Local Authority Building Control (LABC) - Monday 13th December 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:25 would you ask mr ewing to come back in please

00:00:38 yes juicy comes to you

00:00:46 all right ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes it's strange yes thank you yes mr ewing sticking with the k-15 story for now on the 21st of january if we go to labc

00:00:58 the 21st of january if we go to labc 302852

00:01:06 there's an email that you send at the top there to lorna stimson mr brennan mr turner and mr hammond

00:01:13 hammond and you say this nhbc have several large sites all using the material outside of the tested specification as such their special risks team are jumping up and down there was initial

00:01:26 jumping up and down there was initial concern raised that our registered detail inferred global approval and this has been amended since january 2014 when bba revised their agremont certificate for the product

00:01:38 certificate for the product kingspan had it tested last year by the bre and the results were a pass to the requisite tests the collapse of the material as it burnt we don't know if

00:01:49 material as it burnt we don't know if the test carried out by celatex for their rival product was redacted to exclude this information from us now taking that email in stages so we know that the special risk team of the nhbc are jumping up and down so

00:02:02 the nhbc are jumping up and down so they're very agitated at this time is that right yes i think they're very concerned about projects they had ongoing and we used i'm sorry i take it the special risks team refer to the warranty

00:02:14 special risks team refer to the warranty yes in terms of the warranty of the existing buildings yes

00:02:18 yes and were you similarly agitated and concerned about the number of projects where labc um approval may have been given based on labc certificates

00:02:29 given based on labc certificates um

00:02:30 um at this stage we were

00:02:34 revising the registered detail to include all the relevant test data being provided with the

00:02:41 the registered detail had been taken down on the 1st of december and we were trying to get things up and running to uh

00:02:52 things up and running to uh to reissue the registered detail with the relevant classification reports and test data

00:02:58 test data but in terms of the um

00:03:02 inappropriate phrase jumping up and down it was

00:03:06 it was that effectively was a notification about what was going on and i was hoping that

00:03:11 that um

00:03:12 um that the earlier emails in relation to technical working group and uh indeed uh the guidance to membership might uh might be

00:03:24 might uh might be something might be happening in relation to that aspect yes why do you say there was initial concern raised that our registered detail infer global approval and this has been amended since january 2014. that's not right is it you'd been

00:03:38 2014. that's not right is it you'd been issuing certificates in august 2014 extending through to october and then extending to november which inferred global approval yes i think the phrase in there is it's

00:03:50 yes i think the phrase in there is it's not when we revised the registered detail in january it was when the agreement revised their certificate which was in was it november december 2013.

00:04:02 was it november december 2013. yes but can we agree that the readers of this email might have thought that you had amended something since january 2014 rather than just the bba had been amended since then

00:04:17 [Music] and

00:04:20 and the way that the email reads yes i have to agree with you yeah now what we know happens next is that at the end of january for the transcript this is

00:04:31 for the transcript this is labc40883 at the end of january 2015 26th of january you send an email to philip carney of the bre asking for help um you specifically

00:04:43 asking for help um you specifically asked for stephen howard to cast an eye over the revised labc certificate now um can you explain why it took the labc so long

00:04:54 labc so long to reach out for help from an organization like the bba it's like the bre

00:05:01 bre given

00:05:02 given frankly the mess that you've got into prior to this time with your certificate

00:05:10 in terms of the length of time no in terms of developing and trying to create something that was [Music]

00:05:19 [Music] absolutely watertight as far as the registered detail goes it was a reach out at that point whilst there was no valid certificate in

00:05:30 whilst there was no valid certificate in place

00:05:33 so can you explain the failure to do that much earlier no i can't i think it would become obvious at that point the extent of what was happening within the industry

00:05:45 what was happening within the industry that there were more stories coming out around the products itself and and it was really i suppose one i'd um my knowledge had

00:05:57 um my knowledge had improved from uh from the initial uh start

00:06:02 start i suppose from july uh it's the point where i now recognized the intricacies of the sort of effectively minor variations in specification and i wanted

00:06:13 specification and i wanted uh i wanted rather than taking the viewpoint from an hbc and that's not being disrespectful to an hpc i wanted uh that people who undertake the actual test to advise us

00:06:24 undertake the actual test to advise us on

00:06:24 on the the quality of the of the testing and specification yes let's just look at an email you sent barry turner just after this so this is labc30

00:06:35 after this so this is labc30 and i want to look at page two there's an email 30th of january 2015 at 11 59

00:06:42 11 59 on page two

00:06:48 sorry it's 11 19. you say hi barry i've just spoken to philip carney regarding k15 who has suggested a quick meeting with steve howard the fire tester at bre exact wording used was discussion and

00:06:59 wording used was discussion and confidence to avoid labc digging a bigger hole than they might already be in

00:07:04 in exclamation mark exclamation mark now was that your wording used to philip carney to describe the situation you perceived yourself to be in or was that wording used by the bre that

00:07:16 or was that wording used by the bre that was bre

00:07:18 was bre the bre used that wording yes so they were aware that the labc was in a difficult spot at this point not in relation to the registered detail i think what that email or that wording

00:07:30 i think what that email or that wording was alluding to was in relation to testing that bre been carrying out in relation to insulation materials and there was concern about the

00:07:42 and there was concern about the um the the the impact of using insulation in the

00:07:48 the high level i see so what was the bre aware that labc had been endorsing the use of these combustible insulation products on

00:07:59 combustible insulation products on building over 18 meters and that that presented some difficulties for you um i'm not sure that they were no um

00:08:07 um you know

00:08:08 you know bre

00:08:09 bre they will confirm that but the

00:08:12 but the as i understood that it was around philip carney who i met on

00:08:19 met on reasonably uh frequent occasions through my um my role with registered details

00:08:29 that was um effectively saying that there's things going on that they can't tell me about because of client confidentiality at bre but we need to be aware of them from labc's perspective

00:08:41 labc's perspective right i see but they perceived you to be in a a a big hole at that point yes i'm assuming it's in relation to me because we are looking at providing the

00:08:54 because we are looking at providing the registered detail for a an insulin and insulation product uh that we need to be mindful about how we

00:09:01 we or the phrasing that we used right i see now you arranged a meeting with the bre on the 9th of february for the transcript we can see you arranging that labc

00:09:12 that labc 305808 and then following that email you following that meeting you email your colleagues if we go to labc40931

00:09:28 you say to mr turner copying in ms stimson and mr brennan hi barry i met with steve howard and philip carney this morning regarding k15 there were no great shocks however we

00:09:39 there were no great shocks however we would be approaching the registered detailed certificate issue correctly if we cross-reference our document to the bre classification reports issued for k-15 or any other product rather than the testing report sent

00:09:51 rather than the testing report sent through to us and then they say in respective you say in respect to the testing there is no underlining latent defect created through the bs-8414 fire test in

00:10:03 through the bs-8414 fire test in relation to material stability the fact that debris falls away is not presently a factor because at the temperatures involved there will always there will already be falling glass and upvc frames dropping onto anyone below

00:10:15 dropping onto anyone below and then you go on [Music]

00:10:17 [Music] and then in the next paragraph you say as such if you're in agreement i'll amend the certificate accordingly after i've received confirmation from kingspan of the relevant classification reports and in the beginning of the next

00:10:28 and in the beginning of the next paragraph you say i've also amended the wording in the bca guidance note 18 to clarify this and would request that it's offered to the group for consideration now um

00:10:39 now um just taking it in stages do you recall was anything said at this meeting about the labc having historically issued erroneous statements about k-15 including that it had global approval

00:10:50 including that it had global approval for use over 18 meters not that i recall now so were you just focused on the future and what you should say about the product in the future yes and did you ever run the wording we'll

00:11:02 and did you ever run the wording we'll see the wording in a minute that you use did you ever run that wording past the bre specifically um

00:11:14 i'm not sure

00:11:18 i think i had enough information from them to understand the way that i was proposing was going to be the right way but i don't recall actually formalizing and sending it away to them unless unless you can

00:11:30 unless you can show me

00:11:31 show me that i have it doesn't look like you did i'm just asking whether or not you consulted them over specific wording you used

00:11:40 no no no don't believe i did and what exactly are you referring to there when you say you would amend the wording in the bca guidance note 18 to clarify this was that to clarify points

00:11:51 clarify this was that to clarify points about burning debris falling debris after

00:11:55 after the um fire test had been carried out it was the

00:12:00 was the the concern in this was around modification to a tested

00:12:05 tested uh

00:12:06 uh rule system that had a classification report and i want to know in terms of people have referred to them as variation reports that they are going to use a 17 mil insulation instead of an

00:12:17 use a 17 mil insulation instead of an 80mm insulation and a view taken that 70 ml that wall system will perform in the same in the same way it's not detrimental to the performance of the system and

00:12:28 to the performance of the system and that was what i wanted to understand from bre as to what what

00:12:34 what what should be done so the recommendation through to bca was that

00:12:40 was that in in all instances we have a classification report and any variation to that classification report should that like a variation to that classroom should also be undertaken by an

00:12:51 should also be undertaken by an accredited or ucas accredited expert

00:12:56 expert what do you mean by a variation to the classification report do you mean an extension of it like an extrapolation of it yes it's effectively using an alternative fixing detail it could be a bigger cavity it could be thicker

00:13:07 bigger cavity it could be thicker insulation it could be a different uh type of

00:13:11 type of cladding system so you wanted that to be assessed by the same people who'd issued the original classification from our perspective on the rest of detail that's what i wanted to tighten it up to so that it wasn't down to somebody else's opinion that that'll

00:13:23 somebody else's opinion that that'll still perform okay because we've had a classification or before i see thank you and now um on the 16th of february 2015 you then emailed a revision of the k-15

00:13:34 emailed a revision of the k-15 registered details certificate to mr turner mr smith and mr brennan for the transcript that's labc 40959 and after exchanging further emails in

00:13:45 and after exchanging further emails in which the certificate was being finalized on the 30th of march you emailed saying we've you've now got thumbs up from kingspan for the k-15 certificate that's at labc40854

00:13:58 certificate that's at labc40854 let's go to that certificate it's at labc408

00:14:07 and on page one we have the wording which mr turner drafted in that description of product which i've already been through with you yes yes

00:14:17 yes yes and then

00:14:19 and then we see at page two the details of the tests which kingspan had done

00:14:25 had done are there

00:14:26 are there under the conditions of certificate on page two do you see this yes so we can see it says um just above

00:14:37 so we can see it says um just above where the bold words are there's a paragraph that says k15 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 and bs8 part 1 and part 2 meeting the criteria setting out in

00:14:49 meeting the criteria setting out in br155 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories 8 over above 18 meters in height subject to matching the explicit criteria identified in the tested specifications

00:15:00 identified in the tested specifications below

00:15:01 below an overall risk assessment of the finished building in relation to b4 c scope above and then you've got a description of the systems that were tested to part one and then the system tested

00:15:14 to part one and then the system tested to part two below that do you see that yes

00:15:18 yes but you still got the phrase that begins that k15 has been successfully tested too

00:15:24 too as in the product has been successfully tested to

00:15:27 tested to and meets the criteria set out in br135 again

00:15:33 again can you accept that the wording would have been better if it had said k15 can only be used over 18 meters if it is used in the systems exactly as described below why don't you

00:15:45 exactly as described below why don't you have something like that

00:15:52 with hindsight that says oh that that flows much easier than the wedding i've got there

00:15:59 got there but i mean it is actually saying subject to match inexplicit criteria identified yes

00:16:05 yes it does it does say that but i'm picking up on the wedding just before that yes so yes it could have been reworded as you're suggesting now i want to go now to some minutes

00:16:16 now i want to go now to some minutes from a meeting in june 2015. if we go to labc 4080

00:16:26 these are minutes and actions of the labc and labc warranty registered details jmc what's a jmc um

00:16:39 i think it stood for joint management committee and it's held on the 24th of june 2015 and if we could go to um the bottom of page one item four

00:16:50 page one item four it says this breaches and contraventions the registration of kingsman k15 was discussed and potential to increase scope

00:16:59 scope in light of client dissatisfaction with nhbc stance on situation business opportunity if way forward can be resolved meeting suggested with kingspan

00:17:12 meeting suggested with kingspan rs to arrange now who's rs there that's uh richard smith yeah now can you help us as to what was discussed under this item

00:17:23 this item um well the meeting was a uh i think a

00:17:28 i think a quarterly meeting between labc and labc warranty

00:17:33 warranty to talk about sort of

00:17:37 sort of joint working i suppose

00:17:43 john gilbert who is my counterpart at lbc warranty would look at products for registered details to see if it met warranties structural

00:17:54 structural warranty requirements as well and if it did we could provide a joint registered detail for that so there was a uh i suppose um

00:18:04 um i suppose this this is how it was working in relation to the competition labc was in and hbc had their own warranty on building control teams this

00:18:15 warranty on building control teams this was the equivalent which was labc building control and labc warranty yes but on the specific issue that's being discussed there are these minutes accurate

00:18:25 accurate that it was viewed as a business opportunity for the labc that there was client dissatisfaction with nhbc's stunts on k-15 well

00:18:36 well i believe the minutes were taken by labc warranty on ourselves so the viewpoints here are from a warranty perspective as opposed to our labc

00:18:48 our labc um but i think it was

00:18:52 i think i think that

00:18:55 if i remember rightly nhbc's stance uh in terms of approval on new buildings had had changed and labc warranty

00:19:09 had had changed and labc warranty we're wondering if that was an opportunity for them to to look at yes i mean should we read this as nhbc were getting tougher with um the use of k-15 on tall

00:19:21 with um the use of k-15 on tall buildings

00:19:23 buildings and

00:19:24 and labc we're seeing this as a potential business opportunity to

00:19:30 to cash in on that by being softer um

00:19:36 i suppose in terms of the warranty side you'd have to ask labc warranty on that it certainly looks like that as to how it's written is that how you understood it at the time it was

00:19:49 i think it was more that there was an opportunity to talk with clients who were solid and hbc i think it was an opportunity to have a discussion around that

00:20:01 that but it certainly reads on uh you know on there that there's a possible extra market and that would have been on labc warranties uh risk assessment of the sites that were

00:20:12 sites that were that they were going to approach yes but can you explain how that was in any way appropriate given the legitimate concerns which had been raised about k-15's use over 18 meters including by

00:20:23 k-15's use over 18 meters including by nhbc

00:20:28 well from the registered details perspective it was having additional classification reports so we had more wall external wall systems that were

00:20:38 were being

00:20:40 being sanctioned through classification

00:20:43 [Music] why wasn't the labc taking a straight line with kingspan as well and standing alongside nhbc and its strict approach to compliance

00:20:55 to compliance um

00:20:56 um well i think again there's there's the two sides to this this is labc warranties side in terms of the the new build market

00:21:07 for labc we're working with an hbc as part of the building control alliance and working to the guidance document have been issued by that by that group you keep saying this was about lab warranty side what

00:21:20 this was about lab warranty side what what was what was your side thinking about it

00:21:24 about it i think were you keen on the idea of it being a business opportunity to use nhbc's stricter stance to get more business

00:21:31 business i now i assumed that labc warranty would take that decision in light of everything had gone off with an hpc and they would make a judgment call on what was being proposed

00:21:43 call on what was being proposed i didn't think they were going to take a a a

00:21:46 a a a lighter or a softer touch with anybody let's look at another email chain on a similar

00:21:52 similar theme if we go to labc

00:21:56 305971 now this is a string of emails in which there's a discussion about the use of k15 on 16 18 and 22 story buildings on the waterfront at woolwich

00:22:09 on the waterfront at woolwich and

00:22:10 and picking it up at the bottom of page one we can see there's an email from martin taylor

00:22:15 taylor labc

00:22:17 labc to gareth barnbrook copying you in dated the 3rd of july 2015 and he says morning mate um thanks again for doing tonight i'm still playing

00:22:29 for doing tonight i'm still playing chauffeur

00:22:30 chauffeur and then

00:22:31 and then third paragraph down on 6 7 and 8 barnet have confirmed from a regulatory compliance point of view that they are happy with the use of k-15 which is within their jurisdiction to do

00:22:42 within their jurisdiction to do i'm not sure if warranty have confirmed that they are happy with it from a warranty perspective if 678 and woolich are the same site fine if it's another one it will have to be a matter for that particular la as to

00:22:53 be a matter for that particular la as to whether they accept k-15 from a regulatory compliance point of view then it's he says this nhbc don't currently accept k-15 hence the move to labc

00:23:03 labc whilst we can't be seen to be winning work on the basis of technical interpretation i'm sure working with kingspan that we can issue guidance to la departments they have asked for the product to go

00:23:14 they have asked for the product to go through registered details and david is contacting them to arrange a meeting to discuss this issue in particular but national guidance won't be issued in time to respond to this latest email

00:23:25 time to respond to this latest email now it looks from this that this is exactly what the labc is contemplating doing at the time winning work on the basis of relaxed technical interpretation that was not as rigorous as the

00:23:36 that was not as rigorous as the interpretation of nhbc is that fair um well this is july 2015 and from the registered detail perspective i would be expecting

00:23:48 perspective i would be expecting if that site is using an external wall system with classification reports that are part of that registered detail then i would i would

00:23:58 i would think that if i think that's that's they're demonstrating compliance with building regulations if nhpc have moved completely away from kingspanner not accepting any of that and the companies still want to use that

00:24:09 and the companies still want to use that product with a valid classification report

00:24:13 report then i i

00:24:14 then i i i

00:24:15 i that to me that that's that that that's except that's compliant with regulations can you help us as to what you understood at the time did these buildings in question here have an

00:24:27 these buildings in question here have an identical construction to the 8414 either part one or part two test which kings fan had passed with k15 by this point

00:24:35 point i don't know did you ever seek to find that out no i don't believe i did do you accept that looking at that that email together with the meeting minute

00:24:46 email together with the meeting minute we we looked at earlier it seems to imply a pretty unattractive stance for the labc to be taking to effectively cash in on winning work uh on the basis that nhbc were being

00:24:58 uh on the basis that nhbc were being stricter and you could take a more a softer approach to compliance

00:25:06 well i think

00:25:11 do i accept that in terms of the context of the email so that it it appears that but i i don't actually believe that i think the issue here is that all of a sudden k15 wasn't

00:25:22 that all of a sudden k15 wasn't acceptable for any nhbc site and people obviously still wanted to use that on

00:25:28 that on on projects or we're still trying to use on projects so if if that's being accepted for compliance with billing regulations with a classification port regardless of a registered detail then that would

00:25:39 a registered detail then that would still demonstrate compliance with building regulations well just can i just ask you if you

00:25:44 if you if you knew that nhbc had declined to approve the use of k-15 did it ever cross your mind as to why they had declined to do so

00:25:56 had declined to do so um

00:25:58 um i assume that this was the ongoing uh thread in relation to providing a test report and it was also the previous sites that hbc had or the sites

00:26:09 previous sites that hbc had or the sites were under construction that kingspan had

00:26:12 had told

00:26:13 told nhbc that that was the responsibility of the developer to evidence compliance the the only reason for nhb c to decline to approve k-15

00:26:27 c to decline to approve k-15 i think would be that it hadn't demonstrated that it complied with the requirements of adb is that right um no it might be purely on a warranty

00:26:39 um no it might be purely on a warranty side

00:26:40 side again you have these two hats on and from warranty's perspective they may well have made a judgment that they're not going to accept that on any sites in future as opposed to my role which is in relation to building

00:26:51 my role which is in relation to building regulation compliance from what you'd seen in the uh in the email traffic

00:26:59 any concern from the warranty aspect was also related to testing wasn't it uh

00:27:08 uh absolutely yes i mean from but it may be i suppose

00:27:14 i suppose and anyway i can i can explain that is that build regulations are demonstrating minimum compliance everybody can build more instead of using

00:27:24 using 325 millimeters of glass fiber you can put 500 million there if you want to the minimum is is that is that side so purely achieving the minimum there is still and it was always on the line that

00:27:35 still and it was always on the line that insurance particulars could request more so if we're talking around industrial buildings there may be a 60-minute fire resistance between a compartment wall between storage and shop

00:27:46 between storage and shop but insurance may actually insist on a four-hour wall to protect the stock that they have uh in the storage area right thank you very much is that what you actually thought at the

00:27:57 is that what you actually thought at the time that steve evans and nhbc were requiring

00:28:01 requiring kingspan to go over and above what the minimum requirements were in the building regulations and adb and that's why there was some room for maneuver is that what you actually thought at the time

00:28:11 time no i'm not saying that at all i think it was it was it was

00:28:17 it was the fact that industry clearly still wanted to use this product and hbc

00:28:23 and hbc were

00:28:25 were clearly not on good terms of kingspan um and

00:28:29 um and work was work was still moving on and that was a like an

00:28:34 like an alternative way of of progressing with projects

00:28:38 projects yes but why why is the fact that industry was still wanting to use this product relevant in any way whatsoever to whether in fact it was compliant and appropriate for use above 18 meters

00:28:53 um

00:28:56 i can only answer that in relation to the role that i had which was we were having classification reports demonstrated as the alternative way to comply with under 12 5 as opposed to you

00:29:09 comply with under 12 5 as opposed to you using material compostability so that option of being able to comply with building regulations which was a classification report showing that it met the performance criteria yes for one specific configuration yes absolutely

00:29:22 specific configuration yes absolutely and that's that's all i from you understood all these buildings in which k-15 was being used were identical to what the two classification reports you'd seen by this point one with a steel frame one with a masonry

00:29:33 steel frame one with a masonry construction if if they were being used on the site that was here the decision was down to the local authority in terms of confirmation i would hope that the registered detail would provide a bit more clarity for them and indeed the

00:29:45 more clarity for them and indeed the guidance note that went out to membership on there um that it's it's this is what this is how you should be addressing that when you get an application at your authority okay now just very very briefly now finally

00:29:57 now just very very briefly now finally on k15 i just want to look at the certificate that was issued the very final registered detail certificate that was issued on the 14th of january 2016 and ran until 2019

00:30:09 2016 and ran until 2019 um now you describe this uh this uh certificate if we look at labc 303186

00:30:23 on the 14th of january

00:30:27 you say second email down on this page you described this in an email 14th january 2016 to sam lee muller as you say this is a special

00:30:38 lee muller as you say this is a special one

00:30:38 one in that it's crucial we present the right information just briefly why did you say that at that point

00:30:47 [Music] um i think it was the final paragraph there

00:30:53 there uh i'm still debating how best to do this what it was was that the natural development of the registered detail was that we would start to build a library of classification reports for different

00:31:05 of classification reports for different external wall systems i couldn't fit them all onto two pages or we would suddenly have a 14-page document that potentially people wouldn't click through so it was how best to

00:31:16 best to um how best to present that and in the end it was used as an appendices where it had the list of the classification reports

00:31:24 reports attached

00:31:25 attached yes let's look at the certificate that was issued labc 40971 this ran from march 2016 to march 2019

00:31:37 it's the ews 165 what does the eww s tell us at the top so that's england and wales in terms of building regulations yeah w is that it meets the criteria for lbc warranty yeah

00:31:50 meets the criteria for lbc warranty yeah structural uh standards yeah and s is that it's local authority building standards scotland meeting scottish building standards as well yes and we see the same description of product

00:32:02 see the same description of product um on that in that front box k15 has been tested to comply with i'm not going to go over that again but if we go to page two the conditions of certificate

00:32:14 certificate what we can see is if we blow up the conditions of certificate

00:32:20 it says in that last paragraph k15 has been successfully tested to 8414 part 1 and part 2 meeting the criteria set out in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in

00:32:31 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories over 18 meters in height

00:32:35 height subject to matching the explicit criteria identified in the tested specifications held on the k15 product specification and classification report index updated in conjunction with this certificate

00:32:47 certificate now that document was located on kingspan's website is that right um

00:32:56 um i thought it was attached to the register detail i thought it was a supplementary sheet for it if we look at labc40972

00:33:10 this was the document yes now is your understanding that that would have been attached to that last certificate or only available on kingspan's website my understanding that was available on

00:33:22 my understanding that was available on the labc register details website i see

00:33:27 let's move on sorry yeah it might well have been on the kingspan website in terms of showing um evidence from from that side as to how it linked to the

00:33:38 that side as to how it linked to the registered detail okay let's move on now to celetex rs 5000

00:33:45 5000 and if we go back to your witness statement and look at pages 47 and 48 47 first

00:33:52 47 first [Music]

00:33:53 [Music] you have helpfully provided a table for us at the bottom of the various certificates for rs 5000 there was a first certificate on the 29th of

00:34:04 29th of august 2014 which you describe as a system certificate for rs 5000 and that had a drawing and document list associated with it i'm going to come to these in due course that's in the row

00:34:15 these in due course that's in the row below

00:34:17 below then on the 3rd of november 2014 you tell us in the next row there was a new format labc certificate for the product and then you tell us that that was

00:34:28 and then you tell us that that was withdrawn on the 6th of november 2014 is that right just three days after it was published yes yes and then you tell us at the bottom of that page you tell us there was no

00:34:39 that page you tell us there was no labc registration for rs 5000 in this time period between november 14 and june 15.

00:34:47 15. and then over the page we can see the next certificate was dated the first of july 2015 and then

00:34:57 and then finally there was another certificate dated the 10th of september 2015 and indeed then another one 19th of august 2016. so that's

00:35:08 19th of august 2016. so that's that's just a summary of the different certificates now i want to look at some correspondence leading up to the first rs 5000 certificate being issued in august 2014

00:35:20 in august 2014 and

00:35:21 and you appear to have been made aware of celetex's interest in obtaining a registered detail on the 29th of october 2013 if we go to um labc 308417

00:35:37 we can see there's an email to you from mr brennan at the bottom of page one

00:35:44 he says um just spoke to celetex who are interested in registering a rain screen board we'll let you know when they get back in touch cheers and then

00:35:54 and then you reply cool on the outside and warm on the inside two exclamation marks david and then we go up the page

00:36:05 go up the page he says um very very cheesy and then he says they kept asking about their competitors and what your relationship was with them how many times you would have met them he said he couldn't tell me who he was

00:36:17 said he couldn't tell me who he was talking about i said it's kingspan isn't it and he said yes how did you know these insulation people think they're bloody mi5 agents we'll see if they come back to us anyway

00:36:28 we'll see if they come back to us anyway or we're just fishing for info about their arch nemesis and then you say at the top of the page we should keep some of your anecdotes to put in a book fabulous

00:36:39 put in a book fabulous now um

00:36:41 now um did you come to understand at the time why celetex was so interested in your relationship with kingspan was that ever explained um

00:36:50 um [Music]

00:36:53 [Music] no not really i met them i think in the november yes meeting with them

00:36:59 them um

00:37:01 um and i was i was asked some questions then

00:37:04 then and i think that's probably what uh the context of that email thread is is trying to

00:37:09 trying to find out really looking at what celetex needed to do to obtain a registered detail yes yes we can see from the correspondence that you met mr roper john roper of celetex in november 2013

00:37:23 john roper of celetex in november 2013 you explained that in your witness statement um can you recall exactly what was discussed with mr roper at this meeting can you

00:37:30 can you give us the flavor of it yes not word for word but in essence they were

00:37:37 they were i was told they were developing a new product

00:37:40 product that they were about to start doing tested on it wanted to try and get a registered detail because they wanted to compete with kingspan k15 um what what were the what were the

00:37:52 um what what were the what were the steps are involved well you told at the time that it was in fact not a new product but the same as the fr 5000 product that it had been selling for many years up until that point i don't

00:38:04 many years up until that point i don't believe i did i know there was references in correspondence to fr 5000 because we actually brought that up in one of the certificates i think we're asked to change it but i wasn't specifically told we're just re-badging

00:38:16 specifically told we're just re-badging an old product it was we're developing a new product and about to start testing right were you surprised in due course when you learned that in fact this wasn't a new product it was an old product yes you were surprised

00:38:27 an old product yes you were surprised yes

00:38:28 yes were you given a tour of the manufacturing and testing facility when you went to to visit them yes i think i was did you see any data or other third-party accreditation or other test

00:38:40 third-party accreditation or other test information when you went there no

00:38:45 now you sent the quote for celetex's rs 5000 registered details um work to mr renton and mr gilbert

00:38:56 work to mr renton and mr gilbert um if we look at this this is labc labc305302

00:39:02 [Music]

00:39:07 so this is bob renton and john gilbert do you say hi gents please find attached next quote for celetex information can be found that link below and agromont certificate attached

00:39:19 attached trust it is okay can pick up on the q a element for design software later in confidence this may take some time as quote will be put to management for business plan to market against kingspan

00:39:30 business plan to market against kingspan k15 existing registered details now first of all why were you emailing those two gentlemen with this quote um they were the two gentlemen involved one from john gilbert is from warranty

00:39:43 one from john gilbert is from warranty bob brenton is from building standard scotland so it's about harmonized registered detail and what did you mean when you said in confidence this may take some time as quote will be put to management for

00:39:54 quote will be put to management for business plan to market against kingspan k15

00:39:58 k15 i think i was making them aware that selatex had asked for it to be done in confidence because they were considering developing the product right

00:40:08 right and you mentioned uh you say in the first line information can be found at link below and aggramar's certificate attached there are two documents that you've

00:40:19 there are two documents that you've attached

00:40:20 attached um the first document is a bba certificate in relation to a celetex pir plasterboard for thermal laminates if we look at this labc two zeros one four

00:40:31 look at this labc two zeros one four five six zero

00:40:41 there it says celetex insulation celetex pir plasterboard thermal laminates thermal performance behavior and fire can you remember why

00:40:52 behavior and fire can you remember why you sent them this particular bba certificate at this point um [Music]

00:41:00 [Music] i can't i think it was just an indication in relation to its thermal performance i see and for the transcript what we see is then um mr gilbert responds to this

00:41:11 then um mr gilbert responds to this saying seems fine to me um albeit he queried the supporting bba certificate and said this would need to be discussed with celetex that was at labc305303

00:41:23 and mr renton indicated his approval on the 28th of november 2018 13.

00:41:29 13. that was at labc305308

00:41:34 you then send mr roper an amended quotation for the registered details certificate dated the 22nd of november 2013. that's at labc301702

00:41:48 and then on the 19th of december you emailed david jones at herefordshire building control if we can go to that email it's labc 305339

00:42:03 [Music] and you say this to mr jones hi dave tried to phone today but advised you're away on leave so we'll try tomorrow then you go on in the next paragraph

00:42:15 then you go on in the next paragraph kingspan have recently applied for registered detail certification for their new product optim r etc and then you go on in the next paragraph i've also been approached by celetex

00:42:25 celetex who have queried our interpretation of adb in relation to the k15 product i have no technical data behind our archive system so can't dig into it

00:42:37 archive system so can't dig into it essentially the queries in relation to use of a pur board in a position requiring fire resistance particularly if it is used over 18 meters adb4

00:42:48 meters adb4 12.5 to 12.7 and definition of limited combustibility wondered if there was any testing undertaken to demonstrate the external boarding protected the eternal core of the board or any background on the

00:43:00 the board or any background on the research process undertaken i appreciate this may have been some time ago as i think it was originally a land tax certificate and then you go on and then a few lines down you say hope this makes sense i've

00:43:11 down you say hope this makes sense i've asked celetex for more specific information but before i go to gareth at kingspan i thought i'd check with you first

00:43:18 first so a query has been raised by celetex about

00:43:21 about your interpretation of adb in relation to the k15 product and you've gone back to mr jones to ask him about that is that correct it is one of the i was asked a question by

00:43:32 is one of the i was asked a question by mr roper at the meeting in november which is was effect effectively how is kingspan a materialistic material of limited combustibility yeah and i couldn't answer the question

00:43:43 and i couldn't answer the question because i i physically couldn't answer the question so in terms of my statement that i've put through at that point i believed i understood the difference between

00:43:54 difference between class nor and material of integral stability and i couldn't answer the question and i couldn't find the data within our poor system that we had at the time for

00:44:07 poor system that we had at the time for information so i asked it directly of mr jones yes you say it was a poor system that you had at the time for information was it normal practice for the labc not to retain technical data for the

00:44:18 to retain technical data for the certificates which it had issued well i think other than the herefordshire type approval that came through with with the uh the kingsman document

00:44:30 with the uh the kingsman document i don't think there was a deal else sitting on the system and i wanted to know what else was what else had been done

00:44:37 done and it is clear from that that the majority of the reliance was on the agamon certificate that was in place that time the 2008 certificate were you concerned about that situation

00:44:48 were you concerned about that situation that you didn't have any technical information other than the certificate and the supporting documentation for it um

00:44:56 um from the perspective of being able to answer that question yes which is why i raised the query with him

00:45:03 him now you received a response to your email from mr jones if we go to labc305351

00:45:10 on the 20th of december 2013 he comes back to you

00:45:17 and you can see he says at the top hi david i'm not sure what specific issues have been raised by celetex but below are some extracts relevant to the fire performance and testing of k-15 and

00:45:28 fire performance and testing of k-15 and what he does then is he sets out an extract from the bba certificate

00:45:35 you see that there and then if we go over the page

00:45:41 we can see he's also set out an extract from

00:45:49 [Music]

00:45:53 his internal assessment he calls it he says and these from our internal assessment

00:46:00 so if we go back a page i think it introduces what's at the top of that page

00:46:05 page go back to bottom of page one yes he's got an extract from kingspan's own technical literature which appears at the top of the next page and then he's got um

00:46:15 got um in blue he says and these from our internal assessment and he set out some information that was contained in that

00:46:24 that labc type approval system document and then at the end of his email in the final two paragraphs

00:46:34 if we can go to that below this

00:46:45 he says this right at the very bottom he says essentially as the border this is the blue text essentially as the board is described as class naught it can be termed a material of limited combustibility and so in terms of the

00:46:56 combustibility and so in terms of the relevant part of doc b it is suitable for use within the wall construction even at heights over 18 meters and then over the page he says this [Music]

00:47:07 [Music] after setting out 12.7 there is no question of the board providing any fire resistance as it can't do that this in itself but when used as part of a wall system which does provide fire resistance the insulation board does not

00:47:19 resistance the insulation board does not have a detrimental effect by virtue of its status of limited combustibility and then he goes on about the checking purpose

00:47:31 purpose now did you notice at the time that mr jones

00:47:37 jones was asserting that it could be termed a material of limited combustibility and yet none of the information he'd attached in that email supported that conclusion

00:47:49 it didn't well it didn't answer the question

00:47:51 question that i was asked i didn't understand it anymore

00:47:54 anymore from the purpose of me asking in the first place um

00:47:57 um and i

00:48:00 you know this is the first involvement that i've had with uh with the product really um and it was it was you know it was the same way as the peer review i assumed it

00:48:11 same way as the peer review i assumed it was something that i wasn't getting that that was that was already um determined by both

00:48:20 both mr jones and um and barry turner of labc in terms of issuing the original system approval yes so it's my mistake and i forwarded that on to john roper to answer a question

00:48:32 on to john roper to answer a question that he asked me at the meeting yes you do and we'll look at that in a moment so you say you were confused and you didn't understand it did you take any steps to try and understand it or to seek any

00:48:43 try and understand it or to seek any help from anybody else to understand it no i didn't at that time i knew that i needed to

00:48:49 needed to start to start getting uh getting myself together if you like and then to

00:48:55 then to to upskill my knowledge of this area yes

00:48:59 yes well

00:49:01 well but if you didn't understand it let's go to what you do next you just send it to mr roper labc

00:49:14 301706 there's an email from you to mr roper there [Music]

00:49:23 [Music] and

00:49:24 and sorry we need to go to the bottom of page three

00:49:31 yes there so you say hi john 2nd of january 2014 trust you had a good christmas and new year period as promised i've been in discussion with the refer research authority and received the response below in relation

00:49:42 received the response below in relation to determination of fire resistance sorry i couldn't get it back to you before you took leave as we discussed at our last meeting acceptability is determined by the associated product specification in combination including

00:49:54 specification in combination including cavity barriers please just ask if i can assist with anything else in relation to your registered detail application and then you can see below that you basically set out the extracts from

00:50:09 set out the extracts from mr

00:50:10 mr jones's email so if we it says firstly from the bba certificate and you've just copied mr jones's email

00:50:20 back to mr roper and then if you look at the bottom of page five final two paragraphs

00:50:29 are identical to the language that mr jones used about class because it's described as class naught it can be termed a material of limited combustibility

00:50:40 combustibility and so in terms of the relevant part of doc b it's suitable for use even at heights over 18 meters

00:50:51 can you explain why you just simply passed on this information if you didn't understand it at the time and you couldn't be sure whether it was technically correct i assumed that it well i made the

00:51:02 i assumed that it well i made the assumption it was technically correct because i'd gone to my peers to to ask that very question and you know i i know it's complete completely wrong um

00:51:12 um at the time and i even when i sent that because i remember sending this email out you know i was not happy with myself for sending out because i couldn't provide an answer from myself that i had to go

00:51:24 an answer from myself that i had to go to somebody else on it yes

00:51:28 yes um i mean mr mr roper gave evidence the inquiry and he said he didn't go back and correct you because he thought it was a advantageous for celetex not to quite

00:51:39 quite yes

00:51:41 yes now we can see from the emails that mr rayford responds to you but the next point i want to ask you about is you then go back to him and explain that um tim

00:51:51 um tim bartlett at west suffolk is going to do the research work for the registered detail certificate that's correct isn't it yes

00:52:00 it yes he was the man that did it now we know that the registered details manual requires

00:52:06 requires the selection of the research authority to be based on their technical expertise did you take steps to find out what mr bartlett's technical expertise was before you put the celetex work to him

00:52:21 before you put the celetex work to him only in so much as tim was on the registration partnerships group and regularly involved in peer reviews for the registered details that we did so i took the fact that he was

00:52:35 part and parcel of that and very active on that group that he was capable of undertaking the seller tax registered detail and he was in the adjacent authority it worked very well yes but does it follow from your answers that no

00:52:46 does it follow from your answers that no specific questions were asked of him about

00:52:49 about his knowledge of these quite complicated areas within adb given the testing information that you had absolutely and i think you asked me on thursday the question

00:53:00 on thursday the question and

00:53:01 and in hindsight having some form of register of competencies is something that we we should sort of strive to pursue what we see then is if we go to

00:53:13 what we see then is if we go to labc40279

00:53:21 on the 17th of june 2014 mr ropa sends to mr bartlett copying you in an email headed celetex rs5000 data

00:53:32 headed celetex rs5000 data and he's attaching various pieces of information and he says tim hope you're well and thank you again for your visit last week i trust you found the tour of our manufacturing facility useful so he's of tim butler's obviously had a

00:53:43 he's of tim butler's obviously had a tour as well around celetex and he says please find attached the first batch of information to support our application for a registered detail and he says as discussed our aim is to

00:53:54 and he says as discussed our aim is to provide you with the support materials to develop detail which entails the following

00:54:00 following and you can see he's got some wording there about what he wants the the certificate to say and in the third little dash it says celetex rs 5000 has

00:54:12 little dash it says celetex rs 5000 has successfully tested to bs 841 for part 2 meets the criteria set in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height

00:54:23 in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate alternative compliance to adb now do you recognize that because that is if in effect and these bullets all

00:54:34 is if in effect and these bullets all reflect very closely what the wording that kingspan had suggested

00:54:41 suggested before its registered details certificate in august 2013 and the language that was used in that appendix for the registered detail certificate for k-15 do you see that yes

00:54:55 did you appreciate that at the time that they were effectively seeking the same broad statements as has been made for kingspan k15 um i suppose i did it was uh

00:55:08 um i suppose i did it was uh pending the results of the tests that they were having undertaken on part two but uh certainly it was laying uh celetex's uh aims out

00:55:21 uh celetex's uh aims out yes

00:55:22 yes and then on the 17th of june if we go to labc 40329

00:55:31 mr roper sends another email to mr bartlett copying you in this is bottom of page three i want to look at

00:55:40 mr roper says this tim find attached updated bre holding letter confirming we have passed br135 and meat compliance to adb

00:55:52 compliance to adb [Music]

00:55:53 [Music] now

00:55:55 now [Music]

00:55:57 [Music] let's look at that holding letter it's at labc40285

00:56:11 here it says addressed to mr roper from mr howard of the bre 17th of june 2014. dear mr roper the bs 8414 part 2 fire test on the

00:56:22 the bs 8414 part 2 fire test on the system as supplied and installed by celetex was tested on the 2nd of may 2014

00:56:28 2014 we have reviewed the data and video footage of the test and confirmed that we are in the process of issuing a test report and a classification document to be r135

00:56:36 be r135 should you require any further information please feel free to contact me so that was a pretty brief letter wasn't it yes doesn't give any detail about the system that was tested or what conclusions were drawn when it

00:56:48 or what conclusions were drawn when it was classified to br 135 does it no

00:56:54 no now on the 30th of june just going forward with the story if we go to labc40306

00:57:05 mr bartlett sends an email to you and mr brennan

00:57:08 brennan saying good morning kathal and david i leave the west suffolk service today and regrettably i have not been able to finalize the celetex

00:57:20 finalize the celetex registered solution application as i await requested information from them and he goes on however i am satisfied that when this info is forthcoming it will satisfy the requirements

00:57:31 will satisfy the requirements this information is an updated class naught spread of fire test report underpinning information for their pr our lambda value and model constructional details however in anticipation that this will

00:57:43 however in anticipation that this will be forthcoming i've attached a drafted compliance declaration form drawing and document list and briefing note it's worth noting that this is actually their fr 5000 product simply tested and

00:57:55 fr 5000 product simply tested and re-badged to be used above 18 meters in height

00:57:58 height i've also requested celetex send their additional information when available to my email address on the regional awards website

00:58:05 website i will send the detailed seller texts are provided in a follow-up email

00:58:11 so it's clear isn't it that this compliance declaration form and drawing and document list were prepared by mr bartlett without having sight of the br135 classification report from the bre

00:58:23 br135 classification report from the bre yes i think it had taken it in good faith that there was a classification report that would be forthcoming so he because he was finishing at the authority

00:58:31 authority it take the liberty of completing the ascent effectively the paperwork pending assume of that document yes but can we agree that that was a fundamentally flawed approach given that for any

00:58:43 flawed approach given that for any statement in relation to its use above 18 meters that classification report would be of critical importance wouldn't it yes

00:58:52 it yes do you think that at this time you were still under the misapprehension that if it had got a report a classification report to br 135 then the product could be used above 18 meters in any

00:59:05 could be used above 18 meters in any situation

00:59:07 situation um i think i might have been yes yeah and did it set alarm bells um ringing for you

00:59:14 for you that you're told here that it's actually their fr 5000 product simply tested and rebadged

00:59:20 rebadged did you compare that with what you'd been told about it being a new product when you'd seen celetex in november 13. um

00:59:28 um [Music]

00:59:37 i took the view that it was that product being tested for something different um whether said the long bells ring i i can't say

00:59:48 i i can't say i can't say that i recall feeling that yes

00:59:53 yes now let's look at the documents that mr bartlett attached to his email if we go to labc40

01:00:00 to labc40 this is the commission pack compliance declaration form

01:00:06 [Music]

01:00:10 and then section two it says there at the top of the page under title of registered detail second row down celetex rs5000 pir installation

01:00:22 row down celetex rs5000 pir installation board for use in range screen construction including above 18 meters in height do you see that i do yes

01:00:30 i do yes if you then go we go to page two section four

01:00:36 it lists the supporting information and you can see that

01:00:44 there's some information outstanding yes and missing and he's it's relied on at 0.5 the holding letter from the bre do you see that

01:00:55 do you see that yes

01:00:58 and then page three section five under limitations of use it says for use only in ra only in rain screen wall construction including above 18 meters height yes

01:01:10 18 meters height yes yes it does did you read those documents at the time they were sent by mr bartlett

01:01:16 bartlett uh i'm not sure if i did because they were sent through for effectively collating and going up onto peer review yes

01:01:24 yes and if we look at the other attachment the drawing and documents list he sent if we go to labc 40308

01:01:45 we can see um

01:01:47 um under supporting documentation reference numbers

01:01:53 he's got um

01:01:57 the bre letter 17th of june confirming classification of product to br135 doesn't say in red to come br 135 test report does it

01:02:09 report does it sorry br 135 classification report does it no it doesn't

01:02:16 he says what's to come below that he's got to come bre test report to indicate class naught spread of flame underpinning data regarding thermal conductivity and model construction details

01:02:28 details [Music]

01:02:30 [Music] and then if we go down the page to advice

01:02:32 advice notes it says effectively exactly what mr roper had wanted it to say celetex rs 5000 has been has

01:02:43 celetex rs 5000 has been has successfully tested two 8414 part two meets the criterion br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height do you see that yes again did you read that

01:02:54 see that yes again did you read that document when it was sent through again that would have been all the collated data ready to go out to the peer review this effectively gave global approval for the use of celetex rs 5000 for use

01:03:06 for the use of celetex rs 5000 for use above 18 meters didn't it as drafted like this i appreciate it's not complete in terms of the wording it does yes yeah [Music]

01:03:15 [Music] there's then a series of emails between you and mr bartlett and you bring him up to speed with some of the exchanges you've had with the nhbc about kingspan's product we don't need to go to those

01:03:26 to those and then if we go to labc 408

01:03:32 on the 24th of july 2014.

01:03:40 mr bartlett emailed you we believe this is from his wife's email address i beg your pardon he emails mr brennan and he copies you in about the celetex

01:03:51 about the celetex registered detail and he says good afternoon catholic please find attached all the documentation for celetex register detail 491 that was the number for

01:03:59 for the rs 5000 registered details certificate wasn't it yes please replace all the documentation previously sent as there's been updates to content and descriptions i feel this is satisfactory now for peer

01:04:11 i feel this is satisfactory now for peer review

01:04:13 review john roper of celetex will no doubt be chasing you in the next couple of weeks to see how the review is going he also wants to see a draft version of the compliance certificate i don't know if you do this however i can draft the

01:04:24 you do this however i can draft the details for this under the new template and send this to you in readiness if you wish so he's saying it's ready for peer review

01:04:32 review and we can see that these documents going out for peer review if you go to labc six 305564 okay can i just point out there as well that the attachments include the bba

01:04:44 that the attachments include the bba letter for fr 5000 yes

01:04:49 yes the bba letter for the fr 5000 product in terms of so again that was the old

01:04:55 the old product that was was there that's only yes yes

01:05:02 yes so if we go to labc305564 here we can see the registered detail certificate for celetex going out for peer review

01:05:14 celetex going out for peer review now it's it's sent to a large number of people

01:05:17 people including

01:05:18 including barry turner including you are the labc people just copied in for information here yes yeah and what you're actually wanting is responses from the peer reviewers is

01:05:30 responses from the peer reviewers is that correct yes we need four

01:05:33 four four positive votes from the members of the registration partnerships group yeah and it's described as it said it says um in the blue text second part of the blue

01:05:44 in the blue text second part of the blue text register details 491 celetex gs5000 installation panel votes due by thursday the 7th of august 2014.

01:05:55 thursday the 7th of august 2014. now is that reference to gs 5000 an error should it have said rs 5000 i think it should have said rs 5000. [Music]

01:06:06 [Music] so that's the peer review going out yes and

01:06:12 and on the

01:06:13 on the same day

01:06:15 same day later that day if we can go to labc 305566

01:06:20 305566 you email mr bartlett second email down on page one

01:06:28 you say this hi tim just looking at the documentation provided when i last spoke to john roper they were having fire testing done on the product the bre report appears to confirm class naught

01:06:39 report appears to confirm class naught but i had thought that it would be through bs8414 part one the standard kingspan are now testing their product against i'm at kingspan tomorrow so we'll ask some questions around their approach to testing

01:06:52 around their approach to testing so you're obviously surprised that you've not seen any evidence of bs8414 test reports is that correct yes i think it is it's a supporting document

01:07:03 it's a supporting document [Music]

01:07:06 [Music] yes

01:07:07 yes and

01:07:08 and mr bartlett responds to your email on the same day at the top of page one

01:07:16 he says this hello david one of the documents submitted is a letter from bre stating that they have tested for compliance with bs8414 and it satisfied the requirement please

01:07:29 and it satisfied the requirement please see attached apparently they are still awaiting the test report from the bre but have this letter as a holding measure hoping we accept it as proof of compliance for their pressing august 5th

01:07:40 compliance for their pressing august 5th launch

01:07:42 launch and he goes on to be honest it's been a bit of a struggle getting all of the information from celetex and any delay has all been done to them i will contact john roper and remind him we need the full report in due course

01:07:54 full report in due course so just pausing there the peer reviewers have clearly not been sent the bre classification report to 135 because celetex have not yet provided it to the labc that's right isn't it that

01:08:06 to the labc that's right isn't it that is yes it's correct can you explain why peer reviewers were being sent the registered details documentation for approval without the bre report having been received

01:08:18 received about the testing that had been done the system testing that had been done i i i can't i mean there is again faith in

01:08:27 in the fact that the bre says it's uh they're preparing a classification report

01:08:33 report and it achieves what it's supposed to but

01:08:37 but it should have had the report with the classification report with it yes because you can't begin to certify it

01:08:44 it properly can you given that 8414 and br 135 is system specific yes you can't begin to certify it unless you know what the system is no

01:08:56 it unless you know what the system is no and is it fair that everybody at this point is still working on the basis that it's going to be a global approval that once you've got that letter from the bre you could go tick

01:09:07 you could go tick it can be used over 18 meters that's the basis on which everyone's erroneously proceeding at this point that's right isn't it yes it looks that way

01:09:18 yes it looks that way and certainly um sent out to members of the peer review um i'm not sure whether there was any commentary around where is the classification report [Music]

01:09:30 [Music] there's a further email from you if we go to this labc40

01:09:36 bottom of page one following your meeting with kingspan if we go to the bottom of page one it's 25th of july at 5 28. yes there at the bottom you say to tim

01:09:48 yes there at the bottom you say to tim bartlett and mr brennan hi tim just got back from kingspan they have been testing to bs8414 in line with the requirements of br135

01:09:59 the requirements of br135 need to look that one up they also point out quite correctly that it is the fire engineer who is ultimately responsible for the choice of materials and that he or she would base their decision on what the

01:10:11 would base their decision on what the elements of construction need to achieve ultimately k-15 can't be cast as a non-combustible material but they have fire stops at 3.5 meter centers and

01:10:23 have fire stops at 3.5 meter centers and the test report to demonstrate adequacy think we have nailed it trouble is i won't see the reports for a few weeks and then you you go on and talk about

01:10:34 and then you you go on and talk about something else

01:10:37 now when you said in those first lines going back to the bottom of page one

01:10:46 [Music] that kingspan have tested to 8414 in line with the requirements of br135 need to look that one up can we read from that that you weren't aware of what br135 was at this point

01:11:00 br135 was at this point no i think that was uh attempted uh humor with tim i used to be a standard commentary when we were talking around all the registered details

01:11:10 details as a phrase of need to look one up and it's clearly not fitting in the context of uh today

01:11:19 in terms of the sorry i don't i don't follow um

01:11:23 follow um why were you joking about need to look that one up well because it was so obvious you needed to in terms of well yes in terms of understanding that there's a vr 135 classification report

01:11:34 there's a vr 135 classification report which is what we were missing from celetex

01:11:36 celetex [Music]

01:11:39 [Music] it's it's it was an attempt at humor between tim and myself around looking at documentation and it uh

01:11:50 and it uh falls miserably in this context but we were effectively i was i was uh advising him that we needed the 8414

01:12:01 uh advising him that we needed the 8414 the part one part two test and the classification report in terms of the complete package from celatex

01:12:08 celatex for

01:12:09 for the specification they were proposing to or that they've had tested

01:12:16 right i mean you've had the friendly warning email

01:12:19 email just a few days before this just 10 days before on the 15th of july 2014

01:12:27 [Music] wasn't it pretty concerning that you didn't have this br 135 classification report at this point yes

01:12:37 yes and ultimately the registered detail hadn't been issued at this stage either [Music]

01:12:43 [Music] you say you agreed with kingspan that it was the fire engineers who was ultimately responsible for the choice of materials

01:12:50 materials did you think that this somehow discharged the labc's own responsibility to rigorously check the product and the system for compliance no it was if it was a

01:13:02 no it was if it was a what's referred to as a desktop exercise from a fire engineer looking at the the structural buildup it would still be the decision of the local authority building control teams as to

01:13:13 authority building control teams as to whether they accepted that or not right

01:13:16 right and what exactly had you nailed we can see later in the email you say i think we've nailed it what did you mean by that

01:13:23 that um

01:13:25 i think i think sorry if i could see sorry if we go over the page so you can see it it's the second line uh well it's right at the end of the first line think we have nailed it trouble is i won't see

01:13:37 we have nailed it trouble is i won't see the reports for a few weeks is that nailed it in relation to kingspan i think it's because i'd met kingspan that was around the steps forward that

01:13:48 that was around the steps forward that we're going to take in relation to uh

01:13:51 uh the next iteration of the uh the kingspan registered detail and the classification reports that would underpin that which then took place and finalized in

01:14:03 which then took place and finalized in i think march of 15. [Music]

01:14:07 [Music] yes

01:14:09 yes i see

01:14:11 i see mr chairman i think that might be a good moment yes break uh if we can yes thank you right well mr and we'll have a break at this point we'll come back please at half past

01:14:23 we'll come back please at half past three and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're away from the room thank you very much

01:14:38 thank you ms grange hopefully please

01:30:33 would you ask mr ewing to come back in please

01:30:41 [Music]

01:30:52 all right mr ewing you ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you so picking the celetex story back up again um and i want to look now on the 8th of august 2014. if we go to labc

01:31:05 2014. if we go to labc 305598

01:31:12 [Music]

01:31:17 you send an email that's at the top of the page to mr brennan and um miss lee you say morning completed updates attached for inclusion the celetex registered detail is still

01:31:28 the celetex registered detail is still missing the final reports from bre evidencing that it complies with the fire testing for use over 18 meters this is an important document as we are under scrutiny from nhbc regarding

01:31:39 under scrutiny from nhbc regarding kingspan k15 which is an equivalent product

01:31:43 product we need to hold seletech certificates back until this has been received i think tim is back on monday so you still seem to be saying at this point that the bre report is going to

01:31:54 point that the bre report is going to evidence that it either product complies with fire testing for use over 18 meters yes yes

01:32:02 yes yes and um

01:32:05 and um then

01:32:06 then if we go to labc 40288 at the bottom of page 2.

01:32:17 [Music]

01:32:20 on the 8th of august you email mr roper copying him mr bartlett and mr brennan and you say this hi john we have just come across your product launch marketing for rs 5000

01:32:33 marketing for rs 5000 i'm mindful that tim bartlett is still on holiday presently so excuse me if you've already sent this to him but we still await your bre test report verifying adequacy would you be able to provide us with the

01:32:44 would you be able to provide us with the report as soon as possible so that we can generate our certificates and place it onto our website if you still await this yourself can you give us an idea of likely time scales so that we can respond to any inquiries we

01:32:55 that we can respond to any inquiries we may receive

01:32:58 now we can see from an email that you're sent a separate chain of emails if we go to labc

01:33:06 to labc 305601 and we look at the bottom of page one

01:33:12 mr brennan emailed you 8th of august 10 at 10 27 you and mr adungo saying i saw that this

01:33:23 you and mr adungo saying i saw that this morning i don't think there's a problem and if we go below

01:33:30 that email there's an email from robert adungo that he sent to mr brennan subject is it true and what he's done is he's cut and paste

01:33:41 and what he's done is he's cut and paste what was in celetex's marketing launch for rs 5000 and the text he's cut and paste is supported by labc approval and suitable for use in both domestic and

01:33:52 for use in both domestic and non-domestic applications and then he's given a link to the celetex launch celetex reaches new height

01:34:04 launch celetex reaches new height with premium pir

01:34:09 now what action did you take when you realized that celotex were marketing their product as having been labc approved

01:34:17 approved when it wasn't yet approved and had no registered detailed certificate because you still hadn't received the br 135 classification report for the testing over 18 meters

01:34:28 over 18 meters um can you just let me know what the date i sent the email i sent to john roper asking for that yes that was at midday 1202 on the 8th of august

01:34:39 8th of august so shortly after you're alerted to this yes you do send to john roper an email

01:34:46 an email saying we've seen your product launch but we're still awaiting your bre test result report would you be able to provide us with the report as soon as possible

01:34:58 possible why didn't you express

01:35:01 express significant dissatisfaction to mr roper that he was launching his product stating they'd been labc approval without that being the case

01:35:14 without that being the case again i think i was giving them the benefits of the doubt and

01:35:18 and in hindsight that was uh not acceptable wasn't that quite a serious matter to claim labc approval when they didn't have it

01:35:27 have it yes it's uh it's it was not not in place at that time i don't think it was long before it was actually up on our website but it still preempts that actual uh

01:35:39 preempts that actual uh entry onto our website did it cause you to question whether the labc should be providing a certificate in support of rs 5000 use above 18 meters

01:35:51 meters when when celetex was behaving that way um i was it was hinging on the response from mr roper as to what data they had yes

01:36:03 yes if we go up this email chain we saw mr brennan um his response at the bottom of page one if we go back to that he says i saw that this morning i don't think there's a problem but david just

01:36:14 think there's a problem but david just finished looking at this product so we'll be able to tell you for sure no need to retweet it or anything as we're still awaiting a copy of the test report before issuing certificates i gave him the okay to reference labc at

01:36:27 i gave him the okay to reference labc at the product launch so no problem with that part

01:36:32 that part now

01:36:32 now can you help us as to what he means by that last bit i gave him the okay to reference labc at the product launch so no problem with that part was it just the timing of it that was a problem

01:36:44 the timing of it that was a problem i think and again i'm reading into that that uh

01:36:48 that uh celetex had contacted cahal to see whether they could still uh do the launch but um

01:36:56 but um [Music]

01:36:58 [Music] i'm no uh no i can't everything offer anything else in addition to that yes and then if we see the email above that it's from you 11 54

01:37:10 it's from you 11 54 subject is it true sorry just spent an hour dealing with conservatories again i know they were pressing before tim went on holiday but haven't even issued draft certificates to celetex question mark

01:37:21 certificates to celetex question mark unless tim has seen drafts we haven't anything that proves it works the bre letter just says that they're preparing the report not that it was found to comply

01:37:30 comply this shouldn't really have been done particularly with the issue over k-15 kings band might think we've been delaying the renewal deliberately i fear another and i think you're right

01:37:41 another and i think you're right another storm brewing is what you say in the email now can you explain what you meant by that last comment

01:37:50 um i think uh kingspan were had a renewal uh around that time it was

01:37:59 it was whether there was any uh i suppose allegations of favoritism between the two companies who clearly were competing against one another

01:38:11 another and um

01:38:17 that's about as much as i can offer i'm afraid

01:38:20 afraid why are you more concerned about what kingspan would think of the labc rather than celetex's inappropriate behavior um

01:38:30 [Music]

01:38:34 i don't have an answer for that i've just always tried to be i suppose consistent and unfair and i didn't want it to be seen that it was um any sort of preferential treatment there

01:38:47 any sort of preferential treatment there right

01:38:48 right mr brennan if we look at the next email up he responds again next email up on page one he says bollocks i'd read tim's emails saying that the bre letter states that

01:39:00 saying that the bre letter states that they have tested for compliance with bs8414 and it satisfies the requirement it got the four votes on peer review too

01:39:10 now

01:39:13 do you know which peer reviewers voted in favor of rs 5000 being granted the registered details certificate i'm sorry i don't again it would be that the online

01:39:24 the online voting system can you explain how they could have done that in the absence of a report from the bre about the 8414 testing given as you had pointed out in your

01:39:35 given as you had pointed out in your emails that testing was so central to the claims made in the registered details certificate i can't answer that no um and again it's in terms of the uh the approval process

01:39:48 in terms of the uh the approval process this is for peers looking through the same information or the overview of the same information and i would have hoped that it might have said i agree on condition of uh being sent

01:40:01 i agree on condition of uh being sent the uh the actual classification report when it's available or something along those lines yes there's no evidence that that's what they said is there no does not it looks like they simply approved it yes

01:40:14 given that you said you needed to place the certificate on hold did you consider requesting that the peer reviewers reconsider the application once you got the bre

01:40:23 the bre report

01:40:25 report um i can't recall whether it went for a second vote

01:40:30 well let's keep going with the correspondence if we go to labc 305602

01:40:37 second email down on page one

01:40:41 mr brennan says

01:40:47 no the quote in my email below was from tim to be honest i'm not even sure i read the letter just tim's summary

01:40:57 and then he says balls so mr brennan obviously thinks he's he's messed up because he's read the letter or actually mr bartlett's summary of the letter from

01:41:09 bartlett's summary of the letter from the bre

01:41:10 the bre as confirming that the product had that classification yes yes

01:41:16 yes and then

01:41:17 and then what we see is mr roper does provide you with the br135 classification report if we go to labc 40288

01:41:34 we can see at 1205 mr roper sends it to you copying in mr bartlett mr brennan david many thanks for your email please find attach the br135 classification for celetex

01:41:45 br135 classification for celetex rs5000

01:41:47 rs5000 so you get that the same day did you read that bl-135 report when it came in um

01:41:56 um i i i must have done but i can't recall let's look at it together labc 40289

01:42:08 there's the report it's dated the fourth of august 2014. if we can go within it to page 12 and look at paragraph 5.2 it says at the end

01:42:19 end classification this system described in this classification report has been tested and met the performance criteria set out in annex b of br135 2013 [Music]

01:42:30 [Music] and then

01:42:31 and then under 5.3 field of application this classification is valid only for the system as installed and detailed in section 2 of this classification report and the associated details found in the

01:42:42 and the associated details found in the related test reports

01:42:46 and then under limitations it says this classification document does not represent type approval or certification of the product so the certificate sorry the classification report itself

01:42:58 sorry the classification report itself was very clear about it being a system approval and not a type approval or certification of the product do you see that

01:43:12 you email mr brennan um if we go labc 305602

01:43:25 at the top of the page

01:43:29 so 12 23 it might be plus one hour possibly can breathe a bit easier now the bre test is everything needed to satisfy criteria

01:43:40 everything needed to satisfy criteria contained in 12.5 and 12.6 in adb can wait until monday for tim to confirm he's okay with the document and close his work

01:43:50 his work so again you appear to think that this gives some form of global approval to k-15 is that correct yes that's what it

01:43:59 it appears

01:44:01 appears and then

01:44:03 and then on the 11th of august 2014. if we go to labc

01:44:07 labc 305603

01:44:12 at the bottom of page 1 there's an email from mr bassen to you and mr turner and he says hi gents this was in meltwater news yesterday so i wonder how

01:44:24 meltwater news yesterday so i wonder how the kingspan issue has gone is this correct by the way about registered details

01:44:30 details and he's set out a quote celetex reaches new heights with premium pir the uk's leading manufacturer of pir installation celetex has once again demonstrated its in innovative

01:44:42 demonstrated its in innovative applications including buildings above 18 meters in height supported by labc approval and suitable for use in both domestic and non-domestic do you see that

01:44:52 that yes

01:44:55 and you respond to mr bassen's email at the top of the page

01:45:04 you say um hi doug yep picked it up on friday celetex did not have their certificate as yet we had been waiting for the bre report and the return of tim bartlett from holiday to complete the

01:45:15 bartlett from holiday to complete the registered details process but it has been through peer review chased it friday afternoon and bre test attached appears to fulfill criteria and

01:45:26 attached appears to fulfill criteria and compliance with adb 12.5 to 12.8 i'm assuming kingspan are also having the same testing done note it's only for the fixing criteria specified and this

01:45:38 the fixing criteria specified and this will be in the limitations of the certificate but it almost matches kingspan's old bba approval now how are you satisfied that the testing that had been provided shows compliance with adb paragraphs 12.5 to

01:45:52 compliance with adb paragraphs 12.5 to 12.8

01:45:54 12.8 can you explain that now i i can't and in light of in what i know now and certainly what what i i knew in the months after that that again is

01:46:05 in the months after that that again is is an incorrect statement

01:46:10 did you take any steps in response to celetex having marketed misleading information about rs 5000 based on the labc

01:46:18 labc uh approval or said to be based on labc approval not that i'm aware of and and again as i said but kingspan still attacks at every opportunity to

01:46:29 still attacks at every opportunity to come back to us and offer a correction but uh

01:46:34 but uh the role from outside as you mentioned was was that of gatekeeper and we haven't we haven't done our job here yeah

01:46:40 yeah and when you say but it has been through peer review you're not referring to another peer review are you that's happened between the 8th and the 11th of august you're talking about the peer review we saw is that right yes

01:46:51 that right yes yeah

01:46:53 yeah now mr bartlett sends you an email um having received the bre report if we go to labc305608

01:47:06 and i want to look at the third email down on page one

01:47:14 mr bartlett says there 11th of august at 22.05 to you copying in mr brennan hello david this all looks in order although the test is for a very specific system rather than general use of the

01:47:26 system rather than general use of the celetex product above 18 meters what do you think should we be limiting this to the very specific makeup of rain screen construction in the test kind regards tim

01:47:38 kind regards tim so he's raising that concern and you respond one email up in the chain

01:47:46 and you say hi tim hope you had a good holiday this is on august the 12th yes the registered details should relate to that which it has been tested against

01:47:58 to that which it has been tested against it's actually not too far off the specification kingspan used to have on their bba certificate it should be added to the limitations on the certificate i suppose the rain grain screen

01:48:10 i suppose the rain grain screen construction is relatively standard the bre test states into installed between the floor slab hangers on the main cladding wall the critical part is therefore the light steel frame number

01:48:21 therefore the light steel frame number of fixings 12 millimeter magnesium oxide board and the horizontal and vertical fire breaks now on what basis did you suppose that the rain screen construction was

01:48:32 the rain screen construction was relatively standard

01:48:36 i in hindsight i didn't have any basis for making that statement whatsoever that's a wholly misplaced assumption isn't it you can have all sorts of different main screen

01:48:47 different main screen um

01:48:48 um materials yes some of which make well and they may behave very differently in fire yes

01:48:58 then mr bartlett responds

01:49:03 responds um at the top of page one

01:49:09 if we go to the top email

01:49:12 and he says in the third line down i've now updated the compliance declaration and also the certificate template and attached both

01:49:21 and then below that in the next paragraph he says what is the procedure now we have this update as i see from the peer review all had essentially been okay with the registered details

01:49:32 okay with the registered details or they although they were of course not aware of the continuing developments i've changed the date on the compliance declaration to today etc and he goes on and he said also i

01:49:43 etc and he goes on and he said also i know that john roper wished to see the final certificate before it was released for general consumption so that's his response so he's noting that the peer reviewers

01:49:54 so he's noting that the peer reviewers hadn't been aware of continuing developments

01:49:59 now we know from the registered detailed manual that it states that following the peer review the draft certificate and final drawing and document list should be forwarded to the registered details applicant and the registered details

01:50:11 applicant and the registered details manager for final checking now who was that in this instance can you help us and the manager would be myself did you check the final certificate and

01:50:22 did you check the final certificate and the drawings and document list as part of a final checking process i'm not sure that i actually did know let's have a look um at the certificate the certificate itself appears at labc

01:50:35 the certificate itself appears at labc 40362

01:50:39 [Music] this is that first registered detail certificate for the celetex rs 5000 pir insulation board we can see it's dated the 21st of august

01:50:52 we can see it's dated the 21st of august 2014 and it's valid for a year until the 21st of august 2015. and let's go to the important drawing and document list which accompanied it that's at labc40361

01:51:12 so there we can see under limitations of use it says for use in rain screen wall construction including above 18 meters in height do

01:51:23 including above 18 meters in height do you see that there yes and then below that we've got the wording that's becoming familiar now particularly in the second well in the second part as well as the

01:51:34 well in the second part as well as the first part but that second part reads celetex rs 5000 has successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 meets the criteria set out in bl-135 and therefore is acceptable for use in

01:51:46 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height

01:51:48 in height subject to the board being fixed to non-combustible substrate alternative compliance to adb so that's the wording that mr roper wanted yes yes which is the wording that was based on

01:52:00 was based on the wording that was originally suggested by kingspan for its product yes it's not system specific as mr bartlett had flagged

01:52:11 had flagged in his email should we be limiting this to the very specific make-up of rain rain screen construction in a test that's not happened has it other than listing the

01:52:22 other than listing the the global test report classification at 295 255 no it hasn't

01:52:32 well yes it's got the test report there so if someone bothered to go and read the test report and get to the end of the test report they might see the passages we looked at earlier but you'd be forgiven for thinking

01:52:44 but you'd be forgiven for thinking wouldn't you just reading this that you could use it in all circumstances over 18 meters in height yes it could can you explain how

01:52:54 how that certificate came to be issued in that form

01:53:05 no lack of lack of knowledge really in terms of bringing that all together and and that's you know

01:53:14 it's apparent yeah ultimately i oversaw the issue of the certificate i should have picked that up as should the uh that the peer reviewers undertaken the review of the

01:53:25 reviewers undertaken the review of the research authority's work

01:53:30 now um mr bartlett then sends an email um copying you in if we go to labc 305623

01:53:40 on the second of september 2014 second email down on page one

01:53:47 and i want to look at the second paragraph

01:53:50 paragraph he says this i sent you an email a week ago asking about the status of registered detail 491 celetex rs 5000 i note there's been no posts on the forum for a month now regarding this and

01:54:02 forum for a month now regarding this and i haven't had any further contact with john roper i just want to make sure this hasn't stagnated and also to make sure there's nothing more for me to do also i'd like to know when it would be appropriate for me to get my former

01:54:13 appropriate for me to get my former authority to invoice the labc for the agreed fee so he seems to think that this should have

01:54:20 have been ongoing and at the top of the page on the same day mr brennan responds to him

01:54:28 him saying

01:54:29 saying hi tim sorry i've been a bit snowed under he copies you in by the way the celetex registration has gone through okay copies of the registration certificates are attached for reference

01:54:40 certificates are attached for reference so he fills in mr bartlett and says well it's all gone through in august yes yes

01:54:47 now following forward with the story if we go to labc40364

01:54:54 we can see on the 8th of october so a month later you send revised certificates we saw this before for both kingspan and the celetex product you

01:55:06 kingspan and the celetex product you just put revised certs

01:55:10 and if we go to what you attached we see labc40368

01:55:20 this is the new style registered details certificate for rs 5000 is that correct yes so this is a draft of that and if we look

01:55:32 and if we look at in the description of product

01:55:37 we can see that it says this is an assessment of a pir insulation board by celatex designed for use within rain screen construction and it describes it

01:55:49 and it describes it and it says it goes through the same manufacturing process as the celitex fr 5000 product the difference being it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br135

01:56:00 with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height see conditions of certificate for more information now can you explain what you were doing at this point you you were clearly

01:56:12 at this point you you were clearly putting the celetex information into this new form certificate is that correct yes were you trying to tighten up the certificate at this point as well yes

01:56:24 certificate at this point as well yes but again can you see now that the wording you've used which is very similar to what we saw with the later kingspan certificates on one reading still implies global use

01:56:35 on one reading still implies global use of the product in this first important section yes yes other than the notation about see the conditions of certificate for more information yeah which highlighted the

01:56:46 information yeah which highlighted the specific classification report specification and if we go over the page page two

01:56:54 under scope of registration in the second paragraph it says celetex rs 5000 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 meets the criteria set

01:57:06 bs 8414 part 2 meets the criteria set out in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 80 meters in height subject to matting the specification criteria of the bre fire test report carried out as alternative compliance to

01:57:18 carried out as alternative compliance to adb

01:57:20 adb now again

01:57:22 now again you you have put the words in parenthesis and you have said subject to matching the specification criteria of the bre fire test report but can you see how the words you've got before that

01:57:34 before that are potentially problematic because again you're suggesting that the product can be successfully tested to that standard

01:57:42 standard yes i can

01:57:44 yes i can on high side we could rewrite it uh

01:57:49 uh a lot a lot or a lot clearer a lot tighter

01:57:52 tighter but again

01:57:53 but again i thought that that word in covered the purpose for which i wanted it to cover which was highlighting that it was only the classification report specification that was appropriate

01:58:04 specification that was appropriate yes now let's let's follow go forward so um and look at what happened subsequently so if we go to labc three

01:58:15 subsequently so if we go to labc three zeros two eight zero three

01:58:24 and if we go right to the bottom of this email chain on page two i think it is right at the bottom there's an email date of the third of november 2014 from sam lee

01:58:36 third of november 2014 from sam lee to john roper and it's headed important changes to your labc registration and it says as part of the recent improvements labc has made to register

01:58:48 improvements labc has made to register detail scheme and website there have been several important changes made to your registration with us new certificates a new registration certificate has been created for your system solution providing your clients with more detailed information about

01:58:59 with more detailed information about your product so here is this right that sam lee is writing to celetex to tell them that you've got this new style certificate that you're proposing to use in the future is that correct yes and

01:59:10 in the future is that correct yes and that's what we just saw you've done a draft of

01:59:14 draft of so you're telling celetex about that and then if we go to the bottom of page one

01:59:24 on the 6th of november debbie berger of celetech's emails back to sam lee

01:59:34 saying um hi sam please find attached some paragraphs of text as suggested for use in your labc certificates and fact sheets for rs 5000

01:59:45 sheets for rs 5000 and she's summarized what the headline points are to replace the description of product in both certificates to replace the first paragraph starting with celetex has

01:59:56 paragraph starting with celetex has provided test reports to replace the third paragraph and in the description of product what we can see from separate documents one of the things they wanted is they didn't

02:00:07 of the things they wanted is they didn't want it to be clear on the face of the certificate that it was the same product as fr 5000 do you remember that yes so debbie berger comes back with some changes

02:00:18 changes and then one email up on the page we can see that your

02:00:25 that your looped in at this point you can just go up sam lee says to you on the 6th of november

02:00:32 november to you hi david selatex have asked if we can make some changes to the wording on their certificates as attached i've attached the current certificate for your reference to see what it currently says

02:00:42 says they've also asked if we can take out any references that rs 5000 is the same product as fr 5000 and then

02:00:53 you if we go up the page to the next email

02:00:59 we can see on the 28th of november so

02:01:05 kind of three weeks later you go back sorry i beg your pardon there's another email from sam lee to you 28th of november from her to you hi david were you able to have a look at

02:01:17 hi david were you able to have a look at the suggested changes from celetex the attached word doc relating to their email below this one is not currently on the website as they asked for us to remove hide it from public while we

02:01:28 remove hide it from public while we sorted out the changes thanks sam

02:01:34 now there's another email chain around this time which um

02:01:39 um helps us on this if we go to cel408691

02:01:45 and look at the bottom of page one

02:01:52 debbie berger to sam lee

02:01:56 if we go over the page i think we see she says hi sam i've just noticed the website is live with the certificate and fact sheet is it possible to limit visibility or better remove these until

02:02:07 visibility or better remove these until we've sorted out the wording and then if we look at the top of page one

02:02:15 sam lee goes back to debbie berger hi debbie sorry for the delay in getting around to your emails no problem at all we'll check with my colleague who deals with the website if we can make your landing page not visible to members of the public

02:02:26 the public i will check with my manager to see if we can make the suggested changes in your attachment on the certificates and website

02:02:33 website now

02:02:33 now it appears to be the case that the new form certificate was put up on the website on the 3rd of november 2014 but then removed three days later

02:02:46 2014 but then removed three days later is that correct at the request of sellotax yes yes and and these emails suggest that and that's what you've told us in your witness statement now my question for you is what happened to the

02:02:57 question for you is what happened to the old

02:02:58 old celetex

02:02:59 celetex rs 5000 certificate from august 2014 was that still available on the labc website or was it just the new certificate that was not available

02:03:10 certificate that was not available uh well as far as i'm aware the new certificate replaced the one that was issued in august and then was withdrawn from the website on the 6th of november so is your

02:03:21 the 6th of november so is your understanding that nothing would have been available on the website from the 6th of november at all that's right right away through i think to the following july well

02:03:31 well i'm going to ask you about that because we'll come to some emails that suggest that there was something up on the website during that time so let's have a look um

02:03:43 um in terms of the changes that miss berger had suggested if we go to labc301780

02:03:57 and we look at the second email down on page one

02:04:05 mr brennan says on the third of december i don't think we should be making many of these changes they're a bit too marketing for what we should be aiming for she also wants us to say that the bba have certified rs 5000 as achieving

02:04:18 bba have certified rs 5000 as achieving a specific u value but i don't see any mention of that product in the letter from bba what we have written is correct from what i can see what do you think david so mr brennan is not keen on

02:04:29 david so mr brennan is not keen on what's been suggested and you then say this on the 4th of december at the top of the page

02:04:37 you say sorry i haven't been back with this the reason is i need to sit down with barry to decide on our stance with kingspan k15

02:04:46 k15 a result may be that it knocks into celetex if we take nhbc's view that all pur products are unsuitable over 18 meters

02:04:56 meters any move forward will probably include the wording the rd is only valid if the specification detail is complied with explicitly as such marketing jargon like this won't feature

02:05:08 feature so that's your response so you say you've got to sit down with barry to decide on what you're going to do

02:05:14 do and it does seem at this time that you're aware that nhbc's view is that all pi pur products are unsuitable over 18 meters yes correct

02:05:26 um and you indicate that if you move forward the wording might become very tight yes yes

02:05:36 now with cellotex ever told that um

02:05:43 that um there were there was no detail about its product on the labc website so not only that the new form certificate had been taken down but that the old form certificate wasn't there either

02:05:55 certificate wasn't there either um

02:05:56 um i'm not 100 sure to be honest we can't see that celetex were ever told you mustn't use the august 2014 certificate we've taken down the new

02:06:07 certificate we've taken down the new form certificate while we agree on the wording but for the avoidance of doubt that old certificate shouldn't be passed on to anybody did you ever say that to them

02:06:16 them um

02:06:18 um i i don't know the assumption is if they were trying to search to validate it on the website it wouldn't have been there so it would have generated a query as to why they couldn't find it anymore on our website

02:06:30 couldn't find it anymore on our website but the difficulty is that celetex had that 21st of august 2014 certificate and document and drawings list how did you know that they weren't using

02:06:41 how did you know that they weren't using it to market their product in the interim

02:06:44 interim i didn't

02:06:46 i didn't i know assuming that they had some integrity in knowing that the um from november that that much the detail had changed right

02:06:57 right we we then pick it up in in may 2015 we can see an email quite a few months later if we go to labc 40332

02:07:12 here we see quite a long email you sent to to miss burger at this point you say hi miss burger sam had previously referred to your amendment requests for rs 5000 to me as i'm responsible for our registered

02:07:23 as i'm responsible for our registered detail scheme and have been involved for some time in discussions regarding the suitability of insulation material above 18 meters in height labc were contacted in connection with the wording used in earlier registered

02:07:35 the wording used in earlier registered detail certificates there was concern that the certificates implied a global approval to the use of thermosets above 18 meters this had never been the intention but as a result of this

02:07:47 a result of this and also proposed amended national guidance wording within certificates has been altered to clarify the acceptability of the use of thermoset insulating products when a classification report demonstrating

02:07:58 classification report demonstrating compliance with br135 through testing to either eight four one four part one or two has been undertaken then you say the question of the adequacy of thermosetting materials was

02:08:09 adequacy of thermosetting materials was raised at the national building control alliance meeting held on 8th of december the bca is the representative body of building control serving service providers and labc represent local authorities at this group and you

02:08:21 local authorities at this group and you refer then to the technical guidance note 18 issued by the bca and then you say that the attached document highlights the intended amendment and will be publicly available

02:08:32 amendment and will be publicly available in the near future as such i attached a revised certificate incorporating your requests together with additional inserts clarifying the method taken to demonstrate compliance

02:08:44 demonstrate compliance i adb 12.5 or option 2 on the attached bca guide apologize apologies that this has not been achieved sooner but the proposed amendments to the guidance have taken much longer than anticipated

02:08:56 taken much longer than anticipated i would also draw your attention to the notation on the certificate and then you you draw her attention to that

02:09:04 that about and then you go on to deal with the point about falling debris i trust that you'll find this acceptable the wording used is the same as that contained in the kingspan k-15 registered detail

02:09:15 registered detail and would be included with any future thermoset product seeking registered detailed status and intended to be used above 18 meters if you could confirm this i can post the new certificate onto the website for you

02:09:27 new certificate onto the website for you kind regards david now this appears to be the first time that you're telling celetex that there's been any problem with the registered details certificate is is that right

02:09:39 is is that right other than the amended um version sent in the november uh i think it probably is and that that's certainly from my side down to the fact

02:09:50 certainly from my side down to the fact that john roper had uh moved on from the organization i think there was a there was a sort of a uh a

02:10:00 a dead end there it was only debbie berger they picked it up in the november i think yes is it surprising that you've not written to them earlier saying there was a concern that the certificates implied global approval

02:10:12 implied global approval to the use of thermosets above 18 meters why didn't you tell her much earlier um well i think there is this this email is a result of the draft for the first the first

02:10:26 the draft for the first the first amendment to the bill and control bca guidance note so i was again harmonizing that with the revised document as well and

02:10:37 and i thought i was making it absolutely clear what the step forward was going to be yes but there was nothing in the revised version of the bca technical guidance note that touched upon option

02:10:48 guidance note that touched upon option one or option two was there i i either the linear route to compliance through 12.5 etc including limited combustibility materials for insulation

02:11:00 combustibility materials for insulation or the alternative route of bs8414 on a system test there was nothing in the bca technical guidance note that was being amended that touched upon that question was there

02:11:11 question was there um well i think there was a a titan definition of thermosets included in there and i think there was also a recommendation of the variation reports

02:11:23 recommendation of the variation reports by a suitable uco security body for variant and he's tested specification so to my mind and they were the comments i fed through to

02:11:34 i fed through to barry turner earlier in the year on that after february's discussion with bre so i felt it important to to to to map that out

02:11:46 to to to map that out right

02:11:46 right let's look at the draft certificate that you attached labc four zeros [Music]

02:11:58 here's your draft we've got under description of product we could zoom in it's it says um in the final

02:12:10 it's it says um in the final six lines it has been assessed by the bre and complies with br135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate

02:12:22 fixed to a non-combustible substrate see conditions of certificate for more information so we've got the same as you pointed out in your email the same statement that you put in the k-15 later certificates yes yes potentially apply

02:12:33 certificates yes yes potentially apply implying global approval on this front page

02:12:36 page um well again i'll point out the condition of certificate to try and ensure and in the wording on the second page that it was explicit according to specification yes

02:12:49 explicit according to specification yes and then page two if we go conditions of certificate bottom of the page you've got um there

02:12:57 there it begins for use in rain screen wall construction including above 18 meters in height

02:13:04 in height i mean that that sentence is is pretty broad isn't it

02:13:12 yes and then

02:13:14 and then it does it does expire further down seven lines down you've got for use on buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level celetex rs5000 has been successfully tested to bs 8414 part 2 and meets the

02:13:27 tested to bs 8414 part 2 and meets the criteria set out in b of bl-135 again you're saying that the product itself has been successfully tested now that's not right is it

02:13:38 um no it's been tested as part of a system yes and then we do get that in fairness to you it then says this classification is only valid for the system specification and detailing outlined in

02:13:49 specification and detailing outlined in section two of the bre classification report including associated details found in section four and then you give an explanation of the system below that and what it comprised

02:14:02 system below that and what it comprised can can you see how that wording could have been much clearer if you if you're trying to imply that it's system specific you could have begun that conditions of

02:14:13 you could have begun that conditions of certificate saying for use above 18 meters only in one specific system configuration and this is it

02:14:21 is it yes i could and

02:14:26 and this certificate this wording appears to be the same as that which is eventually issued on the 10th of september 2015 when it comes to to to be issued the

02:14:37 when it comes to to to be issued the following summer now on the 12th of may um

02:14:44 um miss muller emails you if we go to labc 308654

02:14:59 so on the 12th of may sam muller says hi david attached is the amended celetek certificate with the changes that they requested previously not sure if you want me to stick draft watermark on the certificates

02:15:11 watermark on the certificates now

02:15:13 now if we look at this certificate that sam lee muller is sending labc2017291

02:15:22 this is much broader this certificate

02:15:29 you can see in the description of product

02:15:32 product in the last five lines it has been assessed by the bre and complies with bl-135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 meters in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate

02:15:43 non-combustible substrate was this a draft that um miss lee was sending you for you to then make the amendments we just saw we couldn't work out where this draft came into it

02:15:54 draft came into it um well

02:15:55 um well i'm a bit confused myself i'm honest because there was no note there about see the specific conditions uh in relation to scope and limitations yes um so i think this preceded the one you've

02:16:06 so i think this preceded the one you've just shown me yes okay and then can we look at labc 40330

02:16:22 this is you on the 1st of july 2015 saying to ms muller about the celetex registered details you say this hi sam can you just check the current certificate on the public

02:16:33 the current certificate on the public end of the website the attached was the reworked one that was sent to celetex for comment i was at res resitel yesterday another rigid

02:16:44 resitel yesterday another rigid insulation company and brought the celetex one up if we have received nothing back from celetex then the attach should be put up straight away please now this is what's led us to be confused

02:16:55 now this is what's led us to be confused as to whether in fact there was something on your website at this point which was a certificate for rs 5000 because you you you ask miss muller to

02:17:07 because you you you ask miss muller to check the current certificate on the public end of the website can you help us as to what was that current certificate um

02:17:18 um i think that question is more about whether we've actually got a certificate visible on the website as opposed to which version it is we were waiting for a response back from uh from cemetex

02:17:29 a response back from uh from cemetex which sent the draft but i thought you told us earlier that on the 6th of november when the new form certificate was taken down nothing would appear on your website that's right that's what i

02:17:41 that's right that's what i i was checking to see what was actually if anything was visible so i i

02:17:47 so i i i've clearly forgotten that the document's been taken down in november on the basis of preparing the new drafts that were there i see how sure can you be that the document was taken down in

02:17:58 be that the document was taken down in november and that for example the august certificate didn't stay up um

02:18:03 um i i can't give you that assurance because i'm i wasn't involved with the the technical aspect of that right and what has what has recitel said to

02:18:14 and what has what has recitel said to you

02:18:15 you about the celtic certificate which prompted you to send this email to miss lee at this point again um

02:18:23 again um i'm struggling rectocell is another manufacturer of insulation and i don't know whether i was actually i went to the registered detail site to

02:18:34 i went to the registered detail site to show them what things look like on the site and couldn't get to celetex that's that's as much as i can and i can guess over that statement and if we can go to cel403739

02:18:50 and look on page two

02:18:59 we see an email from miss muller or miss lee muller to mr roper and then copying in ms berger on the 22nd of july 2015

02:19:10 2015 and she says hi john your labc registration will expire on the 21st of august can you please confirm if you'd like to renew your registration with us and for how long

02:19:21 and for how long now do you accept that that implies that there is some kind of ongoing registration that's expiring yes i think the august

02:19:32 yes i think the august registered detail of 2014 that had been paid for for 12 months the 12-month date was coming up even though nothing there's nothing being visible on the website from november through to the

02:19:43 the website from november through to the july time i see so that's not inconsistent with the fact there hadn't been anything on the website so i don't think so i mean i suppose the question was were being fair to them if there's nothing been

02:19:54 there's nothing been present on the website for that period of time but it was purely if they wanted to continue yeah

02:20:01 yeah we can't find celetex ever being told it's really important that you don't use the original 2014 august 2014 certificate to market your product because

02:20:12 product because we don't accept that's accurate why don't we see something to that effect

02:20:21 other than the the giraffe that was sent on the

02:20:25 on the uh november date i i can't answer the question i mean it was the assumption certainly from our side was that this is a replacement for the one that's been issued

02:20:36 the one that's been issued and that was what went up on the site and the old registered detail was no longer there and i would have hoped that celetex would have pointed people towards that the website showing the new

02:20:48 towards that the website showing the new one albeit they asked for it to be taken down

02:20:51 down so i i i can't tell you whether they were whether they were marketing that that yeah

02:20:59 yeah the august register detail because we looked at it earlier the august 2014 certificate had a whole year uh date on it it said valid till 21st of august 2015 didn't it

02:21:10 2015 didn't it yes

02:21:11 yes was there ever a formal process by which that certificate was withdrawn by la abc and that clearly communicated to celetex um i i don't believe that there was i'm

02:21:22 um i i don't believe that there was i'm not aware of that and other than the replacement registered detail in the november

02:21:28 november um

02:21:29 um from process perspective that was what um

02:21:32 um what we certainly assume that they would be using and would have appeared on our website if they had nastas to take it down

02:21:38 down yes now overall and thinking back at what we've covered over the last two days do you accept that the labc made serious errors in its registered detailed certificates

02:21:49 in its registered detailed certificates for both k15 and celitex rs 5000 over a prolonged period of time when you look at both products certainly the kingspan registered detail

02:22:00 certainly the kingspan registered detail run from 2009 through to um i think that certainly prior to what i consider to be a uh

02:22:10 uh the tightened register detail which was march 2015 um and the eight weeks of the first registered detail for

02:22:21 registered detail for techs which um [Music]

02:22:23 [Music] you know i'm not not comfortable we should have picked that up and had the the word incorrect on the august one for them uh but it was correct from as i was certainly from from my side correct from

02:22:34 certainly from from my side correct from the november of 2014

02:22:39 that we could we could have done better with what we did do you accept that even when warned about the mistakes it had made with particularly with the k-15

02:22:50 with particularly with the k-15 certificate labc stubbornly refused to correct those mistakes and carried on making technically inaccurate statements about k-15 and also in due course about rs-5000

02:23:05 in terms of stubbornly resist i wouldn't class it that way i think from the point of view of having the relevant information to hand to be able to update the registered detail and

02:23:17 able to update the registered detail and tighten down on that there's a recognition that we needed to tighten the registered detail over that over that time frame and that was potentially over a five-month period in 2014

02:23:29 2014 um

02:23:31 um and i wouldn't said stubbornly resist we were a word that we needed to change and we needed to improve what we had okay

02:23:38 okay mr chairman i've come to the end of my pre-prepared questions i'm sorry i've gone until 25 past four well that's all right um

02:23:45 right um anyway you're going to need 10 minutes or so aren't you yes please could we have maybe till 25 too and then i'll let you know if we need yes very well um well mr ewing when council gets the end of her questions

02:23:56 of her questions we always have a short break partly to enable her to check that she hasn't left anything out and partly to enable others who are following the proceedings but not from this room to suggest other

02:24:07 not from this room to suggest other questions that perhaps ought to be put to you so we'll break for 10 minutes we'll come back please at 25 to 5 and then we'll see if there any more questions we need to ask you okay all

02:24:18 questions we need to ask you okay all right thank you would you like to give the usher please

02:24:31 thank you 25 to 5.

02:36:34 would you ask mr ewing to come back in please

02:36:45 i'm stealing yes take a seat and we'll see if there are any more questions for you strange yes thank you mr chairman just one question thinking back over the matters that we've covered in the last two days

02:36:57 we've covered in the last two days is there anything that you would have done differently if you had the chance to do it again and knowing what you know now

02:37:07 um i think there's a few things in terms of process

02:37:13 i think we need a um needed a more robust uh email system for monitoring emails that were coming in to us to

02:37:24 emails that were coming in to us to ensure they were responded to i mentioned in terms of process around an audit trail in relation to competencies for the research authorities and for the

02:37:35 for the research authorities and for the peer reviewers and i would like to think that since grenfell labsuit actually lbc has actually started that process in relation to competency

02:37:47 from personal side of it it was my

02:37:51 it was my knowledge at the start and my knowledge as it developed through the process of 2014

02:37:58 2014 um

02:38:02 clearly i feel that labc has been gained and played by the insulation manufacturers for their own benefit i'm still struggling to come to terms with why anybody would

02:38:14 to come to terms with why anybody would actually try and sell a product that wasn't fit for purpose particularly in relation to fire safety i have real difficulty with that [Music]

02:38:23 [Music] um

02:38:24 um and i mentioned trust the the construction industry can't proceed if you haven't got trust in the information and technical data and standards that were provided with

02:38:36 provided with and again i welcome the government's uh initiative on the national product regulator

02:38:42 regulator to hopefully sort out and stop golden samples and things like this in terms of the testing criteria but

02:38:52 i think that's probably as much as i can say at the moment i'm still you know personally

02:39:02 upset at being played by manufacturers that should have known better and should have had integrity uh to to work with us rather than for their own gains okay all right

02:39:13 okay all right thank you

02:39:14 thank you just like to thank mr ewing for coming and spending the time answering our questions thank you very much yes mr ewing is right that i should thank you very much on behalf of all three members of the panel you've given

02:39:25 three members of the panel you've given evidence over a couple of days now and it's probably been quite a difficult experience in many ways so we are grateful to you for coming along it's been very interesting to hear what you have to tell us we've learned quite a lot

02:39:36 learned quite a lot and

02:39:37 and now of course you're free to go so thank you very much i hope it's views thank you

02:39:52 thanks grateful that must be it for today

02:39:55 today um tomorrow we have another witness but um yes

02:39:58 um yes that will be tomorrow yes so we'll uh we'll break now and resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning yes thank you thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow