Afternoon session of Kingspan evidence examining the company's fire testing, certification, and marketing of K15 insulation used at Grenfell Tower.
00:00:14 yes would you ask mr milichap to come back in please
00:00:32 all right mr village up yes yes we're strange yes thank you can we just go back to the email we were looking at when we broke off
00:00:42 kin405894
00:00:48 and um as we saw this was the um draft letter that you helped amend in relation to the beltway homes project
00:00:59 in relation to the beltway homes project and i want to look at what's um said right at the very bottom of that page
00:01:06 page in the paragraph beginning king kingspan insulation limited have tested we can see at the very bottom the last two lines
00:01:14 two lines it says this as long as the cement particle board is replaced with a non-combustible layer i.e
00:01:21 i.e calcium silicate or magnesium oxide the detail would then be brought in sync with our guidance and the labc registered detail
00:01:33 and the labc registered detail do you see that there yes can you just explain that to us how would it be the case that once those parts are replaced with calcium silicate
00:01:44 parts are replaced with calcium silicate or magnesium oxide the detail would then be brought in sync with our guidance and the red labc registered detail it's it's a reference to the components
00:01:57 it's it's a reference to the components other than the insulation them being non-combustible
00:02:02 is what's happening here that you're referring to the labc registered details certificate as as further back up for the use of k15
00:02:14 up for the use of k15 over 18 meters is that what you're doing here yes yes
00:02:20 but how can you be doing that in circumstances where there's no other test
00:02:24 test evidence referred to in that labc registered detail is there all you had was the 2005 test you agree yes i do so can you explain how
00:02:36 yes i do so can you explain how it's right and proper to be referring back to that labc registered detail when that doesn't contain any further test evidence to support its use over 18 meters
00:02:48 its use over 18 meters it's it's used in um combination with the
00:02:52 the 8414 test um information it's in itself it's it's an assessment of uh the product's performance and from that point of view
00:03:03 that point of view it was offered as further support to justify
00:03:07 justify uh the use of the product in in their detail but would you agree that the only testing basis for any such assessment by the labc
00:03:16 the labc could be the same 2005 test would you agree
00:03:19 agree yes would you agree with this it's like a pack of cards or a house of cards isn't it
00:03:26 isn't it you're building upon things which in fact
00:03:29 fact are based on a very shaky foundation do you agree i wasn't aware of that at the time
00:03:36 the time i don't think that's 100 clear today
00:03:44 and therefore that advice was offered in good faith um there was an absolute not absolute a strong belief that that k-15 can be relevant
00:03:56 k-15 can be relevant um as a a rain screen cladding above 18 meters
00:04:01 meters in the right circumstances we were representing the product alongside the evidence that we'd gathered
00:04:09 gathered for others to make their judgment on that
00:04:15 that okay you started your answer by saying i wasn't aware of that at the time i don't think that's a hundred percent clear today
00:04:21 today what's not a hundred percent clear today the the based on what i saw of malcolm's evidence
00:04:32 what i saw of malcolm's evidence yesterday um that the old technology isn't representative of the the product that was being supplied
00:04:41 supplied i think it was malcolm's evidence that from his
00:04:45 from his um chemist's point of view that there was an awful lot of correlation between the products i see but put that change in tech to one
00:04:57 i see but put that change in tech to one side and just think to what you knew at the time or what you say you knew at the time
00:05:01 time yes the only foundation for what you're saying here is just one test isn't that right the 2005 test again and small scale test and
00:05:13 again and small scale test and fire professionals assessments yes but we've agreed that those small scale tests don't help you when it comes to over 18 meters do they no i haven't agreed that i i think they
00:05:25 no i haven't agreed that i i think they can form
00:05:26 can form part of somebody's understanding of the performance of the product i see where do you get that from because they
00:05:32 they um outline properties of the product what i'm suggesting to you is that in fact that labc registered detail had as the only support for it the 2005 test so it that's why it's a
00:05:44 the 2005 test so it that's why it's a house of cards it all comes falling down if that 2005 test isn't the same as the system that's being installed here
00:05:54 i i appreciate what you're saying do you agree with it you no i don't agree with it because what else was there other than the 2005 test
00:06:07 test i'm not disagreeing that the only thing reference was the 2005 test i'm disagreeing that um that can't be relevant as part of an assessment
00:06:18 relevant as part of an assessment for the use of k15 in a cladding system
00:06:24 let's move on um i'm now going to ask you
00:06:28 you some further questions about the labc certificates for k-15 we've already touched upon this but i'm now going to ask you some questions about the certificates which were issued while you were
00:06:38 were head of technical at kingspan and in terms of the purpose of having an labc
00:06:44 labc certificate i think you explained this at paragraph 8.6 on page 42 of your witness statement if we can just turn that
00:06:51 that up
00:06:57 you explain there an labc register detailed certificate is like an independent third-party validation of a product
00:07:04 product and it is then relied upon and accepted by all local authority building controllers it's akin to type approval in that as long as you build in accordance with it local authority building controllers
00:07:16 local authority building controllers should accept it the official labc document which was replaced by labc registered detailed certificates was called a system type approval certificate so we can see there the importance of
00:07:27 so we can see there the importance of that certificate and you also say at paragraph 8.7 below that
00:07:35 that third line down
00:07:40 you you say after the semicolon all local authority building controllers could look at it as acceptance by their governing body that as long as a build-up complied with the details in the certificate it was
00:07:52 the details in the certificate it was compliant
00:07:55 compliant now we discussed earlier that the system type approval which was issued for k-15 in may 2009 um having been appointed as head of
00:08:06 um having been appointed as head of technical in 2010 did you become aware that at some stage that system approval certificate was due to expire in may 2012.
00:08:19 i don't recall the specific dates but all certificates do expire yeah who would have been responsible in may 2012 for dealing with labc certification for k-15 uh that would
00:08:33 certification for k-15 uh that would have been
00:08:33 have been either or gareth mills yep and if we can go now to an email chain
00:08:42 kin405552
00:08:45 i want to start on the bottom email on page two
00:08:55 page two here we see an email from martin taylor at the labc to justin davis now is it right that he's the marketing and production development project manager at kingspan at this time
00:09:10 i don't know i don't doesn't sound correct to me just in during my tenure at kingspan was working in a
00:09:23 tenure at kingspan was working in a um a global role uh for certification i see we took that from mr heath's organica
00:09:30 organica organogram so maybe that's something i could have been pretty earlier yes so you think by this time he had a more wide-ranging role for certification he did he didn't have much involvement in the uk other than where there may be
00:09:43 in the uk other than where there may be existing relationships yeah and we can see that martin taylor at the labc is responding to various queries that have been raised by justin davis about those labc registered detailed
00:09:55 those labc registered detailed certificates um and then we don't need to read that we can just see there's been some queries being raised and if we go up in the next email in the same chain
00:10:06 up in the next email in the same chain page one over into page two there's an email of the 14th of september 2011 and then what happens is this is right at the
00:10:18 what happens is this is right at the very bottom can you see from justin davis
00:10:21 davis yeah it's forwarded if we then look at the top of page two on to you and to gareth mills and he says additional info to gareth's email and he forwards that email on
00:10:34 email and he forwards that email on and then if we go up the chain in on page one on the 29th of september
00:10:42 we can then see at 11 38.
00:10:51 sorry looking at that on the 29th of september then at 22 44 you say this is another project to be tracked gareth list it required a team meeting to progress
00:11:04 it required a team meeting to progress now that reference to gareth list gareth's list is that a list being compiled by gareth mills do you think it would be i don't know a list of what uh i didn't read the
00:11:16 uh i didn't read the justin's email
00:11:22 do you want to go back and read justice yeah if i may sorry yeah on page two
00:11:34 he's saying in point one if we could blow that up all labc registered details certificates last for 12 months and usually there's a renewal fee
00:11:47 clearly if you were to submit all the systems described in the quote the appropriate and the second paragraph he says our new website's about to go live and we'll include a registered
00:11:58 live and we'll include a registered detailed register of all certificates yeah in the system and he attaches at three
00:12:04 three example certificates to demonstrate the process so it would appear that martin taylor's explaining this and this is a new system of registered detailed certificates which replace the
00:12:15 replace the system or type approval certificates yes sorry it was just to clarify that it was a
00:12:21 a certificate project rather than an actual build project yeah it would appear so yeah so if we go back to
00:12:28 back to um the email referring to gareth's list
00:12:36 does that help you as to what it was it would have been a list of um gareth's approvals that he was responsible for and and bring
00:12:47 and and bring moving forward yeah and then we see the next email up is in fact a year later on the 28th of september 2012
00:12:56 2012 at 11 38 from mr meredith to mr mills asking him about the status of the project and he says was it done either and then
00:13:11 yeah and just pausing there by that time in september 2012 the labc system approval certificate from 2009 had lapsed
00:13:20 lapsed right does that sound right to you that's as we understand it
00:13:25 yes if it had a three-year validity yeah and then mr meredith forwards this in his email to gareth mills on to you on the 15th of october 2012 if
00:13:37 on to you on the 15th of october 2012 if you go up the chain again
00:13:44 so mr meredith to you 15th of october 2012 and he says hi tony you may or may not be aware that our
00:13:55 you may or may not be aware that our labc
00:13:55 labc approval for k15 has lapsed without this we have lots of tall building issues which are causing ma a major headache and potentially a lot of lost work
00:14:06 of lost work whose responsibility was the k-15 labc approval as gm that gareth mills yes refuses to answer my emails on the subject and ap
00:14:17 subject and ap would that be says although he knew it had lapsed he was going to wait and see if they contacted him as he kicked it off
00:14:28 contacted him as he kicked it off i need to also put pressure back on production to come up with a testable k15
00:14:33 k15 as to get a new labc type approval we will probably need new new data since we let it lapse your thoughts on this issue would be appreciated regards either
00:14:45 appreciated regards either and i want to ask you a number of things about this email looking at that very first paragraph what did you think either meant mr meredith meant by
00:14:56 meant mr meredith meant by where he's referring to we've got lots of tall building issues which are causing a major headache it would have been um not having the labc
00:15:08 labc approval to help support the specification of k15 yes because that certificate said that k15
00:15:19 because that certificate said that k15 can be considered to be a material of limited combustibility do you remember yes it did and did you understand that he's telling you that without that you're going to have lots of problems in
00:15:30 you're going to have lots of problems in justifying the use of k-15 on tall buildings
00:15:36 it would be more difficult without that yes um
00:15:41 yes um but we were still pursuing uh the same approach with before that approval
00:15:49 approval um so it would have meant uh having to revert to that and using the test certificate
00:16:00 without the labc approval i just using the 2005 test yes so just to be clear the question i answered
00:16:08 answered asked you was did you understand that he's telling you that without that you're going to have lots of problems justifying the use of k-15 on tall buildings
00:16:16 buildings is that how you understood it at the time yes yes and then looking at that third paragraph
00:16:27 and then looking at that third paragraph he he says this i need to put to also put pressure back on production to come up with a
00:16:33 up with a testable k15 as to get a new labc type approval we will probably need new data what did you understand him to mean by that
00:16:44 by that particularly the phrase a testable k-15
00:16:52 i honestly don't know um [Music]
00:16:58 to my knowledge that the k-15 we were supplying to market it should have been used in any new test um i'm not
00:17:10 um i'm not even sure what test it is he's referring to
00:17:13 to to re-support the labc approval well doesn't that confirm that the current k-15 that you're selling was not considered by him to be testable
00:17:27 i potentially yes but without knowing to what test and a bit more context it's difficult to say
00:17:41 well can i suggest that what that shows is that
00:17:46 is that potentially you were aware at that time that there wasn't a version of k-15 that mr meredith considered testable
00:17:57 that mr meredith considered testable to be able to get a new labc approval certificate
00:18:03 that may have been iva's opinion and based on some of the documents i saw as part of mr heath's evidence
00:18:13 evidence where either had made these uh observations pretty clear that wasn't something that i was aware of at the time it wasn't something that
00:18:25 of at the time it wasn't something that either had
00:18:31 made perfectly clear to me we
00:18:36 we were obviously very mindful of the tests that had failed um when is this this october 15 so no sorry it's october 2012
00:18:49 so no sorry it's october 2012 oh sorry yes yeah um so we you know we were
00:18:52 were looking to move towards another test program i don't think we were in conversation with nhbc at this stage
00:19:06 if you didn't know about the the problems
00:19:09 problems that they'd had with the fire performance of k-15 at that time why didn't you go straight back to him and say what do you mean a testable k-15 we've got a testable k-15 that's the one from 2005.
00:19:22 k-15 that's the one from 2005. did you say that back to him i don't know i
00:19:26 know i wouldn't be able to recall um how i replied without seeing it now um
00:19:33 so is it your evidence that you simply didn't understand what he meant by come up with a testable k-15 yeah based on what there is to
00:19:44 yeah based on what there is to recollect then that is my evidence
00:19:49 what i'm going to put to you is that at or around this time through emails like this you did in fact become aware
00:20:00 become aware that you didn't have a testable k-15 and that you needed to develop a new k15 that was going to get a pass in an 8414 particularly a part 2 test that's right
00:20:11 particularly a part 2 test that's right isn't it
00:20:13 isn't it yes that would be right based on trying to achieve a part 2 test iva's experience being that
00:20:20 that k-15 was struggling to achieve a type 2 test it doesn't infer it's the product that's failing
00:20:31 it's the product that's failing it infers the type 2 test is failing well that's not what it says is it it says testable k-15 but the test is a system it's not a
00:20:42 but the test is a system it's not a product
00:20:46 i see so it's your evidence is it that you
00:20:50 you at this point thought that you had a k-15 which was testable and that was the one from 2005. we did it it was the product i as i understood at the time that was
00:21:01 as i understood at the time that was being supplied at that time and why wasn't that the product that then you used for the tests in 2014 that we'll come to later in your evidence i think i mentioned earlier there were other
00:21:13 mentioned earlier there were other drivers around those tests as well such as thermal performance i see so you don't accept that the change in the foil thickening of the foil the use of unperforated foil
00:21:24 unperforated foil the use of different blowing agents in those tests had anything to do with problems with k15 itself is that what you're saying yes i
00:21:35 is that what you're saying yes i the the products were devised to expand the evidence into the type 2 test which previously we'd struggled to pass with the k-15 product
00:21:51 no tests to 8414 had been run on systems incorporating k-15 since june 2008 that's right isn't it yes
00:22:10 moving on now but still focusing on this labc certificate for k-15 if we look at your witness statement if you look at paragraph 8.2 on page 41.
00:22:26 on page 41. you say that um in the second sentence i recall that we decided to seek a registered detailed certificate from la the labc
00:22:35 the labc and so i was aware that conversations were going on in relation to this between kingspan and the labc however i was not involved in these conversations and so i was not aware of the timings or
00:22:47 and so i was not aware of the timings or detail of the discussions i believe that a certificate was finally issued in 2013 and this certificate replaced the system type approval which had been in place since before my appointment as head of
00:22:59 since before my appointment as head of technical
00:23:01 technical now we've seen that you were involved in some discussions about this um renewal of this certificate we've just looked at those do you agree yes but it is what you're saying in that
00:23:13 yes but it is what you're saying in that paragraph that you weren't involved in discussions between kingspan and the labc
00:23:18 labc yes even though you were involved in some internal discussions about this just trying to get it moving yes yeah now no registered detailed certificate was in fact issued until the 28th of
00:23:29 was in fact issued until the 28th of august 2013. we'll come to look at that but first i want to ask you this can you recall what was the reason for the delay can you help us on that
00:23:43 not beyond what was in the previous email which it seems like it had fallen between a number of personnel as to who was carrying it forward
00:23:55 as to who was carrying it forward and you can't help us as to why it took almost nine months from the emails between you and mr iva that mr meredith that we just looked at in october 2012 for a certificate to be published
00:24:06 published no but that wouldn't be an unreasonable time frame if um depending on what it actually entailed
00:24:14 entailed to support the system type approval if we can go to kin405647
00:24:25 [Music] what we can see this isn't an email that you're
00:24:30 you're um sure you receive or you're copied into but it's to gareth mills what we see here is that catholic brennan of the labc sends gareth mills
00:24:44 sends gareth mills a new registered detailed certificate and associated documents in draft yeah for for comment and he says if you require any changes please let me know and i'll then arrange for final copies
00:24:55 and i'll then arrange for final copies to be issued did you see the drafts at any stage
00:25:02 no i don't recall that i did did gareth mills discuss the drafts with you or the the the wording in this new certificate with you
00:25:13 it's it's entirely possible but i i don't recall it if we can go now to labc40961
00:25:31 so again this is this is not a chain that you're copied into or sent but what we see in this chain is gareth mills providing detailed comments on the draft to the labc
00:25:42 draft to the labc if we go to page seven of this string there's an email of the 1st of august 2013
00:25:50 2013 at 11 22 by gareth mills to castle brennan
00:25:59 and at the start of the email he says we had a look over the documents and wondered if we can add some more detail into some of the sections regards where the product can be used
00:26:11 regards where the product can be used welcome your advice on the most appropriate sections for including this information and then he lists a number of a numbered points
00:26:20 points if we look at point one he says that the product is suitable for use within a variety
00:26:26 variety of outer claddings including rain screens pressure equalized or drained and vented systems and also can be used with masonry outer leaves with a 50 millimeter clear cavity between the k-15 and
00:26:38 clear cavity between the k-15 and masonry
00:26:40 masonry notes and further details on these applications are included in the bba certificate supplied with the original application if required
00:26:48 and then at point three he is suggesting that this wording the product can be used on buildings with stories
00:26:57 stories note how he spelled the word stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it is used in combination with suitably
00:27:05 suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components and he says note the bs 84 testing referenced in section 7.1 of the bba certificate is noted as
00:27:16 7.1 of the bba certificate is noted as meeting requirements of bre-135 ie alternative compliance route referred referenced in adb
00:27:26 and then finally at point six he says we have two images which we'd like to include
00:27:31 include within the drawing section if possible which i will follow up with shortly i would
00:27:36 would have the images available to send either as a bitmap or jpeg format whichever of these is preferable for you now having seen the detail of the comments that were being provided by mr mills back to the labc
00:27:49 by mr mills back to the labc can you recall whether you had any input into these suggestions no they're they're not familiar with me at all
00:28:00 if we can look now at something you say in your witness statement on this topic go to paragraph 8.19 on page 44 of your
00:28:14 statement you say our our responsibility to check the accuracy of labc certificates was similar to our responsibility to check the accuracy of
00:28:25 responsibility to check the accuracy of bba certificates we would be offered the opportunity to comment on draft labc registered details certificates before they were finalized as part of this kingspan was expected to
00:28:36 as part of this kingspan was expected to check the factual information pertaining to the physical characteristics of the product and test build up details but judgments about the fire performance of k-15
00:28:46 of k-15 were for labc to make alone and then you go on you say i anticipate that had we tried to influence the labc's conclusion
00:28:57 labc's conclusion on the far performance of k-15 we would have been met with a firm pushback
00:29:04 do you see that there yes in the in those final lines where you say i anticipate that had we tried to influence the labc's conclusion we would have met with a firm pushback
00:29:15 we would have met with a firm pushback what do you mean by the labc's conclusion on the fire performance of k-15
00:29:24 just their um the content of their certificate um we obviously go through a process of providing them with with evidence um they'll draft a certificate based on
00:29:37 um they'll draft a certificate based on their conclusions as to the use of that product in their certificate yes and it's right isn't it that the labc did not then and do not now carry out any tests themselves or
00:29:50 carry out any tests themselves or measurements themselves to conclude anything about the fire performance do they they are completely beholden to whatever fire test data you provide them with yes
00:30:02 now if we can go back to the email chain we were looking at labc four zeros 40961 and we can go to the top email in the chain on page one
00:30:15 after a number of further emails gareth mills confirms the labc on the 28th of august 2013 that kingspan are content with the draft certificate
00:30:26 are content with the draft certificate and documents
00:30:30 he says there in that email we would be happy to issue the document in its current
00:30:34 current form as per the attached files
00:30:40 had he checked the content with you before he made that final response back to the labc do you know
00:30:52 i don't know you don't know you can't you can't recall
00:30:59 was that the kind of thing as the head of technical that you would normally get involved in looking at say the final draft of a certificate like this i mean it was a pretty important
00:31:10 this i mean it was a pretty important certificate wasn't it yeah if there was something um that had potentially changed or you know affected our position then i would have expected to be involved um
00:31:23 i would have expected to be involved um other than that gareth had a lot of experience he would um obviously bounce off colleagues in the office as well so if it were not a reproduction but uh
00:31:36 so if it were not a reproduction but uh essentially a new reissue of a um in a new format of an existing approval then
00:31:45 then that would be acceptable
00:31:49 yeah so i think in this one there were a number of things that had changed let's look at that certificate kin
00:31:56 kin four zeros nine five four six
00:32:05 we can see the date of it at the bottom it's um it's dated the 28th of august 2013 and it's said to be valid for a year
00:32:16 year until the 28th of august 2014
00:32:21 and then if we can go on within the document
00:32:26 document um so if we go now to this is the the drawings and document list for the certificate it's in a separate document
00:32:40 k-i-n-409547 here in this details drawing and document list what we can see is three lines down from the top supporting documentation
00:32:51 the top supporting documentation reference numbers and what we can see is it includes three things the herefordshire council type approval summary that would be the original one from the labc
00:33:03 original one from the labc yeah the ninth issue of kingspan's own marketing literature for coolsperm k-15 and then the bba certificate from 2008 that we've already looked at so no additional test data there was
00:33:16 so no additional test data there was there
00:33:17 there no no
00:33:22 now just pausing there for a moment by july
00:33:26 july 2013 there was an amended issue of the bba certificate for k-15 do you remember that
00:33:38 do you remember that no not specifically uh it doesn't surprise me
00:33:44 if we quickly look at that that's at bba
00:33:50 6037
00:33:54 and if you look into key factors assess behavior in relation to fire if you remember
00:34:00 remember this had an additional line added the product has been tested to bs 8414 part one for one specific construction on mace
00:34:09 mace masonry walls yes do you remember that we looked at it earlier yes now going back to the certificate uh supporting
00:34:20 the certificate uh supporting documentation kin409547 there's reference there to the bba certificate of the 27th of october 2008
00:34:31 certificate of the 27th of october 2008 but there's by now an issue one of that a further
00:34:34 a further issue um
00:34:37 issue um did you ever check whether the most up-to-date version of the bba certificate had actually been provided to the labc i didn't know that would have been gareth's responsibility to make sure that had happened
00:34:49 that had happened would it have been your assumption at the time that he would have provided the most recent bba certificate and not an older one if we then look at in appendix a of this document which is on
00:35:01 appendix a of this document which is on page two
00:35:05 what we see here is a number of points points about the product suitability for use and if you look at points one and also point 0.3
00:35:17 and also point 0.3 what we can see is the points we've looked at from gareth mills email of the 1st of august 2013 are repeated there within this document verbatim do you see that yes they've been copied
00:35:31 do you see that yes they've been copied and pasted it would appear even with the misspelling of the word stories
00:35:37 stories in paragraph three in the first line i can see that
00:35:46 the pictures that gareth mills included attached for inclusion are also there on page three
00:35:58 on page three [Music]
00:35:59 [Music] so the first shows the external facade system of a steel frame structure and the second depicts k-15 with terracotta tiles now it's right isn't it that at this
00:36:10 now it's right isn't it that at this point kingspan had no test data to bs 8414 showing that any steel frame structure
00:36:17 structure with k-15 in the external facade system could meet the criteria in br135 that's right isn't it yes there wasn't a specific test and and k15 had never been tested to 8414
00:36:28 8414 at this point in a system with um terra cotta tiles as the outer cladding had it
00:36:34 had it no
00:36:37 did you ever consider whether it was appropriate to include those photographs shortly after text some of which says it's suitable for use on buildings over
00:36:48 it's suitable for use on buildings over 18 meters
00:36:57 i suppose there
00:37:01 is the potential that the systems could be used below 18 meters all of the components shown are non-combustible potentially
00:37:16 non-combustible potentially um it was my understanding that the labc certificates were peer reviewed um i think that that was mentioned
00:37:28 was mentioned and and therefore that they're ex accepting this um and it isn't inconsistent with our approach
00:37:37 approach to offer k-15 into systems that are akin to that which we had test evidence for i see so are you saying you did look at this certificate you looked at the wording that mr mills
00:37:49 you looked at the wording that mr mills had added you looked at these pictures and you were entirely comfortable that it was a fair and accurate representation of the situations in which k-15 could be used
00:38:00 which k-15 could be used and assessed by labc yes
00:38:07 does seeing the correspondence we've just looked at the email exchanges and this certificate um changed the view you've expressed in your witness statement where we looked at it earlier where you said i
00:38:18 at it earlier where you said i anticipate that had we tried to influence the labc's conclusion on the far performance of k15 we would have been met with a firm pushback
00:38:28 seeing it now yes in this context it it does seem like his comments were incorporated without question um i don't know that for sure that would have to be
00:38:40 know that for sure that would have to be asked of the labc but i do understand there was a peer review process in that so
00:38:46 so if there were changes that should have gone back through that process well the reality is there was no pushback at all was there we've seen that mr mills suggested wording simply gets replicated
00:38:58 wording simply gets replicated into the certificate on that evidence yes yeah
00:39:05 if we could go now um appendix a of the drawings and document list um back yes so back to
00:39:16 um back yes so back to page two paragraph three that wording that was added in
00:39:23 the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground never provided it is used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components
00:39:34 do you consider that claim to be accurate or did you consider that claim to be accurate at the time
00:39:55 i think it could be accurate um in that labc we're prepared to support the use of k15 with non-combustible
00:40:08 the use of k15 with non-combustible buildups i see but forget any judgment the labc might have exercised in relation to this just for a moment did you if you'd have seen those words
00:40:20 did you if you'd have seen those words at the time as part of something presented to you would you have agreed that they were an accurate representation of the situation in which
00:40:28 in which k-15 could be used above 18 meters
00:40:33 if i'd have written it myself at the time in support of a project with more specific um you know components to
00:40:45 um you know components to to comment against i i it could have been
00:40:48 been relevant yes um but but the point here is
00:40:51 is this is the labc's opinion i see within that paragraph we can see in brackets there's reference to section 7.1 of the
00:41:04 there's reference to section 7.1 of the bba certificate
00:41:08 yeah do you see that i do
00:41:13 now that's the reference to bs 8414 testing which is in the 2008 version
00:41:21 version of the bba certificate at section 7.1 if we just quickly pull that up bba 6038 on page five
00:41:41 this is the 2008 the very first version of the bba certificate and we can see at 7.1 we get exactly that we get details of the system tested to bs 8414 and then
00:41:52 of the system tested to bs 8414 and then the claim at the end that we looked at earlier about bre-135 yes but if we go to section 7.1 of the updated version of the bba certificate
00:42:04 updated version of the bba certificate if we bring that up bba 6037
00:42:11 if you remember this is the certificate that had that sentence added on this front page the product has been tested for one specific
00:42:20 specific configuration or one specific construction on masonry walls so this is the updated certificate as of 6th of april 2010 and if we go to section 7.1 of this
00:42:37 there's no reference to bs 8414 testing in that section
00:42:46 do you see that yes that's been moved in this updated certificate to section 7.5
00:42:57 section 7.5 the bottom of that page we get the bs 8414 details and the system
00:43:05 yes now the question i want to ask is um it appears that the labc may not have been provided with the most up-to-date
00:43:16 up-to-date issue of the bba certificate because they're referencing we saw they referenced the 2008 version on page one of the certificate and we can
00:43:26 can we just saw that they were referencing 7.1 as details of the system but that would have been accurate on the old bba certificate and not on this latest one [Music]
00:43:39 [Music] okay do you think that's possible that that's what's happened uh it's possible i i don't know whether that's what happened or not this this level of detail it would have been
00:43:50 this level of detail it would have been um
00:43:52 um obviously garris responsibility
00:43:56 well what i want to ask you is could that have occurred because the updated version did make clear that the 18414 test had been carried out on one particular masonry construction
00:44:09 on one particular masonry construction the later baba certificate was a lot less advantageous to kingspan
00:44:16 do you remember that ever being discussed
00:44:20 discussed no um we were very open about the evidence that we were basing our advice on
00:44:38 did you read the labc let's go back to the labc certificate kin409547 page two in particular and the statements made there
00:44:51 statements made there that mr mills has added did you ever read
00:44:54 read that certificate during your time as head of technical
00:45:02 i'm not sure that i did i don't know this was issued late 2014.
00:45:12 2013 this was issued in 2013. okay so you're not sure that you looked at this i
00:45:19 this i i would i i'd like to think i would have at the time i i don't i'm not familiar with it it isn't something that is um
00:45:30 plainly obvious to me you did tell us earlier on in your evidence that you did read the later labc certificates i was asking you earlier and you said you couldn't remember reading the 2009 one but that you had read the later versions
00:45:43 you had read the later versions that and that's what i would have expected to have done but
00:45:48 i'm not saying that i haven't i'm just saying that i don't recall specifically reading it okay so you can't recall ever noticing these
00:45:59 so you can't recall ever noticing these provisions and having thoughts on on them about their accuracy or their
00:46:11 or their validity
00:46:17 i was supporting the document at the time
00:46:22 it had gone through the the department and
00:46:25 and a process to get it reissued so yes i'd support what it says i appreciate reading it it can be
00:46:37 i appreciate reading it it can be misconstrued but it is also the advice of of the labc um it is supposed to be independently checked as
00:46:48 supposed to be independently checked as well
00:46:50 well well what i want to put to you is that that advice particularly at paragraph three there is misleading
00:47:03 [Music]
00:47:10 it could be read as misleading yes let's move to the next set of labc registered details um these were from um
00:47:23 um these were from um 20th of august 2014. if we could go to that
00:47:27 that nhb 50798
00:47:38 nhb 50798 so these are some new labc registered details
00:47:43 details we can get the date at the bottom of this first page this certificate was first issued on the 28th of august 2013 it's valid until the 30th of november 2014 and this issue is dated the 20th of
00:47:56 2014 and this issue is dated the 20th of august 2014. do you have that yes so slightly oddly it looks like it was issued in august 2014 and it was going to be valid only until november 2014.
00:48:09 to be valid only until november 2014. do you do you remember that
00:48:15 yes i i'd like to think that was an oversight and that it's just based on when it actually got finally issued um and that the validity wasn't extended
00:48:29 i see can you help us on on why there was only that very short period of validity for this certificate
00:48:36 uh yeah i i believe it would be related to the fact that it didn't get issued at the time that it is anticipated it will be issued i see now the content of this certificate in
00:48:48 now the content of this certificate in respect of the areas we're interested in in terms of fire performance is different
00:48:52 different from the content of the previous certificate we just looked at do you remember that no we go to page two and look
00:49:03 we go to page two and look just above the table in that bottom section we can see it says k15 has been successfully tested to bs
00:49:15 k15 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 part one meets the criteria set out in br 135 2013 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18
00:49:27 in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height subject to matching the specification criteria identified in bba and then that's a reference to this bba certificate section 8.2 and fixed to a non-combustible substrate
00:49:39 and fixed to a non-combustible substrate as alternative compliance to adb now again k-15 as a product can't meet the criteria in br135
00:49:51 the criteria in br135 can it
00:49:55 no but as a product in a system it can yes but what's being said there k-15 has been successfully tested meets the criteria set out in br135
00:50:06 criteria set out in br135 you see the problem again do you as previously yes yeah and if we go over to page three in the middle of the page under the heading adb fire safety
00:50:21 we can see this
00:50:25 so it's adb fire safety and then there's a note from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for spread of flame
00:50:37 classification for spread of flame since k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 including those parts of a building more
00:50:48 including those parts of a building more than 18 meters above the ground in the latter circumstances the cladding system and the substrate to which the insulation is supplied must also meet the requirement for limited combustibility
00:51:00 and then it goes on where the substrate is a metal framed wall system rather than masonry or concrete a non-combustible lining board must be specified to the external face of the metal frame wall or
00:51:12 of the metal frame wall or calcium silicate board or similar now this
00:51:16 this is an exact repeat of wording found in the may
00:51:20 the may 2009 labc type approval summary yeah do you see that i do
00:51:27 now can you help us this is on your watch now you're head of technical when this certificate's issued in what possible situation could k-15 be considered
00:51:38 considered a material of limited combustibility
00:51:44 i think as has been explained [Music]
00:51:48 [Music] um previously the labc had made that connection from the point of view that
00:51:58 view that it had met a route of compliance that was also
00:52:02 was also applicable by a material of limited combustibility and therefore conferred the same description to that product
00:52:13 description to that product but that makes no sense does it i wouldn't say it makes no sense um how much sense does it make to you well if you're meeting compliance by two acceptable routes
00:52:28 by two acceptable routes um then surely those routes of compliance could have some comparability that can't be right can it you can't test a system in a system test
00:52:41 test a system in a system test then pluck out one of the materials in that test
00:52:45 that test and in a different system say ah this is all fine
00:52:48 all fine it's a product of limited combustibility that can't be right can it i entirely agree with that but that isn't what this is doing it is then going on to clarify in what system it's to be used
00:53:01 clarify in what system it's to be used yes although those weren't systems that you'd actually tested were they no but it's it's an assessment well i appreciate you say this is an assessment but i want to know what
00:53:12 assessment but i want to know what you thought of this and what kingspan thought of this at the time do you agree it's demonstrably incorrect and misleading [Music]
00:53:23 no it supports the fact that we were promoting the product for use in non-combustible systems
00:53:36 in non-combustible systems on the basis that if the constructions are comparable a professional in the right capacity could make that assessment
00:53:48 just just help me because i'm having trouble with this as well mr miller sure and what they say is from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility now what results
00:54:00 limited combustibility now what results are they talking about there they would be talking about the bs8414 yeah well if that's the case that isn't a basis for considering any individual element of the system as
00:54:13 any individual element of the system as having limited combustibility is it this is is the opinion that they've come to
00:54:19 to well it's the expect this the opinion they express but i think the point that ms grange is asking you to consider is is it opinion an opinion which makes any sense
00:54:46 i think it can i think again this was another [Applause] piece of supporting evidence that we were using alongside
00:54:59 were using alongside the test report itself um and an opinion expressed from kingspan for others to make their own judgment upon
00:55:11 own judgment upon all right it's it's it is an extension of the same thing that we were trying to um prove all along i i accept you you don't agree
00:55:22 don't agree but but it was our opinion at the time thank you yes it's great
00:55:29 and k15 was not suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b was it [Music]
00:55:39 [Music] do you see that wording there four lines down yeah i i don't know diagram 40 off the top of my head um that just it shows lots of different
00:55:50 that just it shows lots of different tall buildings
00:56:00 all situations it is a stretch but if if it's
00:56:05 it's red in conjunction with um the restrictions around non-combustible systems
00:56:12 systems um then it can be used above 18 meters let's see were you ever made aware of any complaints about the content of this certificate at any stage
00:56:33 i'm sure it will have been referenced i can't recall a specific complaint
00:56:45 what does that mean i'm sure it will have been referenced what does that mean i'm aware that there were um
00:56:56 complaints
00:57:00 and who made those complaints there through the nhbc definitely um there was an an issue with uh win tech and there were a number of
00:57:12 uh win tech and there were a number of discussions on projects whereby uh a project team had specified and adopted the product and then
00:57:20 and then retrospectively questioned its its suitability
00:57:27 in in some ways i didn't necessarily see that as a complaint because it was it was trying to validate something after they'd already made a decision [Music]
00:57:38 [Music] given that we weren't given the opportunity to you know support it up front and were those complaints about the content of this certificate i i don't recall that's why i said let's go to a chain of email
00:57:50 let's go to a chain of email correspondence now nhb zeros
00:57:55 nhb zeros this is a chain of correspondence between a building control body in manchester called ascent and the nhbc from november 2014. now you're not copied into this but i
00:58:06 now you're not copied into this but i want to ask you about some of what's said
00:58:09 said if we look at the bottom of the chain first at the bottom of page five and over onto page six we can see there's an internal email from john miles of ascent
00:58:20 from john miles of ascent on the 12th of november 2014 and others asking about the use of k-15 on tall buildings
00:58:27 buildings he says afternoon all i have the query below and wondered what the view is on buildings over 18 meters
00:58:34 would anyone have any hesitation in accepting this
00:58:39 and there's an extract below from an email below where someone said the issue seems to be primarily about the use of an
00:58:50 primarily about the use of an appropriate substrate as directed in the labc certificate this appears on the face of it to endorse the use of k-15 in certain conditions although it does not comply with the stated requirements of adb
00:59:01 stated requirements of adb in particular a material of limited combustibility
00:59:05 and then there's a response to mr miles on the same day from someone called jane keeley at the top of page five she says hi john as i understand it
00:59:18 five she says hi john as i understand it kingspan have a test certificate where it is not combustible when used in conjunction with a non-vented rain screen cladding the certificate does not cover the situation where it's used with a vented
00:59:29 situation where it's used with a vented rain screen cladding and i've heard that it burns quite readily when it's used in a vented situation i believe the labc certificate has been withdrawn now i've just received details with kingspan
00:59:41 i've just received details with kingspan at a height of over 18 of over 18 and i've asked for a test certificate specifically for use with a vented rain screen situation
00:59:51 and then if we go up the chain to page four
00:59:54 four we can see that on the 13th of november 2014
00:59:59 2014 jane keeley forwards the chain of correspondence to john lewis at the nhbc
01:00:07 that's at 1208 in that top email there and she says not had a chance to read this yet but this is the one they have been
01:00:14 been they have withdrawn are withdrawing and then
01:00:17 then if we can scroll up to the top of page one there's a long email from john lewis of the nhbc
01:00:25 and he begins with this he says it's all garbage
01:00:29 garbage hereford labc didn't know what they were talking about we had a telephone call with labc warren warranty technical manager i can't recall his name at which he stated that they were
01:00:40 at which he stated that they were withdrawing their approval straight away that was on 27th of october so i would check it's still valid if i was you
01:00:49 now he's right isn't it it was all garbage
01:00:53 garbage do you agree no i i think it could have been better worded there there was um more ambiguity in there than there
01:01:05 um more ambiguity in there than there should have been um it was peer reviewed by labc um as we were led to believe and therefore we felt that that was their position
01:01:18 felt that that was their position were you at any time made aware that the labc
01:01:22 labc had been contacted by the nhbc in this way about the content of this particular certificate
01:01:31 no
01:01:34 just going back to the answer you just gave you say it would have been it was peer reviewed by the labc how do you know it was peer reviewed by them uh that was my understanding of the
01:01:45 uh that was my understanding of the process i didn't believe it was um you know the the whole point of the approval is that it can be used nationally so um it wouldn't make sense for one local
01:01:58 um it wouldn't make sense for one local authority to establish a certificate then
01:02:01 then impose that on everybody else i i was of the belief that there was uh there is a central um control for labc that would have
01:02:12 control for labc that would have reviewed the the the national approval i see yeah if we go on with john lewis's email what he does then is he goes through the difference between tests to 8414 parts one and two
01:02:26 between tests to 8414 parts one and two and then if we can have a look at the bottom of page two still within his email
01:02:36 in that very last paragraph he says this he says kingspan have since done at least two tests i suspect they've done more but have kept the results close to their chest because they performed so badly
01:02:48 because they performed so badly using a steel frame and ventilated rain screen and there is an issue with ongoing burning once the fire source is extinguished the insulation continues to burn up the cavity
01:02:59 cavity and in one case continued over the cavity barrier and to the top of the test rig
01:03:04 test rig so it's not clear why the labc detail states that it's a mollc material of limited combustibility when it clearly isn't
01:03:18 now is it still your evidence that around this time so we're now in late 2013 2014 you didn't know about the k-15
01:03:30 you didn't know about the k-15 having an issue with ongoing burning no i was aware k-15 um could in some circumstances have
01:03:41 could in some circumstances have burning after the uh crib had been extinguished you were aware of that yes i see that was evident from the 2014 test right
01:03:53 and then if we go on after the adb screenshot on on page three if you look on the next page
01:04:01 page actually that's not a screenshot of adb that's a screenshot from the labc certificate that we've just looked at
01:04:11 he says this in parenthesis after that screenshot the bit about using a a non-combustible lining board instead of a masonry backing on a steel frame wall has since proved
01:04:22 on a steel frame wall has since proved not to be correct these words were kingspans they assumed that it would perform the same but when they did the tests it was found that it performed far worse
01:04:33 it was found that it performed far worse now that's entirely correct isn't it the advice to use a non-combustible backing board
01:04:39 board on steel framed structures came from kingspan originally didn't it yes and is it right that that was to try and mask the fact that no successful
01:04:51 and mask the fact that no successful test to bs 8414 part 2 on a steel frame structure had been carried out on any system incorporating k15 no it wasn't there to try and hide anything it
01:05:02 wasn't there to try and hide anything it was there
01:05:04 was there as it was a strong opinion of ivor's that the part to test with that board in place would perform similarly to the
01:05:15 similarly to the um part one test so that was iva's opinion was it based on anything else
01:05:22 else it was based on the fact that a test had never failed via the burn through criteria
01:05:31 i see so taking just one criteria from br135
01:05:36 br135 that was the basis on which that assessment was made was it that was iva's opinion yes
01:05:45 and
01:05:48 john knows is talking about some tests that performed far worse he says um these words were king spans
01:05:55 spans i using the non-combustible lining board instead of a masonry backing on a steel frame wall these words were kings fans they assumed that it would perform the same but when they did the test it was found that it
01:06:06 they did the test it was found that it performed far worse
01:06:10 can you help us as to what tests he's referring to there no i just the first time i've seen this correspondence it i assume it would be
01:06:21 correspondence it i assume it would be the part two tests z708 but that's obviously to a different system yes because that that wasn't a non-combustible lining board
01:06:32 non-combustible lining board on a steel frame wall was it the 0708 tests i don't recall okay in the next paragraph he says this
01:06:43 paragraph he says this it's all an accident waiting to happen and we're meeting with all the pir manufacturers to try and get something sorted
01:06:50 sorted but in the meantime they continue to state that it's fine and most bcb's building control bodies accept that at face value without sifting through the details however dclg
01:07:02 sifting through the details however dclg are now on the case hence why we need to sort something out soon now were you at any stage alerted to dclg the department for communities
01:07:14 to dclg the department for communities and local government being on the case i don't believe so now were you ever contacted by anybody at dclg
01:07:22 dclg no
01:07:27 but you were aware were you not in late 2013 that the nhbc was certainly on the case is that right yes there was a dialogue with nhbc from around that time
01:07:40 can we go now to labc40996 [Music]
01:07:52 this is an email from david ewing of the labc to mr meredith and mr ball they were they were in your team weren't they at this time yes and again i make it clear you're not
01:08:06 yes and again i make it clear you're not copied into this email um if we look at the opening two paragraphs mr ewing says this i've tried to phone today but thought i should just clarify some of the issues
01:08:17 should just clarify some of the issues for you that we have around re-certification for k-15 and other thermoset materials above 18 meters
01:08:25 meters labc have been contacted by nhbc in connection with the wording used in the earlier registered detail certificate following the reissue of the bba certificate 084582 in december last year
01:08:38 certificate 084582 in december last year there was concern that the certificate implied a global approval to the use of k-15 above 18 meters and that the revised bba certificate had been amended to read suitability for use on non-combustible
01:08:51 suitability for use on non-combustible substrates only i.e to masonry or concrete structures and then he goes on to explain that there's been a meeting
01:09:03 [Applause] and he says that draft guidance has been circulated as to whether the mechanical performance criteria in br135
01:09:14 performance criteria in br135 should be a matter for consideration by building control or not
01:09:22 and i i want to now look at the penultimate paragraph of this email on page one
01:09:34 of this email on page one [Music]
01:09:36 [Music] and if you see that last paragraph there looking in the second line in the middle of the page it begins the issue is fundamentally a warranty issue rather than a building control
01:09:48 issue rather than a building control matter although there's clearly a duty of care required by building control i've also suggested that we could include wording within the certification to read it is important that the use of this
01:09:59 it is important that the use of this product is agreed with warranty providers
01:10:02 providers prior to installation to ensure that its performance has been considered as part of the overall risk assessment of the finished building i am however mindful that this may still create further issues for approval
01:10:15 create further issues for approval now were you made aware by mr meredith at any stage that the labc had reported to him that there had been concerns
01:10:24 concerns about the certificate and that it implied a global approval to the use of k-15 above 18 meters i've not seen this um
01:10:36 i've not seen this um correspondence that i recall but
01:10:41 i was aware that they did want to review the the wording yes you were made aware of that and did you know why they wanted to revisit the wording um
01:10:53 revisit the wording um yes i would have known at the time yes and you knew that it was because of the reference to limited combustibility within it
01:11:01 within it well i think it's stated there that it gives um
01:11:04 gives um potentially a broader scope um than was intended yeah
01:11:11 now
01:11:14 if we look back at the top of that page
01:11:21 a proposed revised certificate was attached to david ewing's email and if we can look at that that's at labc40997
01:11:37 and this one also appears to be dated the 20th of august this draft that sent through
01:11:44 through and also carried an expiry date of the 30th of november actually that one says 30th november 2015. yeah
01:11:55 2015. yeah and what's happened in this certificate is that the claim that k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility had been removed if we go
01:12:06 had been removed if we go to page three and look in the middle of the page
01:12:11 we can see under fire safety
01:12:16 it says there thermosetting insulin rigid polyurethane foam boards do not meet the limited combustibility requirements of ad a2
01:12:29 ad a2 table a7 and so should not be accepted as meeting adb paragraph 12.7 so
01:12:38 very different wording was included in this certificate do you remember that i know it was changed yes do you recall any discussions between kingspan and the labc about the
01:12:50 between kingspan and the labc about the removal of the wording and the replacement with this wording no they would have happened with ivor and gareth do you remember any internal discussions
01:13:02 do you remember any internal discussions about it within kingspan
01:13:06 there would have been them but i don't recall the detail
01:13:13 can you help us as to what version of the labc certificate was in place and being circulated between august 2014 and march 2015
01:13:30 it should have been the contemporary one right and then just to complete the story
01:13:37 story on the 30th of march 2015 another updated
01:13:40 updated registered detailed certificate for k15 was issued that's at kin three zeros one six seven three three
01:13:55 we can see that from the date at the bottom of this page it's dated 30th of march 2015 and it's valid until 30th of march 2016.
01:14:07 and would you have read this certificate at the time
01:14:19 i don't know um yes it's entirely possible
01:14:24 possible but i may not have got to it um given that was towards the end of my tenure yeah and on page four we see the same information about thermosetting insulins not meeting
01:14:37 about thermosetting insulins not meeting certain requirements and not be meeting paragraph 12.7 of adb yes
01:14:46 mr chairman i think that's a good moment for our breaks i'm now moving to a slightly different topic all right well let's uh stop there we'll have a short break now mr military we'll come back and resume and half past three that's right thank you please no
01:14:58 three that's right thank you please no no talking about your evidence of course while you're right thank you very much thank you
01:15:10 thank you very much thank you very good thank you
01:31:11 would you ask mr miller chap to come back in please
01:31:27 all right mr william yes thank you thank you yes mr scream yes thank you now broadly in the topic of your awareness of concerns being raised about k-15
01:31:36 k-15 in the period from 2013 onwards and i now want to move to some email correspondence from november 2013. if we can go to kin409682
01:31:53 and if we go to the bottom of page five this is an email from peter harris from aztec projects
01:32:08 and he's making inquiries on the 27th of november 2013 about the use of k-15 on a project called hampton house
01:32:17 we can see that from the subject yes do you have that there yes
01:32:25 and he says we're tendering the above project 15-story residential structure and considering the use of kingspan insulation materials externally behind the facade cladding
01:32:36 behind the facade cladding before requesting formal quotations can you please review the attached detailed drawings
01:32:41 drawings and confirm your ability to comply with a u value
01:32:46 and then there's more details given and your earliest response would be appreciated and then joel clark of kingspan responds to that on the same day 1617 at the bottom of page four
01:33:00 1617 at the bottom of page four and on to page five
01:33:06 and we can see he attacked us some calculations for three wall types and then he says there are quite a few comments we'd offer in regard to these proposed buildups
01:33:17 proposed buildups for the steel frame wall types all those cement boards of the type described can be and are excellent fire performers and could withstand the temperatures in a bs-8414 test our current test testing to that
01:33:28 our current test testing to that standard is limited to a fully non-combustible substrate and therefore they've shown a non-com calcium silicate borders the shea thing do you see that there yes and then
01:33:43 if we go up in the chain on the 29th of november 2013 at 1503 simon hepworth responds
01:33:51 responds on page three
01:33:57 so we can see simon hep with responds to him
01:34:01 him copying in mr meredith you're not involved in this at this point sure and he says joel please excuse me hijacking this email thread but further to your email to peter recently
01:34:13 to your email to peter recently and then he says this your email would indicate it is still kingspan's view that k15 is fit for purpose over 18 meters is this the case
01:34:21 case you have talked about non-combustible substrates yet the main points of contention with regards to your 8414 testing is that it was based on block work substrate not steel frame structure with a sealed
01:34:34 not steel frame structure with a sealed cementitious outer cladding neither of these conditions even remotely resemble what the proposed construction is here and you know it is the bre's view that the use of k-15 should not be
01:34:45 that the use of k-15 should not be specified on the basis of those test results
01:34:49 results now just pausing there did you know that it was the bre's view that the use of k-15 should not be specified on the basis of those test results
01:34:58 results were you aware of that at this time no i don't believe it was and then he said he goes on in the next paragraph further the project in question is
01:35:10 project in question is for the same client who are using the same consultants as our riverlight project
01:35:14 project where the substantiation of k-15 use still
01:35:17 still remains unresolved after many months of extremely difficult negotiations kingspan seemed to have lost interest in this issue pending results of the upcoming
01:35:26 upcoming 8414 part 2 test this has not gone unnoticed by the building developer
01:35:35 and then he carries on your prediction of condensation is not in question
01:35:43 question we can't install a vcl behind the k15 we would however be and then he goes over
01:35:50 mindful to use a breather membrane so that's what he's talking about in that paragraph
01:35:56 paragraph and then if we can pick it up in the next paragraph he says i realize a lot hinges on the results of next week's 8414 part 2 test but ask what is kingspan going to do if it fails
01:36:07 it fails where does that leave us with river light what is your position with regard to this
01:36:12 to this should we have to start stripping cladding off an 18-storey building this remains the most serious issue on my agenda and despite mark swift's assurances it would be yours we see little evidence
01:36:24 it would be yours we see little evidence of it being so with the above in mind we find it incredible you've you have any comfort in proposing k-15 on this project or in fact any other over 18 meters
01:36:35 fact any other over 18 meters this does in my mind bring your corporate responsibility into question you will no doubt take the view that we as the envelope contractor have to take the responsibility for the design and specification of the
01:36:47 for the design and specification of the facade materials and you are simply an insulation supplier yet here we are with you endorsing your product knowing it's not appropriately tested
01:36:55 tested with little way of substantiating it is fit for purpose for this project in any way whatsoever i look forward to your comments simon
01:37:06 i look forward to your comments simon now um is the reference there to the same consultants as our riverlight project
01:37:12 project a reference to windtech does that sound right to you it could be they are a consultant yes now we can see that you received this email if we go one
01:37:23 email if we go one email up it's forwarded to you on the 11th of december 2013 at 15 45 on page three
01:37:39 and it's from richard bromwich to mark swift joel clark over meredith and urcc'd there
01:37:50 do you see your name there in the cc list
01:37:53 list do you remember reading that email
01:38:14 yes and what consideration did you give to the concerns that were raised by simon hepworth
01:38:27 i don't i don't recall at the time without reviewing if there's further um correspondence
01:38:35 that the points he raises are valid um but again it does point towards um an issue whereby
01:38:46 um an issue whereby you know that they have gone a very long way down the line in uh adopting this product without it being signed off prior to building the building um this is you know installing a
01:38:58 um this is you know installing a solution and then trying to get it ratified retrospectively surely he should have done his homework before we find ourselves in this position where you know we're being held to try and
01:39:10 you know we're being held to try and support
01:39:11 support the project um i'm not suggesting that that isn't something that we weren't trying to do but there does come a point whereby as i
01:39:22 but there does come a point whereby as i said if
01:39:23 said if they don't agree with the advice and the opinion that we've given in respect to their project then absolutely then k15 shouldn't have
01:39:36 then absolutely then k15 shouldn't have been installed it wasn't on the back of kingspan's endorsement of their product that they installed it in the first place
01:39:46 but as i said they they've stated themselves in in the email that they are the envelope contractor and that it is their responsibility yes but if we look back to that they
01:39:57 yes but if we look back to that they can't delegate that
01:40:01 if we look back to that part of the email if we go down the chain to simon hepworth's email again
01:40:10 it's over the page that part you were just referring to
01:40:16 he he does say in that paragraph you'll no doubt take the view that that we as the envelope contractor have to take responsibility for the design and specification of the bizarre materials and you're simply an
01:40:28 bizarre materials and you're simply an installation supplier but then he goes on he says yet here we are with you endorsing your product knowing it's not appropriately tested with little way of substantiating it is
01:40:40 with little way of substantiating it is fit for purpose for this project in any way whatsoever so he acknowledges that point he recognizes that sure but he said but but here we are and you're still endorsing your project on these types of your product on these
01:40:52 on these types of your product on these types of projects
01:41:00 yes i mean you know the similar constructions had been supported and had gone through the the assessment
01:41:12 and had gone through the the assessment phase
01:41:12 phase my point here again is that he's accepting this as his responsibility and yet he's trying to address that responsibility after he's built the building
01:41:24 built the building well that may be so why didn't you go back to him and say um there's been a terrible error your concerns are completely valid we have only tested to part one why doesn't
01:41:35 have only tested to part one why doesn't someone respond in that way because we were approaching these
01:41:39 these projects as as i've explained um that used in a non-combustible system we felt that k-15 can be appropriate above
01:41:51 felt that k-15 can be appropriate above 18 meters
01:41:52 18 meters but what test basis did you have for making that assessment we can see you're about to do some more part 8414 part 2 tests you can
01:42:03 some more part 8414 part 2 tests you can see that in the middle of this email the the test evidence we've referred to um
01:42:09 um for 8414 from 2005. that's it again at this time i think that's the case that's really the position isn't it that you had decided i say you but people
01:42:21 you had decided i say you but people within kingspan had decided that you could
01:42:23 could extrapolate from the 2005 test to extend it for example from block work substrate to non-combustible substrate
01:42:34 non-combustible substrate that that's the opinion we were offering yes and so you were i think for understandable reasons you were seeking to stretch the limits of the original 8414 test
01:42:46 limits of the original 8414 test yes and and that was born out through um numerous assessments from you know project teams well that's another question because extrapolation from
01:42:58 extrapolation from the original 8414 test might be something for a fire engineering expert but yes possibly not for the manufacturer himself [Music]
01:43:10 [Music] absolutely no i entirely agree we were offering an opinion into a project team to make that decision i my experience
01:43:23 i my experience any project really of this scale above that height would normally have a level of expertise that should be able to make that judgment if we can just carry on with this chain
01:43:36 if we can just carry on with this chain if we go back up the chain and to richard bromwich's um email where he's copied you in richard bromwich was the national business development manager yes of kingspan and in the second
01:43:50 yes of kingspan and in the second paragraph he says i know this is an extremely difficult position for us as we need
01:43:53 we need the additional test which i know iva is about to set fire to but we must handle these installers as delicately as possible at the moment because there's a number of the big ones losing a lot of
01:44:05 a number of the big ones losing a lot of faith in the way we're managing things these installers would include the likes of aztec key clad and dane architectural who as you know deal with many of the major k-15 jobs throughout the uk could you please let
01:44:18 throughout the uk could you please let me know what the action plan is here as i intend to pick up the phone to peter hepworth to try and pacify the man before he gives up on cool firm and opt him r completely
01:44:29 and opt him r completely so he's saying that do you remember reading that email yes not in in those exact words but yes i would have read that at the time
01:44:41 i would have read that at the time and then mr meredith responds on the same day if we go on page two there's an email at 16 39 for mr meredith
01:44:53 he says in the first paragraph it's actually simon hepworth and i've already pacified on him on this matter however it may help if you give him a call simon had to sound off at joel about his
01:45:05 simon had to sound off at joel about his advice
01:45:07 advice hence why i spoke to him and kept putting thoughts in writing have we do have to stand firm with our position with k-15 the question is do we not specify our
01:45:18 the question is do we not specify our products if aztec request a calculation currently we do if we were to stop this we'd put further doubt in their minds and then he goes on from my first hand
01:45:29 and then he goes on from my first hand understanding as i've sat with richard the design director and simon hepsworth aztec and they currently see a panel that you cannot burst it's a bit of a joke when it comes to rain screen due to the amount of cuts required and the unknown
01:45:41 amount of cuts required and the unknown performance in fire i know this because when i last went down to reading i took them a sample and asked for their honest opinion when you see how they install our products over rain screen
01:45:52 install our products over rain screen brackets you'll understand why optimum optimum r could seriously slow down their per meter rate and then he says this however they may just be saying this because they're facing the possibility of having to
01:46:03 facing the possibility of having to remove
01:46:04 remove thousands of meters squared of k-15 off a couple of sites if king's band did not come up with a result and by result he means a test result to
01:46:15 and by result he means a test result to bs 8414 part two doesn't he yes
01:46:23 and then you go on to respond to email two emails up in the chain on page one on the same evening at
01:46:34 evening at 7 30 in the evening and you say this all given simon's comments below we will need to defend our position in writing
01:46:45 writing it's clear that he is beginning to position himself in the worst case event that cladding will need to be removed and who will cover the related costs i appreciate the need to keep installers on site however we also need to defend
01:46:57 on site however we also need to defend kingspan
01:46:59 kingspan do you remember writing that yes now at that point you've had very serious concerns being raised with you did any issue about the risk to public
01:47:11 did any issue about the risk to public safety arise in your mind
01:47:15 yes i mean in this case the
01:47:22 case the the building is is practically built from from what i can see um we are
01:47:30 um we are supporting um our position in what we feel can demonstrate compliance or be in near impossible position because this cladding contractor
01:47:43 because this cladding contractor obviously have their hands tied they don't have another route forward that isn't going to cause extreme um issues monetarily if they need to remove the boards
01:47:56 if they need to remove the boards irrespective of who pays for it [Music]
01:48:02 again it's it's not our position to say whether it actually achieves um building control asset uh consent the the difficulty
01:48:16 uh consent the the difficulty through this entire chain is is the fact that the building's already built yes mr miller i i entirely accept this puts you in a very difficult position because k-15 is already on this building
01:48:27 because k-15 is already on this building yes and i can see how difficult that was but my question was at any time did you consider the risks to public safety absolutely how how did you do that
01:48:41 absolutely how how did you do that by continuing to to support where we possibly could give everybody all the information they would need to make the decision on on whether a specification is
01:48:52 specification is appropriate why are you continuing to to say to your colleagues we've got to defend our position in writing defending the position wasn't necessarily about the appropriateness
01:49:03 necessarily about the appropriateness of the specification in this case it's it's actually identifying how um the things are going to fall out
01:49:14 how um the things are going to fall out of this in including you know obviously remediation costs
01:49:17 costs if it's decided that the insulation needs to be replaced but wasn't this near impossible position brought about by kingspan's endorsement of systems with no test evidence to
01:49:28 of systems with no test evidence to support them no i think it was brought about by somebody not doing their own due diligence ahead of building the building did you ever discuss concerns about
01:49:39 did you ever discuss concerns about public safety with anybody else within kingspan did you ever have a discussion to that effect where you said actually this is really difficult because this is fire safety
01:49:50 because this is fire safety life safety in tall buildings often tall residential buildings did you ever have those discussions with anybody else at kingspan yes not in those terms per se
01:50:03 yes not in those terms per se um but it was implied by our understanding as to whether the product is acceptable um it brings all of that that's the whole point of
01:50:14 all of that that's the whole point of the approved document b compliance is life safety um so it's implied in our understanding of what we feel is
01:50:25 our understanding of what we feel is uh an acceptable specification
01:50:29 i see because what we see from the emails
01:50:32 emails is is appears to be just solely a focus on kingspan's commercial interests we don't ever see anybody saying this is fire safety we need to be very very
01:50:44 fire safety we need to be very very careful here do you agree no i don't agree in this particular instance it is about um
01:50:53 um defending kingspan's position because we haven't
01:50:57 haven't allowed well we haven't been responsible for this contractor going beyond um where he should have before he was comfortable with the specification it was obvious this was going to turn
01:51:10 it was obvious this was going to turn into
01:51:10 into a um a monetary problem as to who would need to replace the insulation if
01:51:17 if they couldn't agree that it was appropriate
01:51:22 but it's right isn't it that you carry on endorsing k-15 on other projects this isn't just a historic problem at this point is it you keep going and recommending k-15 on
01:51:33 you keep going and recommending k-15 on tall buildings with no test evidence to support it that's right isn't it i wouldn't say no test evidence no i think
01:51:40 think we've um set out the premise on which um we believe k-15 could be appropriate above 18 meters
01:51:52 given that advice to um inquiries that are asking the questions for them to make a decision on its appropriateness
01:52:04 let's look at another email chain on this topic kin3021135
01:52:18 this is an email from stuart harris at lake smear to joel clark and iva meredith on the 2nd of may 2014 about a project called first street
01:52:30 about a project called first street north
01:52:30 north in manchester
01:52:34 and it would appear that what's happened is lake smear had taken some advice from arab about the compliance for use of k-15 on that project can you remember this remember this
01:52:45 can you remember this remember this project yes and the email from stuart harris that we see here reads as follows in simple terms k-15 100 millimeters is not compliant with building regs for use
01:52:56 not compliant with building regs for use in buildings over 18 meters because it has not been tested in accordance with br135 bs 8414 2002. as a result we are now having to
01:53:07 2002. as a result we are now having to remove the three floors of insulation and fire barriers that we have currently installed and replace it all with mineral wool insulation and new fire barriers to the entire complex not a good way to
01:53:20 to the entire complex not a good way to end the week now it's right isn't it that the k15 insulation was in fact removed from that high-rise building do you remember that yes and kingspan agreed to issue a
01:53:33 yes and kingspan agreed to issue a twenty thousand pound credit note let's take a look at that kin three one
01:53:44 if we look at the bottom email in the chain on page four we can see an email from adrian taylor
01:53:56 we can see an email from adrian taylor of kingspan jim good afternoon hope you're well paul has asked me to send this to you it was a production complaint for lake smear on k15
01:54:06 k15 paul kingspan and the contractor had agreed a credit of 20k as attached for some reason the original order is unpaid and on our debtors list and then it's you that receives this
01:54:19 and then it's you that receives this paperwork for filing in january 2015 if we look at the top email in this chain
01:54:25 chain and page one
01:54:30 this is all forwarded on to you the minster credit note first street north manchester and you say to emma rogers at kingspan to file please regards
01:54:42 to file please regards tony militech
01:54:47 yes and do you remember having to issue that credit note for k-15 having been removed and rockwool replacing it yes i do yeah now you were asked
01:54:58 yes i do yeah now you were asked when you provided your witness statement whether you were aware of any concerns about the use of k-15
01:55:07 if we look in the middle of page 40 of your witness statement
01:55:16 there's inquiry question 48
01:55:20 were you at any stage prior to may 15 aware of any concerns raised by in respect of the use of k-15 if so please identify the source why didn't you mention any of these examples
01:55:31 didn't you mention any of these examples in your witness statement the examples i've just taken you to i wouldn't have been able to recall them at the time i did this i i wasn't i didn't have the time to do as extensive of a review of the documents i was supplied
01:55:45 review of the documents i was supplied prior to writing the statement
01:55:51 i did review a lot of documents but as much of it had to be done from memory i see so what you weren't provided with all of the documentation no i was absolutely provided with it
01:56:02 absolutely provided with it it was a case of having the time um whilst doing another full-time job i got through as much of it i could in a priority order and then
01:56:13 priority order and then continue to review it after producing the statement we can see in the paragraph below that you say kingspan would get queries coming in from architects or engineer customers relating to the use of k15 on
01:56:25 customers relating to the use of k15 on buildings
01:56:27 buildings with a floor over 18 meters but then you go on and say it was not our responsibility to determine compliance when we explained this to them and provided them with information about k-15 and the routes to compliance they
01:56:39 k-15 and the routes to compliance they would sometimes raise concerns about this
01:56:41 this these concerns were misplaced they were trying to lay responsibility for compliance with kingspan which was not appropriate now simply not right isn't it you've
01:56:52 now simply not right isn't it you've accepted
01:56:53 accepted that the concerns that we just saw previously on projects were valid complaints that were being raised on not i don't think we discussed the
01:57:04 on not i don't think we discussed the first street complaint well we've we've seen complaints where you've said from simon hepworth's complaint yes they were valid they weren't misplaced were they they
01:57:16 they weren't misplaced were they they were no but they came about in in the wrong order completely there wouldn't have been a complaint at all if they hadn't installed the product before determining whether it was
01:57:27 before determining whether it was suitable
01:57:27 suitable why do you not tell us that k-15 had to be removed from that high-rise building because it was non-compliant why didn't
01:57:38 because it was non-compliant why didn't you tell us that [Applause] because sorry could you rephrase yes why didn't you tell us we've just looked at issuing you've issued a credit
01:57:49 looked at issuing you've issued a credit note
01:57:50 note yeah k-15s had to be removed and mineral will replace instead yes why didn't you tell us about that in your witness statement because i i didn't actually uh view it as a complaint
01:58:01 as a complaint about the product um the the order of events
01:58:06 events is is that they've installed a product and then checked whether it's suitable and therefore the credit was against the fact that they'd installed the product before determining that it was suitable i see now i want to ask you some more
01:58:19 i see now i want to ask you some more questions now about the nhbc we know that you had some contact with the nhbc during your role as head of technical between 2010
01:58:30 role as head of technical between 2010 and 2013. what did you understand the role of the nhbc to be
01:58:39 um the nhbc as as far as i can recall are a insurer body and they also have a responsibility over
01:58:51 have a responsibility over approval to the building regulations as well
01:58:54 well yeah now looking again at your witness statement page 38 paragraph 7.39
01:59:06 perhaps what we can do is just look at the question that you were asked just before that so you were asked were you aware prior to the issue of this certificate
01:59:17 certificate so this is in december 2013 of any issues raised with kingspan by the national house building council in relation to the use of k-15 on buildings with a floor over 18 meters if
01:59:28 buildings with a floor over 18 meters if so please describe the issue or issues please also explain when and how these issues were raised by and with whom and any action kingston took in respect of them etc and your answer is simply no i was
01:59:41 etc and your answer is simply no i was not aware
01:59:42 not aware now looking at that now is that right are you saying that you weren't aware of any
01:59:50 concerns raised by the nhbc prior to december 2013. um this this again was based on uh what what i believe the
02:00:02 based on uh what what i believe the timeline was on the discussions with nhbc uh i i also the nhbc issues were dealt with later in in the um statement as well i see
02:00:15 in the um statement as well i see when was the first time that you knew of concerns being raised by the nhbc in respect to the use of k15 on buildings over 18 meters
02:00:26 buildings over 18 meters can you help us with that
02:00:31 yes i believe it was late 13
02:00:36 right um if we look at paragraph 10.2 of your statement on page 48.
02:00:54 statement on page 48. you say between stepping into a relevant role in 2010 and the end of 2013 my engagement with the nhsbc was limited it princely
02:01:01 princely principally concerned departmental inquiries
02:01:05 inquiries relation to specific projects however in 2014
02:01:09 2014 the nhbc had much greater contact with kingspan
02:01:13 kingspan the reason for this contact was that the nhbc was concerned about the fire performance qualities of materials used as part of cladding systems on high-rise buildings in connection
02:01:24 on high-rise buildings in connection with their substantial housing stock i understood from the nhbc that k15 was one of many cladding products whose performance they were monitoring now that last
02:01:35 monitoring now that last uh sentence there you understood it was one of many cladding products whose performance they were monitoring how did you come to understand that
02:01:48 i believe that was relayed in the meeting that i attended with nhbc at their premises was that the first meeting you had with the nhbc
02:01:59 the nhbc from memory i believe that's the only meeting i had with nhbc you only had one meeting i believe so yeah
02:02:09 and then a paragraph 10.4 if we can look at that now just further down in this section on page 49.
02:02:23 you say at the meeting you attended there were three kingspan personnel there we'll come back to that and and you then say there were a number of specific construction types on which the nhbc were looking
02:02:34 the nhbc were looking to us to retrospectively validate the use of k-15
02:02:42 now is that right that your understanding was they were looking for retrospective validation of k-15 on a number of specific construction types yes well actual buildings in fact
02:02:55 yes well actual buildings in fact yeah and then if we look at paragraph 10.8 on page 50
02:03:08 you explain it from that second sentence in that first line the nhbc's concerns escalated in 2014 and they were seeking reassurance from kingspan
02:03:19 kingspan concerning the use of k15 on a wide variety of construction projects in respect of which they were engaged relating to buildings with a floor over 18 meters we did not consider that kingspan could
02:03:30 we did not consider that kingspan could retrospectively validate the use of k15 on the variety of cladding systems used by the nhbc however we did want to offer the nhbc
02:03:41 however we did want to offer the nhbc whatever reassurance we were able to regarding the technical qualities of k15
02:03:50 now let's look at the request the nhbc actually made if we can go to nhb 50645
02:04:00 nhb 50645 and i want to start at the very bottom of the email chain on page four
02:04:09 there's an email of the 26th of november at 10 52 right at the bottom there from john lewis at the nhbc and he writes to the technical inquiries
02:04:22 and he writes to the technical inquiries kingspan
02:04:23 kingspan email address asking specifically about the subject is kingspan k15 use in a building greater than 18 meters
02:04:33 and in his email he says i'm looking in detail at the use of kingspan k15 as part of the external cladding system in a building greater than 18 meters i note that k15 isn't a material of
02:04:44 i note that k15 isn't a material of limited combustibility and so i need to establish how it meets with the alternative adb-2 guidance referring to a system whose performance has been assessed according to br135 he says the building
02:04:56 according to br135 he says the building in question is a rc
02:05:01 is a rc frame reinforced concrete exactly with lightweight steel frame in fill panels do you see that yes so that's the building that's being described
02:05:13 described and if we go up the chain there are then various emails with a technical advisor where he's asked for the project address and building use
02:05:24 address and building use and then he sent some literature including
02:05:27 including the bba certificate for k15 and then if we look at the bottom of page two mr lewis writes again
02:05:38 to that same email address
02:05:43 and he's he thanks the technical adviser for the bba certificate and then he says but the bba certificate refers back to obtaining clarification
02:05:55 refers back to obtaining clarification from yourselves about the use of k-15 in a building which exceeds 18 meters in height hence my original query
02:06:05 now do you see at this point it's become circular because kingspan sent the bba certificate the bba certificate's got a line in saying speak to kingspan about buildings over 18 meters and he's going around in
02:06:17 over 18 meters and he's going around in circles do you see that yes and then in the second paragraph of his email
02:06:24 his email he says as far as i can see where the building exceeds 18 meters in height paragraph 12.7 of adb refers to the need for limited combustibility of all elements of a cladding system both above and below 18 meters this
02:06:36 both above and below 18 meters this includes the insulation internal lining board and the external facing material the exclusions are smaller gasket parts and similar low risk items then over on the next page
02:06:48 items then over on the next page therefore the use of a material of limited combustibility for these components will satisfy the requirements of section 12 of adb and part four the definition of a material of limited combustibility is
02:06:59 material of limited combustibility is stated in table a7 and adb2 however as k15 isn't a material of limited combustibility an acceptable alternative approach
02:07:08 approach adb paragraph 12.7 is for the kingspan to submit evidence that the complete proposed external cladding system has been assessed according to the
02:07:19 been assessed according to the acceptance criteria in br135 the preferred method of demonstrating compliance is via a fire test carried out in accordance with eight four one four
02:07:28 four part one or part two and he sets out the titles of those two standards then he continues the test should be carried out by an independent ucas
02:07:39 carried out by an independent ucas accredited testing body the bs 8414 tests do not give
02:07:43 give a past fail answer because the data obtained
02:07:46 obtained is used by different bodies with different minimum requirements hence for building regulation purposes any test using this method needs to be supported by proof that the acceptance criteria of br135
02:07:59 that the acceptance criteria of br135 have been met as far as i can see only one test in accordance with br135 was carried out using 8414 part one as such the use of k-15 as part of
02:08:10 one as such the use of k-15 as part of any other cladding build-up fixed to the face of a building or for a cladding system fixed to a structural steel frame covered by eight for one full part two isn't allowable question mark please could you advise if
02:08:23 question mark please could you advise if i've interpreted the requirements wrongly
02:08:28 now do you agree that this is exactly the same
02:08:33 the same difficulty that win tech and aztec had already raised with kingspan by this time
02:08:43 i yes it relates to the the same set of regulations so it would be the same query that they've raised yeah and it's the same difficulty that lake smear went on to raise in may 2014
02:08:56 on to raise in may 2014 in the email we just looked at where k-15 had to be stripped from the building
02:09:00 building yes yes
02:09:03 yes yes looking at mr lewis's email do you think he had
02:09:06 he had interpreted the requirements incorrectly
02:09:12 no he's interpreted them that he is looking to demonstrate compliance via those
02:09:18 those specific routes um that being the case uh in his particular construction we wouldn't have the evidence to demonstrate that
02:09:31 i see but we've seen that this was a case where the bba certificate was being sent for k-15 when when inquiries were being raised about whether or not it was suitable
02:09:42 about whether or not it was suitable yes yes
02:09:45 this isn't a request is it for kingspan to retrospectively legitimize certain buildups is it
02:09:53 no it's a simple question isn't it they're asking on what basis kingspan say that any over 18 meters external construction
02:10:04 over 18 meters external construction buildup
02:10:05 buildup other than that tested can comply with the building regulations would you agree yes i believe this was um i think mr lewis was the first approach from the nhbc
02:10:17 was the first approach from the nhbc prior to it being escalated yeah now moving up to the next email on page two
02:10:25 two mr lewis emails again the following day on the 13th of december 2013
02:10:36 and in that email to the technical inquiries tech line he says hello ben thanks for your help so far i am my managers here at nhbc would very
02:10:48 i am my managers here at nhbc would very much like to resolve this issue with you as soon as possible could i request that you escalate it to your management team with a reviewed with a view to meeting early in the new year between both parties and he says this in the next paragraph
02:10:59 and he says this in the next paragraph unfortunately given the number of affected projects that the nhbc deals with we feel that we need to start to advise our customers that k-15 doesn't comply with the building regulation
02:11:10 regulation requirements or the bba certificate when used on a building in excess of 18 metres high i look forward to hearing from you [Music]
02:11:19 [Music] when he says in that paragraph given the number of affected projects they're going to have to start to advise their customers in that way do you know how many projects that might
02:11:31 do you know how many projects that might have been approximately we didn't know at this time i believe and it was only ever mentioned verbally but i believe it was in excess
02:11:43 verbally but i believe it was in excess of a hundred possibly 140 i'm not sure i don't think it was ever put in writing
02:11:54 i don't think it was ever put in writing so that's his message on the 13th of december 2013 and then if we go on on up again to page one of this string it would appear that his messages are
02:12:05 it would appear that his messages are forwarded to mr meredith and mr mills can you see yes on the 16th of december gareth iver issues from nhbc regarding
02:12:16 gareth iver issues from nhbc regarding k15 meeting request for new year question mark and then mr meredith responds on the same day page top page one top
02:12:27 page top page one top email
02:12:30 and he says further to your correspondence with our technical team we'd like to invite you up to our head office in herefordshire in the new year alternatively we can come to you having read your comments we request that you hold off on advising your
02:12:41 that you hold off on advising your customers
02:12:43 customers until we've had a chance to sit down and go through the body of evidence that leads to
02:12:47 leads to our alternative method of compliance we appreciate the opportunity to talk you through this therefore the sooner we can have this discussion the better now do you know what
02:12:58 the better now do you know what body of evidence mr meredith was referring to at this stage yes at this stage it will be the evidence that we've referred to throughout the day so
02:13:10 referred to throughout the day so essentially the 8414 from 2005 and small-scale testing along with any uh if there are any formal assessments done at this point
02:13:22 done at this point and when he's referring just after that reference to the body of evidence he said that leads to our alternative method of compliance can you help us to what that was
02:13:35 can you help us to what that was referring to what was kingspan's alternative method of compliance at this stage yes again as we've referred to today it would be
02:13:46 we've referred to today it would be um using that body of evidence via an assessment um to assess a particular construction
02:13:58 a particular construction i see so this is before the bca technical guidance note 18 has come out in june 2014. this is december 2013. yes i think you alleged to this earlier
02:14:10 yes i think you alleged to this earlier it's your position then is it that kingspan was effectively doing its own extrapolations desktops based on that 2005 test not as
02:14:21 2005 test not as as a fire engineer no i mean we we were offering
02:14:24 offering advice that was our opinion that people could
02:14:28 could incorporate into an assessment and how did you think that that was compliant with the building regulations at the time
02:14:37 time because we were advocating the use of the product in constructions which had um
02:14:49 similar performance to those which we were able to demonstrate compliance so non-combustible yeah so you're making that assessment that you think it complies with the building regulations
02:15:00 complies with the building regulations because of the 2005 test effectively we believed it could comply with the building regulations yes on the basis that
02:15:08 that having offered that advice previously it had been assessed and incorporated into constructions
02:15:16 mr meredith invites the nhbc to pembridge for a meeting did he do that with reference to you his direct line manager at the time did you
02:15:27 direct line manager at the time did you authorize him and for inviting the nhbc to that meeting uh it doesn't look like i was included i i'm guessing at this stage i believe richard bromage
02:15:38 richard bromage was um very okay with um you know the the premise that we were operating under and would have had the authority to um kick
02:15:51 would have had the authority to um kick off that meeting if i'm not sure what that meeting happened but it should have included myself or another senior technical colleague as well
02:16:02 colleague as well were you made aware of this correspondence in november and december 2013
02:16:12 i believe it would have been yes now moving forward with the chronology
02:16:23 now moving forward with the chronology i want to return now to a matter we covered earlier the bba certificate for k-15
02:16:28 k-15 i've asked you some questions about the first bba certificate which was dated the 27th of october 2008 and i've we've also looked at the amended issue one which carried an issue date of april
02:16:39 which carried an issue date of april 2010
02:16:41 2010 were you aware that a new amended version of the bba certificate was issued by the bba on the 17th of december 2013.
02:16:52 of december 2013. yeah i would have been away yes yeah
02:16:59 and if we look at your witness statement at paragraph 7.7 on page 30
02:17:12 you tell us at 7.7 that that prior to that you'd been involved in a meeting with the bba in around may 2013 this was an introductory meeting there'd been a change in personnel at
02:17:24 there'd been a change in personnel at the bba
02:17:25 the bba one of the individuals in a senior person left and we were meeting their replacement who was that who'd left and who were you meeting
02:17:36 i didn't recall the name of the i believe he's a gentleman that left he was replaced by a lady called claire i don't recall her
02:17:47 a lady called claire i don't recall her surname right and then you explain from kingsman's side the driver behind this meeting was to establish a relationship with this new bba representative and informally raise the issue of delays
02:17:59 informally raise the issue of delays that kingspan had regularly experienced working with the bba in the hope that they might have their eye on this going forwards and help the bba to run more efficiently
02:18:12 is that right yes and if we can go on a paragraph 7.38 page 37 of your witness statement
02:18:25 witness statement [Applause] if we look in the fourth line of that in the middle of the page you say for the purposes of preparing this witness statement i've been shown an internal
02:18:36 statement i've been shown an internal kingspan email which i was forwarded by iva meredith relating to an upcoming meeting on the 1st of may 2013 with the bba to discuss amendments to this certificate as far as i recall i did not amend
02:18:48 i recall i did not amend i did not attend this meeting now i just want to be clear is it your recollection that there were two meetings between kingspan and the bba in may
02:18:58 may 2013 but that you only attended one of them
02:19:01 them uh it's that's entirely possible uh my only
02:19:05 only doubt is the meeting that i attended was definitely not to discuss amendments to a particular certificate it was a meet and greet basically with
02:19:17 it was a meet and greet basically with the new ceo or whatever that position was
02:19:22 was um i'm not sure whether
02:19:26 it's possible either could have been in attendance with me and had a spin-off meeting at the same time i'm not sure okay yeah now if we can go to the december 2013 certificate now
02:19:38 december 2013 certificate now which is at bba 6036 do you remember reading this certificate sorry i'll just bring it up for you at the time we can see that date
02:19:49 at the time we can see that date that date of second issue in the bottom left-hand corner 17th december 2013. do you remember reading this i i wouldn't necessarily have read it cover to cover if there weren't
02:20:01 cover to cover if there weren't significant changes in it but if there were changes yes i would have i would have read that i see yes and if we look key factors assessed
02:20:10 assessed under behavior in relation to fire we can see it says there the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard yes and the sentence that had
02:20:21 hazard yes and the sentence that had been included in the previous version about
02:20:24 about has only been tested in one specific masonry construction that's not there no um if we go on to page five if we look at behaviour in relation to fire that section has actually been
02:20:37 fire that section has actually been moved now to section eight right at the bottom of that page and the readers are told in 8.1 that the product is classified as class naught as defined in the documents
02:20:49 naught as defined in the documents supporting the building regulations now just pausing there before this certificate was issued would you expect test results to bs 476 part 6 and 476 part 7
02:21:01 476 part 6 and 476 part 7 showing the necessary results to get classification to class naught to have been provided to the bba
02:21:10 yes whether they were provided in support of this particular um reissue or whether they were still on fire and relevant and who would have provided those test
02:21:21 and who would have provided those test results do you think at this time so we're now into 2013 there's been meetings in may this is a december certificate it may now have transferred to joel clark right and then if we go
02:21:35 right and then if we go in the top of page six let's look at 8.2 it says that when tested to bs 8414 part one the following specific cladding construction met the criteria
02:21:47 construction met the criteria as stated in bre report br135 and then we've got the construction yes and do you see there's a little footnote after when tested for number one yes and then in smaller
02:22:01 for number one yes and then in smaller text
02:22:01 text below that construction description it states the test result relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of materials
02:22:13 other combination of materials yes and then section 8.3 it says the product incorporated in the construction defined in section 8.2
02:22:25 construction defined in section 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level yes fire breaks should be used at every floor level after the first floor
02:22:36 floor level after the first floor now do you accept that this is the first time a bba certificate for k-15 made clear
02:22:41 clear that the test data from the may o5 test is only applicable to the specific tested system and that further testing would be required for any other combination of materials
02:22:52 any other combination of materials yes it's clearer yeah and were you made aware of this significant change to the content of the behavior in relation to fire section of the bba certificate
02:23:03 the bba certificate yes i was aware it was evolving [Music]
02:23:09 was that something that kingspan had been attempting to avoid something quite that clear and straightforward i i don't believe that's the case um
02:23:23 i i don't believe that's the case um i i believe this is a a probably a growing understanding within the bba
02:23:32 the bba now in terms of the information that was provided to the bba you've explained in your witness statement for the transcript this is at paragraph 7.16 page 31
02:23:43 paragraph 7.16 page 31 that you weren't made aware of all the technical data that was supplied to the bba
02:23:49 bba but you say you might have been copied into email traffic from time to time yes about that is that right it is but that you say ultimate responsibility for this lay with mr meredith and joel clark is that
02:24:00 with mr meredith and joel clark is that right had a day-to-day yes and what about contractual matters between the bba and kingspan
02:24:07 were you aware of what the contractual requirements were and kingspan's responsibilities were in terms of providing information to the bba
02:24:17 bba i i would have been at at some point yes i couldn't recall it
02:24:25 were you aware that on the 6th of december 2013 joel clark sent the bba a signed reissue contracts document for various products including
02:24:36 document for various products including for k-15
02:24:38 for k-15 i wouldn't have necessarily been copied into that now and did you ever see the contract that had been
02:24:46 had been signed between kingsman and the bba for k-15 at this time
02:24:53 not at this time i don't believe so were you made aware that kingspan had to immediately notify the bba of any change in the particular supplied or of any new or additional information
02:25:06 or of any new or additional information about the subject or its suitability for use
02:25:09 use yes so you had that general awareness yes
02:25:15 and were you aware that you had to inform the bba of any information about its physical or chemical composition and any change in the process of method of
02:25:27 any change in the process of method of manufacturer or any change in the place of manufacture processing or assembly yes i believe that was subject to audit as well
02:25:37 to your knowledge did kingspan ever tell the bba
02:25:41 the bba that the k-15 used in the test in 2005 was carried out on a different product to the one that was being manufactured and sold
02:25:49 and sold from september 06 onwards not to my knowledge no
02:26:03 now mr shannon i'm just looking at the clock and i'm about to start a a separate topic about the
02:26:12 the testing that then takes place in 24. it might be sensible to i think we should stop there yes and i can take stock overnight yes well we a little bit earlier than
02:26:23 yes well we a little bit earlier than usual but i don't suppose you'll mind that
02:26:25 that no um we'll stop there for the day i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you to come back again of course there's some more questions tomorrow yes and as before i must ask you not to talk about your evidence or anything relating
02:26:36 about your evidence or anything relating to it
02:26:37 to it yes overnight but uh we'll stop there if you go to the usher and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning please thank you thank you very much
02:26:55 thank you