LABC witness David Ewing gives evidence on the registered details certification process for ACM panels and the approval of the Reynobond PE system used at Grenfell Tower.
00:00:28 yes it's strange yes mr chairman could we have our next labc witness please who is mr david ewing thank you
00:00:43 good afternoon mr ewing i understand you're going to uh take the earth yes
00:00:48 earth yes there should be a testament on the desk in front of you could you take it in your right hand please and read the words on the screen i swear by almighty god for the evidence i shall give should be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
00:00:59 whole truth and nothing but the truth lovely thank you very much indeed would you sit down and make yourself comfortable
00:01:14 yes it's strange thank you yes mr ewing can i start by thanking you for attending the public inquiry today to give your evidence it's very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding
00:01:26 if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions that i'm going to ask you please do not hesitate to say so and i will either repeat the question or put the point in a different way um can you also try and keep your voice up because there's a lady transcribing a
00:01:39 up because there's a lady transcribing a verbatim note of what you're saying to the right
00:01:42 the right so that we can take a clear note of your evidence
00:01:46 evidence now you've provided one witness statement to the inquiry if we can bring that up on screen it's labc 00 2013
00:01:56 there we have it and if we go to page 64 we can see is that your signature there yes it is and we can see it's dated the 15th of october 2021 have you read your
00:02:08 15th of october 2021 have you read your witness statement recently yes and can you confirm that the contents are true and accurate yes and have you discussed the evidence you're going to give with anyone before coming here today no other than
00:02:19 than legal representatives and a request for the
00:02:23 the document list that was provided to you for the certificates uh okay you just wanted to look at that document list for the certificates did you well i was not wasn't able to prepare it myself right that was done on behalf of the
00:02:35 right that was done on behalf of the labc team yes thank you that's helpful now just to start with then i'm going to ask you about your background if we go within your statement page one paragraph 4.1
00:02:46 4.1 you've set out your academic qualifications and you tell us that you attended liverpool polytechnic and achieved a higher national diploma in building between 1979 and 1982
00:02:57 building between 1979 and 1982 then a polytechnic diploma in building management at the trent polytechnic that in nottingham yes in um between 1982 and 83
00:03:06 83 and then there are two courses you've got the institute of building control part 2 chesterfield college of further education 1985 and then the institute of building control part 3 chesterfield college of
00:03:18 control part 3 chesterfield college of further education 1986. just tell us something about that part two and part three courses what was the difference between them um
00:03:27 um they were
00:03:29 they were courses set up for building control professionals at the time that was the institute of building control was the the body that represented uh building control
00:03:40 represented uh building control and they were two stages of qualification that run through i think the 12 months each each qualification yep
00:03:51 yep thank you
00:03:52 thank you and then
00:03:53 and then if we go over the page to the top of page two we can see that you then went on to complete a bsc honors in fire at leeds metropolitan university in 1998 is that correct yes
00:04:06 university in 1998 is that correct yes and can you just tell us what did that course involve uh well it started as a diploma or two-year diploma that was then extended into an honours degree and focused on firing buildings
00:04:18 and focused on firing buildings right yeah and then at paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3 if we look at page five of your statement you tell us which professional organizations
00:04:29 tell us which professional organizations you are a member of and you tell us that you're a member of the institute of fire engineers is that right from 1998 to the present yes that was fun and the degree sorry sorry following completion of the
00:04:41 sorry sorry following completion of the degree i was allowed to attain membership of that organization yes i i understand um and then you're also a member of the royal institution of chartered surveyors
00:04:52 royal institution of chartered surveyors is that correct yes since 2000 yes and a member of the chartered association of building engineers since 2020 is that correct yes yes thank you
00:05:05 and you go on to tell us at paragraph 9.3 that you have represented the labc on occasions at in a number of different forums so we've got the warrington fire
00:05:17 forums so we've got the warrington fire impartiality committee meetings and then a panel member on design versus as built steering group looking at thermal efficiency of materials and products led by the xero carbon hub yes
00:05:28 products led by the xero carbon hub yes yes
00:05:29 yes and then over the page you tell us that you were a panel member of an industry group working on off-site construction developing modular construction is that right yes
00:05:39 right yes and then
00:05:41 and then paragraph 6.1 on page two just back to page two you give us an overview of your professional career prior to joining the labc
00:05:52 prior to joining the labc you've done it in reverse order in this statement but if we look over the page at page three you've explained that and i'm not going to go through all of them but you were essentially you started off as an architectural technician
00:06:04 architectural technician in nottingham in in the in the mid 80s yes yes
00:06:08 yes yes and then between 1985 and 1987 you were a building control officer employed by the brock stay borough council
00:06:17 council in nottinghamshire and then you were employed as a building control officer by derby city council yes um you were the principal building control officer employed by amber valley borough council in between 1990 and 97
00:06:31 borough council in between 1990 and 97 yes
00:06:33 yes then you were a building control manager employed by newark and sherwood district council
00:06:39 council march 2007 to january 2011 yes it was
00:06:43 it was it actually that post dates my manager role at gedlinger accounts from 97. right and that was purely looking to try and bring uh i suppose it was transformation it was looking try and
00:06:55 transformation it was looking try and bring
00:06:55 bring building control teams within nottingham's together and we had a four-year period where i managed you can share with as well as gettling between 2007 yes in 2011.
00:07:08 2007 yes in 2011. yes and then you tell us between october 97 and until february 2012 which is when you joined the labc you were a building control manager and employed by the gedling borough council is that correct yes yes so you've stayed within the
00:07:21 yes yes so you've stayed within the nottingham and derby area broadly and risen up the ranks of the building control from officer through to manager yes yeah
00:07:29 yes yeah then shortly before you joined labc between february 2012 and november 2012 you were the managing director of a company called temporis limited is that correct yes
00:07:40 temporis limited is that correct yes and is it right that your primary work focused on fire risk assessments and design work for building regulation and planning applications for clients yes yes
00:07:50 yes now
00:07:51 now so we know that you began working for the labc in 2012 and if we look at page four of your statement at paragraph 7.1 you tell us that you applied for a role
00:08:03 you tell us that you applied for a role in business development at labc you commence work at labc in september 2012 part time until november 2012 this allowed you to close down your
00:08:14 this allowed you to close down your company temporis and commence full-time work from november 2012 and you say your job title when appointed in september 2012 was labc consult technical sales
00:08:25 was labc consult technical sales director is that correct yes
00:08:31 and can you tell us what your role as technical sales director at labc consult involved
00:08:38 involved that's the role primarily was in relation to registered details scheme that we had running yes i or the duties us and us and when necessary like attending representing
00:08:49 necessary like attending representing labc regional um county or regional meetings um and day-to-day jobs technical inquiries that sort of thing through from membership
00:09:00 membership that came through to labc as a as a hub yes
00:09:04 yes and when you say the role primarily was in relation to the registered details scheme were you effectively running that scheme and in charge of it yes
00:09:13 yes yes thank you an labc consult that you've made reference to there was that a wholly owned subsidiary of the labc
00:09:22 labc um it was a um
00:09:27 i suppose it was the
00:09:32 the commercial side of labc i see yeah it was just a means of separating it from the from the dated activity with with our members yes
00:09:43 and you are currently is this right the head of education at labc yes and you've held that position since june 2020 that's yes that title i was head of
00:09:55 that's yes that title i was head of guidance prior to that from 2016. yes i'm coming to that in a moment just as head of education just tell us what are your responsibilities in that role
00:10:08 are your responsibilities in that role my role with that is i suppose it's the next generation of building control so it's setting up a qualification system framework in place to provide learning and knowledge
00:10:20 learning and knowledge for for building control officers
00:10:24 i see yeah and
00:10:28 and on page four we can see that at the bottom of the page you've you've explained all the different roles that you've held while working for the labc um so if we could just go back to where
00:10:39 um so if we could just go back to where we were
00:10:41 we were there yeah so we've got the head of education
00:10:44 education and as you've just said you were then you were the head of guidance between august 2016 and february 2019. is that correct yes and and that did that cover all guidance being issued by labc or
00:10:57 all guidance being issued by labc or particular types of guidance no it was it was in relation to the qualifications that was set up so level four diploma and level five diplomas
00:11:08 and level five diplomas and then working with wolverhampton university to create a apprenticeship standard
00:11:13 standard degree in building control as well i see but your role was nevertheless called head of guidance even though you were doing education schemes um
00:11:24 i've never thought of it that way but yes it's it's it was it was in relation to the the academic side right yes and then we can see that you were the business development director
00:11:35 business development director between april 2016 and august 2016 yes and we're going to be focusing very much on your time when you were the technical sales director between september 2012 and
00:11:47 between september 2012 and march 2016. we're going to be looking closely at that period okay can i just add that the business development director role was fundamentally exactly the same as the technical sales director was just a
00:12:00 technical sales director was just a restructure in terms of job titles within labc yeah
00:12:06 yeah and um
00:12:08 and um paragraph seven 7.6 on page four if we just go down page four you tell us that you moved to the labc in september 2012 when my role was that of managing
00:12:19 of managing the labc register details scheme um
00:12:24 um now
00:12:26 now so throughout that period 2012 for 2016 you were managing that scheme yes yes would there have been someone else employed in the role of registered detailed manager during that time
00:12:41 i'm not that i'm aware of now no okay
00:12:45 okay and
00:12:46 and in the that role were you required to have technical knowledge including an understanding of the building regulations and the associated practical guidance for example in the approved documents
00:12:58 example in the approved documents yes i believe i was yes so you saw it as a technical role at the time it was being able to answer technical questions as well as run with the registered details side
00:13:09 the registered details side yes thank you and at paragraph 7.7 there you say you reported to lorna stimson for each role you held at labc with the exception of a brief period
00:13:20 with the exception of a brief period where you reported to martin taylor in 2016
00:13:24 2016 and then you've explained who you currently report to now lorna stimson she's currently the chief executive of the labc is that right it is yes were you managed by her while you were
00:13:36 were you managed by her while you were the technical sales director from september 2012 until april 2016. yes
00:13:46 now lorna stimson has said in her statement
00:13:50 statement she said this she said whilst i've got a background in building control surveying my role within labc and for the last 13 years has not required me to maintain any technical competence as my role has never been one with any
00:14:02 my role has never been one with any technical responsibility function or decision making is that is that accurate yes in terms of her role
00:14:11 role and
00:14:12 and in terms of the labc's registered details scheme was concerned did you have any responsibility for decision making on technical issues um
00:14:22 um no not especially the registered details scheme in terms of how operated was from local authority to local authority labc acted as a hub if you like for
00:14:33 labc acted as a hub if you like for for that the scheme so we collated and supported and held the documents but the actual process of creating the registered detail was through through our membership
00:14:44 our membership but
00:14:46 but is it the case that from time to time nevertheless technical issues would crop up yes
00:14:52 in terms of if there are queries and things that would be down to me to look at yes that would be down to you to look at yes
00:14:59 at yes and we've been hearing evidence from mr turner who was the director of technical policy
00:15:05 policy um can you just explain what was your relationship working relationship with mr turner how did your role relate to his
00:15:13 his um
00:15:15 um i suppose on a on an labc role it was um we had we had defined roles mine was with relation to registered details barriers was on the legislative side um but as a technical team there
00:15:27 side um but as a technical team there would be queries potentially for membership that would come in or from external whereby it was either myself or at the time doug bason or uh or barry that would answer the
00:15:40 uh or barry that would answer the technical queries that came through so there was a hub of the of technical officers there that responded that and my day duties were around registered details yeah and is that how it worked in practice that you were like this
00:15:51 in practice that you were like this technical hub of individuals you mr bassin and mr turner who if there were technical queries any one of you could respond
00:15:59 respond and would respond sometimes any one of you yeah
00:16:02 you yeah and when you say barry's role was on the legislative side can you just be clear exactly what you mean by that well i saw barry's role as his he was the interface between ourselves and
00:16:13 the interface between ourselves and government so if there were changes to building regulations proposed he would be sitting at the tables in terms of the meetings were being held to discuss that so
00:16:24 were being held to discuss that so um
00:16:25 um uh some specialisms around that side of it were led by by barry he would be the person who report back to labc and then on the month we go out to membership in terms of what what was happening as far
00:16:37 terms of what what was happening as far as the role that we were required to do yes i understand and um we can see that he sat on the bca the building control alliance technical committee
00:16:48 alliance technical committee is it right that you didn't sit on that committee i didn't sit on that committee now no thank you
00:16:55 now lorna stimson has said in her witness statement that the technical input and any decision making was the responsibility of the director of technical policy as the most senior
00:17:06 technical policy as the most senior technical member of staff now is that right i would agree with that yes and was that barry turner yes and was his role senior to yours or
00:17:17 yes and was his role senior to yours or were you at an equivalent level i felt it was senior to mine yes and did you defer to him on technical issues in practice i would often ask queries and seek his
00:17:30 i would often ask queries and seek his opinion on that yes yes
00:17:34 and we've heard from mr turner and on a number of occasions he said he wasn't really involved in the registered details scheme and and wasn't providing technical input into it was that your understanding
00:17:46 into it was that your understanding i would say that was fair i mean barry again is the most senior officer that was why his signature was on the registered details and the system approvals that were there during my time of employment
00:17:58 of employment but as a day-to-day running it would only be if there were issues that uh that
00:18:03 that in terms of uh discussion we sort of broke them with barry hollow he was included within the circulation list it was specific items that i needed attention i would i would contact him yes but if issues did
00:18:16 would contact him yes but if issues did arise including technical issues um
00:18:20 um was it your understanding that mr turner did have some role in helping resolve those within the labc i would seek that advice yes
00:18:31 now in terms of your own understanding of the fire safety requirements for external walls under the building regulations and the associated practical guidance you tell us if we look at paragraph 5.1
00:18:43 you tell us if we look at paragraph 5.1 of your statement on page two
00:18:51 you you say this you say fire safety elements were part of the original institute of building control qualifications and the degree taken between 1995 and 1998
00:19:03 1998 this focused on fire safety in buildings and you say i undertook informal training in relation to fire safety following each change to approve document b this training was arranged regionally
00:19:16 this training was arranged regionally east midlands labc and delivered by labc or other fire specialists between 1992 and
00:19:24 and 2012.
00:19:26 2012. and we say the same informal training process applied to changes to other parts of the building regulations um now in terms of what that training covered that informal training that you
00:19:38 covered that informal training that you undertook
00:19:39 undertook each time there was a change to approve document b you said that was done arranged locally did that include training on section 12 of approved document b and an
00:19:51 section 12 of approved document b and an external fire spread ie b4 functional requirements
00:19:58 um i i believe that it must have i mean that the changes to approve document b i started in 1985 there was changes in 92 2000 2006 at
00:20:10 there was changes in 92 2000 2006 at those stages that's when uh that additional information be provided yes so the fact that um the fire note was added in 2000 and uh bre-135 was introduced in 2006 there
00:20:23 uh bre-135 was introduced in 2006 there would have been a point where that would have been raised during the training sessions that were there yes okay um
00:20:30 um did it cover the meaning of national class naught and which products this would apply to what tests had to be undertaken to get national class naught can you remember that i i can't remember
00:20:42 can you remember that i i can't remember and what about the meaning of the term limited combustibility as it applied to certain external wall materials do you remember having any training in that i i i
00:20:52 i there must have been but i can't recall and that's not trying to skirt the question it just i genuinely can't uh i can't remember it as a specific item that we brought up yes
00:21:03 that we brought up yes understood
00:21:06 now um if we look on page seven of your statement
00:21:11 statement um
00:21:14 question 15 was asking about your own understanding of the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility and and you say this you say my understanding of the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility was as
00:21:25 phrase limited combustibility was as described in appendix e of approved document b definitions a material performance specification that includes non-combustible materials and for which the relevant test criteria are set out in appendix a para9 and
00:21:37 are set out in appendix a para9 and further described in table a7 so you you explain there
00:21:43 there but that was your understanding of the meaning of the phrase limited combustibility can you help us when was that understanding um
00:21:52 um [Music]
00:21:54 [Music] i think i think it's always been there without trying to preempt further questions you know there was a time when that that my understanding of that was was
00:22:05 that my understanding of that was was tested around the uh the kingspan system approval and i sought
00:22:15 guidance from my peers in relation to that but in terms of i understood that that limited combustibility meant that it wasn't non-combustible that there were tests that you carry out to understand that under part 11 476
00:22:28 understand that under part 11 476 and
00:22:29 and as we have now within table a7 there's a list of products that would achieve that yeah
00:22:34 yeah but in terms of the vagaries around what sort of product would do that that that that's that's um
00:22:43 um it's dealt with on a sort of a product by product basis yes so but you think you did understand that the phrase limited combustibility had a special definition in approved document b that you understood that say in 2012
00:22:55 b that you understood that say in 2012 and onwards i believe so yes right
00:23:01 now some more questions now about the registered details scheme
00:23:08 you've explained how that system operated in your witness statement i want to look at some of the paragraphs of that if we go to page 14 of your statement
00:23:19 and look at paragraph 21.4 you're asked how did the system operate and you tell us this manufacturers would approach labc direct or an individual building control team who would refer
00:23:31 building control team who would refer them on to labc who administered the process of registration and then you go on once an inquiry had been received i would schedule an appointment with the company and meet to
00:23:42 appointment with the company and meet to discuss the process i would explain how the registered detail process would work and ask what data and third party accreditation they possessed and if they had a preferred local authority or person they would
00:23:54 local authority or person they would like to work with referred to as a research authority in later questions i would then either contact the preferred research authority or source one for them with the requisite skill sets and
00:24:06 with the requisite skill sets and availability to turn the registration around within two months now just pausing there was it your responsibility to make sure that the
00:24:17 responsibility to make sure that the officer
00:24:18 officer undertaking the research from the relevant research local authority had the requisite skills to complete the task competently yes it was
00:24:31 and how would it work in practice because you make clear there that the manufacturer could suggest a preferred local authority if they'd suggested a preferred local authority
00:24:42 authority how often would you disagree with that and say no i'm not going to go with that local authority we'll go with another one because of a lack of technical expertise um
00:24:54 the the purpose of offering them somewhere nearby was so that was convenient it would be conducive to having
00:25:02 regular meetings that was easier to facilitate um
00:25:06 um [Music]
00:25:08 [Music] and indeed some authority some some manufacturers actually had a preferred authority that they'd already been then usually the recommendation would come through the local authority to say we have this company who are interested
00:25:19 have this company who are interested and we wouldn't then talk around whether the potential was there in terms of the requisite skill set it was a discussion around this is what's what it's involves i i suppose it
00:25:31 what it's involves i i suppose it in hindsight you know one of the things i would say now is that we we actually formalized an audit trail of competency too
00:25:39 too to ensure that the officers the research authority dealing with that had the skill sets for it but it was i suppose an expectation in terms of peers
00:25:49 peers within within building control that they had the capacity to deal with that and also the time to set aside to complete that process within a two-month period
00:25:59 period yes
00:26:00 yes is what you're saying there that with hindsight you wish you had undertaken some kind of formalized audit trail of competency to ensure that the
00:26:11 trail of competency to ensure that the pers people at the research authority had the requisite skill sets is that what you're saying i think in terms of in terms of our role i can't say to you here that everybody that i spoke to i knew had
00:26:23 everybody that i spoke to i knew had those skill sets i believe that they had them but we didn't have any formal record of that or reference to it that matter that's all yeah and in practice how rigorous were the checks that you did
00:26:34 did to make sure that the authority had the requisite skill set it was it was usually via a telephone conversation this is what the process is it's going to involve this this and this
00:26:46 it's going to involve this this and this this is the information i've already received in relation to the test data they have for that is that something you feel you're comfortable with and and that was that was it yeah and if they had to say
00:26:58 and if they had to say sorry i was i was just going to say you know i was that point what would be nice to have done in hindsight in retrospect would have been to say that yeah this is it what qualifications do we have around that what skill sets are in in that side yeah
00:27:11 what skill sets are in in that side yeah so is this fair that if they said to if you explained the job to them and they said yeah i'm comfortable with that that would be the end to it and they would get the work absolutely yes yeah
00:27:23 would get the work absolutely yes yeah thank you
00:27:24 thank you if we then look at paragraph 21.6 below um where we just um went to you you say this you say i would then generate a quotation for undertaking this service which included
00:27:36 undertaking this service which included payment for the research authority to backfill the substantive post whilst the officer undertook the research work and you go on once the quotation had been accepted details would be passed on
00:27:47 been accepted details would be passed on to the research authority who would then make contact with the manufacturer and undertake an in-depth assessment of the product or system and liaise with them to ensure the necessary information
00:27:58 to ensure the necessary information third-party certification testing information was relevant to its intended use
00:28:04 use the authority would then draw this all together and provide a summary sheet of all matters together with a recommendation for registration now just go back a page and looking at what you said in the middle of that
00:28:15 what you said in the middle of that paragraph
00:28:18 paragraph you refer there to the undertaking of an in-depth assessment of the product or system by the research authority can you just explain to us what in practice that
00:28:30 explain to us what in practice that would have involved under the registered details scheme
00:28:35 certainly as i intended as part of that process that it was identified where the product was going to be used
00:28:46 where the product was going to be used and if
00:28:47 and if i don't know it might assist the inquiry of a if i use an example of a modular building
00:28:53 building in in terms of a registered detail the company who is manufacturing the modular structure would not want to be associated with foundations or drainage or anything that is outside of their
00:29:04 or anything that is outside of their remit and responsibility if they were a modular structure that was purely for let's say a shell so there was an external structure going around the outside of that then they wouldn't want to be responsible for that
00:29:15 wouldn't want to be responsible for that either because it was outside of the of their control so it was it was drilling down in terms of what the uh what the product was and how how it would be done and i suppose in in terms of how i moved
00:29:28 and i suppose in in terms of how i moved the registered details into the later format which was with the scope and limitations highlighting which areas were
00:29:38 were relevant to the to the to the product that we were looking at and that's what i what that's what i wanted the the research authority to do was to
00:29:47 was to to fine-tune that to say that it's being used in in in this instance yes i see from what you described it sounds like this registered details process might have evolved to some
00:29:59 process might have evolved to some extent over time in terms of the process that
00:30:03 that well i i would agree i think certainly from the time that i was working with registered details the one thing that i wanted out it was to be meaningful for actually to present
00:30:14 to be meaningful for actually to present something that a building control officer could look at and know what the extents were within within the the
00:30:21 the the when it's applied to a building regulation application yeah
00:30:26 and in terms of that in-depth assessment would you expect the research authority to carefully check any underlying test information or other certificates to make sure that
00:30:38 or other certificates to make sure that any statements made in the labc registered details certificate were fully supported by that underlying evidence yes i would
00:30:50 in terms of then kind of checks on that you continue at page 15 if we go over the page
00:30:57 the page at 21.8 you sell us once received by labc the information was posted on the registration and partnership working groups
00:31:06 groups online forum for peer review peer review involved members of the group voted by their regions to represent them at national level reviewing the submission to ensure it
00:31:18 reviewing the submission to ensure it fulfilled its intended purpose backed up by the technical specification test data and third-party accreditation and you tell us in the next paragraph if
00:31:29 and you tell us in the next paragraph if there were any queries this was relayed back to the research authority and any changes or additional information made once the registration had received four votes the relevant information was transferred into a standard template
00:31:42 transferred into a standard template to generate a certificate of registration and published on the labc web page
00:31:49 now i'm going to ask you some more detailed questions about the peer review process as we go through the k15 story but at this stage can you just explain
00:32:01 but at this stage can you just explain first of all how were the peer reviewers selected you say involve members of the working group um
00:32:09 um voted by their regions to represent them at national level um how would they um how was it then decided how many peer reviewers
00:32:20 reviewers a certificate would be looked at by
00:32:25 i'm i'm just wondering if it might assist the inquiry if i'd if i took a step back
00:32:31 step back as the reason why it's done in this way in the first place is that okay yes i don't know whether again it's already been covered in terms of what was called the lantac resolution back in the late
00:32:42 the lantac resolution back in the late 90s
00:32:43 90s and
00:32:44 and what it was was when local authorities was opened up to competition one of the i suppose the inconsistencies of local authority was that there was 370 authorities at that time all interpreting building regulations as
00:32:57 all interpreting building regulations as how they saw them and again
00:33:00 and again you know that you can draw questions around how how how their how it's applied within individual authorities on the basis of the guidance that we have to work from
00:33:12 have to work from but
00:33:13 but the point was that house builders in particular which is where it started would have to have a if they had a suite of 20 house types submit them to 317 authorities and get
00:33:26 submit them to 317 authorities and get differing interpretations back all the time so the one thing that we're trying to do is to create a consistent approach around that the landtap resolution was a national agreement that was put through
00:33:38 national agreement that was put through every single local authority in england and wales agreeing to accept work that was checked by somebody other than in their own authority because the legislation is quite specific that the local authority
00:33:50 specific that the local authority enforces legislation with its own border boundary yes so accepting something from outside was not permitted prior to the landsat resolution once that was in place we really started with house type
00:34:01 place we really started with house type approvals and that one so that would go through in terms of the i suppose the superstructure and there will be site constraints that would be the only things the local authority needed to consider
00:34:11 consider like foundations drainage methane unprotected area boundary that sort of thing
00:34:19 that made it life much easier for both the house builder and for the local authority and as we are competing in relation to cost if we were spending less time checking
00:34:30 if we were spending less time checking plans because we had that house type approval it meant that the building control teams would be offering a more competitive price to the house builder for that work and that was the rationale behind the
00:34:42 and that was the rationale behind the housetop approval scheme that was extended into system proof because manufacturers saw a benefit to that in terms of product and system approvals
00:34:52 approvals so so that's where the now the the reality was that when it first started we had
00:34:58 we had an authority undertaken a house type check and then it will be second checked by another authorities that be two authorities there who would then send a decision advice notice to the local
00:35:09 decision advice notice to the local authority where the work is being done advising that they can approve subject-to and certainly the type of approval manual that was built was really built around the house type
00:35:20 around the house type system
00:35:23 labc is broken up into 12 regions each region
00:35:27 region sends and nominates members from their region to represent their region at a national level and out of that there are officers who offer to do
00:35:38 do specific duties in relation to working parties
00:35:41 parties so each each region would have somebody that represented them a technical somebody legislative there might be a marketing officer and there would be a registration and partnerships nomination
00:35:53 registration and partnerships nomination so does that mean that the peer reviewers
00:35:56 reviewers were made up of representatives from each of these 12 regions 12 regions plus anybody else that was interested and so would there always be a member of
00:36:08 and so would there always be a member of the technical working group from every region
00:36:14 not necessarily on the registration partnership working group that would be a separate working group so the technical working group other is the group that would uh look at providing national guidance right around
00:36:25 providing national guidance right around consistency of interpretation of regulations yeah i'm just trying to get a handle on what the pool of peer who the pool of peer reviewers were for the registered details certificate
00:36:36 for the registered details certificate and they were technical members of the regions who've been voted on to that technical working group is that correct yes yes so they would have a technical background but not necessarily they
00:36:47 background but not necessarily they wouldn't be working on the technical working group as well and would there ever be any check about whether these peer reviewers had any expertise in in terms of
00:36:58 expertise in in terms of the registered details content that was being run past them no no no i don't believe there was you know the again these were officers who were usually in a senior capacity um and
00:37:11 were usually in a senior capacity um and who
00:37:11 who obviously felt confident enough to step forward and offer their services for the registration partnerships group and is it right that the way it worked that was was that once four votes in
00:37:22 that was was that once four votes in favor
00:37:24 favor were turned in in support of the certificate then that certificate was authorized technically it was it was five because we had the research authority recommending approval and then
00:37:36 authority recommending approval and then four others made it five so the original two
00:37:39 two authorities approving the house type approval had been extended through two yes so you've got i understand you've got the original research authority they do the work prepare the draft certificate
00:37:50 certificate and the other documentation it then goes to four p sorry it goes to 12 peer reviewers there's at least 12 members and then staff were obviously notified as well but they didn't have a vote on
00:38:01 as well but they didn't have a vote on the on the product that was there it was purely the the the registration working group yeah but once four peer reviewers said yes then it went through is that right yes
00:38:14 then it went through is that right yes what would happen if and we'll come to a specific example of this in due course but four reviewers say yes but shortly after it's been authorized a peer reviewer pops up and says i don't
00:38:25 peer reviewer pops up and says i don't agree
00:38:26 agree did that ever happen yeah there were comments that put through on on registered details where the information uh was queried in terms of the extent and the scope of the the the bridge the
00:38:38 and the scope of the the the bridge the detail itself right and then that was fed back through to the research authority it would come back obviously because we were facilitating the communications uh
00:38:49 were facilitating the communications uh in terms of what was there so we would try and assist to answer that question until we got to a point where there were four additional votes yes and this voting process i was asking mr turner
00:39:01 voting process i was asking mr turner about this and and he wasn't really able to help us in any detail um
00:39:07 um did they have to send an email or was the vote registered on another platform it was on on a separate platform so the notification came through online so they could click into
00:39:18 could click into the labc
00:39:20 the labc pages and register a vote on it that way yeah so there's occasions where we can only see one email or two emails from peer
00:39:31 one email or two emails from peer reviewers saying they're supportive but are we right that we shouldn't assume that there wouldn't be other votes in favor lodged with that platform you're just talking about is that right
00:39:43 talking about is that right i'm sorry i don't understand the question so we'll come to it in due course but there's a situation with k15 where we can only see and one email from one of the peer reviewers saying yes this is
00:39:55 the peer reviewers saying yes this is okay
00:39:56 okay that's in an email message but am i right in thinking there was a separate channel of communication that the peer reviewers could register their votes in favor or not yes it was it was
00:40:08 votes in favor or not yes it was it was effectively it was a do are you in favor yes and if you weren't there was an option of adding which is where the email would be generated against him yes and can you describe in your own words
00:40:19 your own words what exercise you were envisaging the peer reviewers would do when they got the information provided to them
00:40:29 their role as i saw it was to uh to look at they certainly went undertaking a another
00:40:36 another uh sort of the clinical check of the of the registered detail they were looking at the the preambles what was there what was the product trying to do or the registered detail trying to do
00:40:48 registered detail trying to do what information was pertaining there was there enough stuff that was hanging off that of that decision to say that it met the criteria of of the building regulations and it could be
00:40:59 building regulations and it could be that it was missing information in relation to thermal properties when when the extent is around let's say it was around fire it was making sure that all areas were covered
00:41:10 making sure that all areas were covered so in short it complied with the regulations not just a specific regulation so if i go back to my modular housing analogy
00:41:20 analogy it could be that we looked at that relation to accessibility so whether low thresholds on the doors that were there that may not be may not necessarily be part of the standard specification for that building
00:41:33 specification for that building yes
00:41:34 yes now
00:41:35 now suppose
00:41:37 suppose that there was a statement made in the draft certificate which went beyond the test evidence in support of it would you have expected the peer
00:41:48 would you have expected the peer reviewers to pick that up
00:41:52 uh again i'm sorry i'm not sure of the what sort of statement do you mean well we'll come to some examples but suppose there's a statement made that this product is one of limited combustibility
00:42:03 product is one of limited combustibility or can be considered one of limited combustibility but in fact there was no test evidence to support that statement would you have expected the peer review process to pick
00:42:15 expected the peer review process to pick up a situation like that yes i would have hoped that it would have been picked up when you say you would have hoped it would have been picked up uh well i suppose i would i would have expected i would i would have hoped that the people
00:42:27 would i would have hoped that the people that were on the registration and partnerships working group would have been able to address that because that goes slightly beyond what you just described because what you just described in part was you've got to make
00:42:39 described in part was you've got to make sure all areas are covered so does it comply with has it got evidence about thermal performance has it got evidence about fire performance that's a very different exercise from
00:42:50 that's a very different exercise from actually drilling down into whether the test evidence you've got in a particular area supports specific statements that are being made by the labc do you follow um well i think in your
00:43:01 do you follow um well i think in your example of the limited combustibility i would be expecting them to to look at the test data the supporting documentation that was there to to evidence that that that that was
00:43:13 evidence that that that that was actually uh supported right um you know in some in terms of that that statement there are other other areas which perhaps um
00:43:23 um i i can't think of an example but there are areas where perhaps that it's not as rigorous but something that jumps out at you like that would have i would have hoped would have been addressed right yes
00:43:34 right yes now i just want to look at something you say now page four of your statement paragraph 8.1
00:43:44 at the bottom you're asked um please give details of your own involvement whilst employed by the labc in relation to decision making relating to the following matters and if we go over
00:43:55 following matters and if we go over the use of combustible products in the external wall arrangements of buildings with a story over 18 meters and you tell us this you say i nor labc
00:44:06 and you tell us this you say i nor labc had no involvement decisions on the use of combustible materials are made in their entirety by the local authorities or approved inspectors where the relevant work is proposed
00:44:18 where the relevant work is proposed and then you're asked at b so what involvement did you have in decision making related to the compliance with building regulations and approved document b of products used in the external wall arrangements of
00:44:29 the external wall arrangements of buildings with a story over 18 meters and you say i nor labc had no involvement decisions on the compliance of combustible materials are the sole responsibility of local authorities or
00:44:41 responsibility of local authorities or approved inspectors where the relevant work is proposed now do you accept that through the registered details scheme the labc did in fact
00:44:53 the labc did in fact make assessments about the use of combustible products in the external wall
00:44:58 wall of external walls of buildings over 18 meters
00:45:02 meters um the registered detail made an assessment of it but the decision was with the local authority i'm sorry that sounds uh
00:45:10 sounds uh it's crossing was how i was interpreting the question that had been asked i see but you were in charge of the overall process and that included a peer review process of it yes yes
00:45:24 so you were responsible weren't you for making sure that the registered details process was followed correctly insofar as statements were being made about the
00:45:35 as statements were being made about the use of combustible materials in buildings over 18 meters i was and i i
00:45:42 i changed the process of the registered details to try and reflect that yes accurately and if concerns were raised about the way in which the registered details process was dealing with say a
00:45:53 process was dealing with say a particular material you had a responsibility for that didn't you yes
00:45:59 you yes yes mr ewing as i understand it what you're really saying here is that uh labc was carrying out the investigation into the particular material or product
00:46:11 into the particular material or product but that ultimately and and your the results of your investigation would be made available to a local authority
00:46:19 authority but ultimately they had to take responsibility for deciding whether to approve it or not yes the registered detail was hopefully assisting them in making their decisions
00:46:31 assisting them in making their decisions but i imagine also you would expect them in most cases to accept what was stated in your certificate that was one of the fundamental reasons why i changed the structure of the
00:46:42 why i changed the structure of the registered detail because i
00:46:45 because i didn't feel it gave enough information to the local authorities to base that judgment
00:46:50 judgment thank you well i think we understand that
00:46:52 that when did you change the structure of the registered detail to to allow for that the format of the russia detail changed through
00:47:00 through um it was
00:47:02 um it was around july 14 through to march 15.
00:47:07 march 15. so the process started and that was across the board for all registered details not just for kingspun and cellotex but the information that was contained within the document was portrayed
00:47:18 the document was portrayed or
00:47:20 or portrayed in a different format which gave the scope and limitations of that certificate yes and was it due to any concerns which had been raised for example about the registered details certificate for k-15
00:47:33 certificate for k-15 and the kingspan product which led to you making those changes yes i mean fundamentally it was the the the
00:47:42 the the information we received that the bba aggramar certificate had been re-released in i believe it was late 2013
00:47:52 2013 we didn't find that out until 2014
00:47:55 2014 june july
00:47:58 june july there was an email i believe from mr everett
00:48:02 everett europa facades that came through around the registered detail itself uh um but we're already on on board in trying to
00:48:14 trying to look at how the registered detail would work in light of the the the the primary document which is the there's the agreement certificate
00:48:25 now just to pick up a little bit more on the chairman's point about what the effect would be of these labc registered details certificates can we just look briefly at the registered details manual
00:48:36 briefly at the registered details manual this is hbc6023
00:48:40 and the front page begins at page two
00:48:46 there's the front page of it and at page four if we look fourth paragraph down it says this once a registered detail certificate is
00:48:57 once a registered detail certificate is awarded the type system or solution will be recognized by all local authority building control departments across england and wales therefore it is important that the application
00:49:09 important that the application i should say is thoroughly considered and the procedures detailed below are closely followed now was that your understanding about the effect of these registered details certificates
00:49:21 of these registered details certificates um
00:49:23 um yes i mean in terms of the fact that there was a registered detail for it should indicate to the local authority that there's been involvement from outside of it to try and improve that and provide that
00:49:34 and improve that and provide that information yes but from my side i was still trying to improve that information in terms of the format of the registered detail yeah itself the certification
00:49:45 itself the certification yes
00:49:46 yes can we just look at an email at this point la it's labc 303133 and i want to look at page two bottom of page two
00:49:58 on the 30th of november you send an email to someone called mark swift um
00:50:09 ally mask exteriors
00:50:12 exteriors and you say hi mark we met recently at the fabric first event in london and spoke briefly about our lab registered details scheme which operates nationally as a fast-track route through the building regulation process
00:50:26 building regulation process now can you just explain exactly what you meant there when you said it's a fast track fast track it's purely uh i alluded to it earlier that if the authority has the
00:50:37 that if the authority has the information then not spending time and therefore costing that out within the cost of their building regulation application charge so if we can save them time in terms of hours if it's if their officer hourly
00:50:49 hours if it's if their officer hourly rate which is a has to be nationally published is 100 an hour and we save them two hours worth of work investigating the product then that means that they're building up the quote
00:51:00 means that they're building up the quote is 200 pound more competitive and that was the rationale behind the fast track it saves time therefore it goes through i suppose fast track is is more of a marketing
00:51:10 marketing term that's there but that was the intention was that it would assist the process to go through it quicker because it didn't involve that additional investigation side yes thank you um and
00:51:22 investigation side yes thank you um and i want to show you at this point an extract from martin taylor's statement to the inquiry he was employed by the labc what can you just explain what was mr taylor's role in around 2012 2016
00:51:35 in around 2012 2016 um
00:51:38 well martin worked with labc prior to me starting in 2012
00:51:46 and he came back to local came back to labc in
00:51:51 in the late part of 2015. yes so as a structure he became my head of oat took over as a responsibility for alabisa consult and became my my reporting line manager
00:52:04 and became my my reporting line manager yes
00:52:05 yes let's look at his statement it's at labc0020153
00:52:12 page 60.
00:52:16 and it's paragraph 47.23
00:52:22 so he's talking about the registered details scheme here and he says this there's a footnote within the email well i clearly describe running the quote past miss stimson
00:52:34 running the quote past miss stimson the comment if we get this one right it will be good for the bonus was merely a flippant comment there was no such bonus scheme but both ms sloper and i were coming under increasing pressure from
00:52:45 coming under increasing pressure from phil hammond labc's managing director at the time to increase the number of registrations within the scheme such pressure did not affect my management of the process overall but it
00:52:56 management of the process overall but it did contribute to my decision when i up when ultimately i chose to leave labc in september 2012. now
00:53:05 now in terms of what he says in the second part of that paragraph um as far as you were aware was there increasing pressure coming from phil hammond the labc managing
00:53:16 from phil hammond the labc managing director
00:53:17 director to increase the number of registered details registrations no
00:53:24 no genuinely no i'm surprised to read that i'm
00:53:27 i'm disappointed to read that and i've never felt that at all
00:53:32 so you weren't aware that this um contributed to mr taylor's decision to leave the labc in september 2012. no and have you ever discussed this with
00:53:43 no and have you ever discussed this with mr taylor i haven't now did you ever experience any similar pressure from anyone else at labc other than mr hammond
00:53:54 i didn't experience anything for mister sorry in terms of now i mean
00:53:59 i mean my role as i saw that was was always quality not quantity and and i that's what i worked to that was why i was trying to improve the way that the registered detail
00:54:11 that the registered detail documentation itself was improved so it add more meaning to each product right yes now i want to look now with you at the
00:54:22 now i want to look now with you at the different certificates that were issued by labc for the kingspan k15 insulation product we know that the first certificate was issued in may 2009 and
00:54:34 certificate was issued in may 2009 and that david jones of herefordshire council undertook the research task for this certificate and that was issued under the system type approval scheme you were not employed by the labc in
00:54:46 you were not employed by the labc in 2009 you didn't join them until 2012. when did you first become aware of the existence of that system approval certificate for k-15 can you help us
00:54:58 certificate for k-15 can you help us um
00:55:01 i believe it was raised at a regional meeting um
00:55:10 early 2010s by phil harrison who used to visit the region to talk to members there in terms of my role at labc it was only when the renewal
00:55:21 when the renewal came back that i had i had cause to to look at that yeah and and when that renewal came up did you actually read the certificate and all of its supporting information i'm afraid i
00:55:32 supporting information i'm afraid i didn't i was just aware of the effectively the front sheet the certificate itself
00:55:42 when as it was an existing um registered detail or is it a system approval i
00:55:51 i i took the uh the the view that that was checked by my peers in terms of professionals that the product was was was good to go did
00:56:02 the product was was was good to go did there come a time when you realized that the technical content of this certificate was incorrect and misleading yes it was after the withdrawal of the or the reissue of the
00:56:13 withdrawal of the or the reissue of the bba agramal certificate in july 2014.
00:56:19 yes well that there was a reissue of the bba certificate in december 13 but and then later sorry i beg upon it it's december 13 yes so it's after that
00:56:30 it's december 13 yes so it's after that you became aware that this first certificate was enacted we found out that had been changed in the july of 2014.
00:56:37 2014. yes we'll come to that just help us um can you tell us who the technical coordinator was under the type approval scheme
00:56:46 scheme can you help us as to who would have held that technical coordinator role [Music]
00:56:52 [Music] um
00:56:55 i'll be talking post 2012. um yes first of all i mean well you you've transitioned over to the registered details scheme i suppose by that point can you help us as to who
00:57:07 that point can you help us as to who would have been the technical coordinator for prior to that um i i don't know i'm assuming it was part of the team at the office so it'd be the administrative side right
00:57:18 be the administrative side right so it was more that technical coordinator role was more of an administration role was it rather than a technical role i think so yes yeah
00:57:30 and can you help us as far as you understood it was mr turner
00:57:35 turner in any way responsible for the system type approval scheme before you took over
00:57:40 over in your role in relation to the registered details scheme i i i don't know because i wasn't there
00:57:50 i suppose that the first issue of the registered detail had barry's signature on it
00:57:55 on it i assume barry was involved with the system approval prior to that but i i might say i can't confirm right confirm that because i don't i don't know now let's start with then with the
00:58:06 now let's start with then with the registered detail certificate which was issued on the 28th of august 2013 for k15 and i want to look at some of the correspondence that led up to that certificate being issued
00:58:17 certificate being issued if we go to labc 40985
00:58:27 at the bottom of page 3 of this string
00:58:31 string there is an email from gareth mills to anna sloper asking about the registered details scheme saying last year we had some initial discussions in relation to our
00:58:42 initial discussions in relation to our existing labc approval on our call firm k15 product copy attached for reference and the potential update of this approval as part of your replacement registered details scheme
00:58:54 registered details scheme and over the page he goes on that we're potentially looking to move forward with this project if you could forward outline the costs forward an outline of the costs to make up these updates and what information you would require from ourselves to move
00:59:06 you would require from ourselves to move forward this would be greatly appreciated and then
00:59:10 and then if we just look up on the next email on page two
00:59:15 page two we can see your response 19th of october 2012. hi mr mills sorry i haven't been back earlier to you i've gone back through martin's communications regarding earlier pricing
00:59:27 communications regarding earlier pricing and you basically explained that to upgrade to a new registered detail would be 700 pounds plus vat and you attach an application pack and you say in the second paragraph the
00:59:40 and you say in the second paragraph the original certification was through hertfordshire i think you might mean herefordshire there
00:59:46 there and i will speak to them to ensure they're able to resource the checking process for you information required would be as the relevant testing certification detailed previously and updated where standards
00:59:57 previously and updated where standards may have been updated or superseded trust this is acceptable i'll contact you shortly now did you actually speak with mr mills following this email
01:00:09 following this email do you remember i i i don't remember and i went i've certainly visited kingspan offices but i
01:00:18 but i i can't put a name to a face
01:00:23 i listened to mr mary this evidence last year last year and i was in correspondence with mr meredith and i thought i'd met him but when i saw him giving evidence i didn't
01:00:34 when i saw him giving evidence i didn't recognize him so i don't know whether it was mr mills i met him said of him right
01:00:41 right yes
01:00:42 yes the correspondence then shows that um sometime later in january 2013 so you're getting back to mr mills in october 2012. but it's not in fact until january
01:00:55 2012. but it's not in fact until january 2013 that mr mills responds having filled out the relevant forms and attaching the relevant literature and do you know why mr mills took about three months to respond to you
01:01:09 three months to respond to you um i i don't can you remember there's been any discussions with kingspan in that intervening few months
01:01:20 i i don't i don't believe so um and again purely because of of memory
01:01:28 so let's pick it up then if we go to labc three zeros two four five one
01:01:39 and if we look at the email in the second half of page one this is you going back to gareth mills you say hi mr mills thanks for this i'll speak to kris jenner at herefordshire to determine their ability
01:01:51 determine their ability to process the renewal quickly for you will respond as soon as you have further information and then you send a further email at the top of the page
01:02:01 if we go to the top you go back to him on the 24th of january again and you say just to confirm that herefordshire look forward to checking through the renewal for you
01:02:12 through the renewal for you contact there is david jones although it may well be another officer who deals with the application once payment particulars have been processed we'll send out information to david and either he or another officer will contact you directly for further
01:02:24 will contact you directly for further discussion and progression of the approval
01:02:28 approval now um can you recall having any discussions with mr jones about the registered details process at this stage i
01:02:37 i think i spoke to mr jones on the phone with regards to the renewal effectively it was bringing forward the original checking everything's changed which i
01:02:49 checking everything's changed which i wasn't aware of in terms of changes to any legislation to format in the new which is why it was 700 pound it was it was a minister function plus his time to to undertake that
01:03:05 did you explain to mr jones that this renewal was being carried out under a new scheme the registered details scheme um
01:03:15 i suppose i must have in in relation to the the fact it was going to be issued as a registered detail rather than a system approval yes and do you remember whether mr jones got sent a copy of the registered details
01:03:26 sent a copy of the registered details manual
01:03:28 manual i'm sorry i don't if we go to that manual that sorry can i just yeah because that would have been again an administrative function within the team at the office to pass all the information on
01:03:39 information on i understand something i would have sent out
01:03:43 out if we look at that manual this is a hbc 6023
01:03:48 6023 again and if we look at page six this time
01:03:55 this is a table within that manual that sets out the stage by sage process that's supposed to happen under this registered details scheme and under point seven you can see
01:04:07 and under point seven you can see second row down from the top it says labc registered details manager consult and technical coordinator administrator identifies the research authority based on location
01:04:19 on location technical expertise and previous association with the client company appropriate resources skills and management structure now just taking that in stages
01:04:30 now just taking that in stages the labc registered details manager consult and technical coordinator administrator who are those people are any of those you i would be elibse regis details manager
01:04:43 i would be elibse regis details manager um
01:04:44 um consultant technical coordinator is
01:04:47 is probably cajole brennan who worked within the labc team an administrator where would have been a number of people most recently sam lee
01:04:59 a number of people most recently sam lee muller yeah so um you you or mr brennan or mr family muller are to identify the research authority based on location
01:05:11 research authority based on location technical expertise and previous association etc um what was your understanding of mr jones's technical expertise at the time
01:05:23 it was purely the fact that he dealt with the earlier application they're local to the kingspan offices so it just seemed an obvious
01:05:32 obvious to to
01:05:34 to to pass that through them for the new registered detail so is it right that these weren't cumulative requirements you weren't supposed to be looking at location and technical experience and previous
01:05:46 and technical experience and previous association you could just pick one of these and if if
01:05:50 if there was a you know a yes to that the the relevant authority would would get the work
01:05:57 the work in terms of based on location if the officers that were local to the manufacturer on discussion had the felt that they had the requisite skills to deal with it then that would have been adequate and
01:06:08 then that would have been adequate and sufficient to put it through the technical expertise side of it would was on the basis that mr jones had dealt with the earlier system approval
01:06:21 so you were relying on an assessment that had been made some years earlier about whether mr jones had the right technical expertise to take on the job yes and that wasn't rechecked as part of
01:06:33 and that wasn't rechecked as part of this registered detail scheme and did you ever become aware of what experience or expertise mr jones had in terms of
01:06:42 terms of external wall materials buildings over 18 meters no
01:06:52 mr jones said to you it might be another officer who would deal with the application did you ask him at that point well what were the other officers qualifications and experience to undertake the task
01:07:05 and experience to undertake the task i didn't know again the assumption would have been that as a team that they would have talked through the process he had experience of dealing with it the first time around he'd seen the information
01:07:16 time around he'd seen the information that
01:07:16 that he thought it handled previously it seemed it seemed a logical step to do and was that consistent with what you
01:07:28 and was that consistent with what you should have done under this um policy manual
01:07:32 manual um
01:07:36 in hindsight as i mentioned earlier you know the the process of having an audit trail around the competencies is something that would have would have worked much better
01:07:47 would have would have worked much better than the system we have here
01:07:52 yes now from the correspondence that's been disclosed the inquiry appears that kingspan were then slow to provide relevant technical data
01:08:04 relevant technical data um
01:08:05 um on in april 2013 on the 4th of april 2013 mr brennan confirms to mr mills that it's going to be david jones of herefordshire undertaking the assessment for the
01:08:17 undertaking the assessment for the transcript that's at labc40919
01:08:23 and then mr mills
01:08:26 mr mills replies to mr brennan on the 25th of april
01:08:30 april um 2013.
01:08:32 um 2013. if we look at this briefly this is labc 302474
01:08:48 so here we've got an email from mr mills at the top of the page to mr brennan attached to a number of additional documents relating to the cool theme k15 product the attached documents include
01:09:00 documents include bba approval for kill firm k-15 assessment report for the lambda values etc
01:09:06 etc i hope this will be of assistance so
01:09:11 so you probably can't remember but i'm going to ask you mr mills says these are additional documents can you recall whether kingspan had provided any other documents in support of this registered details application
01:09:24 registered details application um
01:09:26 um not that i'm aware of now i mean now i understand that they sent through the
01:09:32 the 2008
01:09:34 2008 bba agreement certificate even though they must have been working with bba at that time for the re-releasing later on in that year for the the updated registered updated
01:09:45 the the updated registered updated agreement certificate yes but that was all we provided with and we weren't made aware
01:09:50 aware that that that was changing no and in fact there was a revised vba certificate in april 2010 which i don't think you were ever sent either but you were only sent the original 2008
01:10:02 but you were only sent the original 2008 bba certificate yes yes but we will look at that
01:10:06 at that later so you're not aware that the labc or anybody else requested further information from kingspan including test data or test reports at this stage no
01:10:18 there's then a further email from mr mills to mr brennan can we look at this this is labc 302481
01:10:30 and i want to look at the second email down on page one
01:10:36 at 10 51. mr mills is at the bottom of that page he says with regards to the ongoing project we have with yourselves covered in the email chain below if you could provide an update on the status of
01:10:47 could provide an update on the status of this project would be greatly appreciated so mr mills is chasing and then mr brennan at the top of the page responds to him as follows he says apologies about not getting not getting
01:10:58 apologies about not getting not getting back to you sooner there's been some miscommunication in the office here over this assessment which i must apologize for i have requested the assessment and peer review of this system be given priority and so hope to have an update
01:11:10 priority and so hope to have an update for you shortly then he says this in the meantime if you're having any issues with building control approval of this system please do not hesitate to contact either myself or david ewing and we will gladly
01:11:22 myself or david ewing and we will gladly explain the situation as soon as i get a progress report from the research authority i will let you know
01:11:29 know [Applause] now first of all what communication is he referring to in the first line there can you help us in terms of miscommunication
01:11:41 in terms of miscommunication yes he says there's been some miscommunication in the office here over this assessment which i must apologize for do you know what he's referring to there i i don't i'm assuming it it's in terms of presuming sending information
01:11:52 terms of presuming sending information out to um herefordshire but i can't confirm that he's then he then says i've requested the assessment and peer review of this
01:12:03 the assessment and peer review of this system the given priority but k-15 is an insulation board isn't it not a system um yes but i think it was originally was
01:12:14 um yes but i think it was originally was a system approval i think that's probably why kahala has written it that way yes but um did you question why it had been given a system approval previously
01:12:26 given a system approval previously i didn't know um again i would assume that it was and
01:12:33 and i think this is probably more retrospectively that the rationale for a system was because it was part tested as part of a system on the eight four one four tests that were undertaken that's the only reason i can think why
01:12:45 that's the only reason i can think why it would be down as a system as opposed to a product yes but can we agree that was an entirely flawed rationale for um classifying the product given the number and variety of situations in
01:12:58 number and variety of situations in which you might use k five yes and and what do you think he means when he says four lines up from the bottom if you're having any issues with building control approval of this system please
01:13:09 control approval of this system please do not hesitate to contact either myself or david ewing and we will gladly explain the situation what does that mean i think that's in relation to building
01:13:20 i think that's in relation to building regulation approval if there are uh authorities who are questioning the fact that there isn't a valid registered detail there to contact either
01:13:31 either him or myself or myself to to talk around what was happening with the registered detail so that it was effectively under review uh pending uh pending reissue
01:13:43 uh pending reissue so that the fact that it wasn't available on the website yes
01:13:48 yes so
01:13:49 so um but what was envisaged would be happening in practice somebody rings you from a
01:13:55 from a site and or building officer and says i've got a site and they're proposing to use k15 on it what's the position what would you say what information would you be giving
01:14:06 what information would you be giving um
01:14:08 um i think i think the answer to that was that it would it almost certainly be coming from a building control team dealing with that as an application um and the the answer would have been
01:14:21 um and the the answer would have been that we are reassessing the product ready for uh for reissue as a registered detail but if they then said what does that mean can i use it can i say it complies
01:14:33 mean can i use it can i say it complies or not what would you have said um
01:14:35 um [Music]
01:14:36 [Music] i think in all probability would have said that the information contained on the earlier system approval would still be would still be relevant yeah
01:14:48 yeah because you see one reading of this and it sounds like you agree with that is that what was being suggested is that the labc will be prepared at this time to give reassurance to building control offices about the use of k-15
01:15:02 offices about the use of k-15 is that fair um
01:15:06 i think it was more about the lack of information on the website if they were reliant on the the websites and information source that they would they would come to us around that
01:15:20 but you've said that in all probability you'd have said yes the original certificate remains valid um how can how could that have been said in circumstances that where there was no
01:15:32 in circumstances that where there was no labc certificate in place at the time and you hadn't gone through the peer review process for this current registered detail certificate i think as the renewal
01:15:43 i think as the renewal i think it was purely because i don't believe anything had changed from the information that we had assessing the original system approval
01:15:54 assessing the original system approval it was it was just a an update
01:15:58 so it was transferring that information across onto a new registered detail that was all
01:16:02 was all when you say i don't believe anything had changed from the information we had assessing the original system approval you've already told us you hadn't read the 2009 certificate
01:16:14 the 2009 certificate had you read all the supporting information for this registered details certificate and compared it with what was said previously and satisfied yourself that nothing had changed um
01:16:24 um at that point no in terms of in terms of the
01:16:28 the um
01:16:29 um the content of the email there from my side of it it was again i'm not i'm not saying that i you know i i was not i was aware of the certificate as opposed to sporting
01:16:41 certificate as opposed to sporting information behind it i hadn't dug that out to say that we you know we will do that i would that would have been part of that process potentially but it was more around had the regulations changed
01:16:52 more around had the regulations changed was there any reason why from the building regulation perspective that product was no longer suitable and i know that i know that spins around in the in the context of
01:17:04 in the in the context of the inaccuracies that were on that on that document but there was nothing fundamentally different to how it was when it elapsed purely by a timeline mr tamara i think that would be
01:17:16 timeline mr tamara i think that would be a good moment given we started earlier to have the afternoon break right yes well we have been running for over an hour and perhaps that would be a good idea we have a break during the afternoon uh
01:17:28 afternoon uh mr ewing and this looks like a good time to take it so we'll stop now we'll resume please at 20 past
01:17:37 20 past three
01:17:38 three and uh i have to ask you as i have all other witnesses please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room
01:17:47 room all right
01:17:48 all right thank you very much would you go with the usher then please
01:18:01 good thank you ms granger
01:35:05 would you ask mr ewing to come back in please
01:35:17 just do some dumbest ewing
01:35:26 all right ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you so continuing with this story in relation to the first registered details certificate for k15
01:35:37 certificate for k15 we can see that on the 19th of june mr jones sends back the completed forms so if we go to labc 40893
01:35:53 mr jones sends these documents to mr brennan on the 19th of june 2013 and we can see that he says
01:36:05 and we can see that he says one of my team has now reviewed the previous approval and subsequently made some amendments as necessary to reflect changes in standards since the last issue
01:36:14 issue i believe this should be enough to reissue the type approval as a registered detail but if on reviewing the attachments you need anything more from us by all means let me know once all is deemed okay please let me know
01:36:25 all is deemed okay please let me know what needs to be done in respect of our part of the fee and he attaches um three documents um
01:36:36 um they are the cool firm k-15 type approval summary revised june 13 application pack registered details application form and the commission pack compliance declaration form
01:36:48 compliance declaration form and we can see from the email one email down that somebody called colin davis if we go down the page somebody called colin davis has actually
01:37:00 somebody called colin davis has actually completed
01:37:01 completed these documents he you can see him saying to mr jones dave i've made all the necessary alterations myself i believe this is now sufficient i've not approached the invoicing situation
01:37:12 approached the invoicing situation should you have any queries or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me so just pausing there um i think it follows from what you said earlier that no checks would have been done on mr colin davis
01:37:24 done on mr colin davis davis's ability or technical ability to complete this assessment is that right um
01:37:31 um i think you are other than i would expect david jones to understand that colin davis as a senior building control surveyor was capable of undertaking that on his behalf
01:37:42 behalf right but but you don't know that no i don't know that man and
01:37:47 and and we saw the documents that were attached if we can go to the cool femme k15 type approval summary that appears at labc 40894
01:38:01 and if we look this is the type approval summary and if we look at page three above the heading in the middle of the page requirement b3 we can see
01:38:13 page requirement b3 we can see under requirement b for our safety considerations it said from the results it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for surface spread of
01:38:25 classification for surface spread of flame
01:38:27 flame and further down on the same page under the heading requirement b4 external fire spread
01:38:34 spread it says this since k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b volume 2 including those parts of a
01:38:46 b volume 2 including those parts of a building more than 18 meters above the ground
01:38:49 ground now that technical information was incorrect was it not yes and it looks like it's just a straight copy over from the original
01:39:00 straight copy over from the original supporting documentation did you appreciate that at the time did you notice that technical statements were being made in this documentation which would accompany the certificate which were
01:39:11 accompany the certificate which were inaccurate no i didn't and it was purely the fact that it was something that had already been previously uh sanctioned through the registration partnerships group
01:39:23 registration partnerships group so does it follow that um you didn't read these documents i think it's probably that i'd have didn't give them the attention that they clearly needed
01:39:35 and we can see then that the registered details application was sent for peer review on the 20th of june 2013. if we go to labc 305132
01:39:52 here we have an email from mr castle brennan
01:39:56 brennan 20th of june 2013 to a large number of um
01:40:01 um parties
01:40:03 parties um and that those include the peer reviewers is that correct yes and it includes others at labc including yourself you are six lines down in the email is that correct yes
01:40:16 email is that correct yes you can see that in the middle there and we can see a few lines up from that mr turner has also sent this mr basson
01:40:28 can you help why were you being um sent this information at the time i think it was purely because it was part of a distribution group everybody that has a gov dot uk
01:40:40 that has a gov dot uk email address there are the members of the registration and partnership group so they're the they're the officers that would provide
01:40:51 votes on the on the update in terms of the the product themselves everybody else that has an labc.uk.com address our labc team there
01:41:03 our labc team there just circulated for inclusion i see so does that does it follow from that that you're not part of the peer review group your circulated what just for information yes to show that it's
01:41:14 for information yes to show that it's gone out
01:41:15 gone out the peer review group as as i mentioned earlier about the type approval process has to be done by a local authority and the acceptance was that local
01:41:26 and the acceptance was that local authority officers could do that outside of the boundaries of the area so the decision and the research authority the approvals have to be by the local authorities themselves yes
01:41:38 by the local authorities themselves yes so does it follow from that that nobody within labc itself your organization at this point would be checking these documents that was left to the peer reviewers it was the the
01:41:51 reviewers it was the the the assumption was that the information was presented in the right format the peer review would look at it and query it if there was any issues that they felt necessary to raise that would be facilitated through
01:42:02 that would be facilitated through ourselves back to the research authority and then ultimately gain sanction for the
01:42:09 the for the for the registered detail right yes
01:42:12 right yes and if we look at the email itself um it says dear colleague please go to the registered details here review forum to view the posting of the compliance declarations and drawings of the
01:42:24 declarations and drawings of the submission detail below please give comments by the date indicated where possible and we can see that that date is the 4th of july 2013. underneath that it says the compliance declaration form and all relevant
01:42:35 declaration form and all relevant technical details of the above are available within the document library all comments or votes should be left under the relevant topic or can be sent to this email address mark for my
01:42:46 to this email address mark for my attention
01:42:48 attention um
01:42:50 um and then it goes on um
01:42:53 um now
01:42:55 now it says below that that there was a registrations and partnerships working group that would be held on thursday the 27th of june can you help us was it any part of that
01:43:06 can you help us was it any part of that meeting
01:43:07 meeting um
01:43:08 um was any part of that meeting to discuss the registered details application for k-15 is that why they're being told that in this email no i don't believe it was i think there
01:43:19 no i don't believe it was i think there was a requirement for the working groups to meet i think at least two times a year and that was purely around
01:43:30 and that was purely around at that meeting i would report in terms of what was happening when we were in terms of registered details who i'd been to see activity we've had in relation to things like
01:43:42 relation to things like uh trade standard eco build interest that way so that's unrelated to the
01:43:48 the the first part of the email which is about the k-15 i believe so yes and an answer to your earlier question around the ticks for yeses or knows that's the forum there the forum tab that's the
01:44:00 forum there the forum tab that's the process that officers would have gone into to register a yes i think or push should post an email to relational extra information yes thank you
01:44:10 you and the email states that all technical details are available within the document library would that have included the type approval summary that we just looked at i believe so yes all
01:44:22 we just looked at i believe so yes all the documents associated with that would sit as tabs that you can click through to to open yeah
01:44:29 yeah now i just want to look here at this point at what the registered details manual says about this peer review process if we go back to the manual at hbc 6023 on page 27
01:44:50 now there's some there's a number of pieces of guidance here i'm going to only ask you about a few um parts of this so it's appendix 10 the peer review process
01:44:59 process three lines down from the top it says this stage is crucial to the entire process
01:45:05 process of registered details because it demonstrates an audit trail to certification by consideration from independent professionals is that a fair description of what was intended
01:45:16 description of what was intended absolutely it was to demonstrate impartiality and then picking it up in the second substantive paragraph beginning all of the
01:45:25 the it says all of the information received as part of the registered detail application is uploaded into the document library including the compliance declaration form and document list
01:45:35 list an email is then sent out requesting review within a time period usually 10 working days peer reviewers should verify that this is consistent with the supporting evidence and that the product is
01:45:47 evidence and that the product is referenced correctly to the applicable approved documents etc they should then review the supporting information to ensure that it is relevant to the product and demonstrates its suitability
01:45:59 and demonstrates its suitability it is not necessary to undertake a full check as this should already have been done by the research authority and evidential desktop review is all that is
01:46:10 that is required now can you help us what does that mean that last part an evidential desktop review is all that is required
01:46:21 desktop review is all that is required it's asking members of the registration and partnerships group to look at the submission to look at the i suppose the the the product itself the
01:46:33 i suppose the the the product itself the information spring providers are demonstrate that it will comply with building regulations in later
01:46:41 in later times it was around the scope and limitation to ensure it encompassed that field correctly um
01:46:50 and and that was that was about it really it wasn't about going through that and and and
01:46:58 undertaking a second review effect in terms of second checking the the documents it was accepted that as peers the person that done the research authority work had got everything correct for them to to
01:47:10 got everything correct for them to to sign off
01:47:11 sign off so it's you know in in in rare cases there would be queries around
01:47:17 around lack of information or relevance towards something else yes i'm still not inclined entirely clear what the difference is according to this guidance between the full check
01:47:29 to this guidance between the full check that it's describing that it's not necessary to do and the evidential desktop review can you help us what is the difference between those two things the research authority undertakes the
01:47:42 the research authority undertakes the the full the full check and assessment of that of that product yes so if i go back to my modular structure example they've been looking at it so how is it complying in
01:47:53 looking at it so how is it complying in terms of structure structure may have structural design incorporate as part of that that have got substantiating structural analysis taken from the point of view of the researcher
01:48:04 from the point of view of the researcher so the registration peer review they would look and say structure is involved where's the structural assessment there's the calculations they tap to the the panel or whatever it is
01:48:16 the panel or whatever it is therefore we know that that's been covered and we have assurances that will have faith that the research authority has had those calculations checked yes so so let's bring it into the fire
01:48:27 yes so so let's bring it into the fire context
01:48:29 context um
01:48:30 um would this be a fair description of it that what the peer reviewer might do is say
01:48:35 say um okay it's making statements about fire performance have i got any evidence of that
01:48:41 of that oh there's a bba certificate which deals with fire
01:48:45 with fire that must have been checked by the relevant authority so tick it's okay is that fair i think that's a fair assessment certainly the the aggramar certificate is the primary
01:48:58 the aggramar certificate is the primary piece of information that we would need as far as registered details go well okay i'd like a little bit more help on that if i may um
01:49:08 in a case such as this where there is a bba certificate would the peer reviewers be expected to read the bba certificate understand its contents
01:49:20 understand its contents and ask themselves whether it supports the certificate that the labc was minded to issue
01:49:29 again my answer would have to be i would hope so because i can't prove that in every instance
01:49:35 instance you don't know whether they did it or not but it is is that what they were expected to do in terms of the information that aggramar certificate would list its suitability um and
01:49:46 suitability um and it's third-party accreditation so all the testing is all is all captured within that agreement certificate so from the point of building control if if we forgot about registered details
01:49:57 if if we forgot about registered details altogether the application into the local authority the evidence to demonstrate compliance would be the aggramar certificate that would be deposited or they would just say see and they would go to the website to download
01:50:08 they would go to the website to download it and would have looked that way so the the k15 registered detail has clearly built off the
01:50:17 the the aggramar certificate that that's the the in terms of hierarchy that the aggramar certificate is the information that we'll be looking for so i think what you're telling us just i don't because i don't want there to be any misunderstanding about this
01:50:29 any misunderstanding about this what you're saying is that the each of the peer reviewers should have examined the aggramar certificate should have asked himself does this
01:50:40 should have asked himself does this support
01:50:42 support what the labc certificate will say but would not be expected to go behind the aggramar certificate to check the testing and the various tests again i
01:50:53 testing and the various tests again i think that's it is that correct that's a very fair assumption yes it's very helpful thank you very much thank you and how would that be different from what the
01:51:01 what the um
01:51:02 um checking authority i the david jones the research authority i would expect them to the list of the test uh tests have been undertaken to have uh to have sight of those tests to see what was there so
01:51:15 of those tests to see what was there so that that evidence
01:51:19 if we if we use br135 and 8414 as an example within that there are the there's the series for the classification report is the key piece of information that somebody who is
01:51:30 of information that somebody who is accredited has classified that product has been suitable based upon the test data that's provided within the a414 part one or part two tests have been carried out
01:51:41 carried out um so it would but i would expect the research authority to look at the 8414 test to ensure that it's you know that it's and again you know i'm talking
01:51:53 again you know i'm talking retrospectively here you know that that that test data and the specification for that system matched what was i supposed contained within the registered detail ultimately
01:52:04 within the registered detail ultimately and much the the report within the 135 report
01:52:09 do you accept that there might well have been some variation across the peer review group as to how thoroughly they looked at the supporting evidence
01:52:20 the supporting evidence yes i do
01:52:21 yes i do and is it possible that some of them wouldn't have done what you've just described to the chairman and would have done what i was describing to you just a little
01:52:30 little bit before that that they would have done a much more cursory exercise which is to say okay we we need some information on structure we need some information on structural performance we need some information on
01:52:41 performance we need some information on fire performance can we see that there's broadly some information there about that yes tick don't need to go any further because the research authority would have done that do you expect that some peer reviewers would probably have
01:52:52 some peer reviewers would probably have approached that uh role in that way i think that's quite possible yes because it's not clear is it from this manual exactly what peer reviewers should and shouldn't do
01:53:06 i have to accept that i mean within interpretation within the paragraph there
01:53:11 there it's it's the degree of depth that um that they would want to go into yeah but again the fact that they are offering to provide that service as part of labc
01:53:22 of labc [Music]
01:53:24 [Music] isn't something i would expect them to be necessarily flippant over that they're taking that responsibility seriously
01:53:29 seriously yes
01:53:30 yes did you ever undertake any kind of quality control checks
01:53:35 checks on the peer review process to ascertain that it was working properly as some kind of
01:53:41 kind of meaningful check again no we didn't the assumption was that we had competent peers that we were working with that the people who were offering to do that felt comfortable undertaking
01:53:53 to do that felt comfortable undertaking that sort of work when you became aware you said earlier and we'll come to it you did become aware that there were problems with the certificates that the labc had been issuing for the k-15 product did that
01:54:05 issuing for the k-15 product did that prompt any consideration within labc about whether the peer review process needed to be better quality controlled um
01:54:15 um no i don't think it did it wasn't something that occurred to me it was it was more i suppose the changes were how the information was presented to make it easier for the peer peer review group
01:54:28 the peer peer review group to follow the registered detail that was being submitted
01:54:32 submitted yeah
01:54:34 yeah now what we can see in the documents is that um
01:54:38 that um on the 28th of june so prior to the deadline that had been given in the email of the 4th of july on the 28th of june mr brennan emails mr mills saying that
01:54:51 mr brennan emails mr mills saying that the final peer review section of the registered details process has now been completed
01:54:56 completed so can we take it from that that by that point the four votes in favor must have been received is that correct it must have been yes yeah because we can only see one email
01:55:07 because we can only see one email response from someone called tim bartlett of west suffolk council where we can see him saying on the 26th of june that he's supporting the the certificate
01:55:19 certificate but just to be clear it sounds like there was a separate process for registering votes is that correct i think it was simply just a tick option on the on the forum page
01:55:30 option on the on the forum page and a separate uh option to send an email and can you help us as to who else voted in support of the application for k-15 i can't i'm afraid no do you know whether anybody voted against it and
01:55:41 whether anybody voted against it and raised any questions or queries don't but i'm assuming that there wasn't any otherwise we would have raised that back
01:55:50 back to uh to herefordshire can we agree that it's concerning that those involved in this peer review process
01:55:58 process were not able to identify the technically incorrect information provided in support of the application namely the revised type approval summary i think you can yes
01:56:10 i think you can yes because that's not just a minor error is it it's a pretty major one to describe it as a limit at a material that can be considered a material of limited combustibility
01:56:22 combustibility when there's absolutely no test evidence to support that can we agree that yes
01:56:30 now on the 1st of august 2013 having been sent the draft certificate if we look at labc 302502
01:56:49 so on the second email down in the bottom half of this page on the first of august mr mills emails mr brennan
01:56:59 about these k the k-15 draft certificates and he says we've had a look over the documents and wondered if we can add some more detail into some of the sections regards where the product can be used
01:57:12 regards where the product can be used we would welcome your advice on the most appropriate sections for including this information for example if it would go in the limitations of use advice notes or climatic condition detail sections
01:57:23 or climatic condition detail sections but a few of the points we would like to cover are noted below with a number of the items i've included some notes after the comments in brackets which we don't need to include in the final certificate but i've included for yourselves as some
01:57:34 included for yourselves as some references to documents where additional information can be found on the relevant items if required and then he sets out in a series of numbered points the additional
01:57:45 numbered points the additional information that he would like to appear as part of the certificate and if you look at item three it states the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18
01:57:56 buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it is used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components note bs 8414 testing referenced in
01:58:07 note bs 8414 testing referenced in section 71 of the bba certificate is noted as meeting requirements of bre-135 ie alternative compliance route referenced in approved document b and he also says item six we have two
01:58:20 and he also says item six we have two images which we would like to include within the drawing section if possible which i will follow up with shortly i would like have the images available to send either as a bitmap or jpeg format
01:58:31 send either as a bitmap or jpeg format which of these is preferable for you so that's um
01:58:35 that's um mr mills asking for that additional information to be included and we can see from the top of page one that mr brennan forwards kingspan's
01:58:46 that mr brennan forwards kingspan's request
01:58:49 request to you
01:58:50 to you and to mr jones on the 1st of august and he says this morning gents do you have any opinion on kingspan's request below
01:58:59 below is the information they want displayed backed up by the technical information supplied or is it outside the scope of the assessment carried out if you have any comments please let me know and i will amend and reissue
01:59:10 know and i will amend and reissue accordingly many thanks kathal
01:59:14 now um do you remember responding to that email i'm sorry i don't do you remember checking the content of
01:59:27 do you remember checking the content of what mr mills wanted including in the certificate to see if it was uh acceptable and as mr brennan said backed up by the technical information supplied
01:59:37 supplied i i don't recall and and i can re i can see that the the sections that they're uh taking from the aggramar certificate the extra comments there but i can't
01:59:48 the extra comments there but i can't recall
01:59:50 recall pushing that any further i'm sorry if we go on in the documents if we go to labc302079
02:00:00 and look on page three we can see that on the same day mr brennan says to mr mills in the middle of that page hi gareth
02:00:12 middle of that page hi gareth i've passed your query on to our technical sales director david ewing and david jones who conducted the assessment to get their opinion on your request david jones is out of the office until
02:00:23 david jones is out of the office until 12th of august but david ewing should be in touch with you shortly to discuss
02:00:29 and then if we go up the chain at the bottom of page two
02:00:35 page two mr mills responds and he says um so the email starts right at the bottom of that page and if you go on to the top of page three
02:00:50 mr mills says the two attached files are the two images mentioned in my earlier email
02:00:54 email if there were any items that you wanted to discuss in relation to the comments please don't hesitate to contact the undersigned
02:01:03 and he sends a further chasing email um to you and to mr jones copying mr brennan on the 12th of august asking whether there's been any progress
02:01:16 whether there's been any progress and then if we go to labc40936
02:01:28 mr jones says to you and mr brennan on the 12th of august 2013 hello cathol i've got no problem with those points being incorporated as part of this certificate i think the key ones under items one
02:01:40 i think the key ones under items one three and four are already covered in the herefordshire council type approval summary referred to in the certificate but see no problem with those points being reinforced as
02:01:51 with those points being reinforced as per gareth suggested wording below certainly i can't see that there's anything there not backed up by the technical data underpinning the certificate
02:02:02 now it would appear that you from what we can see didn't respond to the email
02:02:09 the email and we've only got that response from mr jones
02:02:13 jones um
02:02:13 um did you have any discussions with any of those gentlemen at that time about this point
02:02:21 point not that i'm aware of i'm as i'm looking at that and thinking
02:02:27 in terms of sort of workload whether i've just decided that it's only two weeks and uh
02:02:35 and uh we'll let mr jones respond to it on his return
02:02:40 so you basically left it to mr jones to deal with it i think i have yes
02:02:47 now if we look at um labc 302079
02:02:55 moving forward on the 14th of august 2013 there's an email from mr jones this is the top of page two sorry of this string
02:03:07 this string there's an email from mr jones back to mr mills copying him mr brennan and it appears to be about whether these amendments should be incorporated into the certificate
02:03:19 the certificate and he states um and you're sorry you're sent this email as well good afternoon gareth i'm open to suggestions we could incorporate them into the approval summary attached if appropriate
02:03:31 summary attached if appropriate i think that double probably doubles up on some of what's already in there but no harm in emphasizing these key points unless there's a part of the certificate itself where they would better sit
02:03:43 itself where they would better sit um now can you help us with this why were these proposed amendments to the certificate as as requested by kingspan not sent to the peer review group
02:03:57 um
02:04:05 the only answer that i can suggest is that because it has already been approved this is a modification to the wording that was there so it wasn't found so to send it back
02:04:17 so it wasn't found so to send it back to go through the process again but they're not insignificant tweaks to the wording are they they're they're major additions to the certificate they're well bringing through elements that were in the ergemon certificate
02:04:29 that were in the ergemon certificate um
02:04:31 um but uh
02:04:33 but uh i'm sorry i can't i can't answer an oversight i mean point three and saying it's suitable for use above 18 meters
02:04:44 suitable for use above 18 meters you know that's a that's a pretty major statement isn't it in relation to a combustible insulation product
02:04:51 so that really ought to have gone through the peer review process shouldn't it in hindsight yes
02:05:00 we saw in the registered detail manual that it says that the peer review process is crucial to the entire process because it demonstrates an audit trail to certification by consideration from
02:05:11 to certification by consideration from independent professionals
02:05:16 it looks like the peer review process just isn't being used it's kind of at times it just falls away is that fair um i think it was in relation to
02:05:27 um i think it was in relation to modifications i think the principle of of of approving the registered detail application was the key part from the peer review
02:05:38 peer review and yes it it's you know it's something that in hindsight it should have it should have gone back
02:05:46 at the bottom of page one of this string mr mills responds copying in you and mr brennan
02:05:53 brennan and he says thanks i'll have a look over the attached document and come back to you
02:05:58 you just to confirm for my own understanding is the attached document something that would be issued in addition to the three draft documents we'd received originally um did you take a look at what was being
02:06:09 um did you take a look at what was being sent back to mr mills and check that yourself
02:06:14 i don't believe i did i'm not actually sure what the attached document was yes i'm gonna go to that in just a moment
02:06:25 to that in just a moment um
02:06:28 on the 15th of august mr brennan sends to mr mills and mr jones
02:06:35 jones copying you in and attaching the documents including the draft certificates and drawing and document list let's look at that labc 3020
02:06:50 so mr brennan says to you and mr jones there can you confirm whether the attacks is okay we usually don't make the type approval summaries available public publicly so i would prefer if all the necessary
02:07:02 would prefer if all the necessary information was contained within the drawing and document list and associated appendix
02:07:07 appendix and and it's that appendix is where mr mills information ends up i'll show you that in a moment if you would like additional information to be displayed alongside the images you
02:07:18 to be displayed alongside the images you sent through please let me know now so you're being asked is the attached okay
02:07:28 well i'm copied into the email though primary res i beg your pardon you're copied in i beg your pardon does that make a difference um
02:07:39 um in
02:07:40 in real terms i suppose the question is being asked of mr mills and mr jones uh
02:07:46 uh and i'm copied in in in real terms it probably doesn't i should still be aware of what was going on right thank you and then the records show that on the 28th of august gareth mills responds
02:07:59 28th of august gareth mills responds saying he's happy and then
02:08:03 and then on the 28th of august mr brennan issues the registered details certificate to mr mills copying you and mr jones into the email for the transcript that's at labc409
02:08:15 let's look then at the content of the certificate the certificate itself appears at labc three zeros one three zeros
02:08:34 so this is the certificate that the
02:08:37 that the the main page of it and we can see it's dated right at the bottom the 28th of august 2013 and it's valid for a year until 2014
02:08:48 valid for a year until 2014 and we can see it's signed on behalf of the labc and it's got mr turner's signature
02:08:55 signature now
02:08:56 now mr turner's evidence was that this would that signature would just be imported into this certificate as an administrative exercise and that he wouldn't check the
02:09:07 and that he wouldn't check the certificate is that your understanding as well yes it is
02:09:13 and then if we go to the registered details drawing and document list which accompanied this certificate that's at labc three zeros one two zeros
02:09:30 one and we can see on this first page of the drawing and document list that under the third row supporting documentation reference numbers we've got the herefordshire council type approval
02:09:42 herefordshire council type approval summary
02:09:43 summary we've got the ninth issue of some kingspan literature and then we've got the 2008 bba certificate and we can see in the fifth box advice notes it says please see appendix a
02:09:56 notes it says please see appendix a and then if you go page two to appendix a
02:10:00 a what appears here is the additional information which was requested
02:10:05 requested to be included by mr mills in the exact same wording it's just been cut and pasted into this appendix which accompanies the certificate so it includes item three the product
02:10:17 so it includes item three the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it's used in combination with a suitably non-combustible substrate and ancillary components
02:10:28 ancillary components and then if you look at page three there are two diagrams on page three which are the ones sent through by mr mills and we can see k-15 with a steel frame and figure two is k-15 with a terracotta
02:10:40 and figure two is k-15 with a terracotta tile
02:10:45 now were you aware at this time that if you were following the guidance in approved document b for buildings over 18 meters any insulation product should either be of limited combustibility or the whole system not
02:10:59 combustibility or the whole system not just the insulation had to have been successfully tested to bs-8414 were you aware of that
02:11:07 yes i was aware of it i didn't understand the full ramifications in terms of the testing criteria everything else but i understood 12.5 as i said within the approved document yeah
02:11:18 approved document yeah um and again you know the illustrations there are the ones that were used within the aggramar certificate again that's that supporting document sorry say that again the illustrations
02:11:29 sorry say that again the illustrations there the kate figure one is is an image that's on the agrimon certificate right which again only highlights an eight four one four part one test but shows a steel frame on the aggravate certificate
02:11:40 steel frame on the aggravate certificate in the 2008 document so
02:11:43 so it's it's that well that should have been picked up should by the labc shouldn't it well i would have hoped it would have been addressed by the british board of agreement in terms of their documentation and again as a
02:11:56 their documentation and again as a as a primary or the hierarchy in terms of structure that was what building control were reliant on and i'm not trying to make excuses here it was that information was there the agreement certificate itself the 2008
02:12:08 agreement certificate itself the 2008 says that the product is suitable for use above 18 meters subject to uh confirmation from the manufacturer well can we agree that the claims that are made in this registered details
02:12:19 are made in this registered details certificate in respect of the suitability for use over 18 meters of k-15 were not substantiated by the technical data provided by kingspan
02:12:30 i think yes we can other than the single test that's uh that was was on the part one test that they had undertaken so given the 8414 is a system test
02:12:42 so given the 8414 is a system test with any classification to br 135 applying only to the tested system that even had the labc been in possession of bs 841 for test data it
02:12:53 possession of bs 841 for test data it would have been wrong to assert that the product had met the criteria in bl-135 yes yes
02:13:00 yes yes it is
02:13:06 it's also right to say isn't it that if one was going to include two diagrams with different uh construction you would have to have had two psa four
02:13:18 you would have to have had two psa four one four tests one for each part one and part two yes yes yes and you'd have had to have had a test that suggested that k-15 had been tested with a terracotta tile
02:13:31 tested with a terracotta tile and there was no such evidence of that was there
02:13:34 was there i don't believe that was the part one test initially no yeah
02:13:39 yeah and going back to page three sorry page two and point three of this the statement the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18
02:13:50 buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground level provided it's used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary components implies a global approval of the product for use
02:14:02 global approval of the product for use over 18 meters when
02:14:06 when that was wholly unjustified can we agree that
02:14:10 that i think in terms of the wording yes you can
02:14:13 can other than in bracket the bracketed area which says it does make reference to the testing under 8414 but as the first sentence it's it's inferring that
02:14:24 inferring that yes yes now um did you ever read the bba certificate the the first one the 2008 one zero eight four five eight two
02:14:35 eight four five eight two yes
02:14:38 yes you actually read that certificate did you 2008 document yes
02:14:43 were you aware in august 2013 that a revised version of the bba certificate for k15 had been published in july 2013. no
02:14:53 no you weren't aware of that we weren't made aware until sorry i thought that was i thought it was december i beg your pardon sorry
02:15:03 there was an amended issue one of the bba certificate on the 6th of april 2010 which mr alban told us was published in july 2013
02:15:14 july 2013 were you aware that there was an amended issue one no no and again i would have expected if that was july 2013 i would have expected kingsman to provided that as the
02:15:25 kingsman to provided that as the supporting documentation when we were undertaking the the revision yes and and we know they didn't um they provided you with the original one let's look at that original bba
02:15:36 one let's look at that original bba certificate which was referred to in this registered details certificate it appears at bba 6038
02:15:52 now here is um that bba certificate if we look on this first page under key factors assessed there's a section behavior in relation to fire
02:16:03 to fire it says the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard c-section seven now it doesn't say does it on that front
02:16:14 now it doesn't say does it on that front page suitable for use above 18 meters now i think it says it in section 7. well let's go to section 7 if we look on page
02:16:26 if we look on page 5 of the certificate which deals with the detailed behavior in relation to fire section 7.1 it says the following fire tests have been undertaken to bs 8414
02:16:38 tests have been undertaken to bs 8414 part one
02:16:40 part one and then it gives you the precise system that was tested we can see in the second line it's got six millimeter thick cement particle boards
02:16:52 and then it says within the stator test time the temperature this is the bottom of the paragraph at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees c therefore displaying limited fire spread away from
02:17:03 displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated within bre-135
02:17:10 now admittedly that states the product meets the criteria stated within bre 135 but it's clearly describing a very specific system there isn't it it is it's describing the the actual
02:17:21 it's describing the the actual construction of the the full test yes but it again the word it says the product meets the criteria within br135 and i think that is
02:17:33 within br135 and i think that is that is the basis for the original system approval which david jones assessed
02:17:37 assessed i think he's taken that as
02:17:42 as part of his process that's there do you know that or are you just speculating i'm just speculating so yes no because we've heard detailed we have heard detailed evidence from mr jones about what he took into account
02:17:53 about what he took into account it then says it's 7.2 the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in
02:18:04 the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and over the page it's got adb and it's got paragraphs 8.4 and then 12.5 and 12.6
02:18:15 12.5 and 12.6 note this certificate did not say 12.7 a later version did in 2010 but you didn't see that and then at 7.3
02:18:27 and then at 7.3 it says this in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder do you see that yes so there isn't a statement is there in
02:18:39 so there isn't a statement is there in that cpa i said manufacturer didn't i i beg your pardon
02:18:44 yes uh understood but there isn't a statement equivalent to the statement you had in the registered details certificate saying this product is
02:18:55 certificate saying this product is suitable for use over 18 meters provided you've got a non-combustible substrate no
02:19:02 no so when you say you were relying on the bba certificate i take the point you've made about it referring to a product in br135
02:19:09 br135 but in fact your statement as as set out in that appendix goes significantly beyond what's set out in this bba certificate doesn't it it does yes
02:19:29 now moving forward we know that there was a further revised bba certificate certificate for k-15 issued on the 17th of december 2013
02:19:40 of december 2013 and i want to look at some of the correspondence in relation to this now you become aware of this and i think you've already confirmed it in your evidence in july 2014 when mr turner sends you an email
02:19:51 sends you an email let's look at this this is labc 40882
02:20:05 mr turner sends a short email to you saying hi dave something you may be aware of if not then for your info and then below that is an email from
02:20:16 and then below that is an email from steve evans of the nhbc to mr turner and mr batson saying barry doug hope that you're both well please keep this confidential at this time but felt that you may like to
02:20:28 this time but felt that you may like to see this approach we've had from dclg and my response i've mentioned this at bca meetings in the past but it is now coming to a head i note that the labc registered detail
02:20:39 i note that the labc registered detail expires in august this year so you may wish to consider this in light of the amended bba certificate issued in december 2013 happy to discuss further
02:20:50 december 2013 happy to discuss further and then further down the email chain we can see emails that were exchanged between
02:20:55 between steve evans of the nhbc and brian martin then at mhclg at the bottom of page 3 we can see mr martin's email
02:21:08 where he says hi neil i've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently and then he raises this concern about several buildings have been erected but pii pir insulation's been used in
02:21:20 pii pir insulation's been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height apparently people are under the impression that prpir is a material of limited combustibility which it isn't again allegedly many of these buildings
02:21:31 again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats and then he says no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively reliable sources purpose of my email is a friendly warning you might want to double check with your
02:21:42 want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this and then there is mr evans response on page two
02:21:53 and he makes clear that the issue is about the use of king's kingspan cool thumb k15 rain screen insulation board in buildings over 18 meters in height
02:22:05 meters in height the confusion has arisen from kingsman's statement that their product is acceptable for use in building over 18 meters
02:22:12 meters and then he goes on he says in the third line however since october 2008 the product held a bba certificate which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with adb paragraph 12.7
02:22:23 in accordance with adb paragraph 12.7 now that was the 2010 version of the certificate which in fact you didn't see but that had 12.7 included within it as well as 12.5 and
02:22:35 included within it as well as 12.5 and 12.6
02:22:37 12.6 um and then he goes on two lines from the bottom in that paragraph it was on this basis that nhbc building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k15 in buildings over 18 meters in height
02:22:49 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats we understand that labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters and then it goes on in january of this
02:23:01 and then it goes on in january of this year we were made aware of very revised bba certificate for k-15 issued on the 17th of december 2013. the new certificate removed the passage which indicated it was acceptable for
02:23:12 which indicated it was acceptable for use in accordance with adb power 12.7 and and then he goes on and it's stated instead to be suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls
02:23:25 construction on masonry walls as we had a number of projects under construction and in advance stages of design utilizing k-15 nhbc approached king spanner made them aware of our concerns as a result of this
02:23:36 of our concerns as a result of this dialogue kingspan are currently undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with bs8414 part one the results from the test are expected by the end of the month and nhbc are
02:23:47 the end of the month and nhbc are meeting with kingspan at the beginning of august
02:23:49 of august at which time kingspan will be asked to provide evidence that their product can be used in alternative construction types other than that specified in the current bba certificate then over the page
02:24:01 then over the page he says there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
02:24:12 out king are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters
02:24:18 18 meters if they're not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as bca and the fire and rescue
02:24:30 such as bca and the fire and rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions and then he says i trust this addresses your immediate concerns etc now
02:24:41 now what was your understanding of the problem when you read this email chain um
02:24:47 um that the
02:24:48 that the updated agreement certificate was much tighter than the previous version and we needed to do something in respect of the registered details
02:24:59 of the registered details so it did occur to you that you had a problem did it yes yeah we needed to uh to
02:25:05 to to make the the structure of the detail comply with the testing that the king spelling has taken for that product for use with a variety of system a variety
02:25:16 use with a variety of system a variety of materials as system tests what did you know about the use of combustible materials in buildings over 18 meters at this time had this issue come to your attention in any other way
02:25:29 come to your attention in any other way um
02:25:32 so what was the data since july wasn't it
02:25:35 it yeah this is july 2014. we weren't saying made it worth through uh i think it's a thread further up isn't it to barry turner i'm forwarding it on
02:25:47 i'm forwarding it on it was
02:25:48 it was um
02:25:49 um there was a letter that we received from clive everett from
02:25:54 from europa facades which i think was a little bit after this yes i'm coming to that in a moment we basically started the process off in terms of how we would address the registered detail
02:26:07 registered detail so that it reflected the the actual situation
02:26:11 situation if we look at those lines at the top of the page where mr evans says there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it's just the fact
02:26:22 risk at this time it's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out did you agree with mr evans view that there was no reason to suspect that buildings were at risk at this time
02:26:36 um
02:26:39 i think i probably did because we we hadn't i don't think industry had any idea how
02:26:45 idea how a building would react until the tragedy of grenfell the implication had been brought out horrendously at that point it wasn't the fact i was
02:26:56 it wasn't the fact i was ignoring it or not
02:26:59 not paying attention it was about being diligent with the registered detail that we had to ensure it reflected things properly and it was at this point that we realized just how
02:27:09 how how far out in terms of the wording within the registered detail was that we needed to
02:27:14 needed to draw it back into the tested systems that kingspan had done but but how could you come to the view that there was no reason to suspect that buildings were at risk
02:27:25 buildings were at risk on what basis um
02:27:32 i don't know answered that question correctly there there was obviously a risk there i think we didn't realize that how significant that risk was um
02:27:43 it was it was i don't ever have an answer for that
02:27:53 from from my perspective it was the registered detail needed to be sorted out whether i considered the fact that buildings have been built
02:28:04 the fact that buildings have been built with it in place i was assuming um
02:28:07 um [Music]
02:28:09 [Music] that these have been backed up by by the building control teams that were dealing with them being local authority or
02:28:16 or approved inspector and i can't i can't say any more than that it's i'm
02:28:24 sorry i can't give an answer to the question
02:28:26 question did you immediately go and check all the certificates that labc had issued for k-15 um
02:28:35 um well it would be a single registered detail that was enforced at that particular time that's not my question did you go and check and get copies of get hold of
02:28:46 check and get copies of get hold of copies of all the certificates that labc had issued for k-15 when you received these emails
02:28:56 i still don't when you when you say certificates yes so under the system type approval or the registered details system no it was only in relation to the current the current one
02:29:10 the one that was in place after august 2013. so why not check straight away based on brian martin's email whether labc have been telling people
02:29:23 whether labc have been telling people that k-15 is a material of limited combustibility
02:29:32 again i'm sorry i i don't understand the question there look at brian martin's email at the bottom of the page he says allegedly several buildings have been erected where pir insulation has been used
02:29:44 used and then he says apparently people are under the impression that pir is a material of limited combustibility which it isn't
02:29:51 it isn't now that that's the core of his complaint
02:29:54 complaint why don't you go back and check immediately to see whether the labc have ever made that statement in any of its certificates sorry it would have been on the uh the
02:30:06 the the new registered detail that was in place in terms of the support and documentation it was yes and it was there in the type approval summary since 2009. yes did you work that out at the time
02:30:18 did you work that out at the time um i no i didn't go back to the previous ones i only took the the current one i think the certificate uh no no we wouldn't because the registered details started at the new point
02:30:30 started at the new point is whether it said valid from 2009 through to 2014. well even if you were just thinking about the registered detailed certificate that was
02:30:41 that was put in place in august 2013 for now july 2014. did you think to yourself oh we need to check whether we've made inaccurate statements in our registered
02:30:52 inaccurate statements in our registered detailed certificates did you think that that was something absolutely which is where i i took the the one that was in place at that time and and basically that was what we needed to
02:31:04 basically that was what we needed to correct and to change to make sure reflected the testing that had been carried out yes but what about all the buildings
02:31:12 buildings all across the country that have been built
02:31:15 built with reliance placed on the labc registered details certificate did you think about those um
02:31:24 um in terms of numbers i i suppose i suppose i didn't it was it was it was purely in relation to the job i was undertaking i think perhaps you put the system type approval didn't
02:31:36 you put the system type approval didn't you
02:31:37 you first one was the system yes but the this certificate has been in place the registered detail certificate has been in place for nearly a year by this time i thought your point was that since august 20 i'm just saying even if
02:31:49 since august 20 i'm just saying even if you're only thinking about the registered details certificate and you didn't think back to the type approval certificate from 2009 you knew that that certificate had been issued in august 2013 yes yes we're now
02:32:02 issued in august 2013 yes yes we're now july 2014
02:32:05 july 2014 did you think oh there will have been buildings
02:32:08 buildings where
02:32:09 where local authority building control officers were relying on that certificate over the last 11 months and we might need to do something about those buildings did that even remotely
02:32:20 those buildings did that even remotely occur to you in terms of retrospective no and can you help us as to why not um
02:32:32 i i can't other than the decision processes within each of the local authorities where the work was was was approved yes because you see that thought is there in
02:32:44 because you see that thought is there in mr evans email he says at the top he's obviously addressing his mind to it there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time
02:32:56 kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
02:33:01 out now did you apply your mind to whether that was a an appropriate approach to take to say to yourself well i don't think there's a risk it's just we don't have any test evidence supporting it but we don't
02:33:13 evidence supporting it but we don't think there's a risk was that something you labc ever considered
02:33:22 by virtue of changing the registered detail i must have contemplated that risk but it wasn't in terms of potential numbers of buildings that were already under construction
02:33:34 already under construction it was purely to make sure the information was accurate that we had on our certificate at that time in terms of updating it yeah and we wouldn't know how many buildings
02:33:45 and we wouldn't know how many buildings had been done because the decision process was at each of the authorities though no but you could have alerted your members to this problem couldn't you
02:33:54 you you could have written to your members and said we've been alerted to a problem with k15 we've been told that there isn't in fact any test evidence to support it being used over 18 meters other than in one very specific
02:34:06 other than in one very specific configuration you know tell us is that a problem how many buildings are there out there you could have done more couldn't you yes we could have done more in science yes
02:34:17 could have done more in science yes because this wasn't simply about aesthetics or even like thermal performance this was about fire safety in tall buildings yes
02:34:28 yes so so why weren't those life safety imperatives uppermost in your mind at this time
02:34:35 this time um
02:34:39 well i suppose it was operating on on two levels one was the technical side as well as the registered detail we had the bca guidance note that was being issued
02:34:48 issued to members at that at that point as well um
02:34:53 um how was that relevant or helpful um well it was i suppose it was highlighting the situation that that basically uh unfolded with the changes to the andromeda certificate
02:35:08 the bca technical guidance note was highlighting the situation that had unfolded
02:35:13 unfolded with changes to the agro monsters what do you mean it was it was sorry it was really it was the agreement certificate was driving the kingspan product in terms of the third party credit
02:35:24 in terms of the third party credit stations say that it was suitable and the wording that was in there albeit
02:35:31 it's a separate discussion
02:35:36 the
02:35:39 issues that have come about by virtue of the changes that are grammar certificate meant that we had to look at that in a lot more detail the bca clip created the guidance notes to highlight
02:35:49 highlight what the process should actually be we tailored into that for the um for the revisions to the registered detail so on the technical side it was an advisory note to authorities around
02:36:02 an advisory note to authorities around the use of insulation above 18 meters and the registered detail was changed reflect
02:36:10 reflect the suitability of that use over 18 meters based on the tests that were provided
02:36:14 provided yes
02:36:15 yes again i understand how going forward that might have been one piece of work that you know you carried out narrowing the registered details certificate and you might have said to yourself well there's now bca technical
02:36:27 yourself well there's now bca technical guidance note as well but what about the situation historically
02:36:35 there was nothing that was done in relation to that yeah was this something you discussed with barry turner so he forwards on this email chain to you it's pretty serious chain of emails we've got brian martin
02:36:48 chain of emails we've got brian martin ray senior building representative at the government raising this concern steve evans then raising it with you was this something you discussed with mr turner at the time
02:37:00 turner at the time there was
02:37:01 there was barry and doug bason with the technical team that we had there i told them what we were proposing to do from the registered details perspective
02:37:13 from the registered details perspective we'd had discussions well i i think it would have been after after this email started discussing the kingspan around the relevant testing that they had
02:37:24 that they had such that we could amend the registered detail that we had but that was uh that was uh as far as my recollections discussions go i see so
02:37:36 my recollections discussions go i see so you did have discussions with mr turner and mr batson about
02:37:41 about then approaching kingspan about obtaining more test evidence yes did you ever have any discussions with them about the risks that might have been posed to tall buildings
02:37:52 been posed to tall buildings based on labc's endorsement of the product to date no
02:37:59 did it occur to you that the inaccurate content of the labc certificates might in part have contributed to or even caused the situation which had resulted in brian martin sending his
02:38:10 resulted in brian martin sending his friendly warning email um
02:38:14 um yes which is why i took steps to change the register detail
02:38:20 now we know that um you've raised it yourself then the next thing that occurs is on the 16th of july clive everett from europa facade consultants emails expressing concern
02:38:31 expressing concern about the content of the registered detailed certificate for k-15 if we go to that email labc40835
02:38:47 and it's a detailed email and in it um mr everett raises concerns basically saying that kingspan only has
02:38:58 saying that kingspan only has um
02:38:59 um evidence relating to bs 8414 part one but and nowhere in the bba certificate does it confirm that k-15 has been tested to bs 8414 part 2 for
02:39:12 tested to bs 8414 part 2 for non-load-bearing lightweight structures and he i'm not going to go through i'm not going to read the whole email you're obviously aware of it yes and he sets out detailed points based on the current bba certificate dated
02:39:24 the current bba certificate dated september december 2013 and then if we go over the page
02:39:34 he says fully understanding that this is a complex issue can the labc confirm whether they've got some evidence that's not been discussed here which shows that the kingdom k-15 product meets the requirements of
02:39:45 k-15 product meets the requirements of bs 8414 part 2. and then he says in the next paragraph we've had a number of discussions with the bre about this and he reports those and then
02:39:56 and then in the penultimate paragraph we'd be interested in your thoughts particularly as we've just been issued with the registered details certificate by a specialist contractor for a project so he's got experience of a specialist
02:40:07 so he's got experience of a specialist contractor relying on that certificate and then he says on the understanding on their part that this can be used as proof of compliance with adb and br135 we look forward to hearing with you from
02:40:19 we look forward to hearing with you from you
02:40:20 you now did you agree with the contents of mr everett's email yes it was in line with the comments that come from uh brian martin
02:40:31 brian martin and that was the the
02:40:33 the the
02:40:34 the where the work began to change the registered detail the information presented on the registered detail
02:40:42 so you agreed with the concerns he was raising
02:40:46 raising what action did you take in response to it
02:40:49 it i'm afraid i don't know if i responded i think i used this as a um i was already underway and wanted to go back to mr everett with some more information and i never did
02:41:00 i never did mr everett says uh that he never got a response to his email he's he's um there's a witness statement from him provided to the inquiry in which he says that that's cev
02:41:12 which he says that that's cev seven zeros one page thirteen paragraph 51.
02:41:16 51. can you help us as to why he never got a response to his his email i i can't other than i think i wanted to go back with it with an answer to say this is what's happened
02:41:28 an answer to say this is what's happened since uh since your email this is the steps we're taking um and it just got lost in the the transit of time and i i can't give you any other answer than that i'm sorry that's okay
02:41:40 that i'm sorry that's okay um
02:41:41 um just one final document i'll i'll go to and then we'll stop if we go to labc40891
02:41:50 and i want to start with the second email down on page one
02:41:55 mr brennan
02:41:58 brennan writes
02:41:59 writes i think to you and mr bartlett um
02:42:03 um hi both we see from the spreadsheet that registered details 165 was assigned to tim so i thought i'd forward this on to both of you according to this guy kingspan agreed
02:42:15 according to this guy kingspan agreed that registered details 165 call firm hasn't been adequately tested for use above 18 meters that although i doubt we should take his word for it
02:42:24 for it tim something to keep in mind when you're having a look at this one david is there anyone in kingspan you can check this with the contact on file is gareth mills i don't know if i can handle another
02:42:36 i don't know if i can handle another phone conversation with this guy he starts sentences with you are of course familiar with bs8414 part two i told him that i'm not but i don't think he believed me
02:42:49 not but i don't think he believed me exclamation mark and then you respond at the top of the page you say i have some more information from barry on this we'll forward when i'm back at
02:43:00 on this we'll forward when i'm back at my desk later today now um what were you referring to when you said i've got some more information from barry on this um
02:43:10 um i'm not sure whether it's the previous email that you've brought up the email thread that you brought up or whether it was information in relation to the building
02:43:21 information in relation to the building control uh or the bca guidance note and you you told us you agreed with mr everett's email it doesn't appear that mr brennan is is
02:43:32 it doesn't appear that mr brennan is is being quite so um of the same mind is he he's doubting he said i doubt we should take his word for it kahal is is not technical kahal was was our coordinator
02:43:44 technical kahal was was our coordinator on the registered details um so i can i can whilst the obviously the content and the word in there is is could be better um [Music]
02:43:55 [Music] he would he would not be familiar with eight four one four part two so
02:44:01 so if it's missed if it is mr everett that was speaking to him um mr everett's assumed that kahal was technical in nature which he wasn't
02:44:12 were you familiar with bs 8414 part two at the time in terms of the testing for um
02:44:19 um steel frame i
02:44:21 i i
02:44:22 i [Applause] i've
02:44:26 i've wrapped my brain over this in terms of at what point was i consider myself sufficiently up to speed on this and i certainly if this is july certainly by
02:44:38 certainly if this is july certainly by sort of
02:44:39 sort of october november december i'd started to map out the registered details in the format that they should be
02:44:47 be so there would be a starting point there and
02:44:52 and i would have known what the content of the discussion was okay
02:44:57 okay now
02:44:59 now tim here is that tim bartlett of west suffolk council it is and he was signed to undertake the celetex registered details yes i was about to say that he undertook and will
02:45:10 about to say that he undertook and will come to it in g-course he undertook the research assessment for celetex rs 5000 and he actually also participated in the peer review for k15 in 2013 he was on
02:45:21 peer review for k15 in 2013 he was on that email string why was he being asked to look at the renewal for the k-15 registered details certificate um because well firstly he was a member
02:45:32 um because well firstly he was a member of the
02:45:34 of the registration partnerships group he was actually within the celetex was within his borough authority so in terms of location of proximity
02:45:46 so in terms of location of proximity we were looking for a research authority and tim volunteered to undertake that right and does that mean that david jones and herefordshire were no longer the research authority undertaking the
02:45:58 the research authority undertaking the technical assessments for the renewal in 2014.
02:46:02 2014. uh
02:46:03 uh no it's that's it's two separate items the
02:46:07 the tim was undertaking the registered detail for celetex rs 5000
02:46:14 rs 5000 right
02:46:16 right so the the note there which says something to keep in mind it basically is
02:46:21 is he's looking at that in terms of the preparation for tim
02:46:26 tim this is july i think that came through um
02:46:30 um in the august as well it was it was it was ensuring that the documentation was sent through for the
02:46:40 the celetex product reflected some of the comments made here i wonder if you could just clarify something that's puzzling me at the moment i see that the subject of the email
02:46:51 email is
02:46:51 is rd165 coultham kingsman kiltham and then in the body of the text there's a reference to rd165 being assigned to tim is that just a mistake
02:47:02 mistake i think that is yes and presumably the the celotex
02:47:07 celotex application had a different number did it yes well yes
02:47:12 and again
02:47:14 again [Music]
02:47:15 [Music] in this environment the number is escaping me um but but they would have had different registration details now that's all i wanted to clarify it yeah yeah thank you thank you thomas mr
02:47:26 yeah thank you thank you thomas mr chairman thank you i'm so sorry i've gone over absolutely that's a good point to break because now i'm going to look at the renewal uh next thank you all right thank you well um mr ewing it's time we stop for the
02:47:37 um mr ewing it's time we stop for the afternoon
02:47:39 afternoon um i pray we're gonna have to ask you to come back on monday to answer some more questions but i'm i think you've probably got that booked into your diary yes since we're breaking for the weekend
02:47:50 since we're breaking for the weekend it's quite important to remind you and not please to speak to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the weekend and we'll look forward to seeing you 10
02:48:01 and we'll look forward to seeing you 10 o'clock on monday morning please thank you all right thank you very much would you like to give the usher please
02:48:16 thank you very much from strange 10 o'clock on monday thank you thank you