that there were plenty of professionals who did not which is why as i say above customers tried to rely on us too much
02:27:39 customers tried to rely on us too much for confirmations that we could not give to them
02:27:48 and then again at 7.47 of your statement page 40.
02:27:59 you say as i say above kingspan we'll get queries coming in from architect or engineer customers relating to the use of k-15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters where they were seeking representations as to the
02:28:10 were seeking representations as to the suitability of k-15 in the build-ups that they had designed it was not kingspan's responsibility to determine compliance when we explained this to them and provided them with information about
02:28:21 provided them with information about k-15 and the routes to compliance they would sometimes raise concerns about this these concerns were misplaced they were trying to lay responsibility for compliance with kingspan
02:28:32 for compliance with kingspan which was not appropriate so those are points that you you clearly feel strongly about in your statement is that right that that's not something that kingspan
02:28:44 that that's not something that kingspan could do
02:28:47 between 2010 and 2015 did you take any steps to ensure that kingspan's technical advisors were not advising on the compliance of particular buildups given your view that it would be
02:28:59 given your view that it would be inappropriate for them to do so [Applause] i think there's a distinction here between offering our opinion based on the
02:29:10 our opinion based on the product information that we're able to supply
02:29:13 supply and actually being able to state that something will comply with the building regulations it wasn't our um
02:29:24 it wasn't our um position that we wouldn't give an opinion what we wouldn't do was um state that it would comply with building
02:29:32 building regulations i see
02:29:38 but um do you accept that when giving your opinion particularly within an industry that you've accepted often didn't understand the requirements well there was a real danger that that
02:29:51 well there was a real danger that that opinion was then taken as being authoritative and reliable about systems that could be used on external walls no i think it's very clear that the project team
02:30:04 it's very clear that the project team in whatever contractual arrangement they have
02:30:07 have have that responsibility um that it's it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to provide that cast iron compliance i see
02:30:21 compliance i see well we're going to come on and look at some examples um during your evidence in a number of places about advice that was being given by kingspan okay um but before we get to that um i asked
02:30:33 um but before we get to that um i asked you earlier about what kingspan's policy or strategy was in terms of the use of k15 over 18 meters and i want to look again at what you said at paragraph 4.1 on page 7 of your
02:30:44 said at paragraph 4.1 on page 7 of your statement
02:30:50 [Music] it's where you you explain that kingspan had the very simple strategy of promoting k15 in applications in which
02:31:00 which kingspan could support its use in accordance with the building regulations standards and best practice
02:31:08 now what i want to understand is what were those applications in what situations could kingspan support the use of k-15
02:31:19 kingspan support the use of k-15 in the external construction of buildings over 18 meters based on um the
02:31:31 um the test on certification that was in place at any given point in time other desktop studies as they began to
02:31:42 other desktop studies as they began to be
02:31:43 be um undertaken
02:31:47 and and specifically relating to the type of construction that the product was going to be incorporated into i can't
02:31:58 into i can't there is as many different variations as as you can imagine um so it'd be very difficult to to put a
02:32:11 to put a a specific description on that
02:32:15 you begin that answer by saying based on the test and certification that was in place at any given point in time it's just focus on the test evidence and if we think about the period
02:32:26 if we think about the period 2010 to say the end of 2013 before you start testing again
02:32:34 we know the product's not of limiting combustibility yes so that's not a route to compliance it's right isn't it during that period the use of k15 above 80 meters
02:32:45 the use of k15 above 80 meters could only be supported by one set of test data
02:32:50 test data to 8414 from 2005. as test data yes that was it wasn't it the may 2005 test there was nothing else was there uh there was the nhbc certification
02:33:03 uh there was the nhbc certification sorry the um
02:33:08 the land tech approval or did it become the system approval the labc system yes the type approval what test evidence did that sorry test
02:33:19 what test evidence did that sorry test evidence was just about 18 meters but that certification could be used in combination with the test evidence well we'll come back to that certificate but i'm trying to concentrate on test
02:33:31 but i'm trying to concentrate on test evidence at the moment forget the certificates for a moment and the fact that it refers to limited combustibility what test evidence did you have to actually support the use of k15
02:33:43 actually support the use of k15 over 18 meters the 8414 test from 2005. that was it wasn't it yes
02:33:51 so does it follow then that the only advice
02:33:56 advice you could legitimately give during that period
02:33:59 period about k-15's use on other buildings was it
02:34:03 it it could only be used on that specific configuration with that specific same system
02:34:12 unless the the project team were prepared to assess against that information for the construction that they had what was kingspan's view what was your
02:34:23 what was kingspan's view what was your view was your view at the time that k15 would only be used on the exact same system or was it kingspan's view at the time
02:34:33 the time that they could be advising clients based on that test to use on a whole range of other systems no i don't think that's the case um
02:34:45 no i don't think that's the case um we would provide the evidence that we had at the time for that project team um to make their assessment as to whether it supported
02:34:56 it supported the product's use in their circumstances so is that right all you would do is just provide that test data and say over to you you make your own
02:35:07 and say over to you you make your own assessment no not only that there it would depend on
02:35:13 on how much information was offered from the the project team it was quite often that was the case that we could only provide the evidence because
02:35:22 because the um the rest of the build up of any uh for various projects was very difficult to come by depending on what stage any particular
02:35:34 depending on what stage any particular contract was at it wasn't even fixed on on many occasions
02:35:39 occasions it would often change during the course of a contract but can we agree that there were occasions many of them when you were told what the build up of the external wall was going to be
02:35:50 the external wall was going to be yeah and king's band did positively advise that k-15 was suitable in those high-rise applications depending on what that information supplied was yes and when you say
02:36:02 supplied was yes and when you say depending on what that information was supplied
02:36:05 supplied many of those systems weren't exactly the same as the 2005 system were they no no not exactly
02:36:18 if we can look at paragraph 4.17 of your statement page on page 11.
02:36:34 you say that i've never had any concerns about the content of any kingspan's marketing literature during my time at kingspan i firmly believe that the marketing material that was produced by the marketing team
02:36:45 produced by the marketing team with technical input was representative of our products and the collection of data we had sitting behind each product
02:36:55 now what led you to that firm belief
02:36:59 that the martial material was um representative of the products the process that was in place uh to to
02:37:10 the process that was in place uh to to assess
02:37:11 assess that literature as and when it was produced
02:37:17 you you didn't check that marketing material
02:37:20 material did you no no what was the collection of data
02:37:26 data sitting behind the k15 product between 2010 and say june 2014 for use over 18 meters
02:37:38 the bsa for one for 2005 test
02:37:48 if we now look at paragraph 4.33 on page 16
02:37:51 16 of your witness statement you're you're asked a question did kingspan's approach to technical advice
02:38:04 kingspan's approach to technical advice develop and change over the period of your employment in a relevant role if so describe any changes including your understanding about the reasons for them
02:38:13 them and you say at 4.33 below that as i say above the advice that we gave in response to customers queries about the use of k-15 on buildings with floors over 18 meters
02:38:25 floors over 18 meters related to the physical qualities of the k-15 product the tests that kingspan had carried out on the product and an indication of whether k-15 could be considered for use
02:38:38 whether k-15 could be considered for use on their proposed build-up now you use the phrase tests there the tests in the plural in this third line down
02:38:50 in this third line down what tests were there up to july 2014 that you could be using to justify the use of k15 over 18 meters
02:39:03 i i think that's a reference to the fact that we would provide all of the test data for the product not just bs8414 but the smaller scale tests as well that can also characterize
02:39:16 tests as well that can also characterize performance um that a fire safety engineer could take into account it was often requested but how are those relevant tests for
02:39:27 relevant tests for over 18 meters given your knowledge of the regulatory regime i don't think it would be my knowledge it would be relevant it would be the fire engineers knowledge
02:39:41 it was something we provided that helps characterize the fire performance of the product
02:39:46 product and as i say it was often requested when somebody was undertaking that type of assessment right if we could look at this point at paragraph 4.19 of your statement on page
02:39:58 paragraph 4.19 of your statement on page 12.
02:40:04 this is quite a long paragraph but i am going to read out all of it with you it's all quite important um you say when i was appointed as head of technical there was not a written policy in place with regards to advising customers
02:40:16 with regards to advising customers on the use of k-15 over 18 meters the endless possibilities of the system combinations meant that a formulaic policy was not practical however the team did take a unified
02:40:28 however the team did take a unified approach to dealing with these queries which required flexible responses to respond to customers queries technical advisors drew on their on-the-job experience and training
02:40:39 experience and training and referred to kings brand's library of key documents including the approved documents and marketing literature if the frontline technical advisors that picked up customer queries were not comfortable answering a particular inquiry for example an
02:40:52 a particular inquiry for example an enquiry relating to the use of k15 over 18 meters
02:40:55 18 meters they would escalate the inquiry appropriately we had dedicated advisers within the technical team whose responsibility it was to address these types of queries queries relating to the use of k-15 on
02:41:06 queries relating to the use of k-15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters would be directed to these specialists by the group of non-specialized technical advisors and then you say i think we had a standard few opening paragraphs included
02:41:17 standard few opening paragraphs included in each response which set out the physical characteristics and properties of k15
02:41:22 of k15 and the building regulations and approved document b however the rest of the response would be tailored to respond to the customer's specific query and their proposed build up
02:41:31 up it was not possible to give completely rigid responses now i want to ask you a little bit about that paragraph if we go back to look at the start of it
02:41:43 to look at the start of it what do you mean in the second line there about the endless possibilities of the system combinations meant that a formulaic policy was not practical
02:41:58 formulaic policy was not practical the endless possibilities refers to the combinations of of cladding systems which when you take into account
02:42:10 which when you take into account variables
02:42:11 variables in the cladding panel itself the bracketry the cavity barriers the substrates things of insulation size of gaps
02:42:23 things of insulation size of gaps it does mean that there is an endless combination of possibilities
02:42:31 the formulae policy is meant to
02:42:38 get across that we we did take a um a standard approach but it had to be tailored based on what information we knew about the project
02:42:49 information we knew about the project that was
02:42:50 that was being considered can you help us as to why there would need to be anything but one response for over 18 meters queries and wouldn't
02:43:01 for over 18 meters queries and wouldn't that one response be we've only tested in one specific configuration and we have no test data to support the use in any other system
02:43:11 no because the information was being provided
02:43:16 provided on the premise that the product or the system could be assessed
02:43:24 assessed by uh an engineering route to determine whether it could be compliant for that project
02:43:37 compliant for that project i see that's the basis on which you thought you were providing advice to customers
02:43:41 customers about k-15 over 18 meters is it yes that it could be used as part of a holistic fire engineered assessment whether to use it or not yes an assessment report but would it be
02:43:53 yes an assessment report but would it be right to say that in those circumstances it wouldn't be appropriate to express any view about whether it was or wasn't suitable for the project because the advice would have to be
02:44:05 because the advice would have to be we haven't tested your project you'll have to take some advice or have a test done yes if if they were only considering compliance
02:44:16 compliance via a direct route in using specific test evidence from a bs-8414 if they were prepared to
02:44:27 if they were prepared to build exactly the same construction but using another non-combustible cladding panel that would be for them wouldn't it it would yes or if they wanted to take uh
02:44:38 uh uh take on a fire engineer to do a stick absolutely but i mean the message would be we can't tell you whether this is suitable
02:44:47 suitable you'll have to decide for yourself by following one of these absolutely which is why i was it took at pains to
02:44:56 pains to explain that it wasn't kingspan's decision um to to say whether it was compliant or not we well that's just with respect that's a slightly different thing isn't it if
02:45:07 thing isn't it if it's one thing to say well this is my view but you've got to make the decision it's another thing to say i can't express a view because i'm not qualified to do so on
02:45:19 because i'm not qualified to do so on on the basis of your proposed system yes um i i believe our view was to try and
02:45:31 was to try and explain some of the the finer parameters as to how
02:45:35 as to how the 8414 had been achieved so um it was expressing things like the cavity barrier centers um the fact that it was a non-combustible substrate and
02:45:46 non-combustible substrate and non-combustible cladding um so it was you're right i mean i suppose it is arguable whether we were in a position to give that opinion um but it clearly was
02:46:00 that opinion um but it clearly was just our opinion and and not us stating that it would comply thank you yes it's great yes thank you um during that period 2010 to
02:46:13 um during that period 2010 to mid 2014 there was no test data was there to support the use of k15 on steel framed rather than masonry structures
02:46:22 no so far as you were aware were customers routinely advised in that period 2010 to mid 2014 that k-15 had only been
02:46:33 2010 to mid 2014 that k-15 had only been tested on a masonry structure yes
02:46:50 do you agree that if kingspan told customers
02:46:53 customers that k15 has been successfully assessed to bs 8414 and br 135 and is suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height without caveat or qualification at least
02:47:05 without caveat or qualification at least some of them would be likely to accept that
02:47:13 i'd hope not
02:47:17 we were always advising people that were part of a wider project team that had to take these responsibilities forward
02:47:27 if they were to take our advice without their own consideration and input um
02:47:38 their own consideration and input um surely that that would be avoiding their own responsibilities i see were you aware that that assertion that k15 had been successfully tested to
02:47:50 that k15 had been successfully tested to bs 8414 and assessed to br 135 and that it was suitable for use over 18 meters
02:47:57 meters was part of the technical adviser's standard response were you aware of that could you rephrase it again is this yes sorry it's quite long but were you aware that that assertion that
02:48:08 were you aware that that assertion that k15 had been successfully tested to bs 8414 and assessed to br 135 and that it was suitable for use over 18 meters was part
02:48:19 meters was part of the technical advisor's standard response
02:48:24 yes
02:48:28 let's look at um an example now if we could go to kin405894
02:48:40 this is an email chain which starts if i can look down on page six it's from december 2013
02:48:50 and if we look at page six um there's an email there from someone at the nhbc called chris myers and he's copied in nick francis
02:49:04 myers and he's copied in nick francis who's a
02:49:04 who's a boone brown architect and we can see that the nhbc have advised nick francis the architect as follows they've said in order to use kingspan
02:49:16 they've said in order to use kingspan installation in buildings over 18 meters kingsman needs to be approached to provide justification of its use in that location and in conjunction with the specific cladding system proposed a copy of the bba certificate
02:49:28 proposed a copy of the bba certificate is not adequate so that's what the nhbc said
02:49:33 said if we move up the chain at page five we can see that nick francis then forwards that
02:49:44 nick francis then forwards that email to kingspan's technical inquiries email address on the 9th of january there at the bottom 1633 dear kingspan
02:49:56 there at the bottom 1633 dear kingspan technical please can you assist with the query below from the nhbc
02:50:02 and we can tell from the title of that email the subject title that it's about belleway
02:50:07 belleway homes first central k15 insulation over 18 meters
02:50:16 then still on page five we see that then nick francis chases kingspan about this
02:50:29 just under a week later
02:50:33 dear kingspan technical can someone please confirm this is being looked at and then if we move up the chain again we see a series of emails between nick francis and a kingspan technical advisor named d
02:50:44 named d powell which appeared to concentrate on the type of sheathing board to be used in this particular project and if we look at the email from
02:50:55 project and if we look at the email from nick francis to d-pal on the 29th on page 2 on the 29th of january
02:51:00 january 2014 page 2 at 15 26.
02:51:09 we can see that um nick francis
02:51:14 says to d d i can now confirm that the plywood substrate will be changed so that's the first
02:51:22 first uh sentence there and then in the second paragraph
02:51:26 paragraph he says unfortunately any the nhbc are still insisting on the following from your set yourselves the k-15 could be accepted as long as the following is provided in conjunction
02:51:37 the following is provided in conjunction with the proposed design revisions product to be used strictly in accordance with the conditions of the bba
02:51:43 bba cert written confirmation required from kingspan that it is suitable for the actual design proposed we receive copy of acceptance from kingspan for the actual design
02:51:54 kingspan for the actual design justifying compliance with the building regs and nhbc standards i will need to review all upon receipt and it goes on hopefully you can provide me with the information required as i'm
02:52:06 me with the information required as i'm sure
02:52:06 sure this product must have been approved by the nhbc on other residential buildings over 18 meters high and then at this stage mr meredith becomes involved
02:52:25 and what happened was before responding mr meredith checked the wording of his draft response with you if we can look up on page one to the top email in the chain
02:52:41 we'll we'll see from mr meredith's email in a moment which is the second one down on this page that what he does is forward a draft to you for comment and you've responded to him
02:52:54 for comment and you've responded to him with some tweaks otherwise happy
02:53:00 can you see that yes can you recall this these exchanges is this provoking a memory
02:53:09 not from the time no um and then if we can go to mr meredith's email to you
02:53:20 he says tony i'm getting increasingly concerned about the number of k-15 projects that the nhbc are involved in and the fact that they are referring to us for confirmation that the product is suitable
02:53:32 that the product is suitable with this in mind if you can just check the letter below and give me your thoughts
02:53:37 thoughts i do not think i can do any more apart from elude to our forthcoming test programme which is what we advise the nhbc we were doing and then he set out some wording there
02:53:50 and then he set out some wording there kingspan insulation limited during 2014 intend to embark on a test program to further
02:53:56 further and then it looks like you've amended that wording you've taken out proved suitability and you've suggested is this right with your initials tm extend the scope of use four yes call
02:54:08 extend the scope of use four yes call them k-15 in high-rise facades therefore would appreciate feedback on any combustible clouding systems that you are typically adopting in high-rise buildings
02:54:16 buildings so you've you've amended that text and he he goes on and explains the reason the nhbc are asking for this information at the moment is because they do not want to say no to kingspan
02:54:27 they do not want to say no to kingspan however if we cannot provide the correct information they will say no if you can provide your sign off to the letter below and suggest if it needs anything else it would be appreciated
02:54:38 anything else it would be appreciated and then if we can look at the letter the draft letter that mr meredith has sent
02:54:46 you it reads first central london bellway homes
02:54:52 homes further to our previous discussions with regards to the first central project and the use of cool firm k15 within the ventilated rain screen facade system in a building with a story at 18 meters or more above ground level we
02:55:04 18 meters or more above ground level we can confirm the following
02:55:08 and then it says in the next paragraph it is our opinion that our cool firm k15 product would be fit for purpose if installed onto a non-combustible substrate
02:55:19 onto a non-combustible substrate with horizontal cavity barrier installed in line with intermediate floors and at centers not exceeding 3.5 meters
02:55:29 and then he goes on kingspan insulation limited have tested cool therm k-15 successfully to bs 8414 part one and he refers to the test report in brackets in this test the cool thing
02:55:42 in brackets in this test the cool thing was fitted to a non-combustible substrate behind a non-combustible cladding system the details we have reviewed of your project show cool cool them k15 fitted onto a cement
02:55:53 cool them k15 fitted onto a cement particle board behind a zinc cladding system
02:55:56 system which sits on a trapezoidal steel sheet non-combustible as long as the cement particle board and you've added the words is replaced
02:56:07 and you've added the words is replaced with a non-combustible layer i.e calcium silicate
02:56:10 silicate or magnesium oxide the detail would then be brought in sync with our guidance and the labc
02:56:17 the labc registered detail rd165 and therefore and you've added the words should be accepted by your local authority building control
02:56:29 authority building control and we trust that the foregoing information is of assistance [Music]
02:56:35 [Music] now aren't you giving advice here on the compliance of the construction system proposed on this particular building yes we're offering an opinion
02:56:48 building yes we're offering an opinion yes you're saying to this architect that the external facade construction the details of which have been given to you should be accepted by your local authority building control
02:56:59 authority building control in exactly those words yes yes in other words you are giving direct advice on the compliance of that system aren't you as an opinion
02:57:10 of that system aren't you as an opinion yes
02:57:13 [Music] what expertise did you have to be able to assert that k15 should be accepted by building control on this buildup
02:57:25 the the knowledge of the approvals that we had
02:57:32 and the similarities between what they're intending to build and what it was that was had past the test
02:57:46 when you say the knowledge of the approvals that we had what do you mean by that the approvals that we had the how the bs8414 was constructed and and what it um consisted
02:57:59 constructed and and what it um consisted of
02:58:00 of so it's back to that one test isn't it 2005.
02:58:06 k15 had never been tested behind a zinc cladding system had it no
02:58:15 there was therefore no test evidence on the basis of which you could have suggested that the proposed build up would be accepted by building control
02:58:24 control do you agree other than the 8414 that we had that was
02:58:35 other than the 8414 that we had that was intended to
02:58:40 represent a non-combustible system as much as possible yeah and you're saying there it should be accepted by your local authority building control and if we look the page
02:58:51 building control and if we look the page before
02:58:52 before that we previously read
02:58:56 in the second paragraph mr meredith saying it is our opinion that our product would be fit for purpose if installed in this way so they're saying it would
02:59:08 in this way so they're saying it would be fit for purpose can you explain how you came to give that advice
02:59:17 i believe that advice has come from
02:59:23 experience of of other projects where we've offered advice and it's been assessed
02:59:30 assessed and accepted [Music]
02:59:36 what we're doing here is offering advice on
02:59:44 based on the the test evidence that we had and and relating it to similarly non-combustible cladding buildups
02:59:55 when you say that advice has come from experience of other projects where we've offered advice and it's been assessed and accepted you didn't have any um test evidence
03:00:06 you didn't have any um test evidence relating to those other projects of how k-15 would perform in fire in such buildups did you no because they would have been assessments themselves so does that amount to k-15 has been put
03:00:19 so does that amount to k-15 has been put forward on lots of other buildings it's not been objected to so on the back of that we can keep pushing it for projects like this
03:00:30 yeah our route to market was to provide the evidence we had on the basis that it would be assessed against what it was to be incorporated in and
03:00:39 in and deemed appropriate or otherwise
03:00:45 i see that advice was entirely misleading wasn't it given the test evidence you actually had i don't believe it was i think we were drawing parallels to the test evidence
03:00:57 drawing parallels to the test evidence that we had and offering that as an opinion for professionals in that capacity to make their own judgment okay mr chairman i think that's a good
03:01:08 okay mr chairman i think that's a good moment for lunch right yes i agree um well i think we're going to stop there mr miller chap say we can all have some lunch we'll come back at 2 o'clock please yep and again please
03:01:19 please yep and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it thank you over the break all right thank you very much we'd like to give the usher please
03:01:38 good two cups
03:02:10 you