David Ewing from LABC gives evidence on the certification of Kingspan K15 insulation, revealing how misleading certificates were issued despite test evidence showing the product burned for 90 minutes, and admitting this was treated as a 'warranty issue' rather than a building safety matter.
00:00:18 [Applause]
00:00:24 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr david ewing of local authority building control so would you ask mr ewing to come back
00:00:36 so would you ask mr ewing to come back in please
00:00:46 good morning mr ewing please sit down yes and make yourself comfortable [Music]
00:00:55 [Applause] all right well ready to carry on yes good thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you very much yes now i want to pick up the k15 story um again
00:01:07 to pick up the k15 story um again in august 2014 and just to recap as to what the labc and what what you knew by this time it's right isn't it that you knew by
00:01:18 it's right isn't it that you knew by this time that the registered detailed certificate from k15 was being relied on by specialist contractors for projects as proof of compliance with approved document b and
00:01:29 compliance with approved document b and br 135 as it had been informed of that fact by way of the email from mr everett of euroclad yes yes
00:01:39 yes and we know that you were also aware of the concerns which had been raised by mr brian martin at dclg and steve evans of the nhbc yes yes yes
00:01:50 the nhbc yes yes yes and you were also aware because mr evans referred to it in his email in july 2014 that the bba certificate on which the labc and herefordshire
00:02:01 on which the labc and herefordshire council had relied and based its work had been revised in december 2013. that's right isn't it yes i was now in those circumstances
00:02:12 those circumstances can you explain to us how it came about that the labc then reissued the k-15 registered details certificate in august 2014
00:02:22 2014 with a certificate stated to last until october 2014 based on the old bba certificate from 2008
00:02:31 2008 i can't other than an oversight an oversight right
00:02:37 right well let's look at some of the correspondence that surrounds that decision
00:02:42 decision if we go to labc301841
00:02:51 here's an email from mr brennan to mr ball at kingspan on the 21st of august 2014 and you are copied in subject is the labc registered details
00:03:03 subject is the labc registered details for kingspan k15 and we can see there's some attachments which will come out at the moment in a moment
00:03:11 moment and he says good afternoon dan further to your correspondence with david ewing i can confirm that the cost for the annual renewal and reassessment of kingspan k15 rain screen board to cover additional fire testing and lower lambda
00:03:22 additional fire testing and lower lambda thermal properties will be 1200 plus that
00:03:26 that if you wish to proceed please let me know and i'll arrange for another ish invoice to be issued for 850 pounds plus that
00:03:34 that and then there's a previous invoice that's been issued and he says i i have attached revised certificates noting a new expiry date for your current registration of the 31st of
00:03:45 current registration of the 31st of october 2014 this should allow us all enough time to get the renewal and reassessment sorted so that's his email to kingspan
00:03:56 so that's his email to kingspan and then the certificate appears at la if we can go to labc 301843
00:04:05 that's the certificate we can see with those dates on 21st of august valid until the 31st of october 2014 and the drawing and document list that
00:04:17 and the drawing and document list that he attached to the email appears at labc 301842
00:04:24 and we can see on page one that three documents are listed as supporting documentation and those are the herefordshire council type approval summary
00:04:35 type approval summary which we've looked at a number of times which said k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility kingspan's marketing literature and there we see the third document the
00:04:47 and there we see the third document the 2008 bba certificate now
00:04:53 now can you help first as to why the herefordshire council type approval summary is listed there
00:04:59 there as a relevant document given that we know that was inaccurate
00:05:07 uh i can't it's it's basically it's a reissue of the 2013 document um and i should i should have checked that through um it's protect bringing the information
00:05:19 um it's protect bringing the information through from the 2013 documents and i should have checked that yes i haven't but given the warnings you've had up to this point including from indirectly from brian martin of mhclg
00:05:33 indirectly from brian martin of mhclg nhbc
00:05:34 nhbc warning euroclad why didn't you check this certificate very carefully um it was
00:05:42 um it was it was really because i was trying to introduce the the next i suppose generation of the registered detail with the scope and limitations on it we'd spoken to kingspan
00:05:55 we'd spoken to kingspan and knew that they were providing or going to provide us with additional classification reports for 8414 tests that they'd had carried out on systems so i think it was the fact that i knew
00:06:07 so i think it was the fact that i knew that was coming i've taken my off the ball with this and i can't say anything more than
00:06:13 more than more than that you know i wish i hadn't it's it jumps out at you when it's stirring here but at the time it was caught up with everything else i was doing within within my day job yes
00:06:26 was doing within within my day job yes i understand you're focused you say on trying to look at what the next issue of this certificate and supporting information might look like but but why not
00:06:36 not make sure that nothing else goes out in the meantime and there is no valid certificate until you've done that work um
00:06:44 um well i think the three-month extension of that certificate was purely to try and give time for them to come back to us with additional classification reports
00:06:53 reports rather than just shut it off at that particular point and i i know in light of everything that's gone off since that that was i suppose foolhardy um but
00:07:06 i suppose foolhardy um but at the time i genuinely believed that kingspan were working with us were providing us with classification reports of systems that were
00:07:17 of systems that were we're going to let's say provide a much tighter richer detail after that does it come down to this that you you trusted kingspan at the time and what you couldn't countenance that there
00:07:30 what you couldn't countenance that there might be
00:07:31 might be um inaccurate information about k-15 i'm still struggling to come to terms with that quite honestly but is it because you simply trusted yeah this is this was a market leader i
00:07:43 yeah this is this was a market leader i had no reason to to think that that this was anything other than um true and honest there was there wasn't an ulterior motive behind it yeah
00:07:55 motive behind it yeah we can also see there that the bba certificate dated october 2008 is still referenced can you explain that as i've just said it's it's an oversight
00:08:07 as i've just said it's it's an oversight and
00:08:08 and i i should i should have i should have picked that up i think it's just brought the information through from as it was but i i should have gone in and checked that out and i didn't do you remember carefully going through
00:08:20 do you remember carefully going through the the concerns that had been raised by mr martin and the nhbc
00:08:27 the nhbc working through all the points and making sure you understood them before you came to be producing further certificates for the k15 product um yes i remember the
00:08:39 um yes i remember the the emails i was very well aware of the um the situation with the new uh aggramar certificate um
00:08:49 um and i think i was
00:08:53 i i was just genuinely trying to create something better and missed the point that we'd got an extra three months on uh
00:09:00 uh on the old certificate right yes and we can see if we go to page two of this document
00:09:09 that we've still got appendix a which as we saw
00:09:13 we saw last thursday was verbatim the precise text that kingspan had asked to be included in the certificate including point three the product can be used on buildings with stories greater
00:09:25 used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it's used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components and also over the page at page three
00:09:36 and also over the page at page three the drawings the the diagrams showing test build ups which there was no evidence for was there at this point no
00:09:50 and that was a clear failure on your part to pick all of that up wasn't it it was yes
00:09:56 was yes now
00:09:57 now the registered details terms and conditions if we briefly look at those labc
00:10:03 labc one zero two zero
00:10:09 these are um the labc registered details terms and conditions for the transcript we can see this document was sent to mr mills at kingspan when he first registered
00:10:21 registered the um with the registered details scheme for k15 it was issued to him on the 28th of august 2013 for the transcript the references at labc four zeros
00:10:32 four zeros triple nine and if we go to page two of this document
00:10:41 and if we look at the third paragraph down on that left hand column we can see it says all payments covering the registration process are non-refundable similarly if through usage unforeseen
00:10:54 similarly if through usage unforeseen problems arise with the design system or solution
00:10:57 solution or the performance is not as predicted then labc reserves the right to suspend or cancel
00:11:03 or cancel a registration without refunding payments
00:11:07 payments and then it carries on were you aware of that
00:11:11 that term in these registered details terms and conditions at the time in august 2014. i was yes and that was really why there was the three month extension on the
00:11:23 was the three month extension on the registered detail rather than a renewal for uh a following year it was we knew that we had to change the process so set a date and a time for them to
00:11:34 so set a date and a time for them to come back to us with more information and of course um you know this is a two-way process kingspan at any time could have come back to us and and highlighted issues and chose not to
00:11:46 and chose not to but it's for me to pick that up from from my side yes but but but i appreciate you saying you've only renewed it for a few months rather than a year but why not just not renew it at all did you have this
00:11:57 all did you have this this these terms and conditions in mind at the time um well i think that that comes from uh in mr evans email the comment was that there was no no
00:12:09 the comment was that there was no no reason to suggest that things may not be right
00:12:12 right in terms of the risk-based side of it and it was it was just
00:12:19 i didn't know what we know now and that was all it was trying from my side i was trying to be fair to kingspan rather than just say that's it we've got to uh we got to the end of this date
00:12:30 to uh we got to the end of this date um
00:12:31 um we said we we extended it for three months because uh they were already offering to provide us with this information to update the registered details scope and limitations yes but but you knew they didn't have the test
00:12:43 but you knew they didn't have the test evidence to support the claims they were making yes no i didn't i mean from from their perspective they were having a lot more tests undertaken in terms of in terms of being done that was that was
00:12:55 was that was from my uh conversations and i think a lot of this is over the telephone to dan ball
00:13:01 ball but they were saying that yes they're getting classification reports through for a series of tests now that still wouldn't have allowed them to ultimately to to build anything above 18 meters but it
00:13:12 to build anything above 18 meters but it would have extended it from a single uh classification report yes i appreciate king spanner telling you they're getting more testing done but you didn't have that test evidence did it no no no it wasn't in your possession
00:13:23 wasn't in your possession so you didn't have test evidence supporting the statements that were being made on these certificates that haven't been backed up now i think that follows in a few of the email conversation i've had with our internal staff as well yes so what i'm seeking to
00:13:36 staff as well yes so what i'm seeking to understand is why was this really a question about fairness to kingspan and not a question about doing the proper thing and making sure that you weren't putting
00:13:47 and making sure that you weren't putting out a certificate supporting the use of a product
00:13:51 a product in a configuration for which it had no tests even to support it
00:13:59 i i can't answer that question uh because it it seems foolhardy now at the time it seemed it seemed reasonable to to to give them that
00:14:11 reasonable to to to give them that extension of time yeah
00:14:13 yeah now
00:14:14 now carrying on with the correspondence leading up to the certificate being issued
00:14:19 issued um if we go to labc 302665
00:14:27 there's an email from mr brennan to mr lee
00:14:31 lee and on the 17th of july 2014 he says hi invoice for this one attached you can tell him that we will have a look at the additional testing if he sends it through to david and copies me in
00:14:42 through to david and copies me in he needs to do that asap though as tim is looking at this one in the next few days
00:14:50 and um just just be aware that's the 17th of july 2014 the friendly warning email gets passed on to you via mr
00:15:01 via mr turner on the 15th of july 2014 so this is all happening at the same time and then if we go to
00:15:10 labc 302666
00:15:16 also on the 17th of july mr lee emailed mr ball
00:15:21 mr ball saying please find attach the invoice for the labc annual renewal can you kindly afford on the testing which you would like to have referenced on the renewal certificates to david ewing copy and my colleague mr brennan for them to
00:15:32 and my colleague mr brennan for them to review asap
00:15:36 and then on the 22nd of july if we look at labc four zeros eight eight eight seven seven sorry
00:15:45 sorry yeah
00:15:47 yeah mr ball
00:15:48 mr ball replies to um
00:15:54 sorry mr bull sends to you and mr brennan an email copying in mr lee good morning both the testing we wanted to include in the renewal is the fact that we have recently had a successful bs 8414 part 2
00:16:07 recently had a successful bs 8414 part 2 test on the k15 we aren't in receipt of any documentation from the bre yet though we would anticipate receiving this in the next few weeks if you can let me know if this time frame will be okay and
00:16:20 know if this time frame will be okay and that we will be able to include the reference to the testing in the certificate
00:16:25 and then if we go to labc302679
00:16:34 at the bottom of page one you respond to mr bull's email on the 22nd of july 2014 and you say hi dan was looking to talk to you regarding
00:16:46 dan was looking to talk to you regarding this at our meeting on friday when we can discuss time scales etc regards david
00:16:54 david and then um just for the transcript there's another email from mr ball at labc302676
00:17:02 where he says thanks david looking forward to it and then
00:17:09 and then we can see a further email if we go to um
00:17:13 um the second email down yes on this page here
00:17:17 here mr ball on the 23rd of july 2014 says to you
00:17:22 you david just to say before friday we would like to perhaps get a quote for all the products we do of course then if the price is right we can look to have the entire portfolio
00:17:34 can look to have the entire portfolio with labc certificates i will address the form you sent me so we have a base to start from on friday i don't know if having all products done at once is realistic but we can discuss
00:17:46 at once is realistic but we can discuss friday
00:17:47 friday many thanks david and then you respond at the top of the page
00:17:53 page not a problem dan i just need a list and a few hours to work out the best price for you
00:17:59 for you i will also need to speak to authorities as well to ensure we can deal with everything within reasonable time scales and then
00:18:09 and then is it right that you met with kingspan that friday that would have been on the 25th of july 2014. is that correct i believe so yes do you remember that meeting with kingspan um i remember the
00:18:20 meeting with kingspan um i remember the meeting but not the date where did it take place was it at kingspan offices yes yes
00:18:29 and what did you discuss at that meeting can you help us um well in relation to k-15 it was the progress on
00:18:41 progress on the testing they were having carried out um
00:18:45 um i think that may well have been why the date was extended because they knew something was coming through so i was and i
00:18:52 and i you know i know it's the wrong way it around it was a extension on the k15 certificate and then the additional conversation was around the installation products that they had and they're looking for
00:19:04 they had and they're looking for registered details for their thermal performance and and can you remember the balance of the meeting was most of it spent talking about all the other products they wanted to put through the registered details scheme or was most of it spent
00:19:16 scheme or was most of it spent discussing k-15 and the testing that was imminent
00:19:23 i i can't remember i remember
00:19:28 and again this this you know i can remember feeling quite sorry for kingspan and that's hurting me to say that now on the basis that the system tests i was
00:19:41 on the basis that the system tests i was asked i was asking them why other companies weren't contributing towards the cost of having the testing done as a system i would have thought a cladding manufacturer or fixing rail company may well chip in
00:19:53 or fixing rail company may well chip in with the cost of having the test done and i couldn't see i thought i thought a little bit further kingspan were burdening the cost of all of those testing
00:20:03 now and here we are today knowing um what we know did you discuss um anything about the friendly warning email from mr martin with kingspan
00:20:14 with kingspan uh
00:20:16 uh not specifically i don't think although then we
00:20:18 then we the discussion was around that we have to because the changes to the algorithm certificate the only way the registered detailer can proceed was with a full list of classification reports and documents that we would tie to the
00:20:29 documents that we would tie to the details so that would be the the detail would cover those specific classification reports did you discuss the fact that previous labc certificates had erroneously indicated that k-15 could be considered
00:20:41 indicated that k-15 could be considered a material of limited combustibility
00:20:46 i don't believe i did now why not
00:20:49 why not um
00:20:52 i i don't know it was uh the change to the young remote certificate which was the primary driver from from my side at the time but why didn't you say to kingspan
00:21:03 but why didn't you say to kingspan we've realized that there's been a major error with your product we've been saying it can be considered a material of limited combustibility it can't how did you allow that to go out into the public domain did you have that
00:21:15 public domain did you have that conversation with them i wish i had did you ask them why they'd submitted in support of their registered details certificate the bba certificate from 2008 and not the one from december 2013.
00:21:30 2008 and not the one from december 2013. no
00:21:31 no why not
00:21:32 why not um
00:21:33 um i
00:21:34 i i don't know if i was aware of it at that time
00:21:37 that time in terms of the information coming through well you must have been aware of it because you were told that by mr evans on the 15th of july 2014 just 10 days before you have this
00:21:48 just 10 days before you have this meeting on the 25th of july 2014. sorry what i meant that was in relation i wasn't in terms of kingspan sending through the 2013 admin certificate when the conversation centered around that
00:22:00 the conversation centered around that agreement certificate
00:22:04 and and you tell us and it's similar to the statement the evidence you've just given you say at paragraph 52.7 on page 37 of your witness statement that at that stage labc had no reason to doubt the integrity of kingspan who were
00:22:16 doubt the integrity of kingspan who were the leading player in the market but how does that not take into account the
00:22:23 the the warning that you've had through mr martin and then the email from mr evans you did have some reason to doubt kingspan's integrity didn't you [Music]
00:22:35 [Music] yes i think there was again it was
00:22:42 from it was that it was about i suppose i still
00:22:48 see in that stage coming to terms with the fact that things weren't um as they appeared [Music]
00:22:56 [Music] as a
00:22:57 as a and i suppose that comes in terms of my other role within registered details you know i would be quite frequently meeting up with companies who wanted to get a product onto the registered detail
00:23:09 get a product onto the registered detail scheme
00:23:10 scheme that had no test data whatsoever any likelihood of of getting onto registered details
00:23:18 details you know in terms of in terms of let's say uh chinese product testing or russian product testing uh that had to be equated back to european standards
00:23:31 kingspan were market leaders i genuinely thought that these guys were in there trying to raise the bar all the time it's part of the reason why you were so
00:23:42 it's part of the reason why you were so benevolent towards kingspan that you that you needed their work you wanted their endorsement of the registered details scheme as market leader
00:23:54 i think there was certainly a bit of kudos to having king spam products there we had rockwool at the time with celetex were there we had a lot of multi-foil insulin
00:24:05 had a lot of multi-foil insulin insulation companies that were looking at registered details at that time as well
00:24:09 well so it was a a growing
00:24:13 a growing library i suppose of products that building control officers would refer to as part of the check which to my mind would make um building control local authority building control offices more
00:24:24 building control offices more competitive in in their role competing in the
00:24:28 in the against the public against the private sector yes so there was that kudos element and also there was a real financial benefit to labc wasn't there
00:24:39 financial benefit to labc wasn't there in terms of what kings ban was suggesting at this meeting about pushing all of its product range through the registered details process well
00:24:47 well i mean in terms of the financial side of it i don't think the finance was ever significant amounts of money compared to the amounts of monies that were being paid out going to have testing done at
00:24:59 paid out going to have testing done at test houses you know the costs in within that were paid out to local authorities to backfill posts there was very little in terms of and any profits have been made out of doing that
00:25:10 made out of doing that the whole venture really but isn't it the case that actually this potential money was at was very significant to the labc itself in terms of its own financial position
00:25:21 financial position uh i i genuinely don't believe it was i think that i think the kudos with working with major companies which is probably more important than the financial side it's never been uh if we if we were looking at it from a
00:25:32 if we were looking at it from a financial perspective we would be charging an awful lot more for the registered detail facility well let's let's look at some more emails on this topic so after your meeting if we go to labc 302686
00:25:51 [Music] if we can go to the bottom of page one at 17 47
00:25:59 at 17 47 so on the 25th of july at 17 47 so quite late in the day you email a number of others and you say hi got back from hereford 10 minutes ago
00:26:10 hi got back from hereford 10 minutes ago but thought you might like to know i've been asked to quote for seven products over three product ranges and a quote for their entire range of 30 products over six their product ranges of cool
00:26:21 over six their product ranges of cool femme 12 therma 13 optim r
00:26:25 optim r two types of cavity closer and their tech panel the one thing they did like was my explanation of the briefing note we create that advises the bco's building control officers of what to look for at
00:26:37 control officers of what to look for at submission and on site so becoming eyes on the ground for them i also asked if they felt having their product linked to the constructive details compliance diagrams would be an advantage and again
00:26:48 diagrams would be an advantage and again thought that this would be another route to ensure correct specification and installation might have to do this one before i get back into the template updates exclamation mark have a good weekend
00:27:01 exclamation mark have a good weekend david
00:27:02 david so that's what you're telling your your colleagues at that point there's no mention of the the further testing they're doing is there it's all about i've been asked to quote for lots of kingspan products
00:27:15 quote for lots of kingspan products yes
00:27:17 yes and then we can see
00:27:21 sorry before we go to that you talk about the constructive details compliance diagrams which kingspan's product would potentially be linked to can you explain why kingspan considered
00:27:33 can you explain why kingspan considered this would be another route to ensure correct specification and installation can you help with that [Music]
00:27:40 [Music] i've been involved with a steering group led by zero carbon hub which was on effectively the thermal efficiency of
00:27:51 effectively the thermal efficiency of new homes
00:27:53 new homes the steering group that i was involved with was on products and materials and at the time in in terms of thermal compliance the
00:28:04 in in terms of thermal compliance the questions as to whether it was called design versus as built so on paper we had buildings that were performing in terms of new housing when they're being built and being
00:28:15 when they're being built and being tested post completion there was a significant difference in the heating of the energy costs compared to the designed energy costs and one of the things that we were
00:28:26 and one of the things that we were trying to do was initiative which was registered construction details which is another part of consult which offered specific junction details so where thermal bridging occurs which is at
00:28:38 thermal bridging occurs which is at junctions with floors and walls and around windows that's where most gains can be made by building it properly it's one of the reasons why government changed
00:28:47 changed approved document l in 2013 i believe to go back to what was called a fabric first approach yes and so kingspan were interested in having their product linked to these constructive details
00:28:58 linked to these constructive details compliance diagrams as well is that right yes thank you and then we see one email up on the 25th of july 2014 at 15 51 we can see lorna stimson
00:29:10 at 15 51 we can see lorna stimson responds to you copying in mr brennan and she simply says fan bloody tastic and then a number of exclamation marks so she was pretty pleased yes
00:29:23 so she was pretty pleased yes and again i think that was that was on on i suppose on two sides one was extending the kings band range in terms of registered details secondly it was about
00:29:33 about industry working together in terms of the registered construction details we already had a partnership there with the concrete block association uh
00:29:44 uh in terms of block products to bring insulation products into a game meant that instead of going from a generic
00:29:51 generic what was called a psi value in terms of the leakage for the around the joints you could do bespoke calculations when you knew the particular products that being used so for house builders and for
00:30:03 house builders and for for building generally it meant that you could have a better outcome for your construction process yes and then mr brennan responds to this email at the top of the page at six
00:30:14 email at the top of the page at six o'clock
00:30:17 sorry mr brennan's email is one email down sorry um there we go at six o'clock and he says this we'll save this failing company yet exclamation mark
00:30:28 exclamation mark seriously though that's really great news well done smiley face have a lovely see that there yes why did mr brennan do weekend
00:30:38 state will save this failing company yet [Music]
00:30:44 [Music] it was purely the narration that we were never making any money out of registered details because the the charges that we charge were nothing that was was making significant amount of money and that was
00:30:55 significant amount of money and that was that was a a
00:30:58 a a moot point it wasn't i think i said uh on thursday the whole drive for registered details was was quality not quantity and
00:31:11 was was quality not quantity and whilst
00:31:12 whilst we're talking around failures in the in the registered detail documentation that was that was that it was there to try and provide more information and
00:31:23 try and provide more information and there's nothing more than that was labc in financial difficulty at this time
00:31:29 time no i don't believe it was
00:31:34 so can you explain why the why he said we'll save this failing company yet it sounds like this potential work of registered details for all of
00:31:45 of registered details for all of kingspan's products was going to be pretty significant for the company not just for the registered details reputation but for the company as a whole
00:31:55 whole do you agree um
00:31:58 um from a personal perspective now now we're down to this that's a that's a
00:32:04 that's a a bit of humor that's all i see so
00:32:10 i see so um
00:32:11 um it's just it's just humor and there was no substance to that comment no the the the cost if you like the registered detailed costs were intended to cover the the
00:32:22 costs were intended to cover the the salary costs of the staff that were working with within the registered details team that was myself kahal and it was
00:32:30 it was samantha lee muller that was the three of us in terms of salary cost plus whatever the own costs were for for that part of the team and that's what we're trying to do from the point of view of
00:32:41 trying to do from the point of view of uh registered details but i've never i don't believe i've ever been told that i had a budget to achieve or an amount to bring in to to keep the three of us working on that
00:32:53 to keep the three of us working on that role
00:32:56 role you see one of the things that's puzzling is that at the very moment when you've been made aware of some pretty serious concerns about kingspan's statements over its k-15 product
00:33:07 statements over its k-15 product as opposed to having serious conversations with kingspan about those problems
00:33:13 problems you appear to be having mainly conversations about extra work for kingspan at that very moment that's puzzling do you accept looking at it now
00:33:24 it now in terms of the emails that you show me i i accept what you're saying but from my perspective that was that was never the case
00:33:31 the case i suppose we could argue that work kingspan sweetening is up by offering us the additional work and that might well have been the case to try and take some pressure off the fire testing
00:33:42 take some pressure off the fire testing side of it but i i
00:33:45 i suppose naively i didn't i didn't i didn't see that yeah
00:33:49 yeah looking back now and knowing what you know and seeing what you've seen in these emails and remembering that meeting do you think you were played by king spanner i think we were we were played all the way along both
00:34:01 we were played all the way along both both kingspan and celetex yes
00:34:05 yes now on the 1st of august 2014 you send mr ball an email um let's go to that at labc 30268.
00:34:21 so you say to mr ball of kingspan 1st of august 2014. hi dan thanks for the meeting last friday it was really useful to meet up with yourself and iva so you met mr meredith as well at that
00:34:32 so you met mr meredith as well at that time yes
00:34:34 time yes i must have done but i say i've been seeing him giving him i have no recollection of meeting him right
00:34:41 him right and then you say you were going to forward a full list of products to allow me to quote against i've had a go from the notes i took on the day can you confirm if this is correct and i could generate some figures for you have a good weekend
00:34:53 figures for you have a good weekend regards david i mean there's nothing in there about where's your further testing for k-15 is there
00:35:00 there no there isn't and then on the 5th of august if we go to labc 308503
00:35:15 on the 5th of august you send an email to mr brennan and you say hi i've been playing around with this all morning trying to get some form of consistency what do you think if i'm breaking it down further then i
00:35:27 if i'm breaking it down further then i think we need to include a percentage for admin out of labs s and warranty income eg 3 of the 18 leaving 15 direct income
00:35:39 leaving 15 direct income it could also be argued that the labs s will have a greater input as it will be necessary to recheck all of the thermal calcs for their 0.15
00:35:49 0.15 yourscratchingheadallday.com davidewing now just just help us with some of what's in there when you say we need to include a percentage for admin out of l-a-b-s-s what's that referring
00:36:01 out of l-a-b-s-s what's that referring to
00:36:03 to la bss stands for local authority building standards scotland and warranty income is labc warranty what we were doing is
00:36:14 what we were doing is extending the scope of the registered detail to include both warranty approval and
00:36:20 and compliance with scottish regulations or scottish building standards so at the time we were undertaking that work for
00:36:29 work for scotland they would then check it with their own offices so there was an administrative role in terms of that transfer of documents to and from as there was with uh with labc warranty
00:36:42 as there was with uh with labc warranty an labc warranty was run by a company called mdis insurance mdis had a warranty package in packet if you like which was
00:36:53 package in packet if you like which was based around warranty work undertaken on local authority
00:36:58 authority building control sites and that was in competition to an hbc and indeed mdis also had another building control or approved inspector
00:37:09 building control or approved inspector and warranty service run by premier guarantee yes and was it being proposed that warranty would be relying upon your statements in relation to the k-15 product going forward
00:37:20 forward warranty would see the documentation that we have and they would provide their own commentary around around that if if we're going to go on to the later
00:37:31 if if we're going to go on to the later registered details the numbers that are there so the 165 number became ew which stood for england and wales eww was england wales and warranty and ewws
00:37:43 england wales and warranty and ewws was in the weightless warranty in scotland yes that's helpful thank you um and then if we go up the email chain if we look at mr brennan's email to you at the top
00:37:55 at mr brennan's email to you at the top of page one sixth of august he says this uh there was an overhead absorption rate done by tushar ages ago your
00:38:06 your you cost per hour to the company is 45 pounds sorry your cost per hour to the company is 45 pounds lorna's is 52 and minus 31.
00:38:15 minus 31. this is based on salaries in march 2013 so mine at least will have changed a bit but gives you an idea and he goes on the one thing with kingspan and companies of that ilk are that they take the same amount of work
00:38:26 that they take the same amount of work during the quotation and assessment periods as everyone else but require little aftercare in comparison to multi-foils plumes guardian etc it'll end up being jobs like this that
00:38:37 it'll end up being jobs like this that cover our loss on the others can you imagine what guardian has cost us if we were to work it out question mark
00:38:46 mark now pausing there it does seem like there's a real financial advantage to labc in relation to this registered details work because it's going to cover
00:38:57 details work because it's going to cover your loss on other projects which are more resource intensive isn't that a fair reading of this email um
00:39:05 um [Music]
00:39:08 [Music] it certainly reads that way the the reality in this is that there were registered details that were taken on
00:39:15 on where there was a lot more in terms of the phrase aftercare it was post registered detail queries that were coming through and everything else and it was that time element of it
00:39:26 it was that time element of it um but i don't know that we necessarily overpriced as it were to cover the costs of other ones because we didn't know we didn't know what they were we were just working out
00:39:37 just working out you know i think the comment there is in in the real world we'd have some sort of floating amount in there that would cover uh eventualities like that
00:39:48 uh eventualities like that yes but can do you accept just on the face of it reading this it does look like mr brennan is concerned about making sure that jobs like this cover your losses on others
00:40:00 your losses on others so financial considerations were in mr brennan's mind at this time well i think it was one of cahaul's roles in terms of the finance side i mean i was i was in fact that the
00:40:12 mean i was i was in fact that the quotation moved moved to him uh almost in its entirety later on it was the initial idea of prices that were were involved
00:40:24 were involved you send a further email on the 6th of august 2014. if we go to this this is labc 308506
00:40:39 and this email is sent to um bob renton is is this right he's a consultant to lab
00:40:46 lab ss that's right right yes and john gilbert is he the managing director for insurance uh no he's he was the uh supposed my equivalent uh labc
00:40:58 uh supposed my equivalent uh labc warranty right so he was the technical standards yeah uh i'm not sure his technical standards manager there was a his direct boss was a gentleman called richard smith
00:41:09 a gentleman called richard smith yes i think he was technical standards manager and john was involved with the the technical uh documents yes yes richard smith crops up in some emails later we'll see and you tell them this
00:41:21 later we'll see and you tell them this hi i recently visited king's family who were looking for seven of their products to undergo registered details and an option to take all 30 products through clearly this is a very big quote and i
00:41:32 clearly this is a very big quote and i have been looking at different ways of discounting commonality through the product ranges i've grouped them under range ed cool them and therma and price the first as a standard quote then
00:41:43 the first as a standard quote then discounted those behind before i put this into a formal quote and copy this to you i wanted to be sure that you'll be okay with the quantities and the rationale if you could let me know i can generate the necessary paperwork
00:41:54 the necessary paperwork this would be the first of the majors to take up their entire range and i'm keen to try to get them to take up option two but not quite sure of their budget it would also need a fair amount of work
00:42:05 it would also need a fair amount of work and whilst i can take on extra research authorities i'm mindful that this would place a time burden on yourselves and their escape to agree a sequence submission rather than a full drop at the start
00:42:15 the start this can be negotiated with kingspan who i suspect are not in a position to submit all at once anyway and then you go on and talk about what's on the attached spreadsheet which you'll come to
00:42:26 come to so first of all we can see you're you're you're clearly saying that there that clearly this is a very big quote yes yes you're implying that financially this is significant yes no it's just it
00:42:38 this is significant yes no it's just it was probably the largest uh quote that uh generated because of the number of products are involved i can't recall the the actual uh the actual quotation i don't know if you
00:42:50 the actual quotation i don't know if you come into that later on i think we are coming to that yes
00:42:55 yes um
00:42:57 um and you say this would be the first of the majors to take up their entire range do you mean major manufacturers like kingspan uh yes it would be
00:43:08 uh yes it would be yes
00:43:10 and why not tell um mr renton and mr gilbert at this time that there had been some significant concerns raised
00:43:21 significant concerns raised about some of the k-15 literature including some of the literature you put out there and that you'd had a a warning about that from
00:43:32 that from um dclg and from nhbc wasn't that information they ought to know about at the same time well this was predominantly in relation to all their thermal products
00:43:44 to all their thermal products it wasn't just k-15 on its own but i think in terms of the the um the the the quota and again i'm sorry i i if you have the information to hand i'm
00:43:55 if you have the information to hand i'm not sure whether k15 is actually included within that uh that that quotation
00:44:00 quotation yes but even if it didn't include k-15 wasn't that important information they ought to be aware of at this time in terms of some of the complaints you'd had
00:44:09 had about what had occurred with kingspan and statements made about its fire performance
00:44:21 in terms of in terms of your question yes but
00:44:25 yes but i'm looking at this email here as being this is predominantly about the thermal products
00:44:31 products k15 would be a separate a separate entity to this
00:44:38 now we we can also see on the 6th of august there's an email chain between you mr batten and mr turner if we can go to labc 302690
00:44:51 now at the very bottom of the page is steve evans email back to brian martin of the 11th of july 2014. the email above that is from mr evans to
00:45:03 the email above that is from mr evans to mr turner and mr basson on the 11th of july
00:45:07 july 2014 and then we see an email from mr bassen to you on the 6th of august at 9 53 copying in mr turner
00:45:20 and
00:45:22 mr bassen says this to you hi david can you look at the email chain below also see the text below this an extract of an email i sent to barry this morning we've just chatted and he tells me he thinks
00:45:34 just chatted and he tells me he thinks you were meeting with kingspan to discuss this have you and if so any comments
00:45:38 comments i'm waiting for steve evans to ring me later today with the outcome of the meeting between nhbc and kingspan on the use of this material in buildings over 18 meters high
00:45:49 18 meters high and then he's got the email he sent to barry earlier that morning which is set out in red and he says hi barry i confess i've not responded to this email from steve he rang me this morning and is meeting
00:46:00 rang me this morning and is meeting kingspan at 10 o'clock today to discuss how they're going to prove the material is acceptable across a range of construction types he thinks they are not going to be able
00:46:11 he thinks they are not going to be able to do this and so is thinking what will be the next steps exclamation mark as i understand we have a registered details for this that expires soon but of course there may be many buildings
00:46:23 of course there may be many buildings built other than in accordance with the very restrictive requirement of of on a masonry base we'll ring you in a minute to have a chat doug now just pausing there you said earlier
00:46:34 now just pausing there you said earlier that you're taking some comfort from mr evan saying in his original email that there wasn't reason to think that buildings were at risk but you're being told there
00:46:46 there that um mr evans thinks that they're not going to be able to prove that k-15 is acceptable across a range of construction types
00:46:57 a range of construction types so
00:46:57 so you're being warned aren't you again that there are problems about the ongoing certification of k-15 yes
00:47:11 did you discuss this ever with kingspan
00:47:16 did you go back to kingspan and um say well i understand that you're not going to be able to prove it's acceptable across a range of construction types we need to talk again
00:47:28 um i i think there is an email in the system somewhere because i recall a response from
00:47:37 from dan ball
00:47:38 dan ball um
00:47:42 relating to a complaint which he'd assume was from an hbc but i'm not sure about timelines within them i'm sorry well let's go to the top of the email chain we'll keep going with the emails that we can see
00:47:54 going with the emails that we can see if we go to the top of the email chain we see an email from you on the 6th of august to mr basson copying in mr turner and you say hi both sorry for the late
00:48:05 and you say hi both sorry for the late reply i've been over in birmingham today at my meeting with kingspan on 25th of july i was advised that testing to bs 8414 had been undertaken in line with the requirements of br135
00:48:16 the requirements of br135 for materials of limited combustibility and shown to be satisfactory with fire barriers at 3.5 metre centers we have not been given this test data as yet as they have not received the final
00:48:28 yet as they have not received the final report so i'm not sure if this is global or for individual specifications as such the renewal has not been started as yet and the registered details remains invalid
00:48:39 registered details remains invalid i am however in the process of providing a dual quote to them one for seven products and one for all 30 of their product range so i'm keen to get them on board particularly as we could also get
00:48:50 board particularly as we could also get them involved with the constructive details and named products with the registered details behind the details
00:48:57 details and then you say the new bba advises under 8.3 that if the specification is detailed as 8.2 then it can be used over 18 meters in height this is also one of the specifications
00:49:08 this is also one of the specifications given in the old 7.5 the old 7.1 wording is the same as the new 8.1 so the definition has not changed its category as low risk and class naught all that's really changed
00:49:19 class naught all that's really changed is the removal of the second specification in the old 8.5 in reality the new bba actually gives sanction to one specification whereas 7.2 only ever recommended seeking advice
00:49:30 7.2 only ever recommended seeking advice from the certificate holder over 18 meters
00:49:33 meters hopefully the new testing regime will solve or resolve all concerns please let me know if you receive anything else from steve evans i know we have recently assessed a new celetex product to compete with k15 and wonder if nhbc are
00:49:46 compete with k15 and wonder if nhbc are being pressed for a decision now if we just take that email in in stages
00:49:53 stages you say in the first um well the second paragraph down that you'd been advised by kingspan that testing to 8414 had been undertaken in line with the requirements of br135
00:50:05 line with the requirements of br135 full materials of limited combustibility now can you help us um how does bs8414 and br135 have any relevance at all to whether a product is
00:50:16 relevance at all to whether a product is of limited combustibility it should really have said in lieu of materials of the
00:50:21 the materials of limited common stability
00:50:25 and it in it's just not written properly did you understand at the time that
00:50:34 that br135 and 8414 testing brought no relation to whether a material was of limited combustibility yes i've just not expressed it in that
00:50:45 i've just not expressed it in that sentence
00:50:46 sentence i have pointed out in the last but one paragraph there about the removal of the
00:50:52 certificate holder advice over 18 meters has been the significant change in the agremont certificate but and
00:51:00 but and from my perspective there i was [Music]
00:51:03 [Music] i felt reassured from the meeting with kingspan that they were going to provide additional uh classification reports and tests to sanction a wider range of building system or external wall systems
00:51:16 building system or external wall systems that would sit under the registered detail yes i mean you do seem quite confused in this email if we take the next part in that same paragraph you say we've not been given this test
00:51:27 you say we've not been given this test data yet as they've not received the final report so i am not sure if this is global
00:51:33 global or for individual specifications how did you think
00:51:37 you think that testing to bs8414 and br135 could give some kind of global approval for the product um
00:51:48 all i can think of in that was mr meredith's drive for a global wall system that was there but again it doesn't it doesn't meet correctly and it should just say for individual specific
00:52:01 should just say for individual specific specifications is it possible that at this time you were confused i think in terms of in terms of that
00:52:12 in terms of my knowledge level i was having to up
00:52:17 up quickly here i think it if we're going to talk around celetex
00:52:23 celetex later
00:52:24 later [Music]
00:52:27 [Music] i took the advice of my peers in passing on information that related to that materials limited conversability the email that was there i didn't understand it
00:52:35 it i didn't question it which is wrong of me when i sent that out but i knew that i had to
00:52:41 i had to uh
00:52:42 uh i had to find out what how the intricacies of the br135 classification report actually worked and i think in to july and august that
00:52:53 and i think in to july and august that was the time when my knowledge was starting to increase i hadn't i don't think i was aware of the specific ramifications of changes such as a cavity width
00:53:04 cavity width from 40 millimeters to 60 millimeters or an insulation product from 65 to 75 mil in relation to that uh so i didn't i didn't realize that significance
00:53:15 didn't realize that significance that came later on that came on during august september october november in that five month period can we agree that it looks from this email like you are still confused about the difference between large-scale
00:53:27 the difference between large-scale testing
00:53:28 testing and testing to confirm limited combustibility and you are still confused about whether that large-scale testing
00:53:34 testing gives any kind of system specific approval or global approval the way that i've worded that that's what it that's what it appears like i think
00:53:43 i think i mean i'm i'm reading that and i'm i'm annoyed with myself in that in that i know it should have said in in lieu of materials of combustibility so it's the linear
00:53:54 of combustibility so it's the linear route that was there but i've not expressed that and i have to say that that shows confusion from my side of it in in sending that email out i would have been i should have been more professional in
00:54:05 i should have been more professional in the wording that was using did it occur to you at the time that you might need some help with making sure you understood all of this properly um i was
00:54:14 um i was talking to my colleagues at labc in terms of barry turner and doug bason
00:54:21 bason [Music]
00:54:22 [Music] um mr turner when you got this email when he received this email we can see he's copied in come back to you and say david i think you've got a number of things wrong here you're obviously not
00:54:33 things wrong here you're obviously not understanding this probably did did he say that to you no not that i'm aware of and you've just said you were discussing it with mr turner so were you having verbal discussions i suppose by by
00:54:44 verbal discussions i suppose by by discussion i'm i'm sending my uh wording and my suggestions for how we can improve the registered detail through almost as uh looking for confirmation that i was doing the the
00:54:55 confirmation that i was doing the the right thing that i was correct in the in the approach i was taking yes and and nobody corrected you and said you're not correct about some of what you've said in this
00:55:06 some of what you've said in this email is that right no but you would have expected mr turner sorry let me finish would you have expected mr turner to have corrected you if you if if you'd appreciated you've
00:55:17 if you if if you'd appreciated you've got it wrong i would have hoped that they would have come back to me yes yes thank you
00:55:23 what do you mean by the phrase you say a few lines from the bottom hopefully the new testing regime will resolve all concerns
00:55:30 concerns what did you mean by that i think within that it was the the fact that we would have a library of classification reports now i know that there are a thousand and
00:55:41 now i know that there are a thousand and one different ways of constructing an external wall system but this was the starting block and certainly by march of 2015 we had i think there was six additional
00:55:53 additional classification reports sitting as an appendix to the registered detail so the tests were coming through and we intend to add to those as as they were sent through to us and again
00:56:04 sent through to us and again you know this was i thought was with the the willing um assistance of kingspan yes you also say three lines from the bottom
00:56:15 you also say three lines from the bottom please let me know if you receive anything else from steve evans i know we've recently assessed a new celetex product to compete with k-15 and wonder if nhbc are being pressed for a decision who did you think nhbc might be being
00:56:27 who did you think nhbc might be being pressed for a decision by uh
00:56:31 uh i'm assuming celatex were approaching um an hbc for the same uh well for the rs 5000 and wants to know that their product was going to be acceptable on buildings in the same way
00:56:42 acceptable on buildings in the same way that kingsburn k15 had been permitted previously yes
00:56:48 and we can see you also said in this email that you were keen to get kingspan on board
00:56:54 on board um can you explain was that for the same reasons you've explained already simply a kudos point or a financial point or both it was acute us
00:57:08 now moving forward on the 8th of august 2014 if we go to labc 305598
00:57:21 you send an email to mr brennan
00:57:25 and you say this you say morning completed sorry if we zoom in on the top of it morning completed updates attached for inclusion the celetex registered detail is still missing the final b
00:57:36 detail is still missing the final b reports from bre evidencing that it complies with the fire testing for use over 18 meters we'll come back to that later and then you say this is an important document as we are under scrutiny from
00:57:47 document as we are under scrutiny from nhbc regarding kingspan k15 which is an equivalent product we need to hold celetex certificates back until this has been received i think tim is back on monday so he
00:57:58 i think tim is back on monday so he might have received them separately to ours despite his email to celetex before he went on holiday now
00:58:06 now i'll come back to some more detailed questions about celetex later today but for now just looking at this email why do you appear to be taking a different approach to seller texas certificates in terms of waiting for the
00:58:18 certificates in terms of waiting for the final reports before it complies why not hold back the revised k-15 certificate as well given the concerns which have been raised about k-15 and its certification
00:58:31 raised about k-15 and its certification um i think that was purely in that celetex was a new registered detail application whereas the k15 had already been
00:58:40 been been approved since 2009. but why were they in any different position neither of them have provided you with the test evidence that you need for the most recent certificates why
00:58:52 for the most recent certificates why does the fact that there might have been a previous in fact erroneous certificate for k-15 make any difference to that
00:59:00 um
00:59:06 i think it was purely the the bre classification report for celetex was the final part of the uh the document submission for
00:59:17 uh the document submission for obtaining approval on the registered detail
00:59:20 detail the
00:59:21 the existing
00:59:24 existing k-15 detail they were working towards providing us with additional reports it was already in existence so i it was that was the the rationale behind
00:59:35 the rationale behind the extension through to the october november time when that lapsed but the difficulty is it was in existence for one specific construction and one specific construction only something
00:59:47 specific construction only something which
00:59:48 which you seem to be having some awareness of based on the last email we just looked at
00:59:53 at but you're nevertheless certifying it with steel framed supports etc so they're not fundamentally in any different position to celetex are they they haven't got the test evidence to
01:00:04 they haven't got the test evidence to back up the statements they want to make about the product that was the reality wasn't it
01:00:10 wasn't it um
01:00:11 um in terms of a simple analogy yes it was and was the difference that kingspan were wanting you to um
01:00:20 um get potentially all of its products through the registered details process so you didn't want to upset them so you carried on with the with the extension
01:00:31 the financial side of it
01:00:35 has never figured in anything that i've done it wasn't the kudos side of that
01:00:44 i don't know i mean hand on heart i didn't think it i didn't think it it was i would stand here and say that's never been an issue for me in terms of in terms of what's there but
01:00:56 in terms of what's there but i i
01:00:59 i genuinely don't know in terms of what goes on in the back of your head whether that's that's something that played in it i certainly they certainly didn't get that because we were being so we had a carrot download in front of
01:01:10 so we had a carrot download in front of us for extra work that wasn't that's never been the case but is it possible that that's why you were prepared to give kingspan more leeway
01:01:19 leeway in the absence of test evidence than anywhere with celetex sorry i was talking over here if anything it was the relationship that i had with dan ball which was a lot more positive sorry from
01:01:30 which was a lot more positive sorry from kingspan than it was with uh john roper from celetex right
01:01:38 on the 13th of august 2014 we can see an email to dan ball that you send this is labc40967
01:01:47 this is on page two of this document at 12 53
01:01:53 12 53 and you say hi dan um and it's about k l abc low lambda k 15. hi dan no i hadn't included it as part of the quotation the quote is now ready and i've been harassing warranty from a confirmation
01:02:05 harassing warranty from a confirmation response so i can get it out to you as with the other products the intention was to verify these with both the current and low lambda easiest way to do this with the renewal for k-15 i will get a revised quote out
01:02:17 for k-15 i will get a revised quote out to cover this but it won't be much we can do the renewal for k-15 first to get it back onto our system as soon as you have received the fire test reports from bre
01:02:28 bre i assume that the nhbc were also happy with the testing undertaken dave jones at herefordshire can make a start as soon as you're ready to go i assume you will have seen the recent
01:02:39 i assume you will have seen the recent celetex product launch of rs 5000 intended to compete with k-15 i'm sorry that i've not been in a position to advise that that registered detail status has been sought our certification
01:02:50 status has been sought our certification for this will be appearing on our website soon for the criteria it has been tested against
01:02:59 so um just to be clear at this point you you do seem to be expecting fire test reports from the ba bre from kingspan that's right yes yes
01:03:11 bre from kingspan that's right yes yes and do you know exactly what those fire test reports were that you were expecting um i think it was confirmation of testing on both a masonry to part one and
01:03:21 and still
01:03:22 still structure to part two right but a number of tests i think there was there was more than more than one coming through and then we can see an email from you to
01:03:34 and then we can see an email from you to mr brennan dated the 13th of august 2014 confirming that the kingspan quote is ready to go this is a labc308513
01:03:46 so you say this is the kingspan quote ready to go as soon as we get the nod from richard smith at his meeting with john tomorrow we'll let you know if you don't get copied in can you just check for mistakes and save to pdf and um
01:03:59 for mistakes and save to pdf and um richard smith you referred to him earlier he was part of labc warranty is that right that's right yes and what role did he have i think it was technical sales manager but
01:04:12 technical sales manager but i'm not 100 on that and then on the 14th of august if we go to labc 302694
01:04:22 we can see you have sent a letter to kingspan in closing a quotation for undertaking the labc registered details certification process for
01:04:32 for you send two quotes one for seven skinspam products and then a second quote for the whole of the kingspan range of 30 products [Music]
01:04:42 [Music] and you say that in the in the first paragraph there and then page two we see the two quotes so the top one
01:04:53 so the top one is for seven products and then the bottom one is for
01:05:02 is for all of their 30 products do you see that yes
01:05:06 yes and the total amount quoted in the second quote is over 30 000 pounds we make we make that does that sound about right yes and it looks like you've carved k-15 out
01:05:18 and it looks like you've carved k-15 out at this point because you're going to deal with that separately is that is that right yes i said it was just pure this was the thermal product
01:05:27 and then you continue to exchange emails with kingspan in august 2014 and i want to pick those up again on the 20th of august if we go to labc 302700
01:05:40 we look at the second email down on page one
01:05:44 one on the 20th of august 2014 at 10 15 you say hi dan sorry i'd been out to the office yesterday and i'm currently in london hoped to get the renewal out to you yesterday but had not factored it was a
01:05:55 yesterday but had not factored it was a whole office meeting yesterday rather than management team so the staff we would have sent out the renewal with were with me at the meeting can you advise when you're likely to receive the new test data even if it is in a draft format
01:06:09 even if it is in a draft format unfortunately i will need to add in the reassessment cost for k-15 for the new fire test reports and existing and low lambda thermal properties to clarify both the existing and low lambda
01:06:20 both the existing and low lambda products have been accounted for on the other quotations as well hope this makes sense
01:06:26 sense and then dan ball responds at the top of the page he says this thanks david so we have quotes for new certs with reference to lower lambda cool firm etcetera but the renewal invoice we were sent for
01:06:38 the renewal invoice we were sent for k-15 is no longer valid if you can send a new invoice for k-15 as soon as possible although if you need the test data before this can be done then we will have to wait we don't know if
01:06:49 we will have to wait we don't know if the honest answer we are still hoping with in the next couple of weeks david if we need to wait until that is in for the new invoice to be produced then that's fine just let me know
01:07:01 that's fine just let me know we just didn't want anything to lapse in the meantime what the kingspan being due for renewal many thanks dan ball
01:07:12 so he's made it clear in the middle of that paragraph he's saying if you need the test data before this can be done then we'll have to wait
01:07:22 to wait then he says we don't know if the honest answer we are still hoping with in the next couple of weeks so it looks like he's
01:07:29 he's unclear when he'll be able to get any further test evidence to you that's right isn't it yes
01:07:38 and then on the 21st of august 2014 mr brennan sends an email to mr bourne ball this is at labc302701
01:07:52 he says good afternoon dan further to your correspondence with david ewing i can confirm that the cost for the annual annual renewing and reassessment of kingspan to cover the additional fire testing and lower land or thermal properties will be 1200 plus fat if you
01:08:04 properties will be 1200 plus fat if you wish to proceed please let me know arrange for another invoice to be issued i've attached the revised certificates noting a new expiry date for your current registration of the 31st of october 2014.
01:08:16 31st of october 2014. this is this should allow us all enough time to get the renewal and reassessment sorted
01:08:21 sorted now who was it who actually made the decision to renew the registration until the 31st of october 2014. to to extend it to october who made that
01:08:32 to to extend it to october who made that decision
01:08:34 i assume it was me but i can't recall ever saying that within within emails but i would have to take responsibility for that and no test evidence supporting the use
01:08:46 and no test evidence supporting the use of k-15 over 18 meters instructors other than masonry ones had been provided to the labc when that renewal took place and i think that was purely in the fact
01:08:57 and i think that was purely in the fact again we've been promised that these classification reports were coming it was almost to to run the rd so that it ran seamlessly through and we thought it would be in by 31st of october
01:09:09 it would be in by 31st of october which i don't believe they still because the the
01:09:12 the the certificate was invalid through to the following march i believe from the end of november from the correspondence we've seen would it be fair to say that the labc did treat kingspan preferentially at this
01:09:23 treat kingspan preferentially at this time
01:09:25 from the evidence you're showing it certainly looks like that and i think that was purely down to i say to relationships i like dan ball he was he was a
01:09:36 was a an affable uh fellow now let's look at some correspondence after that registered details certificate was renewed and extended in august 2014. if we go to labc 302702
01:09:54 and i want to go to page 3 in the middle of the page
01:10:01 mr ball says this to mr brennan copying you in thank you very much for extending the date that's great once we have the test data through i will send it all over but i've noticed an error in the
01:10:13 over but i've noticed an error in the attached it states that k15 can be used over 18 meters in height if there's a non-combustible substrate this is no longer the case the new test data that we are waiting on was done with a class naught
01:10:24 was done with a class naught cp board as the substrate and therefore it no longer has to be non-combustible substrate
01:10:30 substrate this is the main achievement that we're keen to communicate
01:10:35 and then on receipt of this email mr brennan emails you at the top of page three on the 21st of august at 16 28
01:10:45 at 16 28 and mr brennan says to you am i missing something or do they want us to back up their new test report before we see it
01:10:54 and then you respond on page two on the same day at 16 58 just a few minutes later and you say this yep you've got it
01:11:05 and you say this yep you've got it they are on a bit of a sticky wicket because the bba was revised i think to reflect nhbc concerns that there was only a 25 millimeter cavity between board and rain screen
01:11:17 board and rain screen celatex is 50 millimeters and i think this is the testing king spanner having done at the moment seems to be fine for retrofit to the usual brick outside leaf but not for new
01:11:28 usual brick outside leaf but not for new build with differing materials behind it this has not been accepted on some sites despite being the only product on the market at the time with any sort of testing
01:11:38 testing to it for that situation
01:11:43 now on what basis had you understood that the reason for the revision to the bba certificate was to reflect concerns by the nhbc that there was only a 25 millimeter cavity between board and rain screen
01:12:00 um i don't quite understand that sentence if i'm truthful
01:12:05 truthful no it doesn't make any sense does it given what we knew the nhbc's concerns were about a lack of test evidence to support anything other than one specific configuration
01:12:16 configuration i think is it possible to see the the text below if there's mention of the 25 millimeter cavity board sorry cavity between the board and the green screen let's look at the email below this
01:12:35 so an email below
01:12:40 [Music] i certainly wasn't trying to infer that the bba was revised because of nhbc
01:12:53 the bba was revised because of nhbc concerns
01:12:57 well i tell you what we'll come back to that we'll have a look whether there's any other context to that cavity point but
01:13:04 but it's puzzling because the the nhbc concerns were not limited to that were they no and the reason the bba certificate was
01:13:15 and the reason the bba certificate was revised or the revisions to the bba certificate were not just to reflect a difference in terms of the size of the cavity were they no
01:13:23 no no there was an additional uh eight four one four part two test included on the new aggregate certificate on the 2013 agronomist certificate so i don't know
01:13:34 agronomist certificate so i don't know whether that relates to the capital uh dimension on there right it's about it being a fundamentally different test with a steel frame system rather than a masonry system not about the difference between
01:13:45 system not about the difference between the cavity widths and if we go up the page mr brennan asks if he should respond to this email top on the top of page two and then at
01:13:56 top on the top of page two and then at the bottom of page one 17 19 on the 21st of august you say this will you send me what you've sent you sent him i assume it's
01:14:07 you've sent you sent him i assume it's the limitations he's querying in reality we can't issue certification on something we haven't verified and this one is iffy until they can produce the test data
01:14:18 produce the test data i can hear nhbc whinging now if we extend the current certificate i will respond to him separately and copy you in that way you can spend some time at the window
01:14:30 time at the window do you see that there yes now can you just explain why did you say it's iffy until they can produce the test data
01:14:37 test data it was purely the lack of lack of information they could or well they couldn't justify that without the classification report being provided for it yes and you say i can hear nhbc whinging now
01:14:49 and you say i can hear nhbc whinging now if we extend the current certificate but we know that you did extend the certificate on the 21st of august 2014. yes on this same day
01:15:01 so you clearly knew at the time that that might provoke consternation on the part of the nhbc yes um well it was it was not so much direct
01:15:11 direct um
01:15:13 um communication between hbc and labc it was through the building control alliance
01:15:18 alliance uh in terms of the guidance that was there and i was trying to to to work to that and certainly we knew that they were updating the original bilateral guidance now 18 at that time
01:15:30 bilateral guidance now 18 at that time as well and i think [Music]
01:15:33 [Music] you know again that sentences is something that i i wish i hadn't written it was internal um it was only ever intended for a discussion between myself and cajole
01:15:47 a discussion between myself and cajole but but it but it accurately reflects what was going on doesn't it because nhbc were concerned at this time they've told you that and whether those concerns were coming through the bca and mr
01:15:58 were coming through the bca and mr turner via nhbc or direct from nhbc direct
01:16:02 direct you you've clearly issued this certificate in the face of nhbc concerns about whether you should do so yes
01:16:20 why not adopt a more cautious approach at the time why not consider the the safety ramifications of extending the certificate without the test evidence for buildings over 18
01:16:31 test evidence for buildings over 18 meters did that even come into your mind at this point in in hindsight i i i i clearly wish i had i was i was trying
01:16:42 i clearly wish i had i was i was trying to
01:16:43 to again come back to the statement of trying to be fair to kingspan to give them an opportunity to um
01:16:51 um to prove it themselves because i i was genuinely believing that a company like that would be able to demonstrate compliance without in all i don't know i
01:17:02 don't know i how that they would um
01:17:05 um would sanction use of their product in a situation that it wasn't suitable for and by that basis i've inadvertently done the same thing but isn't that the whole purpose of your
01:17:16 but isn't that the whole purpose of your role is to give advice to local authority building controls up and down the country as to whether you can accept it that you're the gatekeeper aren't you yes
01:17:27 yes can you explain why we see so little and we'll come to more emails and we still see so little as we go through discussing any public safety
01:17:38 discussing any public safety ramifications of taking this course
01:17:44 uh i can't explain it though other than you know
01:17:48 you know we're focused entirely on on on fire safety here and and say in hindsight this is clearly the more important aspect than resolving registered
01:18:00 aspect than resolving registered construction details which was everything that was consumed my day job at that particular time together with author registered detail work
01:18:10 if i would turn the clock back then yes it would have been completely different yes
01:18:14 yes thank you mr chairman i think that might be a good point for the morning break yes before we break just help me with this are you uh
01:18:22 uh intending to ask mr ewing any more about the particular circumstances that led him to issue the extension certificate uh i think we're moving on now to what happened shortly
01:18:34 moving on now to what happened shortly after that so and you say the the extension certificate was listed on the 21st of august yes well then i'll ask a question if i may mr ewing
01:18:43 mr ewing i'm a little uncertain where this email leaves us because it's centered in 1719 quite late on the afternoon on the 21st of august
01:18:55 21st of august but this time the certificate appears not to have been issued because you
01:19:03 not only refer to it being iffy that you say you can hear nhbc whinging now if we extend the current certificate now we've been told that
01:19:14 now we've been told that in fact the current certificate was extended
01:19:18 extended that day or at least dated that day what caused you to change your mind and decide you could and indeed should issue extent an extension to the certificate
01:19:30 extent an extension to the certificate i i can't
01:19:32 i i can't i can't recall unless there's additional uh threads within the email i don't know whether it was back dated to the 21st if that was a date that we promised and we actually
01:19:43 promised and we actually got to the bottom of it i don't know whether it's a friday but i can't
01:19:47 can't i i just can't recall i'm sorry well i can see the date might have been might have been backdated but there's obviously been a change of mind hasn't there
01:19:56 there yes and you can't recall how that came about i i can't
01:20:02 i i can't i'm sorry all right thank you very much and just to be clear what we have is an email
01:20:07 email if we could just perhaps pull it up labc301841 i took you to it earlier at the beginning this morning there's an email from mr brennan
01:20:18 there's an email from mr brennan 1523 to mr ball copying you in i can confirm that the cost is this i have attached revised certificates noting a new expiry date for your current registration of the 31st of
01:20:29 current registration of the 31st of october 2014. and then the certificate is at labc 301843
01:20:36 301843 we bring that up
01:20:43 we can see it's got the date of the 21st of august 2014. well that's if i may say so even more puzzling because that email we just looked at was coffee to you mr ewing yes
01:20:55 coffee to you mr ewing yes and it was sent a couple of hours before the email which prompted my question yes [Music]
01:21:03 [Music] i
01:21:04 i just don't understand really why you were
01:21:07 were saying at 20 past five that you couldn't issue a new certificate or an extension certificate without
01:21:14 without seeing some material when you've been told two hours earlier that had already been issued can you shed any light on that i'm sorry i can't i'm not saying i'm i'm looking at that i'm i'm
01:21:26 as confused as you are uh
01:21:29 uh i i can't i can't offer anything right thank you very much well we'll we'll have a break now anyway we'll come back please at 20 to 12
01:21:40 back please at 20 to 12 and as before just to remind you please don't talk talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to this over the break thank you very much
01:21:58 thank you very much 2012 please
01:40:22 would you ask mr ewing to come back in please okay
01:40:36 i do sit down mr you and yes don't wait to be invited
01:40:45 all right ready to carry on yes yes thank you very much yes mr speaker yes thank you yes if we can move forward then in time with some more emails if we go to labc 302703
01:40:57 and we look at the third email down in the middle of page one
01:41:03 there is an email on the 22nd of august now a day later at 9 15
01:41:11 at 9 15 from mr bassen to you and mr turner and he says speaking of kingspan despite me chasing steve evans for an outcome from the supposed crisis meeting with kingspan on their materials in buildings over 80
01:41:22 on their materials in buildings over 80 meters high i haven't heard a thing exclamation mark then one a email up you respond on the 22nd of august you say this you say
01:41:34 you say this you say i was talking to a celetex rep yesterday and mentioned the new rs 5000 registered detail
01:41:40 detail he immediately came back with the same question on k-15 he mentioned something i hadn't noticed and that the cavity created for k-15 and on the bba is only 25 millimeter between rain screen and insulation board whereas the rs 5000 is
01:41:53 insulation board whereas the rs 5000 is 40 millimeter so you appear to have got that from a celatex rep is that right that bit there yes
01:42:02 yes and then you say the bba spec appears to be largely for retrospective fitting onto a non-combustible substrate rather than for new build apparently this is where k-15 has been identified up in manchester on new build
01:42:15 identified up in manchester on new build which i assume is being warranted by nhbc
01:42:18 nhbc the smaller cavity would also be more beneficial in a fire test and then you say i received this yesterday in response to the current limitations on our registered details and that was the you then set out the
01:42:30 and that was the you then set out the text of the email we read earlier which was from dan ball asking for um potential changes to be made once you get the new test data that he's waiting on
01:42:41 on and you say this this is what the way to test
01:42:44 test testing is to intended to verify but we can't do this until we see the reports
01:42:51 then um mr baton's response is at the top of the page that same day 9 49 and he says wasn't this from a meeting in july you
01:43:02 wasn't this from a meeting in july you attended with kingspan i'm surprised given the potential implications of this that we're having to wait so long for the test results are we labc exposing ourselves here in any
01:43:13 we labc exposing ourselves here in any way by knowing there may be a problem and waiting for them rather than a general warning or threat of one to our members
01:43:24 or threat of one to our members now um
01:43:25 now um what did you understand mr bassen to mean there when he said are we labc exposing ourselves here in any way and knowing there may be a problem and waiting for them rather than a general warning or threat of one to our members
01:43:36 warning or threat of one to our members what did you take that to mean it was in relation to the information that was contained on the registered detail
01:43:45 and did you understand him to be raising concerns about whether for public safety reasons a general warning ought to go out to labc members um
01:43:57 um i think it was the the i think it was the fact that there was clearly a problem with the kingspan product that we
01:44:07 that we i suppose nhbc suspected was
01:44:11 was incorrect in terms of its
01:44:15 installation above 18 meters and
01:44:20 and clearly should we be doing something uh for our membership in relation to to that that that information yes and did you understand that to be because of public safety potential public safety ramifications of not warning members
01:44:33 ramifications of not warning members that about this problem um
01:44:37 i i certainly took that as being a an indicator that i had to get the registered detail right when the information came through but also i recognized that
01:44:49 but also i recognized that yes there was a potential risk there and when you say yes there was a potential risk there what was the risk that you actually recognized i suppose there was there was there's several sides to this in terms of the
01:45:01 several sides to this in terms of the process and then
01:45:04 sorry because i think you asked me the same question on thursday uh and that's been playing at the back of my mind in that from the nhbc center communications
01:45:15 that from the nhbc center communications with steve evans there is a mr evans has two hats on there one is from perspective of an hbc warranty and the other is from an hbc building control
01:45:25 control yeah looking at from from that side from from our side we're looking at it from the building control element of it and our business partners labc warranty in terms of the risk assessment side
01:45:37 in terms of the risk assessment side in terms of buildings that they have potentially been seen and signing off there was a there's a warranty implication there as well [Music]
01:45:46 [Music] i see so are you saying that when you read mr bassen's email you didn't understand him to be raising concerns about the risks to life that there could be in in um
01:45:59 that there could be in in um issuing certificates for a product and its use over 18 meters when it didn't have the far test evidence to support it but instead to be raising what insurance risks no i i think i mean genuinely i
01:46:11 risks no i i think i mean genuinely i think from from doug's perspective i think it was probably both it was it was that side of is is there enough an inaccuracy there and is there an implication uh in terms
01:46:22 and is there an implication uh in terms of
01:46:23 of uh the
01:46:24 uh the the structures have been built that would be under labc warranty schemes and did you understand it to him to be raising both risks at this time i think i focused on the registered
01:46:36 i think i focused on the registered detail side and ensuring that the registered detail was going to be correct and i was working trying to or trying to work towards that albeit we're being
01:46:44 being uh staggered in relation to the delays on the test with the classification reports coming through right
01:46:52 right you say i focused on the registered detail side what just the mechanics of getting another certificate up and running i think i think to ensure that the accuracy of that registered detail that actually reflected what was
01:47:04 detail that actually reflected what was permissible in terms of what they could do based upon tests that have been undertaken in fact what was the answer to the question posed mr bassen did somebody answer it at the time
01:47:16 answer it at the time um
01:47:18 um i'm not sure if i'm honest with you and again
01:47:20 again that's not trying to be uh
01:47:26 evasive from my side that's purely the doug and
01:47:30 doug and i'm sorry doug bass and barry turner were involved with bca and in terms of the information route that is where i would expect all the information to go out through membership is is is in that
01:47:41 out through membership is is is in that through the technical uh working groups so you expected mr batson and mr turner to take responsibility for this point in so far as there was
01:47:53 so far as there was um
01:47:54 um safety information that needed to go to members yes i was hoping that was the case yes that's their involvement within bca which is the building control alliance and if that comes to as a
01:48:05 and if that comes to as a a series of recommendations as indeed the guidance note was issued that it was it was checked through our technical working group in terms of accuracy
01:48:14 accuracy my registered details sat aside or sat alongside that or stride it i suppose uh but the the communications would go out through through the technical team you
01:48:26 through through the technical team you see the problem is mr turner's told us the opposite of that that he wasn't really involved he was only being copied in for information and that it was you in charge of the registered details team that that he thought would be
01:48:38 that that he thought would be considering any potential ramifications of this that was a matter for you do you accept that um
01:48:50 [Music] i don't know if i do if i'm being truthful you know this was a collective team operation here there was a specific technical query in relation to
01:49:02 technical query in relation to the construction of buildings as well as the accuracy and the the ongoing uh registration of kingspan k15 and i
01:49:14 and i i
01:49:15 i i suppose from my side i
01:49:19 was hoping i can't say assumed but i was hoping that that's that end of it would be addressed as a collective through through the technical side of it do you actually remember having a discussion
01:49:30 actually remember having a discussion with mr turner or mr basson around this time in relation to mr bassin's question
01:49:37 question um
01:49:38 um certainly i think we had a discussion later in the year when we were all together again one of the problems as a remote worker is that we don't get
01:49:49 as a remote worker is that we don't get to see one another very often everything is electronic um
01:49:54 um and certainly that that discussion was occurred in i think it might have been december of this year okay but that was as i was developing the registered detail side well we'll come we'll come on to some
01:50:06 well we'll come we'll come on to some later events and were you and mr turner not based in the same building no we had a we have a head office uh and
01:50:15 uh and occasionally we would meet one of the password cross at the office every other event was either at um i suppose uh if there were seminars or conferences that were undertaken
01:50:27 or conferences that were undertaken or it was it was it was electronic so day to day you were based in entirely different locations yeah i work from home right now um if we go to um on in and into um
01:50:40 now um if we go to um on in and into um september what we see in the emails is you exchanged some further emails with mr ball of kingspan in late august and in september and then if i pick up the chain again at labc labc302717
01:50:54 on the 12th of september you email mr ball about the registered details certificate
01:51:05 and so i think that might be further down the page
01:51:13 just go down the page through an email from you to mr ball
01:51:22 to page
01:51:32 yes sorry it is that email um
01:51:36 um so it's the 12th of september and it's the last paragraph you can see you say this with respect to k15
01:51:44 k15 if you are comfortable providing a copy we can formalize the renewal if i'm honest we are receiving some grief regarding the registered detail and the earlier we can see the report
01:51:55 and the earlier we can see the report the sooner we can formalize the certificate the document would not be made public until you're happy with its content hope this is of use have a good weekend so we're in the middle of september now you haven't received the test evidence
01:52:08 you haven't received the test evidence and you say you're receiving some grief regarding the registered detail who is giving you grief about the registered detail at this time i think it was just genuinely
01:52:19 i think it was just genuinely the continuing discussions around
01:52:24 nhbc's frustration i suppose in trying to get somewhere with kingspan it was um the
01:52:31 the um
01:52:33 um um
01:52:35 um i suppose that [Music]
01:52:39 [Music] so i've lost i've lost the the timelines in here i wasn't sure what the date was of the uh
01:52:45 of the uh um
01:52:46 um this is september isn't it yeah so there was we've extended this year so there was a celetex rep that made comments around
01:52:54 around the difference in testing and whether the um the thickness of the cavity made any difference in terms of performance we'd obviously had clive everett's email through in the july
01:53:05 through in the july so it was
01:53:07 so it was really
01:53:08 really trying to get them to come up with something that we could move forward with with them
01:53:14 and then but you but the certificate stayed in place didn't it you didn't pull the certificate you didn't suspend it no because we'd extended it for that uh three month period through to the end of october yeah
01:53:26 of october yeah and if we now go to labc 302718 and look at the top of page two
01:53:36 there's an email from mr bassen to you and mr brennan and he says hi both i attended a bca tech panel on monday where i was asked as to the status of our registered details on this product
01:53:48 our registered details on this product [Music]
01:53:49 [Music] and
01:53:50 and he goes on steve evans chair of group thought it was due to expire at the end of august there are uncertainties over the suitability of this material to be used as an external cladding over 18
01:54:01 used as an external cladding over 18 meters above gl that's been ground level yes yes
01:54:05 yes yes and so any extension of our registered details may cause difficulties for us exclamation mark cheers doug dodd bassen
01:54:16 exclamation mark cheers doug dodd bassen and then you respond at the bottom of page one
01:54:21 you say this 12th of september 2014 hi doug i've been advised today by kingspan that they have the bre report on the additional fire testing it has grammatical errors in it so have
01:54:33 grammatical errors in it so have returned it asking for corrections so i'm hopeful we will have this by the end of next week at the latest do you see that yes
01:54:40 that yes and then doug bassen replies one email up
01:54:44 up at 15 35
01:54:46 at 15 35 saying just a short email so are we okay for the registered detail details bit as steve evans had a similar message but still hasn't seen anything exclamation mark
01:54:57 mark and then you respond above that you say hi doug i've been advised that it is the class two testing that covers new construction and is the most critical the class one testing that
01:55:09 most critical the class one testing that was previously mentioned on the bba is the one for a non-combustible substrate although i was talking to someone yesterday who felt this was more stringent as it insulated the void if we can keep steve at bay for a few
01:55:21 if we can keep steve at bay for a few more days i'm hopeful we will have everything in place to close the matter hopefully it might even be available before the president's reception if not i'll have to hide in the bogs
01:55:33 i'll have to hide in the bogs now
01:55:34 now why did you need to keep steve evans at bay for a few more days rather than ascertaining the appropriate approach to certification of k15 and correcting any previous errors
01:55:46 any previous errors i think it was more so we could go back with a uh the the next the next phase so here's another system that's had testing and a classification report carried out
01:55:57 carried out and what's that was never intended to be a cover all it was it was the next step forward in terms of getting additional information through why didn't you suspend the registration until it you'd receive the technical
01:56:09 until it you'd receive the technical data needed to verify the claims being made in it [Music]
01:56:13 [Music] again
01:56:14 again i think it was purely to ensure consistency we'd extended it through to the october it was going to lapse at that point um
01:56:26 [Music]
01:56:31 i suppose everything you showed me in terms of emails here now is and in terms of what we know that those those those weeks effectively are significant in terms of times there
01:56:43 are significant in terms of times there at the time the
01:56:46 the risk was it was being raised we were still
01:56:49 still not sure the impact of what actually was what was what was there and the only people that again that sounds like i'm defending but the only people that knew were kingsplan themselves in terms of the the
01:57:00 kingsplan themselves in terms of the the actual performance of their products over over that that side we were trying to
01:57:05 to [Music]
01:57:08 for in terms of keeping at bay it was saying yes we've had this test this classification report this test this classification report through for these wall systems so we could see that things
01:57:19 wall systems so we could see that things are moving forward with kingspan rather than
01:57:22 than this delay that's been happening since the uh the start of july you talked to the beginning of that answer about ensuring consistency consistency of what just the consistency of the fact you'd always had a k15
01:57:33 of the fact you'd always had a k15 certificate so you were being consistent keeping one there just in terms of rolling through yes so that stayed live on the system um
01:57:42 um and what was the president's reception that you're referring to there um
01:57:47 um each year labc has a president that is is is appointed um
01:57:54 um and
01:57:55 and affects us that's the direction for labc through that year right and why would you have to hide in the bogs if it wasn't sorted out would the nhbc be at that steve evans used to work for labc
01:58:06 that steve evans used to work for labc and had indeed been president of labc at some point and is invited on a yearly basis uh as past president yeah so we'd like to be in attendance at that meeting
01:58:17 like to be in attendance at that meeting yeah so you were anticipating that if you didn't get it sorted out he would have something to say to you at that reception potentially there would be a discussion there yes and again it's it's
01:58:28 discussion there yes and again it's it's and if we go on within september um 2014 if we go to labc labc302720
01:58:39 and the penultimate email on page one there's an email from mr brennan to you of the 17th of september at 906 just saying for reference this is when
01:58:51 just saying for reference this is when the amendments were made to the original certificates no changes were made at renewal
01:58:56 renewal and below that he'd forwarded to you david jones's email of 12th of august 2014 where he'd said he'd had no problem with the wording suggested by kingspan
01:59:07 with the wording suggested by kingspan being included in the certificate and then you go on to say one email up at 10 o'clock well i'm sorry mr strange um it made me mistake that mr jones's email is dated
01:59:19 mistake that mr jones's email is dated 2013.
01:59:20 2013. plus it is a mistake i don't know
01:59:24 all right if we go down below that [Music]
01:59:34 actually that's right sorry it was 2013 it was before the certificate before that
01:59:39 that um it was before the 2013 certificate that mr jones was saying i've got no problem with kingspan's amendments going in do you remember that their numbered list which then appeared in the first registered detail
01:59:51 in the first registered detail certificate i believe so sorry you're absolutely right mr chairman it was 2013.
01:59:55 2013. and then but then if we follow the email chain back up you at 10 o'clock on the 17th of september back onto page one you say to mr brennan just amended the
02:00:06 you say to mr brennan just amended the drawings and document list to read how i think it should rev b in the renewal cert in l drive interestingly gareth mills is no longer working with kingspan either
02:00:19 working with kingspan either why was that interesting that mr mills was no longer working with kingspan
02:00:24 uh i don't know i've got no idea i don't know who else isn't working there either and then you say i have changed item three to read as the new bba not the old
02:00:35 three to read as the new bba not the old one and i think we are relatively watertight with this before it goes back up onto the web can anyone else do this while you are away i would like to run this by bre particularly as they have
02:00:46 this by bre particularly as they have undertaken the additional testing
02:00:52 now
02:00:55 at this point you amended the drawings and document list to refer to the new bba certificate so that's the first time you've done that you can take that from me
02:01:06 that you can take that from me um can you help us when had the labc remove the registered detail certificate for k15 from its website as referred to in this email you say before it goes back up onto the
02:01:17 you say before it goes back up onto the web
02:01:19 web had it been taken down
02:01:22 um
02:01:25 i'm not actually sure i know it certainly wasn't in place between december and march 2015 but i'm
02:01:33 but i'm i'm not sure what happened which that would be in the september time wouldn't it for the transcript we can see an email date of the 24th of september 2014 from you to sam lee
02:01:44 september 2014 from you to sam lee where you say kathil has already taken this off the website short term because of the wording so it doesn't need to go back but the new cert will read correctly when it's all loaded for re-launch does that help
02:01:56 re-launch does that help um
02:02:00 not really i'm in my head i've got the certificate the expiry date was in december yeah um so i i
02:02:10 so i i i can't
02:02:13 i can't we can't recall yeah we can't see kingspan ever being informed that the k-15 certificate had been removed from the labc website can you help us as to whether they were ever told that
02:02:25 ever told that i i can't
02:02:31 and then moving forward on the 26th of september mr ball emailed you labc302727
02:02:45 um
02:02:54 that top email is from mr ball to you 26th of september 2014 and we just need to look at the first line you say he says to you hi david we are very nearly there
02:03:05 nearly there we have had a draft doc but some changes are required so i will email the k15 info within the next week or so hopefully but before the end of october so the rd registered detail doesn't run
02:03:18 so the rd registered detail doesn't run out
02:03:22 and he sends a further email to you on the 20th of october 2014. if we look at that labc 302746
02:03:37 looking at the top email on that chain we're now in october 2014 there's a heading k15 towards the bottom and he says this as it's either dealing with the br 135 interpretation with the
02:03:49 with the br 135 interpretation with the bre and bs8414 part two i really am just told it should be any day but of course i know that you have kindly extended the k-15
02:03:58 k-15 cover up to the end of october and i have communicated this to iva that we must be able to get this info to you by then for its inclusion as is always the case when you're in the
02:04:09 as is always the case when you're in the middle of something but not actually dealing with it directly it is very frustrating so i've asked iva to send the info directly as soon as he has it from the bre now those two emails taken together
02:04:21 now those two emails taken together it certainly appears to be kingspan's understanding that the certificate was still valid and had been extended to the end of october do you agree yes
02:04:33 so can we agree that even if the labc website didn't have the certificate on it from late september 2014 onwards it doesn't look like kingspan were aware of that does it
02:04:47 no it doesn't um and
02:04:51 and as i said previously um i'm not sure what the september the mission was whether it was taken down
02:05:00 down for a while and then put back up again or whether it didn't reappear between september but the dates and that as far as i was
02:05:08 as i was or the dates that i thought it was from the from december through to to march where there was no valid registered detail on the system
02:05:19 now on the 24th of october you get another email from steve evans let's go to that labc 302752
02:05:28 i want to look at the bottom of page 1 1048
02:05:34 steve evans says to you mr basson and mr turner hi all what is your availability for a meeting on monday afternoon next week either face-to-face or via conference call please to discuss some urgent
02:05:46 please to discuss some urgent developments around k15 and then
02:05:51 and then if we go to labc 302761
02:06:02 mr evans looking at the top of the page first sends to you and mr turner on the 27th of october 2014 an email and he says ahead of our high both ahead of our conference at 3 p.m
02:06:13 both ahead of our conference at 3 p.m please find below my latest emails to kingspan following discussions last week and below that is an email from mr evans to kingspan
02:06:24 to kingspan to either meredith and tony militapp copying in others at the nhbc dated the 24th of october 2014
02:06:35 dated the 24th of october 2014 and he says this um dear tony further to our ongoing meetings and our most recent conference call on 22nd of october please found below our comments with regards to the bs 8414 part 2 test
02:06:46 regards to the bs 8414 part 2 test submissions for kingspan k15 in point one he says nhbc has received draft reports and information in relation to fire resistance of k15 insulation product including the testing
02:06:57 insulation product including the testing for fire performance under both br135 and bs8414 requirements our understanding from information received to date is that the indicator performance does not always determine that fire risk has been fully fully
02:07:10 that fire risk has been fully fully dealt with in building envelope designs where the specification of cladding insulation and backing raw materials is significantly different from the facade buildup that has been tested for fire resistance
02:07:21 fire resistance our view is that any test specimen should represent as much as practically possible the typical construction build-up used for external facades and then he sets out below that some
02:07:33 and then he sets out below that some very detailed observations on the tests that have been carried out and i'm not going to read all of that out now
02:07:41 out now and then
02:07:42 and then if we go over to page two
02:07:48 at the top of that page there's there's still more there's lots of detail about what the buildups were that were used what the results show
02:08:00 and
02:08:04 if we go down that page we can look at the bottom of that page i want to pick it up where it says as such
02:08:12 such so he says as such whilst we are happy to continue our efforts towards reaching an agreed view on what the performance reported from these fire tests truly represent
02:08:21 represent we request further justification be supplied by your fire engineer on a generic basis as to how the ongoing burning of the cladding materials up the building as demonstrated in the above
02:08:32 building as demonstrated in the above test can be reconciled against the risks posed by a tall residential building nhbc have technically engaged in discussions with kingspan on this issue since 2013. in an email sent to us in
02:08:44 since 2013. in an email sent to us in december 2013 from iva meredith we were requested to hold off on advising nhbc customers until opportunity was provided to sit down and go through the body of evidence that could lead to an agreed
02:08:56 evidence that could lead to an agreed alternative method of compliance with kingspan
02:08:59 kingspan a significant period of time has now been allowed for this by nhbc we had a reasonable expectation that you would provide a proactive method statement at wednesday's conference call detailing
02:09:10 wednesday's conference call detailing exactly how kingspan intended to resolve the above matters but disappointingly that did not occur which i'm sure you will appreciate now introduces a very difficult position that cannot be left unresolved we have now been informed
02:09:21 unresolved we have now been informed that a recognized expert in fire engineering consultancy has indicated that they cannot positively review the k15 product fire performance data this is understandably given nhbc calls for
02:09:32 is understandably given nhbc calls for real concern as we were sure quite some time ago that an independent expert's review would be undertaken we will now review all aspects of this matter and advise you in due course of the actions we intend to take should you
02:09:44 the actions we intend to take should you wish to provide us with any additional information in the interim we would be pleased to review so detailed email from um steve evans they're clearly concerned about what the
02:09:56 they're clearly concerned about what the test evidence shows in terms of ongoing burning of the cladding materials as demonstrated in these tests they're clearly unhappy with the test evidence that they've been provided they
02:10:07 evidence that they've been provided they haven't
02:10:09 haven't seen
02:10:10 seen anything from a recognized expert and they they're clearly very concerned that's fair isn't it yes
02:10:18 yes and then on the same day mr turner emails you if you go to um
02:10:25 um page two
02:10:28 page two sorry it's a different email string if you go to labc 305710
02:10:34 at 1108
02:10:43 then it's page two
02:10:47 we see a short email from mr turner to you
02:10:50 you just saying what's nhbc's worry now thought this had been sorted and then you reply on the same day at the bottom of page one you say this
02:11:02 you say this hi barry sorry been up in rotherham k15 has been used outside of the scope of installation from the bba cert and the recent bre fire tests have apparently shown that it continued to burn for 20
02:11:14 shown that it continued to burn for 20 minutes after a flame was taken away steve awaiting an arab fire engineering report citing its suitability suitability for use as per note in adb and deadline for this
02:11:25 as per note in adb and deadline for this is the 18th of october so it looks like it has not been received nhbc unhappy with its use and looking for industry-wide shutdown on acceptance will need technical group guidance and
02:11:37 will need technical group guidance and e-shot to spread message to local authority teams if we are taking a unilateral stance this i suspect is the purpose of the call
02:11:47 call now um
02:11:51 how had you come to understand that k-15 had been used outside the scope of what was shown in the bba certificate and was continuing to burn for 20 minutes after a flame was taken away was that purely from mr evans email or has you had you
02:12:03 from mr evans email or has you had you had any other discussions with anybody about that i believe i met mr evans uh at a
02:12:10 uh at a seminar in birmingham around that time and he'd mentioned then that there was was concern about it whilst we were walking back to the train right
02:12:21 right so that's in terms of the 20-minute side of it i see and can you help us as to what it looks like you're going to have a call you and mr turner with the nhbc about this steve
02:12:33 mr turner with the nhbc about this steve evans has sent you this long email in advance of that call can you recall what was discussed on that call
02:12:42 i i actually can't recall that do you have a date that was taken well it looks like it's going to be shortly after
02:12:53 shortly after he said ahead of our telecom telephone conference at 3 p.m so it looks like it's going to be perhaps on the 27th of october 2014. same day we think this is this is it uh five minutes
02:13:06 this is this is it uh five minutes before
02:13:07 before um
02:13:13 i i i can't actually recall uh
02:13:17 uh a teleconference and i don't think i might be getting confused with the equivalent of zoom meetings that we're having now um yeah if it was it was a telephone call
02:13:34 i i'm honestly i'm sorry i'm struggling and i know that's a really important aspect but i'm struggling to remember the context and the content of the meeting can you remember what position labc took
02:13:47 can you remember what position labc took at that on that call well the
02:13:51 well the registered detail was taken off offline
02:13:56 after that time i think the discussion was around again because there is warranty implications here and there is building regulation implications
02:14:07 building regulation implications warranty in terms of warranty the buildings for 10 years post construction and the risk associated with that um
02:14:17 um but there are clearly building regulations concerns raised as well you've been told it's burning for 20 minutes after a flame was taken away in terms in terms of the the br135 classification report that's in
02:14:30 br135 classification report that's in relation to the material performance there's the tests that undertaken for external fire spread and internal fire spread in terms of the temperatures that are there material performance
02:14:41 are there material performance is around the um the breakdown of the the cladding system and the criteria in terms of spread is that it doesn't exceed the height of the test rig
02:14:52 test rig within the 15 minute period there and the purpose of the classification report is to highlight instances where the
02:14:59 the the person that's doing the classification report is that what you thought at the time did you think well i don't need to worry about that burning for 20 minutes after the flames taken away because the there are criteria that the test needs to
02:15:11 are criteria that the test needs to comply with and um we'll simply look at that
02:15:17 this is october time so i think i was getting up to speed with the intricacies of br135 um
02:15:27 um [Music]
02:15:28 [Music] the 20 minutes is is really alarming in terms of the test that's there but it was it was the the judgment on the classification report about whether that is significant
02:15:39 report about whether that is significant or not
02:15:40 or not it mentions it's taking it as a risk-based approach in terms of burning which is about debris falling down onto people and firefighters as part of a real fire scenario
02:15:54 a real fire scenario and i was reliant on the classification report stating whether that product was suitable based upon that additional information that was there i see mr turner responds at the top of page one
02:16:05 one he says um
02:16:09 cheers dave we'll phone in now but not going to say or admit to anything at this stage now um so it looks like mr turner was certainly on the call
02:16:21 certainly on the call um
02:16:22 um did you discuss this with mr turner around this time do you remember discussing the the issue about burning for 20 minutes after the flame was moved away
02:16:33 um no i don't i know i know that was discussed later in that year because i've said previously i sat down with
02:16:44 with him and doug and talked around how we were going forward with that but i i can't recall specific conversations i'm sorry okay now on the 11th of november if we go to
02:16:56 now on the 11th of november if we go to that now 2014 um labc302792
02:17:07 we can see mr ball sends you and mr brennan an email good afternoon i've i have attached the 8414 part 2 test report it's a draft so there are a couple of errors
02:17:18 couple of errors and then he goes on to give some detail about that and picking it up three lines down if you can reference this in the k15 register detail and reissue that would be splendid the current k-15 registered detail states that the
02:17:30 registered detail states that the non-combustible substrate should must be used over 18 meters the test report i have attached was successfully passed using a 12 millimeter cement board so that statement can be removed and kingspan
02:17:41 statement can be removed and kingspan have now successfully passed to both bs8414 part 1 and part 2 with k15 many thanks both and thanks again for extending the registered detail to allow us to get
02:17:52 registered detail to allow us to get this to you do you see that last those last lines in particular yes and then you send this um to mr turn if we go to labc302793
02:18:10 on the 11th of november you say
02:18:14 you say to mr turner top of this page hi barry just received this not going to have a chance to digest it through the day as have three meetings up to tea time we'll need to talk through it at
02:18:25 time we'll need to talk through it at some stage prior to further conversations with steve evans do you see that yes now do you remember whether those further conversations with steve evans actually took place and if so what was
02:18:36 actually took place and if so what was discussed
02:18:41 i don't
02:18:44 i know that at that point i was trying to facilitate a meeting with bre to talk through the tests that been undertaken but that didn't happen until
02:18:55 undertaken but that didn't happen until february i think the following year but i can't recall anything further with uh with mr evans right mr turner responds to this email if we
02:19:07 mr turner responds to this email if we go to labc302794
02:19:15 he says at the top of the page hi dave can't download the attachment at the moment and do you in a meeting at two o'clock but it seems strange that they are using 12 millimeter board but the report says 15 millimeter it seems to me
02:19:27 report says 15 millimeter it seems to me they either need to change their specification or get the report amended until then we only have their word for it that it's a typo so that was his response
02:19:37 response so mr turner does seem to be involved in looking at this new test evidence yes yes
02:19:45 and then i'm sorry that i'm jumping that was the content of one of the questions i asked of bre as well yes we'll come to you asking the bre for assistance in a moment
02:19:56 assistance in a moment um but
02:19:58 um but when the k-15 certificate expires at the end of october 2014. the labc amended the validity date of this to the 30th of november 2014 and changed the wording of the certificate
02:20:09 changed the wording of the certificate do you remember that i i think so yes i know it was the first of december when the
02:20:17 the the certificate was uh was no longer valid
02:20:20 valid well let's look at that certificate at nhb 50798
02:20:50 mhp50798 yes so this is the um revised certificate on page one we can see we've got kingspan call them k15 rain screen board and then under description
02:21:02 screen board and then under description of product you can see in in the final four lines it says k15 complies with br135 2013
02:21:11 2013 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height see conditions of certificate for more information now can you explain why that bold statement is there on the front of the
02:21:22 statement is there on the front of the certificate ke15 either product complies with br135
02:21:31 um i think it's just intended as a a initial summary of the board but the product can't comply with that system test can it it should say when used in rain screen applications
02:21:44 when used in rain screen applications c conditions well no what it should say is k15 can be used over 18 meters only in the following specific system configurations and those should
02:21:56 system configurations and those should be listed because that that's the reality isn't it based on the testing but does it not say that in the conditions of the certificate on the following page i'll come to those but i want to know why
02:22:07 come to those but i want to know why we've got this statement at the beginning of the certificate k15 complies with br135 for use in range screen applications above 18 meters in high that's misleading isn't it
02:22:20 high that's misleading isn't it [Music]
02:22:25 if if i'm honest with you i i prior to sitting and having the question asked me this morning i i thought that that was a fair summary
02:22:36 fair summary i recognized the wording inside it but the the fact that it's so detailed within the conditions and scope and limitation i i i thought that was that
02:22:47 i i i thought that was that was adequate in terms of an introduction to what the product is and
02:22:53 and again with hindsight we can rewrite it a number of ways i suppose but genuinely i thought that somebody isn't just going to pull that that off and not bother reading the rest of the documentation behind it but the
02:23:04 of the documentation behind it but the problem is as a statement k15 either product complies with br135 that can't be right can it because a product can't comply with a system test
02:23:17 product can't comply with a system test at the bottom of the page it states the certificate was if we look at the dates it says the certificate was first issued 28th of august 2013 and is valid till 30th of november 2014.
02:23:29 and is valid till 30th of november 2014. that's where we get this extra one month extension from and
02:23:36 and then if we go to page three of the certificate about halfway down the page under adb we can see it says note from the results it can be considered as a material of
02:23:48 it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for spread of flame do you see that i i do see that and i'm mortified that that is is there but
02:24:00 i'm mortified that that is is there but that's page three page two is the much more detailed scope and limitations of the document well that that shouldn't be there no it shouldn't be there that's been that's been dragged through
02:24:11 that's been that's been dragged through from the original and page five if you go to supporting documentation we've got the herefordshire council approval summary and we've still got the 2008 bba certificate do you see that i
02:24:23 2008 bba certificate do you see that i do
02:24:24 do again that's been dragged through off the 2013 document yeah
02:24:29 yeah and
02:24:31 uh holding my head in my hands quite honestly on that now let's look at an email now labc40364
02:24:48 this is an email that you sent to mr ewing sorry you sent to mr brennan on the 8th of october 2014 you just put revised certs and there are two attachments the k15
02:25:00 and there are two attachments the k15 product document and the celetex product document
02:25:06 document and if we look at labc 40365
02:25:15 this is titled certificate number ew165
02:25:24 the content of this certificate appears
02:25:29 to be similar to what we just looked at can you see it says k15 complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height see conditions of certificate for more
02:25:40 see conditions of certificate for more information do you see that i do on page three it's still got can be considered a material of limited combustibility yes and page five it's still got the supporting documentation
02:25:53 supporting documentation [Music]
02:25:55 [Music] so it would appear that you sent these revised this certificate to mr brennan yes so you must have looked at this before you sent it is that correct yes i must
02:26:06 you sent it is that correct yes i must have
02:26:07 have no i well i wasn't letting anybody else for the the the type the type errors in there that's down to me to pick it up this this is the the new look
02:26:18 the the new look registered detail you'll notice that that ew number appears for the first time and even w so it was trying to put something in um
02:26:28 um into context you know and this was over i think 300 products we had for registered details this was adopted for everything um
02:26:38 um [Music]
02:26:40 [Music] but
02:26:41 but the kingspan and the celetex documents were
02:26:45 were probably the hardest ones to pull together in terms of that scope and limitations that were [Applause] part of the second page of this document yes
02:26:55 yes now
02:26:57 now going forward with the chronology of events there are a series of emails from mr ball in december 2014 chasing about the registered details certificate for k-15
02:27:08 certificate for k-15 for the transcript there's one on the first of december 2014 that's labc 302804 there's another one on the fifth of december labc three zeros two eight zero eight
02:27:21 labc three zeros two eight zero eight let's look at the another chasing email uh labc40890
02:27:28 there's an email on the 10th of december
02:27:32 he says that um to you and mr brennan afternoon gents i know you had told me that you were having to look at the complaint before issuing the registered details we do state that k15 has been tested to bs 8414 parts one and two
02:27:46 tested to bs 8414 parts one and two which means that it can then potentially be used over 18 meters but we don't stay cater state categorically that it is suitable over 18 meters in all build-ups blanket approval
02:27:57 blanket approval we state that the alternative compliance route that set out in bl-135 and referred to in part b states that you can either have an insulation material that's at least of limited combustibility in england and wales
02:28:08 combustibility in england and wales and if it isn't then you must adhere to the alternative compliance route laid out in br135 which is to test the bs8414 parts one or two i just wanted to send this in case it helps in any way gents
02:28:19 this in case it helps in any way gents if when it comes to the wording that will go in this register detail you want us to come up with it together give me a shout um now in the first line he said i know
02:28:31 um now in the first line he said i know you told me you were having to look at the complaint before issuing the registered detail what complaint was that can you help us that was uh the discussions with uh with
02:28:42 that was uh the discussions with uh with steve evans in relation to the performance of the product and i wasn't you know i was trying to keep it as neutral rather than naming i mean that would be nice to have
02:28:53 naming i mean that would be nice to have known that both and hbc and uh labc well what we're having certainly lhbc haven't difficulty getting the test reports out of out of
02:29:04 getting the test reports out of out of kingspan but that was the context of of that comment yeah now on the 10th of december he emails you again
02:29:14 you again if you look at labc 302815
02:29:23 um this is the second email down on the page
02:29:27 page he says to you mr brennan uh catholic david i spoke with catholic on the phone this afternoon as i had noticed that the case 15 registered detail has gone past the renewal date on the website so it's gone past the 30th of october of
02:29:38 gone past the 30th of october of november sorry when i checked after i'd emailed earlier which says valid till 30th november 2014 this is a concern really i know we are waiting for things to be discussed but can this be extended
02:29:49 to be discussed but can this be extended so
02:29:50 so on the site it shows that the registered detail is valid i don't know if there's a reason but when i click on the register detail on the site whether it be k15 optima or competitors it says the web page attachment cannot be loaded i
02:30:02 web page attachment cannot be loaded i have registered and then he says with reference to the k-15 renewal however i understand that it's all paid for now and if this could be addressed as a matter of some urgency and the issue that you told me about
02:30:13 and the issue that you told me about yesterday david with reference to the email letter you received from the warranty provider i won't name them can be sorted out as quickly as possible now is that referring to
02:30:24 referring to concerns by nhbc an hbc warranty i believe it is yes yeah if i can help in any way let me know so we can have the registered detail as it should be with reference to the 8414
02:30:36 should be with reference to the 8414 part 1 and part 2 and relevant text that would be great as i said in the email earlier we've always stated that it is dependent on the test criteria not a blanket approval to over 18 meters
02:30:47 blanket approval to over 18 meters if you could let me know how we can move on to rectify this that would be great
02:30:53 and then um if you go to the top of page one you didn't respond to mr ball but you forwarded this to mr turner and mr batson on the 10th of december
02:31:04 batson on the 10th of december and you said to them hi guys can you advise on any discussions at bca on monday in relation to k15 i need to start this off one way or tother regards david
02:31:15 regards david so is it right that you were you weren't responding to mr ball because you were waiting to see what had been discussed at the bca technical group meeting is that right
02:31:26 group meeting is that right as far as i can see there yes i mean i know that there was discussions around amending
02:31:31 amending the uh technical guidance note as well they're preparing a draft issue for that
02:31:40 for that and then if we go on on the 11th of december 2014 if we go to labc 302817
02:31:48 mr basson responds to this email you just send
02:31:53 it's the second email down on page one he says
02:31:59 he says we discussed yesterday and steve came clean about the continuing continue to burning discussion we had last friday exclamation mark they nhbc are placing the onus on installers builders who have
02:32:11 the onus on installers builders who have used it to prove compliance where it is not strictly in accordance with the bba certificate conditions of use the sales director of kingspan was apparently very bullish when steve spoke to him last week and has said the
02:32:23 to him last week and has said the responsibility for how it is used is down to the developer so they are distancing themselves from it not sure if barry has anything further to add it seems there is no likelihood of
02:32:34 add it seems there is no likelihood of kingspan coming up with the tests that will prove it works in the high-risk situations with combustible constructional details cheers doug do you see that there
02:32:46 cheers doug do you see that there yes
02:32:49 so it's clear that um steve evans um is adopting an approach at this point of putting the onus on the developer
02:33:01 onus on the developer um but you're told very clearly
02:33:07 that um there is no likelihood of kingspan coming up with the test that will prove it works in the high-risk situations with combustible constructional details
02:33:18 constructional details what did you understand that to mean at the time
02:33:22 um i i believe it was in relation to existing buildings and an hbc with pressure in kingspan to demonstrate
02:33:34 demonstrate uh compliance [Music]
02:33:36 [Music] from the comments that kingspan have said
02:33:39 said they weren't going to do anything now despite
02:33:42 despite keeping uh hpc at bay i think did you say 2013
02:33:47 say 2013 and placing the onus on the developer to to sort it out yeah now mr tanner responds to this email at the top of the page
02:33:58 he says this and he sends it to you and mr bassen i think doug has summed it up i came away with the overall opinion that if it is not absolutely in line with the
02:34:09 not absolutely in line with the specification indicated on the bba certificate then it should not be used there seems a reluctance on anybody's part particularly fire engineers to say otherwise
02:34:19 otherwise do you see that yes
02:34:23 so it appears that it's occurring to mr turner at this point
02:34:29 point that you can only sanction the use of k15 if it's absolutely in line with the specification indicated on the bba certificate is that what you understood him to be saying
02:34:40 him to be saying in the context of of the email there yes it's that's the published tests on the agrawal certificate and was that news to you at the time because we saw earlier that you
02:34:52 the time because we saw earlier that you you've been quite confused over whether these tests could confer global approval or just a specific specific system approval by this time were you clear
02:35:03 approval by this time were you clear that this test evidence could only support the use of k15 in the specific test configuration that had been
02:35:11 had been part of the build-up uh yes i think december i was i was up to speed as far as
02:35:20 i believe i was up to speed with the requirements of br135 and the testing that was part of that and was looking to kingspan to demonstrate
02:35:31 demonstrate uh the classification reports for a range of wall systems did it occur to you that you had a problem
02:35:40 problem because
02:35:41 because labc had been making statements about the use of k-15 more generically than that on its registered detailed certificates i was concerned that we needed to be
02:35:53 i was concerned that we needed to be absolutely correct in what we were saying and certainly the i believe that's what the the end result was from march 15 and from november 14 with the celetex
02:36:05 and from november 14 with the celetex certification that it reflected uh
02:36:09 uh you know a small number of scenarios where that registered detail was appropriate and every other instance they would have to seek approval either by following the bca guidance which at the time included desktop
02:36:21 which at the time included desktop studies
02:36:22 studies um
02:36:23 um for alternatives that will come up with appropriate classification reports
02:36:29 now moving forward with the chronology dan ball sends a further email to you and mr brennan on the 11th of december 2014 for the transcript that's at labc 302818
02:36:41 302818 and
02:36:42 and what he says in that email is can we have the registered details date extended first and then perhaps a breakdown about what's occurring with reference to the k-15 renewal and the addition of the 8414 part 2 test that
02:36:54 addition of the 8414 part 2 test that they want
02:36:55 they want to add to the certificate and he says when it comes to the text i can assist in drafting something and what i want to look at is an email that mr brennan then sends immediately
02:37:06 that mr brennan then sends immediately to you
02:37:07 to you at labc302819
02:37:16 on the this is on the 11th of december he says to you hiya can we get this k 15 thing put to bed i've had dan ball on the phone and emailing yesterday and today and i've
02:37:27 emailing yesterday and today and i've just got off the phone to iva he mentioned that getting the 31k quote signed off by his boss is going to be difficult if this doesn't get sorted now
02:37:38 difficult if this doesn't get sorted now what is the hold up at our end cheers cattle
02:37:42 cattle now um
02:37:44 now um do you remember seeing that email and being told that kingspan was saying that it's going to be difficult to sign off the presumably that's the quote for all of the registered details work yes they say
02:37:57 registered details work yes they say it's going to be difficult to sign that off if we don't get the k-15 thing put sorted and put to bed yes yes did the labc perceive this as a threat by kingspan at the time
02:38:08 by kingspan at the time uh yes
02:38:10 uh yes did you take any action in response to such a threat wasn't that wholly inappropriate on kingspan's part um
02:38:19 yes potentially it was but the fact that we didn't do anything and didn't jump to the tune i think just demonstrates that we weren't that finance driven the questions you're asking me earlier
02:38:31 asking me earlier you know this had to be this had to be right we knew at this point that any any original detail might be correct when it went out uh the next time which wasn't until i think march of 2015.
02:38:44 until i think march of 2015. but
02:38:45 but why not um write back to kingspan and say it's wholly inappropriate for you to link this k15 certificate with the quotation for all the other registered details
02:38:56 for all the other registered details work that's unacceptable i i think it was purely because it was uh it was
02:39:02 uh it was verbal i'm not sure we've got something that says
02:39:04 that says uh from email unless you sort this out we're going to withdraw it was it was a verbal comment so we well i don't think we felt it necessary to go back and
02:39:15 to go back and respond to to something that wasn't formalized well you didn't doubt mr brennan's account that that's what mr meredith had said i'm sure it's been
02:39:26 mr meredith had said i'm sure it's been said but uh but we were not not jumping to to their tune that was as simple as that you respond to this email if we go to labc 408
02:39:45 you say this at the top hi had been waiting for result of bca meeting on monday seems we are still okay approving the tested data but need to look at wording to try and tighten it up to
02:39:56 wording to try and tighten it up to avoid deviation what did you mean by that need to look at wording to tighten it up to avoid deviation
02:40:03 deviation it was quite simply that the the explicit specifications followed for any classification report that we had the question around um
02:40:15 the question around um i think in that intervening period was what happens if you modify something slightly if you change the insulation from 60 mil to 65 mil does that make a
02:40:26 from 60 mil to 65 mil does that make a difference simulations of classification port how far can i suppose developers push that classification report to still use it on a building yes and that was all i was trying to do there
02:40:37 that was all i was trying to do there was was
02:40:38 was was ensure that the registered registered detail couldn't be um couldn't be extended if that made sense yes did you appreciate that previous labc certificates had in fact deviated
02:40:51 labc certificates had in fact deviated yes from the relevant test evidence absolutely and that was why again i think i mentioned on thursday that you know i wanted this registered detail
02:41:02 you know i wanted this registered detail to be
02:41:03 to be um meaningful and give building control teams
02:41:09 teams a good direction on what they can accept and what they can information they need to try and sort out if uh if it's uh if it's not complying with the the detail in its in its entirety yes
02:41:23 the detail in its in its entirety yes now there's another email chasing from mr ball on the 15th of december 2014 for the transcript that's at labc labc302826
02:41:32 and having received that email mr brennan sent you another email on the 15th of december if we go to labc302827
02:41:48 mr brennan states at the top to you and mr lee
02:41:52 mr lee where are we with this one are we in danger of losing the large quote as either said in my conversation with him so
02:42:01 so it does appear that mr brennan was concerned about losing that large quote do you agree yes
02:42:08 yes and you respond on the same day if we go to labc
02:42:13 to labc three zeros one three six seven six
02:42:21 you say hi i've spoken to dan ball this morning and explained the delay awaiting a reply from barry regarding the collapse of materials as it's not strictly controllable under b4 gives us
02:42:33 strictly controllable under b4 gives us a few more days has all the tech stuff gone to hertfordshire as yet
02:42:39 now that that sentence there awaiting a reply from barry regarding the collapse of materials so was he advising on the technical aspects of this
02:42:50 aspects of this next certificate given what you'd noted about the potential collapse of materials i think that's a a follow-on to the earlier email that you you brought up
02:43:01 you you brought up talking around the 20-minute burning of the product yes which i've suggested whether it needs to go through the technical working group and guidance to members
02:43:12 and guidance to members yes
02:43:13 yes and then we can see there's a further chasing email on the 17th of december from mr ball for the transcript that's labc 302828 and on the 18th of december 2014 you
02:43:24 and on the 18th of december 2014 you email mr turner labc40863
02:43:29 labc40863 you can go to that top of page two
02:43:35 you say hi barry i've amended the certificate and highlighted changes in red for ease if you could consider these and see if they reflect the aims of the amended bci bca guidance document i
02:43:46 amended bci bca guidance document i would be grateful as i can then go back to kingspan and also to celetex now what do you mean by when you talk about consider these to see if they reflect the aims of the amended bca guidance document what are
02:43:58 amended bca guidance document what are you referring to there um i think it was it was more that it had it i say adhered to the the guidance document i mean this
02:44:10 the the guidance document i mean this was a this was a building control uh
02:44:15 uh industry-wide guidance document that i wanted to make sure that the registered detail
02:44:19 detail fell into that so if the specifications weren't followed they could still in theory work to the bca guidance that was there and some of the wording i think used
02:44:30 and some of the wording i think used there in relation to thermosets was brought through from the bca guidance note as well yes i see
02:44:39 yes i see now
02:44:40 now just on this topic of the bca can you just clarify something for us in the witness statement of mr evan steve evans the inquiry for the transcript this is paragraph 197 j on page 76 he says that you you were a
02:44:52 j on page 76 he says that you you were a member of the bca technical group is that correct no no were you ever a member of that group no now if we go to the top of page one in
02:45:03 now if we go to the top of page one in this chain mr turner responds to your invitation to look at the wording and he says this um hi dave everything looks to be covered by the amended wording almost to
02:45:15 covered by the amended wording almost to the point of it not being possible to meet all the requirements but that's okay by me i have one concern over the wording in the product description at the beginning of the document it states quite categorically that k-15 complies with br
02:45:26 categorically that k-15 complies with br br135 for use in range screen applications above 15 meters in height while this may be true and i note that immediately after attention is drawn to the conditions of the certificate
02:45:37 the conditions of the certificate do we have to say it quite so noticeably i can't help but think that this will be used by kingspan marketing and will encourage people to read no further and he says this can i suggest that the paragraph reads
02:45:49 paragraph reads k15 complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height however see scope and conditions of certificate for more information and he's added the
02:46:00 more information and he's added the words in red yes yes then he says i'm still nervous but can't see that we can do any more now did you agree that his wording was
02:46:12 now did you agree that his wording was an appropriate summary of the position in so far as the above 18 meter height aspect was concerned um i
02:46:23 um i well i i must have agreed with it in taking uh
02:46:27 taking uh taken his guidance on it
02:46:31 we've already alluded to this in the earlier uh document in terms of the wording that's there yes um
02:46:38 um and i think it was it was purely because it was intended as a summary and that the scope it will see that see the scope and
02:46:48 and limitations was the the real reading material effectively that provided an overview and you know i still believe that that
02:46:59 you know i still believe that that march 15 kingspan certificate was as tight as we uh we we could make it in relation to the the classification reports that we'd received well do you agree looking at it
02:47:11 received well do you agree looking at it now that it still um
02:47:13 um implies global approval of k-15 for use above 18 meters the way it's written there
02:47:22 i i think looking at it now yes i mean let's say prior to this after this afternoon's question i i generally thought that that
02:47:34 i i generally thought that that paragraph was was okay in that register detail and that wasn't that wasn't for the fact that it's it's tying as a product as opposed to a system it was the fact that we've got it we're
02:47:45 the fact that we've got it we're limiting it or caveat in that note that it only in relation to the scope and conditions which are very detailed on the following pages but why wasn't it stated instead that kingspan k15 can be
02:47:58 stated instead that kingspan k15 can be used over 18 meters only when used in specific
02:48:02 specific system configurations that that are then identified why not do it that way it could have been done that way and i think it actually says that word in on
02:48:13 think it actually says that word in on the second page yes but can we agree that on that front page which is an important page of the certificate isn't it
02:48:19 it in that summary it should have been done that way
02:48:22 that way in order to be clear that there was no generic approval being given to k-15's use over 18 meters um
02:48:31 um yes you can agree i mean from my side of it um i still believe that everything else in that registered detail the rest of the text in the scope and limitations was the was the rider
02:48:43 and limitations was the was the rider for that but as an overview then i would have to concede if you feel that word in sort of legally doesn't uh doesn't come across i'm not just looking at it from a legal
02:48:55 i'm not just looking at it from a legal perspective i'm looking at it from the perspective of any construction professional reading that wording well can we agree that what it should have said as a summary at the beginning is k15 can only be used over 18 meters
02:49:07 is k15 can only be used over 18 meters in specific system configurations and then those should have been identified somewhere in the certificate
02:49:16 um yes we could but i would still hope that any professional looking at that would not just
02:49:24 not just take that from that front paragraph and not bother reading the rest of the document
02:49:29 document did you discuss this with mr turner separately aside from this email at the time
02:49:33 time um
02:49:35 um there was discussions around uh which is the start of december around how i was trying to get the registered detail to look at the information that was going to be contained within that
02:49:46 was going to be contained within that and that was becoming much more um
02:49:49 um explicit in relation to the exact specifications that have been used for the classification reports did you understand why mr turner was saying i'm still nervous but can't see
02:50:00 saying i'm still nervous but can't see that we can do any more can you help us understand that comment yes i think it was it was around the fact that the um
02:50:08 the um even even with the specification that people were still trying to push the boundaries of that specification demonstrating it was okay and if it was felt that fire engineers can't justify that by the on the base of
02:50:20 can't justify that by the on the base of a desktop review in terms of the the how that original test may have performed then
02:50:27 then that that ability to extend the the scope of the specification was uh
02:50:33 uh what was was a potential problem and that was why the word in big was so specific if it didn't comply with the registered detail they didn't have to well they followed that it comply with the with the
02:50:45 that it comply with the with the workings of the registered detail if they want to do something different they would have to try and demonstrate it by another means and it was solely trying to ensure that because it was so specific
02:50:58 was so specific in terms of i can't see that we can do anymore that here are i think six classification reports were that's been tested and shown to be uh in compliance with or meet the
02:51:09 in compliance with or meet the performance criteria of br135 anything else isn't acceptable did you share mr turner's concern that fan marketing would use the proposed wording in the nabc certificate to
02:51:21 wording in the nabc certificate to encourage people to read no further thereby continuing the misleading implication of global approval of the use of k-15 over 18 meters
02:51:33 [Music]
02:51:38 i suppose now i wouldn't put anything past kingspan at the time you know i i i well at the time we were at this
02:51:49 i i well at the time we were at this point in time we knew we had to be really tight in terms of the information that we've been provided because it drifted or not drifted it kingspun's marketing area had reduced
02:52:01 kingspun's marketing area had reduced because of the initial removal of the buildings over 18 meters contact with certificate holder statement that was on the 2008 acromod certificate and they were now being tasked more and
02:52:13 and they were now being tasked more and more around is this product suitable and i i didn't want to be effectively supporting that i wanted them to to to know that it was there
02:52:24 them to to to know that it was there i'm mindful i haven't answered your question there and i can't i can't say that
02:52:29 that kingspun wouldn't have taken that opening statement and just uh just put it in i would like to think that if it was that we may well have picked that up and gone back to say they need to read the full certificate
02:52:41 they need to read the full certificate to point out what was what was actually in the contents of the certificate rather than just that opening statement
02:52:49 um on the 18th of december you send an email to mr ball and mr meredith if you look at that labc labc40 is 996.
02:53:03 you say hi iva dan i tried to phone today but i thought i should just clarify some of the issues for you that we've around re-certification for k-15 and other thermoset materials above 18 meters
02:53:14 thermoset materials above 18 meters and you tell them labc have been contacted by nhbc in connection with the wording used in the earlier register detail certificate following the reissue of the bba certificate in december last year there was concern that the
02:53:25 year there was concern that the certificate implied a global approval to the use of k-15 above 18 meters and that the revised certificate had been amended to read suitability for use on non-combustible substrates only i.e to
02:53:36 non-combustible substrates only i.e to masonry or concrete structures and you say this was subsequently amended and reworded pending the results of your 8414 testing carried out by bre this documentation has since been
02:53:47 this documentation has since been provided by you and the specific test criteria demonstrated compliance with br135
02:53:52 br135 in relation to the criteria cited in and then you've got external fire spread and internal fire spread however the test data and photographs show that there was considerable breakdown of the cladding system and
02:54:03 breakdown of the cladding system and appeared to show continued burning for 90 minutes after the crib was extinguished uh a24 mechanical performance states there's no performance criteria for mechanical failure and the nature of the performance should
02:54:14 and the nature of the performance should be considered as part of the overall risk assessment now then you carry on and then
02:54:22 and then um you actually end up quoting from the guidance in br135 at the bottom of that page and then i want to pick it up again at the bottom of page one and you say this is currently under
02:54:34 and you say this is currently under consideration by the group and i've saw updates from barry turner director of technical policy at labc and our representative at bca the issue is fundamentally a warranty
02:54:45 the issue is fundamentally a warranty issue rather than a building control matter
02:54:49 matter although there is clearly a duty of care required by building control i've also suggested that we could include wording within the certificate to read and then you put some wording in there i have i am however
02:55:02 wording in there i have i am however mindful that this may still create further issues for approval and you go on in the last paragraph over the page and say
02:55:11 i'm sorry it's taken time and overlap with the certificate lapse please be assured we're dealing with it as quickly as we can and i attach a draft revised certificate that i believe covers the situation
02:55:21 situation and then let me know if you're prepared to accept the wording now
02:55:25 now i want to ask you in particular go back to the bottom of page one why do you say this was fundamentally a warranty issue rather than a building control matter
02:55:39 because my understanding that was the the
02:55:42 the elements in relation to material performance the
02:55:46 the external spread and the internal spread on the testing for br or a414 testing was around how quickly the product spread over the surface of the fire
02:55:57 spread over the surface of the fire which was the b4 issue the fact that the building falls away the recognition that windows and downpipes and faces and things will fall off as fire attacks
02:56:08 things will fall off as fire attacks that external face but it's about how the
02:56:13 the in terms of the warranty side of it it's whether they're prepared to cover the building on the base of that classification report so take due regard of that there's a duty of care from building control to ensure
02:56:25 care from building control to ensure that that
02:56:26 that that product is suitable for use on the building but the i think the overriding decision of whether that's given approval on a warranty is is is
02:56:37 is is is [Music]
02:56:38 [Music] sorry the the decision as to whether that is approved through warranty purposes is based on the extent of damage on that on that structure that's how i understood the
02:56:49 structure that's how i understood the mechanical performance requirements but did you ever think about the functional requirement under b4 that the exterior wall must adequately resist the spread of flame
02:57:00 of flame from one building to another and over its its own face yes how was the fact that it was continuing to burn for 19 minutes not something that was directly relevant to whether it
02:57:11 that was directly relevant to whether it met that functional requirement um
02:57:15 um i believe that it was that the first 15 minutes is the key point in the testing on eight four one four it's how quickly that product spreads over the over the surface
02:57:26 spreads over the over the surface the falling debris it says that it's there is no pass or fail for it but the the warranty in terms of whether you're preparing to warrant a building for for that with that structure on it
02:57:38 for for that with that structure on it will come
02:57:40 will come it's a viewpoint from the people providing a warranty i see so are you saying that the public safety implications of the evidence that you had before you simply didn't occur to you and you thought this was an insurance issue
02:57:51 insurance issue [Music]
02:57:53 [Music] no i think there was the fact that there was a duty of care around that but i would expect the classification whoever's issue in the classification report to say whether that product they felt that product was suitable for use on
02:58:04 use on external
02:58:05 external facades
02:58:09 it was the responsibility of somebody else to tell you on in the report if there was a problem with the use of that material over 18 meters yes the person who was it was right in that
02:58:21 the person who was it was right in that br135 classification report i would expect them to highlight in that as to whether that that's wall system where they felt that was suitable for use but report on the mechanical
02:58:34 use but report on the mechanical performance in terms of what happened after the initial testing criteria and if if i if i'm if i'm wrong or not then i've been i've been wrong since 2015 and you didn't think that you had
02:58:47 2015 and you didn't think that you had any kind of independent obligation to think about the test evidence in front of you and look at it in terms of compliance with building regulations and building safety
02:58:58 building safety i think there was there was a a duty of care from building control to uh whether they accept that as compliance of building regulations but there is also a decision from the
02:59:09 there is also a decision from the warranty providers as to whether they're prepared to provide insurance cover for that premise based upon the performance that's mentioned in the classification report
02:59:19 report i see so that's what you mean when you say although there's clearly a duty of care required by building control yes yes did you have any concerns at that point about the many buildings with k-15
02:59:31 point about the many buildings with k-15 on them which would have been authorized by building control officers due to erroneous information on labc certificates yes there was concern there and that
02:59:43 yes there was concern there and that also been discussions with labc warranty who were our um
02:59:48 um if you like warranty providers on labc sites
02:59:52 sites did you discuss whether a warning should be issued about those buildings and projects to your membership to make them aware of the risks and dangers which you were
03:00:03 of the risks and dangers which you were becoming to appreciate um
03:00:06 um well there was the earlier email to barry and doug asking whether this was a matter for technical working group and a notification to membership i believe we did issue
03:00:18 i believe we did issue labc guidance at
03:00:21 at in 2015 around this
03:00:26 i see mr chairman i think that's a good moment yeah
03:00:30 yeah great thank you thank you well we'll have a break now mr ewing so we can all get some lunch we'll come back at two o'clock please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break all right thank you very much
03:00:51 thank you miss grange two o'clock please