Cross-examination of NHBC regarding their acceptance of Kingspan K15 insulation for high-rise buildings despite knowing it was combustible and non-compliant with Building Regulations.
00:00:10 Would
00:00:24 you ask Miss Marshall to come back in, please? Thank you.
00:00:37 All right. Ready to carry on? Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Marshall, still on the question of approved document B, if I may. Um, were you at least as of 2013 and onwards
00:00:51 you at least as of 2013 and onwards familiar with diagram 40? Yes.
00:00:54 Yes. Yes. Uh and therefore you knew that that was the provision for external surfaces and walls of buildings over 18 m which were required to be class N or class
00:01:07 were required to be class N or class BS3D2 or better. Yes.
00:01:09 Yes. Yes. Did you believe at the time that both 12.7
00:01:14 both 12.7 and diagram 40 needed to be met in uh in relation to an external wall or did you think that it was an eitheror approach?
00:01:25 think that it was an eitheror approach? In 2013, I I didn't actually have a view. I wasn't looking at specific projects.
00:01:31 projects. Right. Were you aware of what your colleagues or your surveyors thought? Did they think that both had to be met or that it was a choice between the two? In 2014
00:01:43 In 2014 13
00:01:43 13 in 2013 I I was unaware. Right. Okay. Well, we'll come back to that question later. Um can I then turn to Kingspan and the BBA certificate? And with that uh introduction, go please to
00:01:54 with that uh introduction, go please to page 18 of your statement, paragraph 75. And you say this. Uh in the period from 2005 to 20 June 2017, I believe NHBC did provide
00:02:07 2017, I believe NHBC did provide building control and warranty services for buildings over 80 meters tall where K15 was used or specified for use. I was not involved with those specific projects as this would have sat with the surveyors. My involvement would have
00:02:18 surveyors. My involvement would have been with policy guidance or reviews being carried out as I address later in this statement. Now, why do you say I believe there? Were you were you not actually aware of what components your surveyors were
00:02:29 what components your surveyors were approving in external walls over 18 mters?
00:02:36 I had no reason to be aware. The the surveyors were professionally qualified. They were trained. They were following the approved document guidance. I didn't need to review every project. Um what we
00:02:50 need to review every project. Um what we did introduce I believe in 2014 um when we structured the department with different levels of surveyor we
00:03:01 with different levels of surveyor we introduced quality monitoring to carry out peer reviews of projects to make sure that they were done in in line with um guidance. Forgive me the words believe there what do they add to the sentence? I mean, are
00:03:12 do they add to the sentence? I mean, are you telling us that you believe that was the case, but it wasn't, or are you just saying in that period NHBC did provide building control, etc.? NHBC would have provided building
00:03:24 NHBC would have provided building control in that period. Yes. When you say would have, did they or didn't they? To your knowledge. Yes. To my knowledge, for K15 in accordance with the BBA certificate. Yes. Thank you. Now, we'll come back to that point. But if we go back um to page
00:03:36 that point. But if we go back um to page 13 a little bit in your statement uh paragraph 55D at the bottom of the page, you say this uh at the very foot of the page, three lines up from the bottom of
00:03:47 page, three lines up from the bottom of page 13, NHBC has identified the number of buildings of five stories or over which receive the final approval for building control purposes and or warranty cover each year. Steve Evans
00:03:58 warranty cover each year. Steve Evans collected this information and it's listed in the table below. These figures should be taken as indicative of the number of blocks rather than exact accurate totals. And there's the box with the figures um in them. Now I think
00:04:12 with the figures um in them. Now I think just before we look at that is right, isn't it that NHBC's fusion system, its database can't identify buildings by height, can it? That's correct. Only by stories.
00:04:23 Only by stories. Correct.
00:04:23 Correct. Yes. And that's why you've looked at buildings five stories or over. I believe the five stories was at the request of the inquiry. Right. But you wouldn't know what height they were. Not without assessing each individual
00:04:35 Not without assessing each individual project.
00:04:36 project. No. Now, John Steve Evans in his evidence referred to buildings six stories or over and John Lewis in his evidence referred to buildings eight stories or over. Um, can you account for
00:04:49 stories or over. Um, can you account for that?
00:04:52 that? The reference to six stories would be the normal um association with 80 m and that that's quite common. I believe that John Lewis's reference to eight stories
00:05:03 John Lewis's reference to eight stories was in relation to our major projects team
00:05:05 team right now. Now, how did your surveyors ensure that they were correctly dealing with tall buildings where the metric measurement if you like in ADB was 18 m if they were going by story numbers?
00:05:16 if they were going by story numbers? They'd measure it off the detailed drawings that were submitted as part of the application. Right. I see. Now, if we go to the top of this page, we can see the table as I've shown you there. Uh and
00:05:29 I've shown you there. Uh and when you say that this number is as you do indicative of the number of blocks rather than an exact accurate total, does that mean the number of actual buildings could be more or not?
00:05:54 I believe this was put together by Steve Evans and he would rely would have relied on fusion data around block heights in relation to stories. So that
00:06:06 heights in relation to stories. So that would have relied on the um the fivetory threshold. In some cases, um, the blocks could be multiple blocks off a podium.
00:06:19 multiple blocks off a podium. So that might be why there there could be a difference between the blocks and projects.
00:06:24 projects. I understand the difference. Um, I just want to know why you you chose to use the words indicative. What what's it indicating?
00:06:34 The number of blocks according to our records.
00:06:38 records. So, your records don't show exact accurate totals. What do they show?
00:06:54 Sorry. Could you scroll back up the page, please? Uh, do you want to go to the bottom of page 13?
00:06:59 page 13? Yes, please. Yes, let's do that.
00:07:17 I'm not sure. Okay.
00:07:19 Okay. I think the information being pulled together by Mr. Evans would have um been based on our fusion system, but I'm I don't recall why it was indicative. Right. Did somebody tell you that it was
00:07:30 Right. Did somebody tell you that it was indicative or was that your own personal understanding of the of the data? I believe I was told that it was indicative. Who told you that? Mr. Evans. I see. Now, um, at paragraph 55e under
00:07:42 I see. Now, um, at paragraph 55e under the table, if we go back to page 14, you say based on the projects reviewed by NHBC in 2015 described in paragraph 106 onwards, it is reasonable to assume over 90% of those projects use K15.
00:07:55 90% of those projects use K15. Now, we've just seen in paragraph 75 of your uh of your statement that you said, I believe NHBC did provide building and control and warranty services for buildings over 18 m tall where K15 was
00:08:07 buildings over 18 m tall where K15 was used or specified for use. I think here you're saying that 90% of the projects you were providing services for were using K15. Um, is there a difference?
00:08:20 Um, is there a difference? This this statement is based on our reviews of projects in 2015. So that review of projects in 2015 looked at schemes that were registered
00:08:32 looked at schemes that were registered um predominantly from the 1st of January 2014
00:08:39 and projects in build prior to that date.
00:08:48 I see. Did you know at the time i.e. 2015 when the project uh review was carried out that 90% of your high-rise projects had used K15 in the external
00:09:00 projects had used K15 in the external wall buildup?
00:09:04 Not the exact figure, but it was based on communications with the project managers that were looking after those projects. And I believe that the the 90% was a reference to an email from Phil
00:09:15 was a reference to an email from Phil Pettinger. Um and not surprising that K15 was a popular choice of product because of the thermal insulation values that it offered.
00:09:26 that it offered. Yes.
00:09:27 Yes. Forgive me Miss Marshall. I just want to know you've given the 90% figure there. Was that a figure or an assumed figure uh known to you or in your mind at the
00:09:39 uh known to you or in your mind at the time of this project review or is this something that you are um a pining on now?
00:09:47 now? No, it was based on the project review in 2015,
00:09:49 in 2015, right?
00:09:51 right? Uh reading on at paragraph 55e, you say the number of projects using RS5000 would comparatively be very low. However, I cannot provide any other
00:10:02 However, I cannot provide any other indication of the number of projects using RS5000 or ACM with a PE core save for the information on the 2015 and 17 reviews mentioned below. Why is it that you can't provide any other indication
00:10:13 you can't provide any other indication on on projects using uh those uh materials or products? The way that our fusion system works, it doesn't record every element of a
00:10:25 doesn't record every element of a construction project. It records the application being submitted, who by the site address and some of the um key details around that development. The
00:10:36 details around that development. The specifics around projects would be detailed within the construction drawings that are submitted as part of that project. Right? So just help me um if uh NHBC wanted to know what building control
00:10:49 wanted to know what building control approval or warranties had been awarded on uh what records would NHBC look at? There there are high level reports that
00:11:00 There there are high level reports that can be run through fusion on certain parameters but if there's specific information relating to a project it would be held into the project file. So the project file is where one would
00:11:11 So the project file is where one would go if one wanted to know whether a particular high-rise building or project including a high-rise building had K15 above 18 m or an ACM panel above 18 mters. Is that right?
00:11:22 mters. Is that right? Correct.
00:11:25 Correct. And the project file would be accessible to you would it? Um
00:11:32 Um yes in theory if I could remember my password to the fusion system. Of course but but I mean as a matter of course you would have no difficulty. There's nothing stopping you looking at it if you wanted to. No.
00:11:40 No. No. Now you say there that you can't provide an indication of the number of projects using ACMP. You don't say that NHBC projects didn't use ACMP.
00:11:51 use ACMP. Do we take it from that that NHBC was approving high-rise projects with ACMP in the years 2013 to 17? It's just that you don't know how many they were or
00:12:03 you don't know how many they were or which they were.
00:12:10 Sorry, could you rephrase the question? Well, looking at the sentence, you say, I can't provide any other indication of the number of projects using RS5000 or ACM with a PE core. safe for the information you've referred to. Now, you
00:12:22 information you've referred to. Now, you don't say there that NHBC was not approving buildings over 18 meters using an an ACM core as the raincreen panel. Can we take it that it was, but you just
00:12:35 Can we take it that it was, but you just don't know the figures? To my knowledge, it wasn't.
00:12:42 To your knowledge, it wasn't. And is that knowledge based on an analysis of the project files in those years? No, it's based on the um information between the 2015 and 2017 reviews. right
00:13:03 now looking at the tables at the top of page 14 again if we can go to those as we can see them you can see that the total in that the NHBC provided services on was 1907 1,97 buildings or uh blocks
00:13:18 on was 1907 1,97 buildings or uh blocks numbers of blocks yes yes
00:13:21 yes uh of which 90% so some 1700 had K15 on. Yes,
00:13:35 potentially. Yes. Right.
00:13:38 Right. Why potentially? Well, the assumption of 90%. I follow. Uh, if we go to paragraph 70 of your statement at page 16, please,
00:13:50 of your statement at page 16, please, bottom of page 16 and over to page 17, you say this. Prior to 2014, my understanding was the K15 was a form of insulation widely used by the building industry due to its thermal performance.
00:14:01 industry due to its thermal performance. However, prior to learning from Chris Culie that the BBA had updated its certificate for K15, I had not given the product much thought from a technical perspective. Indeed, I only became a
00:14:12 perspective. Indeed, I only became a concerned by K15 when Steve Evans reported back to me following his review of the updated BBA certificate. Uh now given that it was used on 90% of
00:14:23 Uh now given that it was used on 90% of the buildings that NHBC were providing services for why had you not even given it much thought?
00:14:30 It would have been assessed on its merits by my qualified surveyors doing day-to-day project checking. If you go to paragraph 77 of your statement at the bottom of page 18,
00:14:44 statement at the bottom of page 18, you say, "Prior to being informed of the change
00:14:50 of the in the wording of the BBA certificate in early 2014, I was not aware of any reason why K15 could not be used on buildings over 18 m tall."
00:15:01 used on buildings over 18 m tall." Now, isn't 12.7 of approved document B, the paragraph that says that all insulation material must be of limiting combustibility the reason why K15 cannot be and could
00:15:12 the reason why K15 cannot be and could never be used on buildings over 18 m, at least in the absence of a full system test?
00:15:18 test? No, because they had a valid BBA certificate that allowed its use despite the fact that it was combustible. The BBA certificate certified it for use
00:15:30 The BBA certificate certified it for use in buildings over 18 meters subject to provisions. Despite the fact that it was combustible, the BBA certificate allowed its use.
00:15:42 the BBA certificate allowed its use. Yes.
00:15:43 Yes. So the BBA certificate is viewed as overriding the guidance in ADB. Is that what you're saying? The BBA certificate is is in the industry seeing as a very
00:15:55 is is in the industry seeing as a very high standard of independent testing of a product and certifying that product under UKASS um accredititation. So it is held in very high regard and um it
00:16:08 held in very high regard and um it wouldn't be standard to to challenge the finding of a BBA certificate. But I think you're still saying that if there's a conflict between the BBA certificate and 12.7,
00:16:20 certificate and 12.7, the BBA certificate is determines the outcome. Is that Well, the the guidance within the approved document sets out ways of demonstrating compliance. So 12.7 is
00:16:31 demonstrating compliance. So 12.7 is within the guidance as is the reference to third party certification. Yes. But you've got to ask yourself, what is it certifying surely? Yes. and that would have been assessed through the the document of the BBA
00:16:43 through the the document of the BBA certificate. All right. Thank you very much. Uh going back to 2013 and it's important that we stick in that year
00:16:53 year because as we know and we'll come to in a moment the BBA certificate was changed.
00:16:59 I want to know what was in your mind. Did you think f well first of all did you know at the time that K15 was a phenolic product? I believe so. Yes. And that therefore as
00:17:10 I believe so. Yes. And that therefore as a phenolic product it was combustible. Yes.
00:17:13 Yes. And therefore as a combustible product it could not ever be a material of limited combustibility. Yes.
00:17:20 Yes. And therefore as such it could never satisfy 12.7. Yes. But it could satisfy different routes to compliance. Well it's not what I asked you. Taking it in stages 12.7. Yes.
00:17:32 it in stages 12.7. Yes. Yes.
00:17:32 Yes. Yes. Right. So K15 you knew in 2013 couldn't ever comply with 12.7 right? Yes.
00:17:41 Yes. Right. In 2013 did you look at the BBA certificate?
00:17:51 I think I looked at the certificate when I was notified about the change in wording.
00:17:56 wording. So that must have been after 2013. To be fair it was changed on the 17th of December. So I take it that between then and New Year's Eve you didn't look at it.
00:18:05 it. No, it would have been in early 2014. Right. So you you had no reason to think during 2013 that K15 could be allowed on any building above 18 m.
00:18:19 any building above 18 m. Sorry. Say that. Say that again. Well, let me try it. There's there's an intervening stage. Did anybody tell you during 2013 that there was a BBA certificate which
00:18:30 that there was a BBA certificate which said that K15 met the requirements of 12.7?
00:18:37 12.7? Did anybody tell you that even though you didn't see the certificate? I'm aware of it. I don't know when I was actually told if it was 2013 or 2014. Right.
00:18:48 Right. Now given that you knew that K15 as a combustible insulation was not permitted on a high-rise building because of 12.7 what did you think in 2013 permitted its
00:19:01 what did you think in 2013 permitted its use on a high-rise building the BBA certificate which you hadn't seen it and no one had told you about it. So how come
00:19:12 there would have been a review of the projects by the surveyors carrying out the compliance checking and they would have looked at product materials and certification routes.
00:19:24 certification routes. Do you know that? Yes, it's it's standard practice. Well, maybe. Did you know do you can you recall
00:19:30 recall an occasion or a routine whereby during 2013 you were being told that that K15 was going on buildings above 80 m
00:19:41 was going on buildings above 80 m because of a BBA certificate even though you hadn't seen it. Do you recall that? I believe so. You do?
00:19:47 You do? Yes.
00:19:49 Yes. Were you not interested to understand how it could possibly be the case that a BBA certificate could
00:20:00 could permit the application of a combustible insulation material above 18 m? No, I as I've stated a BBA certificate
00:20:11 No, I as I've stated a BBA certificate was taken as independent certification of a product and the surveyors would assess the content of the BBA certificate um and ensure that it addresses all their concerns and then
00:20:23 addresses all their concerns and then accept the product on that basis. Were you not at the very least interested to know given that you knew that it was a phenolic product and therefore not permitted above 18 m under the linear
00:20:35 permitted above 18 m under the linear route in ADB how it could come about that the BBA certificate permitted it. Were you not interested to find that out for yourself
00:20:44 in 2013? Yes.
00:20:46 Yes. Um
00:20:48 Um no I think the status of the BBA certificate was well established. That's not my it's not an answer to my question with great respect. What I'm really keen to understand is why you were so as it
00:20:59 to understand is why you were so as it seems incurious about how it could be that a BBA certificate could permit the use of a combustible insulation material above 18 m notwithstanding 12.7 of ADB.
00:21:10 above 18 m notwithstanding 12.7 of ADB. Are you able to tell us? No. In in my role, I wouldn't have necessarily got involved in drilling down to the day-to-day activities of all of my surveyors. Did you become
00:21:23 of my surveyors. Did you become concerned
00:21:25 concerned by reference to a 12.7? Did you not become concerned later in 2014 that the NHBC had historically approved the use of K15 in so many blocks over
00:21:37 the use of K15 in so many blocks over 300 I think? No. On the basis of the BBA certificate,
00:21:45 right? Did even then did you not wonder how the BBA certificate once you had read it, the one that that pertained until uh uh the 17th of December 2013
00:21:57 until uh uh the 17th of December 2013 could possibly have allowed the use of K15 above 18 m. No, I saw no I saw no reason to challenge the credibility of a BBA certificate. But it was incredible on its face
00:22:08 But it was incredible on its face surely,
00:22:11 surely, wasn't it? No.
00:22:12 No. Not how come? Why no?
00:22:18 It was it the standing of a BBA certificate in the industry is is well regarded
00:22:23 regarded even if it says the moon is made of green cheese. It's unlikely to make that statement but yes it would be assessed by the surveyors on the basis of the technical content and as long as the criteria were
00:22:35 content and as long as the criteria were met then the surveyors would accept it on that basis. You say it was unlikely to make that statement. Why is it unlikely any more unlikely to make that statement than the statement that a phenolic insulation product could be permitted above 18
00:22:47 product could be permitted above 18 mters?
00:22:48 mters? That's probably a question for BBA. It's a question for you, Miss Lewis, Miss Marshall. Well, I can't answer that question. So are you telling us that even though you were faced with what you learned to
00:23:00 you were faced with what you learned to be
00:23:01 be uh a certificate that blessed the use of a combustible insulation material above 18 m notwithstanding 12.7 you were not concerned about it or were
00:23:13 you were not concerned about it or were you concerned about it?
00:23:21 The BBA certificate allowed the use of the product and as long as the terms of that certificate were met, we were complying with roots within the approved document.
00:23:32 document. Did it occur to you that the BBA certificate uh at least on its face suggested that a fundamental mistake had been made and that somebody in your organization ought
00:23:43 that somebody in your organization ought to pick up the phone to the BBA and work out how it had happened?
00:23:53 I don't recall the focus when when the change happened in 2014.
00:24:00 in 2014. I think the focus of the change was around the wording of obtaining the permission of the certificate holder and that was the query that created communications with BBA.
00:24:15 You were the person responsible at the time 2013 and 14 both years I think for NHBC's building control license. Yes.
00:24:24 Yes. In that role were you not interested to get to the bottom of how the BBA certificate had
00:24:32 had said that K15 met the provisions of ADB 12.7.
00:24:39 12.7. Yes. And that's why Mr. Evans was tasked to investigate With whom? With the product manufacturer as in Kingspan. Um I don't believe there was
00:24:52 Kingspan. Um I don't believe there was any contact with BBA at that stage, but there was later on. 2015, late in 2015, almost two years later.
00:25:00 later. I believe it was early 2015 that Ian Davis made contact and Mike Quinton made contact.
00:25:07 contact. The Well, we can come back to that. It's still a long time after late 2013. Were you not concerned
00:25:18 Were you not concerned to get to the bottom at speed as the person responsible for NHBC's building control license with how it could be the case that a BBA certificate could bless the use of K15 above 18
00:25:31 could bless the use of K15 above 18 meters?
00:25:32 meters? When it was when it was brought to my attention, absolutely. which is why I asked Steve Evans to investigate and the most direct route for investigation was to go to the product manufacturer who
00:25:45 to go to the product manufacturer who would have had all of the information available that they sent to BBA. Um from previous experience BBA have a commercial arrangement with any company that they certify. So they wouldn't
00:25:57 that they certify. So they wouldn't generally release any confidential or commercial information to a third party. So the decision was taken to go direct to the manufacturer. Right.
00:26:09 Right. I mean the question would have been a oneliner to the BBA, wouldn't it? Um you've you've put 12.7 in your certificate. How come? It's a pholic
00:26:20 certificate. How come? It's a pholic that surely they would have been the first port of call. No. No. We we went direct to Kingspan. Why? as the product manufacturer to give us the the information that the BBA had
00:26:32 us the the information that the BBA had relied upon. But why would the product manufacturer be more reliable than the independent UKcast certified uh body whose statement you were so keen to rely on because of what ADB says? Because they would have had direct
00:26:43 Because they would have had direct access and permissions to release that data whereas BBA may not have. But what data were you expecting given that no phenolic could be used above 18 m? The test data that that supported the
00:26:55 The test data that that supported the BBA certificate and any other data that had been provided to BBA. Did you think at the time therefore that it was possible that there could be some test data which could support the use of a phenolic insulation material above 18
00:27:08 a phenolic insulation material above 18 m as a material of limited combustibility? Did you think that? Not as a material of limited bustability, but there may have been other data that was provided to BBA
00:27:19 been other data that was provided to BBA to make the statement around the certificate holder. No, that's Let's be absolutely precise, Miss Marshall. 12.7. Mhm.
00:27:29 Mhm. What data did you think Kingspan could provide you with which would show you that K15 is a material of limited combustibility satisfied 12.7?
00:27:40 combustibility satisfied 12.7? That wasn't the focus of our attention. Why not?
00:27:44 Why not? The focus was the removal of the clause regarding the certificate holder.
00:27:51 Let's go to your statement page 12, please, paragraph 52.
00:28:02 And you say there between 2013 and 2014, I was head of NHBC's technical services department. In this capacity, I attended regular monthly meetings around the country. At one meeting, Chris Kulie,
00:28:13 country. At one meeting, Chris Kulie, one of NHBC's qualified surveyors, reported a change in the BBA certificate for Kingspan Kulfam K15. This was the first I knew of such a change, and so far as I'm aware, Kingspan had not informed anyone in my team directly.
00:28:26 informed anyone in my team directly. Following the meeting, I asked Steve Evans to review the change and to decide if the change in any other information needed to be shared more widely within NHBC.
00:28:37 NHBC. Now, how up to date were you with the BBA certificates for K15 before that point?
00:28:44 point? I knew of their existence. I wouldn't be familiar with the content. Yes. And what change to the certificate are you referring to there? The removal of the statement regarding the certificate holder?
00:28:56 the certificate holder? I see. And is that uh the um statement that says in and I'll read it out to you if we we we can get to it if you like but in buildings with the floor more than 18 m abound above ground level
00:29:08 than 18 m abound above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder. Correct.
00:29:11 Correct. That's it. Right. Were you aware that the original BBA certificate for Kingspan K15 had been published on the 27th of October 2008?
00:29:23 27th of October 2008? I can't recall if I was aware at just prior to this but when this came to my attention we looked at previous certificates and then it was amended I think in 2010 and then again in 2013 the precise date
00:29:36 and then again in 2013 the precise date is the 12th of July 2013 which said that K15 could be used in accordance with 12.7 of approved document B among other bits of ADB. Mhm.
00:29:46 Mhm. Were you aware of that?
00:29:50 I don't recall being particularly aware of that statement. The the statement that caused concern was the removal of the certificate holder and that was I'm so sorry.
00:30:01 and that was I'm so sorry. No, it's fine. And that was I think on the 17th of December 2013 when the revised BBA certificate was um was published by the BBA which removed both that clause and
00:30:12 BBA which removed both that clause and the reference to 12.7. Correct.
00:30:14 Correct. Yes. And you knew that at the time, did you? Or did you discover that later? I discovered that later. Do you know when? The sentence regarding certificate was
00:30:25 The sentence regarding certificate was immediate in terms of when the surveyor brought it to my attention because he sent me a copy of the latest certificate. Um, the 12.7 clause, I don't recall when that came to my
00:30:36 don't recall when that came to my attention. Right.
00:30:42 Now you say that Chris Kulie who was an NHBC surveyor reported a change to the BBA certificate for K15 and that your colleagues John Lewis and Steve Evans also made reference to K Chris Kulie in
00:30:54 also made reference to K Chris Kulie in their evidence. Um
00:30:56 Um and they raised issues with K15 but that was before the publication in December of the revised version. Do you think that you might be mistaken and that your
00:31:07 might be mistaken and that your reference here to Chris Culie is raising an issue with with the combustibility of K15
00:31:13 K15 rather than the BBA certificate itself? No, that was one of the reasons I wanted the correction to my statement because looking back through my statement and the associated uh documents and my
00:31:25 the associated uh documents and my colleagues witness statements, there was an email from Steve Evans early in December that addressed or was addressing the the points that Chris Culie had raised regarding the uh
00:31:37 Culie had raised regarding the uh material of limited combustibility and the separate issue regarding the removal of the certificate holder was only known early in 2014. 14. Let's speak. Let Let's see if we got
00:31:48 Let's speak. Let Let's see if we got this right. Can we go please to NHB5094?
00:31:54 This is an email which the inquiry seen before uh from Chris Culie. Uh and uh if we uh go please uh
00:32:10 uh to page uh three.
00:32:14 It's the email uh from Chris Coulie to Brian Stevenson of the 8th of November 2013.
00:32:20 2013. Uh and we can read it together. Uh it it says it's
00:32:24 says it's on my screen yet. It's on your It's page three.
00:32:33 Brian, any idea how long Steve and John will take as we're involved with design team meetings and need to pass on our requirements at the outset of the design process. If we're not going to accept K15, what are the alternatives? As far
00:32:44 K15, what are the alternatives? As far as we are aware, there are no other fame insulation boards that meet the requirements. So, all high-rise will be forced to use rockwool. As you can imagine, this will cause a major issue with our customers as they all use board insulation to gain their U values. I
00:32:56 insulation to gain their U values. I hope Steve is ready to take the barrage of inquiries. Uh, and the background to that is the the question of combustibility. And my question for for you is at this time,
00:33:07 question for for you is at this time, November 2013, were you alerted to this problem?
00:33:13 problem? I believe I was copied into the email that Steve sent out early in December 2013 advising that um, Steve and John were looking into the
00:33:24 um, Steve and John were looking into the matter. That's the 2nd of December 2013 email and I think we may need to come to that but not I think you're saying not until then. Is that right? Yes.
00:33:32 Yes. I follow. Now we've explored with your colleagues at NHBC in their evidence that concerns were raised about the use of K15 as a
00:33:45 were raised about the use of K15 as a combustible insulation material as early as August 2013. So some 4 months or so before the change to the BBA certificate. Were you aware of of that or was that only something that you
00:33:57 or was that only something that you learned in December? Not that I recall. I I recall the December email being the first one that I had seen. Are you sure about that from recollection?
00:34:09 from recollection? Well, we'll come to see some of the documents in in a moment. At that point, December 2nd of December 2013, the NHBC
00:34:21 December 2nd of December 2013, the NHBC um sorry, the BBA certificate for Kingsbang K15 had not been changed and still contained the contact the manufacturer clause and the reference to 12.7.
00:34:33 12.7. Did did you know that at that stage? Yes.
00:34:37 Yes. So you so you did know that at that stage? Did you see it at that stage? No, I the the the email from Steve Evans on the 2nd of December set out the issues
00:34:48 the 2nd of December set out the issues around the BBA certificate and the confusion that it was causing in relation to um being material of limiting bustability or not as the case may be. Um and that was that was my sort
00:35:01 may be. Um and that was that was my sort of early exposure to the issue around K15.
00:35:06 K15. Right. Um, were you aware of NHBC's practice or a practice at NHBC of seeking confirmation from Kingspan uh on buildups on every building over 18
00:35:18 uh on buildups on every building over 18 meters that use K15 in accordance with the contact the manufacturer provision in the URSTW BBA certificate? I believe that that did happen.
00:35:29 I believe that that did happen. You say were you aware at the time that that was the practice? I can't recall when when I became aware of that.
00:35:37 of that. Do do you know whether that practice grew up as a result of a decision made by NHBC to do just that or or did it evolve? Do you know?
00:35:50 In February 2015, when the policy changed to look at the approach to the BBA certificate, there was
00:36:02 there was a reinforcement of the requirement to obtain a letter if it hadn't been already obtained.
00:36:16 Was the practice of contacting the manufacturer something that to your knowledge began in 2008 after October 2008 when the BBA certificate was first published which contained that provision or did it come
00:36:28 contained that provision or did it come later?
00:36:31 later? I can't say when you discovered the existence of the contact the manufacturer provision in the URSTW BBA certificate were you not skeptical at all that a manufacturer of
00:36:42 skeptical at all that a manufacturer of insulation could give a reliable robust and independent fire engineering view on whether its own product could or should be used above 18 meters. um
00:36:55 meters. um I wasn't overly familiar with the most recent
00:37:00 recent um layout or content of a range of BBA certificates. So I didn't know if that was an unusual statement or not. Um and I think my my colleague earlier in the
00:37:11 I think my my colleague earlier in the week advised that in some cases talking to a manufacturer about how their product can be used is not unusual. Were
00:37:28 you that's not quite an answer to my question I'm afraid when you discovered the existence of the contact the manufacturer provision in the BBA certificate doing the best you can to recall when that was my question is were
00:37:40 recall when that was my question is were you not skeptical skeptical that a manufacturer should be the person to be asked
00:37:47 asked is this suitable over 18 m no for the the reasons as I stated in my previous response. But doesn't that tell us that all the BBA certificate is doing is offhanding
00:37:58 BBA certificate is doing is offhanding the technical decision to the person who makes the product? How is that independent or reliable? It's within the terms of the BBA certificate.
00:38:09 certificate. Yes. And how is it that Yeah, I'm have to say I'm having difficulty with this. Uh, Miss Marshall, you've explained that the BBA certificate is highly regarded in the industry because it's independent.
00:38:22 industry because it's independent. If we read this certificate as saying go and ask the manufacturer whether the product's suitable, where's the independence? I can see how that would be um viewed.
00:38:34 I can see how that would be um viewed. But that was the view within the industry that a BBA certificate could be held in that regard where as long as you followed the conditions of that certificate, you satisfied the
00:38:45 certificate, you satisfied the requirements of the building regulations. So it was a slavish following of a piece of paper really put it unkindly. Well, a piece of paper produced by an
00:38:56 Well, a piece of paper produced by an accredited body that was well recognized. But of course it wasn't the accredited body that was going to give the opinion on which suitability depended was it?
00:39:08 on which suitability depended was it? No, not by the condition that was in the certificate but again an assumption from reading the certificate that the BBA had been furnished with suitable evidence to enable them to make that statement.
00:39:20 enable them to make that statement. Well, the statement simply said, "Go and ask the manufacturer. What information would they be furnished with that would enable them to do that?" Well, I I don't know that that's a
00:39:33 Well, I I don't know that that's a question potentially for BBA. Yes. All right. Thank you. Yes. Um let's look at let's see if we can identify this passage in ADB
00:39:45 passage in ADB here. Um can we please go to it? uh which is at CLG 224 page 7.
00:39:59 H thank you. Uh now on the right hand side this is the use of the guidance and it's right at the very start if the very first page substantive page of the of the document as I'm sure you're aware and uh it says use of guidance and then
00:40:12 and uh it says use of guidance and then halfway down the right hand column there's a heading towards the bottom of your screen that says independent certification schemes and then if you see that um the words in bold in the
00:40:23 see that um the words in bold in the middle there uh and underneath that you will see the following building control bodies may accept the certification of products, components, materials or structures under such
00:40:35 materials or structures under such schemes as evidence of compliance with the relevant standard. Is that the sentence on which you are or to which you are referring when you say that ADB permitted reliance on
00:40:49 that ADB permitted reliance on certificates such as those issued by the BBA?
00:40:52 BBA? Yes,
00:40:52 Yes, it is right. And you'll note the words may there uh and you'll note the words as evidence there. Was it your thinking, your own thinking
00:41:05 Was it your thinking, your own thinking at the time, Miss Marshall, that the presence of a baby BBA certificate was essentially a a a a free pass even though you had reasons to be
00:41:18 pass even though you had reasons to be skeptical of it.
00:41:22 In other words, whatever it said,
00:41:32 the the status and standing of a BBA certificate within the industry was an accepted practice in certifying products and systems.
00:41:43 in certifying products and systems. Well, I can understand that if the certificate
00:41:49 identifies how compliance is achieved, in other words, by what route or by what test? But how is that sentence, did you understand it at the time? How was that
00:42:00 understand it at the time? How was that sentence satisfied by an assertion or statement in a BBA certificate which simply said, "Seek the advice of the manufacturer."
00:42:11 the manufacturer." How was that evidence of compliance?
00:42:25 I think it it goes back to the status and standing of a BBA certificate allowing the use of a product with limitations and those limitations may or
00:42:37 limitations and those limitations may or may not be um common I don't know in relation to how other BBA certificates are worded. There is an acceptance of talking to manufacturers about how their
00:42:48 talking to manufacturers about how their products may or may not be used. So it it didn't create alarm bells.
00:42:58 Had you ever come across a a certificate other than this BBA certificate that had said if you want to use this product in a particular POS above 18 m contact the manufacturer?
00:43:09 manufacturer? Not personally. No. To your knowledge had any of your surveyors? I I don't know. No, I can't answer that question
00:43:17 question because you hadn't asked them either, presumably. No.
00:43:21 No. Did it not strike you as an at least an odd thing that you might want to ask them about? Go to them and say that's a bit funny. Is that common? Did you ask them that? I think the the people that I spoke with
00:43:33 I think the the people that I spoke with regarding the wording would have included Steve Evans and and John Lewis. And as per John's statements, talking to manufacturers was not unusual.
00:43:45 manufacturers was not unusual. Now, let's look at an email chain from November 2013. NHB. Before we leave this, can I just um sorry to keep interrupting, Mr. Malik, can I just ask you this? Um your answers suggest that it was may
00:43:58 your answers suggest that it was may have been beyond anyone's contemplation that a BBA certificate might in include an inadvertent mistake. Did you ever think that was possible
00:44:11 possible at the time? No. um because of the rigor of UKCAST accredititation and the process that it would have to go through to get produced. So no, at that time there
00:44:24 produced. So no, at that time there there was no reason to question the validity or the content of a BBA certificate. However apparently incorrect a statement might be
00:44:35 might be at that time. Well, I I I asked the question because we know that in the certificate that was in being until December 2013, there was a statement
00:44:46 December 2013, there was a statement that the Kingspan product complied with or could be used in accordance with paragraph 127 of ADB. Um, at the moment I, speaking entirely
00:44:58 Um, at the moment I, speaking entirely for myself, don't see how that could possibly be true since it was a combustible product. It would at least alert someone to the possibility of a mistake, might it not? It it may have done, but my attention
00:45:11 It it may have done, but my attention and my focus was drawn to the removal of the certificate clause rather than the particular paragraphs of the approved document that were referenced. Yeah.
00:45:23 Yeah. All right. Thank you.
00:45:29 um NHB5094 then please
00:45:35 now this is an email run from November 2013.
00:45:44 So just to put it in the chron chronological context Miss Marshall it's before
00:45:51 before uh the BBA certificate was amended the following month. Mhm. And if we go to the email at the foot of the chain on the from the 4th of November 2013 from Paul Williams to the Southwest area technical team which is
00:46:04 Southwest area technical team which is now on your screen at the foot there surveyors all it says Amanda raised a question on the use of Kingspan K15 insulation in wall constructions in buildings over 18 meters. Steve Evans
00:46:17 buildings over 18 meters. Steve Evans and John Lewis are currently reviewing whether we can accept this product for use in this situation as we have doubts with respect to the combustibility aspect of the product. We will continue to accept it in ongoing projects that have started and where it's being built
00:46:29 have started and where it's being built in. We won't be accepting it on new projects until we've carried out further investigations direct research into the combustibility aspects of the product. Now we then see that Chris Culie, if you
00:46:42 Now we then see that Chris Culie, if you scroll up please to page three, Chris Culie forwards that to Brian Stevenson and I've shown you that that's the barrage of inquiries email. You see that? uh and uh now
00:46:56 that? uh and uh now I think you will accept that just looking at this as a matter of chronology the NHBC's concerns with K15 in respect of its combustibility arose before the BBA certificate for K15 had
00:47:08 before the BBA certificate for K15 had been amended. Yes. Yes. as as a matter of chronology and do you ac accept that to stop accepting K15 would as Chris Coulie says create a
00:47:21 would as Chris Coulie says create a barrage of inquiries.
00:47:26 There certainly would have been questions raised when the product had a valid BBA certificate in place and in the line above that a major issue with your customers.
00:47:40 Yes. Yes. Yes, for the same reason. Yes.
00:47:43 Yes. Did Steve Evans and John Lewis discuss with you at that time the potential quotes major issue unquent for a barrage of inquiries that would
00:47:54 for a barrage of inquiries that would arise if NHBC stopped accepting K15?
00:47:59 Not to my recollection. I I believe I saw the email on the 2nd of December. Given your position as head of technical services and the commercial side of the business that you were responsible for
00:48:10 business that you were responsible for and as the person in charge of holding the license, did you consider or were you asked to consider the effect that refusing to accept K15 on high-rise buildings might
00:48:22 accept K15 on high-rise buildings might have on the performance of NHBCS Limited?
00:48:27 Limited? Not that I recall. No. Now let's then go to NHB5097
00:48:35 which is an email run a little bit later in the month November 2013.
00:48:44 Uh and uh this is an email chain to which you were added on the 19th of November as we can see uh from the the email on the screen in front of you. Yes.
00:48:55 in front of you. Yes. Yes. John Lewis to Steve Evans and Brian Stevenson copied to among others Chris Coulie and you Miss Marshall. Yes. And the heading combustible cladding systems in buildings exceeding 18 meters in
00:49:06 in buildings exceeding 18 meters in height notes from windche meeting. So we can be clear we tell me if this is wrong that you received this email and the string below it.
00:49:17 the string below it. Yes.
00:49:17 Yes. Yes. And indeed in fact you you're actually copied in earlier on in the string but we can see that now. Do you remember this email chain?
00:49:36 Yes. Yes. Now, it refers to a a meeting with Wine that you of course were not at. If we go to page three, we can see the
00:49:47 we go to page three, we can see the moment when you were added to the email change. We just do that. Page three. This is the email from Brian Stevenson on the 19th of November 2013 to Steve Evans and John Lewis copied to you
00:49:59 Evans and John Lewis copied to you and it says, "Guys, has this technical guidance note been approved? As if so, I'd like to cover at my team meeting on Friday." And when you were copied into that, did you scroll down below it and
00:50:10 that, did you scroll down below it and look down to to page what is now page four and see the email from John Lewis to Steve Evans? If we go to page four, please,
00:50:20 please, you can see it. Email John Lewis 15th November 2013 to Steve Evans, Graeme Perrier, Dave White, and Gary Jarvis. Subject, combustible cladding systems, etc. Did you scroll down and look at it?
00:50:32 etc. Did you scroll down and look at it? I'm sure I would have done. Yes. Uh, and you would have noticed then that there were some notes from this morning's meeting. Yes. Together with the first draft of an internal guidance note. Yes. Yes.
00:50:41 Yes. And would you have looked at the notes that Mr. Lewis had carefully set out below here and the guidance note.
00:50:50 Don't believe that the guidance note would have been attached. Well, he attaches it to this, but do you remember reading it? I don't believe I got the guidance note
00:51:01 I don't believe I got the guidance note by having been copied in later on. All right. Well, let's look at the uh email and we've seen that you were copied into the last four emails in the chain when the notes from the meeting are being discussed and the proposal
00:51:12 are being discussed and the proposal that it should be made into a BCA guidance note presumably you recall reading that part of the chain. Yes. Yes.
00:51:18 Yes. Yes. Now again reinforcing the point this is before you were well before the BBA amended its certificate let alone before you became aware of that amendment isn't it? Yes.
00:51:29 Yes. Yes.
00:51:30 Yes. Now if we look at the email at the top of the chain please into which you're copied
00:51:47 uh John Lewis says in the second paragraph
00:51:50 paragraph from what I gather from wine Kingspan K-15 was tested in one instance on the masonry wall construction on this basis Kingspan claimed that it's suitable for use in buildings over 18 m high But when you dig down to the detail, it's only
00:52:02 you dig down to the detail, it's only acceptable if the wall construction is exactly the same as that test did. Most of our schemes are steel framed with a metse or similar external wall buildup. And so the kingspan test doesn't hold true. And if we follow the ADB and BR135
00:52:16 true. And if we follow the ADB and BR135 guidance, we shouldn't be accepting it. Even with a cementitious liabore, the product is still combustible and so doesn't meet ADB2 recommendations. According to Wintech, Kingsban proposed
00:52:29 According to Wintech, Kingsban proposed to test multiple combinations of cladding, liner, and insulation, but didn't see this through after the first test. And do you accept that as of 19th November 2013, it was made crystal clear to you by your own fire engineer, Mr.
00:52:41 to you by your own fire engineer, Mr. Lewis, that other than for one masonry buildup as specified, K15 was not to be used above 18 m because it was not a material of limited combustibility.
00:53:04 Sorry, could you repeat the question? Certainly. Do you accept that as of the 19th of November, 2013, it was made crystal clear to you by your own fire engineer, Mr. John Lewis, that other than for one masonry buildup, as
00:53:15 than for one masonry buildup, as specified, K15 was not to be used above 80 m because it was not a material of limited combustibility.
00:53:26 I believe that this raised questions over the Kingspan BBA certificate and
00:53:39 BBA certificate and from reading through the the content further down, it was a topic that was going to be discussed with the BCA technical group and Steve Evans was taking it to the BCA
00:53:52 and Steve Evans was taking it to the BCA technical group to check that that was the common understanding around the use of the certificate
00:54:05 [Music]
00:54:08 because I think the the BCA technical group meeting was early in December. Uh that's right, the 8th. And we're going to look at that in a minute. But
00:54:20 going to look at that in a minute. But uh we may do, but uh you were you at that meeting? No, that was the technical group meeting.
00:54:26 meeting. Yeah. And the minutes that we can see suggest that you weren't present. Uh but what I'm asking you is a different question which is did when you got this did you not realize that K15 couldn't be
00:54:39 did you not realize that K15 couldn't be used over 18 meters because it hadn't passed an 8414 test except in one particular configuration and wasn't a material of limited combustibility. Never mind the BBA certificate. Did you
00:54:51 Never mind the BBA certificate. Did you realize that? I recognize that there were questions being raised, but again, the BBA certificate was still in force.
00:55:06 Yes. What I'm really trying to get to is if you forget the piece of paper for the moment, the BBA certificate, whether this email chain alerted you to the fact that K15
00:55:21 alerted you to the fact that K15 shouldn't be used above 18 m because it was neither a material of limited combustibility nor had passed a BS8414 test in any other than one configuration.
00:55:37 I think it it suggested that it needed further investigation.
00:55:44 Do you know why it was that wine had or appear to have more understanding and knowledge of ADB and combustible insulation and its use over 18 over 18
00:55:57 insulation and its use over 18 over 18 meters than NHBC, the largest provider of building control and warranty services in the country.
00:56:06 I I don't have any dealings with Windche, so I I can't answer that question.
00:56:11 question. All right. Can you explain why it was an industry participant that had brought these issues to the NHBC's attention and had to warn NHBC about the possible
00:56:22 had to warn NHBC about the possible dangers of the use of K15 over 18 meters rather than NHBC coming to that conclusion unaded?
00:56:37 No, I can't answer that question. As head of technical services at the time, was it not your responsibility to address that issue?
00:56:49 The the questions that were raised through this communication were being reviewed by Steve Evans in conjunction with the BCA technical group to get a
00:57:03 with the BCA technical group to get a broader industry view on what the challenges were. And that was a suitable way of gathering what the industry was doing.
00:57:16 gathering what the industry was doing. And if if the interpretation was in in fact correct
00:57:22 at this time, did you consider escalating this question question of the acceptability of K15 and the potential major issue to uh Ian Davis
00:57:34 to uh Ian Davis even just by way of gently alerting him to a possible problem? I don't recall at that time. No. Why is that? because it it needed further
00:57:46 because it it needed further investigation to um establish the credibility of the claims and the industry view a broader industry view.
00:57:57 industry view a broader industry view. We don't have a record of you yourself taking any particular steps having received this email chain uh to address the potential issue that had arisen on behalf of NHBC building control. Did you
00:58:09 behalf of NHBC building control. Did you take any steps? I think that on the back of this um that that prompted the communication from Steve Evans to the broader business in relation to what
00:58:23 broader business in relation to what action was being taken by the organization in reviewing the BBA certificate and the engagement with BCA technical. Yes. Did you do anything? I'm sorry to
00:58:35 Yes. Did you do anything? I'm sorry to keep repeating the question, but I'm not really confident I'm getting the answer to my questions. Did you yourself personally do anything? I delegated to Steve Evans. What did you tell him to do? Investigate or or take this matter
00:58:48 Investigate or or take this matter through to the BCA and see what the issues were. Right.
00:58:59 Did it occur to you at the time that the fact that it had fallen to an industry participant to alert NHBC to the problem indicated some kind of defect within NHBC as an organization such as a lack
00:59:11 NHBC as an organization such as a lack of sufficient expertise at the appropriate levels? No.
00:59:16 No. Why is that? We get information from a number of um industry bodies, manufacturers and other organizations that that contact us to
00:59:28 organizations that that contact us to talk about products, materials, systems on a regular basis. Um that is normally a two-way engagement process. Um so it's not uncommon for us to engage with other
00:59:40 not uncommon for us to engage with other industry bodies.
00:59:58 But your resident fire engineer who by this date had his qualifications, John Lewis had, as he was telling you, dug down into the
01:00:09 was telling you, dug down into the detail and had come to the conclusion that K15 15 couldn't be used above 18 m if the wall construction wasn't exactly the same as tested. That's what it says
01:00:21 the same as tested. That's what it says on the screen. What what what were what further was there to investigate the details within the BBA certificate
01:00:34 the details within the BBA certificate and the background to the BBA certificate that was contrary to that statement
01:00:42 statement and given what John Lewis was saying and given what the BBA certificate said which was
01:00:48 which was diametrically opposite why did you not think at at stage to ask and I've asked you this before but to go to the BBA immediately
01:01:00 but to go to the BBA immediately and say we don't think this K15 can actually be used above 18 m the only reason we're continuing to accept it is because your certificate says so are you sure it's right
01:01:13 sure it's right I think as I've explained previously um BBA would have been held by a confidential commercial arrangement and and we wanted to get the information
01:01:24 and we wanted to get the information from the manufacturer direct. And following the logic of the BBA certificate statement to consult Kingspan
01:01:31 Kingspan at this point now once you're alerted to the problem by your own resident fire engineer, how did you think that advice from Kingpan could either change the combustibility of the product or make it
01:01:42 combustibility of the product or make it compliant given that this was as any fool know a phenolic product and therefore combustible? At that stage, the engagement with Kingspan was to try and establish if
01:01:55 Kingspan was to try and establish if there was further test data or any evidence that was available to BBA that we hadn't had sight of. Do you agree that as head of technical services, you should have been aware that K15 was not
01:02:06 should have been aware that K15 was not a material of limited combustibility and that its widespread use on buildings above 18 m was in contravention of the guidance in 12.7. Do you accept that?
01:02:18 Do you accept that? I accept that we acted within the boundaries of the BBA certificate.
01:02:29 And can you explain why NHBC has continually even to the inquiry continually tried to use the change to the BBA certificate as a reason why K15's compliance with the building
01:02:41 K15's compliance with the building regulations changed when it was clear that it could never have complied with ADB except in that one very specific instance and that the NHBC knew that before the change in the certificate anyway.
01:02:52 anyway. The reliance was on the wording within the BBA certificate. It's a slender thread, isn't it, Miss Marshall, on which to hang such momentous uh decision.
01:03:03 uh decision. It is, but it's a route to compliance that's allowed through the approved documents and the guidance. Now, let's turn to the email you you've referred to. I'm sorry interrupting him, but um this
01:03:15 I'm sorry interrupting him, but um this is all to do with fire safety, isn't it? Yes. And that's why uh ADB made certain uh suggestions as to the way to comply with uh functional requirement B4.
01:03:27 with uh functional requirement B4. Whatever the um BBA certificate said, did anyone stop to ask the question, well, if this material is combustible, it may not be safe.
01:03:41 I think the the evidence of the BBA certificate was given very high regard in relation to the status and the the link back to sort
01:03:56 the status and the the link back to sort of overarching functional requirements of the building regulations would have been considered. it didn't meet 12.7 as as we've explored. But the fact that the BBA certificate was in its existence and
01:04:08 BBA certificate was in its existence and allowing the use of that product with conditions was satisfactory from our point of view as a building control body.
01:04:16 body. So it was safe if Kingspan told you it was safe
01:04:19 was safe subject to the conditions within the certificate. Yes. Well, those were the conditions. The ones at least that you were relying on. Yes.
01:04:27 Yes. And that was satisfactory, was it? We believe so. Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Can we then go to the 2nd of December 2013 email, please at NHB50616.
01:04:45 This is an email from Steve Evans of the 2nd of December 2013 to technical services
01:04:50 services uh uh building surveyors, commercial surveying team, project managers, project surveyors and copy to technical services managers. Did you see this at the time? I would have been in the uh
01:05:01 the time? I would have been in the uh copied in group. Oh, the technical services managers. Yes, I see. Dear all, it says uh there has recently been some confusion in respect of the use of Kingspan Cool Therm K15 raincreen board
01:05:14 Kingspan Cool Therm K15 raincreen board in buildings over 18 mters in height. The confusion has arisen from Kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 m. However, the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foams which
01:05:26 generic type of polyurethane foams which are by nature combustible. The product holds a current BBA certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with approved document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1
01:05:38 document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1 subject to advice being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height. We are currently investigating this with Kingpan and we are awaiting a response
01:05:49 Kingpan and we are awaiting a response from them until we are in a position to say otherwise. NHBC's BCS's current policy is to accept in principle the use of this material in raincreen and masonry construction over 18 meters
01:06:01 masonry construction over 18 meters subject to the necessary advice from Kingspan being received and agreed by us for each system buildup. Now again in terms of chronology this was written before the change to the BBA certificate removing the reference to 12.7 and the
01:06:13 removing the reference to 12.7 and the contact the manufacturer of call self-evidently. Uh
01:06:19 Uh it's clear therefore isn't it at this stage that you and the NHBC generally as we can see from the vast number of people who received this that everybody
01:06:30 people who received this that everybody knew that K15 was combustible and couldn't comply with 12.7. Yes.
01:06:40 Yes. Yes.
01:06:43 Yes. What did you think you would get from Kingspan by way of investigation that you wouldn't get from the BBA
01:06:51 if you would ask them? Further test evidence that supported its use in a wider range of makeups. So, right. So, does that mean that you
01:07:03 So, right. So, does that mean that you weren't interested in exploring with Kingspan how it had come about that 12.7 had been uh used in the BBA certificate? You were interested in whether or not
01:07:14 You were interested in whether or not Kingspan could provide you with further test evidence under A414. Is that is that what you were about? We were looking the the main point of interest from the investigations as I
01:07:27 interest from the investigations as I saw it was the removal of the statement and we we're investigating on what basis that statement was included in the first place of seeking the advice of the
01:07:39 place of seeking the advice of the certificate holder.
01:07:46 Well, at this stage,
01:07:52 I'm not sure actually still that's an answer to my question. Why not go to the BBA and ask them what they thought they were doing in producing the document that you rely upon rather than going to Kingpan?
01:08:03 Kingpan? As I've said, we we didn't. And at this stage, of course, the clause hasn't been removed. So, the question is, what's it doing there? But you didn't. Now in the last
01:08:14 But you didn't. Now in the last paragraph it says until we are in a position to say otherwise we will accept in principle the use of K15. Why were you not in a position to say otherwise? Surely you
01:08:27 position to say otherwise? Surely you were
01:08:28 were because of the existence of the BBA certificate. But you
01:08:35 But you you everybody knew that that was wrong by now.
01:08:38 by now. So certainly so far as 12.7 was concerned and you didn't have any information from Kingspan on which to justify its use over 18 meters. So how come you were not in a position to refuse K15 over 18 m?
01:08:51 refuse K15 over 18 m? We didn't know that the BBA certificate was wrong at this stage. We raised questions over the content, but we didn't know that the BBA certificate was wrong. Well, we've been through that. Yes.
01:09:00 Yes. And you you're not able to tell us on what possible scientific basis this phenolic product could possibly meet 12.7. No, but whether or not there was further
01:09:11 No, but whether or not there was further evidence that supported the inclusion of the reference to the certificate holder was also in our minds later on. We've been through that as well. Given that on the face of the information you had at that time,
01:09:25 had at that time, do you accept that you were not in fact in a position to accept the use of K15 given that its use over 18 meters at least on what you knew at that point contravened 12.7
01:09:39 No, because of the BBA certificate there there was I I don't think I can emphasize enough the the strength of the BBA certificate that was used as the basis for the decisions taken.
01:09:52 basis for the decisions taken. Very well.
01:10:02 Were you aware that letters were being received by NHBC from Kingspan which would which would it was thought constitute the necessary advice?
01:10:15 advice? I was aware. I couldn't tell you exactly when I became aware. Were you aware? Well, did you ever look at Did you look at any at this point? No.
01:10:23 No. So,
01:10:25 So, well, why not? It would have been on a project specific basis for the surveyor to manage the process.
01:10:32 process. Well, at at this stage you've got an unmended BBA certificate that says what it says about 12.7 and then says contact the manufacturer. Were you not interested to know what the manufacturer was saying in respect of use of K15
01:10:44 was saying in respect of use of K15 above 18 meters when asked given that that was the the only other basis on which NHBC could possibly accept Kingspan K15 above 18 m compliant
01:10:58 accept Kingspan K15 above 18 m compliant with the BBA certificate? No, I I had other people within my team that were more than capable of of dealing with a project specific review and identifying the the evidence that was being
01:11:09 the the evidence that was being presented. Did you not want to know yourself? What what does this advice look like? How is it? What are Kingsman actually doing when they're asked so that K15 is allowed above 18 meters? Did you not
01:11:20 allowed above 18 meters? Did you not want to know that? Not at this stage. No. Why is that? I trusted my colleagues to carry out their their roles and functions. Did you actually ask them to undertake an investigation of what it was that
01:11:31 investigation of what it was that Kingspan was saying by way of advice given in accordance with the BBA certificate? Yes, but I can't recall when. And did anybody come back to you and tell you what the advice was that
01:11:43 tell you what the advice was that Kingspan was giving? I I think
01:11:47 I I think I did see some um correspondence um but I I can't recall when I would have seen that. Did you know at the time that the advice that was coming back
01:11:58 that the advice that was coming back from Kingspan, if asked pursuant to clause 7.2 of the BBA certificate was bold and generic and contained no analysis whatever as Mr. Lewis fairly accepted in his evidence about why and
01:12:10 accepted in his evidence about why and how the proposed wall buildup would adequately resist the spread of fire over the surface of the walls. Sorry, could you repeat the question? Yes, I'll try it more shortly. Um, did
01:12:21 Yes, I'll try it more shortly. Um, did you uh know at the time that the advice that was coming back when asked from Kingspan was was bald and generic? Only when I became aware of that advice.
01:12:32 Only when I became aware of that advice. When was that? I I can't recall. Let's have a look at an example. KIN402663.
01:12:45 This is a letter from Kingspan to um a design and build contra contractor Mount Anvil uh in respect of a project called
01:12:56 Anvil uh in respect of a project called the Eagle House and the use of K15 at it 13th of January 2014 and it says this further to our previous discussion to date regards the Eagle House project and the use of cool firm
01:13:08 House project and the use of cool firm K15 within the ventilated raincreen facade system in a building with a story of 18 m or more above ground level. We can confirm the following. It is our opinion that our Cool Therm K15 product
01:13:19 opinion that our Cool Therm K15 product would be fit for purpose if installed onto a non-combustible substrate with horizontal cavity barrier installed in line with intermediate floors and at centers not exceeding 3.5 m. We trust the the foregoing information is of
01:13:31 the the foregoing information is of assistance and the in the event of any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Now I I if you saw that particular letter, let me know. But did you see letters like this
01:13:42 know. But did you see letters like this at the time? I don't recall seeing this particular letter.
01:13:48 letter. This letter doesn't contain any analysis whatever, does it, about why and how the precise proposed wall buildup would adequately resist the spread of fire over the surface of the walls, does it?
01:14:00 No. No. It's bold and generic, isn't it?
01:14:05 It's relating to a project and it's sent to the builder. that's developing that project. So, they would have had access to all of the design information.
01:14:20 This was an NHBC job, wasn't it? I I couldn't confirm. I I don't know. I don't recognize any of the references. Right. No, you I I I'm not surprised you don't personally know. Take it from me.
01:14:32 don't personally know. Take it from me. But it is actually in your 2015 review. So, that's why I know that. And if you tell me that's wrong, then I'll accept that from you. But on the basis that it is, does this mean that your surveyor
01:14:43 is, does this mean that your surveyor confronted with a building with with a proposed with proposed insulation in the external wall buildup of uh a building more than 80 mters where Kingpan is proposed, K15 is proposed, looks at the
01:14:55 proposed, K15 is proposed, looks at the the BBA certificate and goes to Kingspan for advice and gets this. On what basis would your, let it be assumed,
01:15:08 would your, let it be assumed, independent, reliable, robust and ruthlessly uh investigative surveyor think that that statement there
01:15:20 surveyor think that that statement there uh indicated that the proposed wall buildup would adequately resist the spread of fire over the surface of the walls?
01:15:29 on on two counts. One in accordance with the BBA certificate. No, sorry. That that that I'm going to interrupt you. That doesn't work. The BBA certificate simply takes you here.
01:15:42 BBA certificate simply takes you here. So, this is what he's got. Let me rephrase the question. Your surveyor holds this document in his hand.
01:15:51 hand. What tells him that that Kam K15 is fit for purpose in this particular project in the absence of a BSA414 test. the the
01:16:05 absence of a BSA414 test. the the statement made by Kingspan in the second paragraph um being fit for purpose and the assumption that as this has been
01:16:17 the assumption that as this has been sent to the builder that Kingspan would have been furnished with the design information around the project and based their statement on details of the
01:16:29 their statement on details of the construction. And is it your evidence that so far as the NHBC was concerned that opinion was a satisfactory
01:16:41 that opinion was a satisfactory basis or a satisfactory piece of evidence of compliance in accordance with the BBA certificate? Yes.
01:16:48 Yes. I I I would like you to answer the question without the qualification. Is that evidence of compliance?
01:17:01 I don't think I can answer it without the qualification because it it links to the BBA certificate. Well, you see the reason I put it to you that way as I tried to explain before is that the BBA certificate was simply
01:17:15 is that the BBA certificate was simply a route. It was simply telling you to go and contact the manufacturer. Yes. It's not evidence itself, is it? Advice should be sought, I think is the word.
01:17:23 word. So, when you go and get the advice, this is what you get. Yes. And my question, I'll ask it the last time, is that if this was the kind of advice that you were getting, was it the N was it NHBC's position that
01:17:35 was it the N was it NHBC's position that this was satisfactory evidence on the basis of which K15 could safely be used above 18 m? Miss Marshall? Yes.
01:17:45 Yes. without further investigation.
01:17:51 I don't want to keep repeating myself, but in accordance with the BBA certificate. Now,
01:18:04 can we go to your statement? Well, Mr. Chairman, we're I think midtopic and it'll take me a little bit longer to finish it off. Perhaps this is a convenient moment. Yes, very well. I think it's time we had a break, Mr. Marshall. So, we'll stop
01:18:15 a break, Mr. Marshall. So, we'll stop there. We'll resume, please, at 25 to 4. And as before, I have to ask you not to speak to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room. All right. Thank you very much.
01:18:36 Thank you very much. 25 to four, please.
01:35:10 Would you ask this marshall to come back in please?
01:35:22 All right, Mr. Marshall, ready to carry on?
01:35:24 on? Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Yes, m Mr. Chairman. Miss Marshall, um did you inform the BCS board that you were telling surveyors to continue to accept K15
01:35:37 accept K15 on or around or after the 2nd of December 2013?
01:35:46 The BCS board were updated, but I couldn't recall when. Did you tell the BCS board at that time that even though you were aware that K15 was combustible, didn't comply with 12.7
01:35:58 didn't comply with 12.7 uh and shouldn't be used above 18 meters in the absence of a specific buildup test successfully under BS8414? Nonetheless, BCS board was continuing to accept it in principle. Did you tell
01:36:10 accept it in principle. Did you tell them that? As I say, the BCS board were updated, but I couldn't recall what dates they were updated on the issue.
01:36:21 Were they ever told of that holding arrangement? I believe so. Were they told of the knowledge notwithstanding which that holding
01:36:32 notwithstanding which that holding arrangement was put in place?
01:36:38 I can't recall now. We don't need to go back to the table in your statement. We looked at it earlier, but 90% about assumed I think you said
01:36:47 you said 90% of the 368 blocks uh or or projects uh on which NMHBC provided building control and warranty in 2013 used K15.
01:36:58 control and warranty in 2013 used K15. Were you concerned at this time early December 2013 that to refuse K15 on buildings over 18 mters would mean that up to 90% of the schemes on which or
01:37:09 up to 90% of the schemes on which or buildings on which NHBC were working would be affected? Not at that point in time. No. Did you discuss that possibility with Steve Evans?
01:37:20 Steve Evans? only when the BBA certificate changed was the fact that refusing K15 might cause a major issue and a barrage of inquiries a factor in the decision which
01:37:33 inquiries a factor in the decision which I think you accept is ultimately yours to continue to accept K15 in the interim.
01:37:42 Sorry, repeat the start of the question. Yes. uh was the fact that refusing K15 might cause quote a major issue unquote
01:37:53 might cause quote a major issue unquote as we've seen from the email or a barrage of inquiries as we've seen from the email in in uh in November was that a factor in
01:38:04 a factor in the decision your decision to continue to accept K15 on tall buildings at least in the meantime? No,
01:38:12 No, not at all. No, at the end of the day, um, we want to achieve compliant buildings. Yes,
01:38:22 Yes, but here was a real risk that buildings that you were approving weren't. So, why not stop? Unless it was something to do with trouble with customers. No, the the customer angle had no
01:38:34 No, the the customer angle had no consideration. It was about compliance with whatever route was available through the approved documents and the guidance. Given the doubts, why did you not stop prom until the
01:38:45 why did you not stop prom until the doubts were resolved rather than continuing prom until Kingspan proved it was safe?
01:38:53 was safe? I think we were taking the approach that we were proactively seeking solutions by engaging with the manufacturer to get information that would support its use
01:39:05 information that would support its use in
01:39:07 in configurations that were being presented to us. Do you accept now that you should have advised your surveyors back in December 2013 that K15 should not be used over 18 m unless it was used in the
01:39:18 used over 18 m unless it was used in the one buildup which had been tested to BS8414?
01:39:22 BS8414? No, because the BBA certificate was still valid. I I do accept that we should have acted sooner in 2014 when that certificate changed.
01:39:34 So you don't accept that proceeding on the basis of what I think you're bound to accept as a manifestally erroneous BBA certificate which at best simply led you back into the arms of the
01:39:45 you back into the arms of the manufacturer uh was uh regrettable. You don't accept that? We were following a route to compliance that was allowed for within the statutory guidance.
01:39:58 statutory guidance. And you're you don't see the other side of the argument. Is that right? It's not that I don't see the other side of the argument. Um, our role is to apply the regulations and the guidance
01:40:09 apply the regulations and the guidance that supports those and I believe that's what we did. Now, I don't want to take you through the chronology of the meetings with Kingpan largely because you didn't attend them, but is it right to say that
01:40:21 attend them, but is it right to say that despite the threats to do so, at no time did NHBC stop using Kingspan K15 in external wall buildups above 18 m?
01:40:34 We imposed different actions through the course of 2014 and 2015, but those actions resulted in different
01:40:46 but those actions resulted in different ways of demonstrating compliance.
01:40:51 Is that a reference to BCA technical guidance note 18? Yes.
01:40:56 Yes. Right.
01:40:58 Right. So does that answer tell us that technical guidance note 18 was the solution which would permit NHBC to continue to accept K15?
01:41:10 No, the the BCA guidance note was created
01:41:15 created prior to the change in BBA certificate. It it was instigated in late 2013. I believe it didn't get published until June 2014, but that was in consultation
01:41:29 June 2014, but that was in consultation with the broader building control industry and in agreement with um all those consulted through the technical group and the executive group. And then I'm going to have to ask the
01:41:41 And then I'm going to have to ask the question again. Is it right to say that despite threats to do so, at no time did NHBC stop using Kingpan K15 in external wall buildups over 18 m as a fact. Is
01:41:53 wall buildups over 18 m as a fact. Is that correct? Yes. With different levels of evidence.
01:42:01 And those different levels of evidence were those generated as a result of the BCA's technical guidance note 18 drafted by John Lewis.
01:42:13 by John Lewis. The guidance note was drafted by John Lewis. Um, and it was then taken to a broad range of members of the BCA technical group, all of whom had the
01:42:26 technical group, all of whom had the opportunity to comment, make observations, challenge the content or otherwise. It was then once concluded taken to the BCA executive again where
01:42:38 taken to the BCA executive again where there was an opportunity of all of the representative bodies to make any comments or observations on the content of of that do that that document and after its publication was shared with
01:42:49 after its publication was shared with MHCLG officials um who were copied into all of the technical group meetings and could have made any observations around its content. Miss Lewis, sorry, Miss Marshall, I'm
01:43:00 Miss Lewis, sorry, Miss Marshall, I'm sorry. Uh, that answer is a long answer full of facts, none of which is an answer to my question. Let me see if I can get to it a different way. Can we go to your statement, please? Paragraph 57,
01:43:11 to your statement, please? Paragraph 57, page 14.
01:43:16 Now, at par parap 57, you say, as I go on to explain below, I task Steve Evans to further investigate the issue with Kingpan. The BCA guidance note was born
01:43:27 Kingpan. The BCA guidance note was born out of the concerns that resulted from that investigation. Now, what were the concerns that resulted from that investigation? I think that's probably badly worded.
01:43:40 I think that's probably badly worded. The BCA guidance note was concluded. Well, what were the concerns? Well, the concerns were the removal of the statement about the certificate
01:43:51 the statement about the certificate holder.
01:43:59 Well, the draft I thought you'd accepted this earlier. The draft of the what became the BCA guidance note, technical guidance note 18, issue N published in
01:44:11 guidance note 18, issue N published in June 2014
01:44:12 June 2014 was created by John Lewis in November 2013
01:44:17 2013 after the WINE meeting. in effect pretty much immediately afterwards, some month or so before the removal of the contact the manufacturer phrase from
01:44:28 the contact the manufacturer phrase from the BBA certificate. So that can't be right, can it? What you've just told us?
01:44:41 Now I suppose the the sequence of events was the the BCA guidance note was created
01:44:50 created as as a result of the initial comments and confusion caused by the comments made by NHBC staff in late 2013. I
01:45:02 made by NHBC staff in late 2013. I suppose it was compounded by the change in BBA certificate in early 2014 and the BCA guidance note addressed both of those concerns.
01:45:18 So is this right then that in part at least the BCI note guidance note was born out of a concern or the concern that K15 was
01:45:31 of a concern or the concern that K15 was not a material of limited combustibility and therefore could not satisfy the linear route to compliance and only had one BS8414 test to support its use in a
01:45:42 one BS8414 test to support its use in a particular configuration. My understanding was that the BCA guidance note was addressing a number of concerns.
01:45:50 concerns. One of which I'm suggesting to you is the one I've just identified. Quite possibly. Yes. Well, you say possibly. So, you this is your witness statement and you say the BCA guidance note was born out of the
01:46:01 BCA guidance note was born out of the concerns that resulted from that investigation. Now, all I'm trying to ask you to do, please, is just to tell us what those concerns were.
01:46:12 concerns were. Well, the concerns were were twofold. The issue in relation to the comments received from surveyors around the confusion on materials of limited combustibility and the second issue in
01:46:24 combustibility and the second issue in relation to the certificate holder statement
01:46:27 statement right
01:46:30 right now. Can you confirm that you were part of the BCA executive committee that approved the BCA technical guidance note 18 which was published in June 2014? Yes.
01:46:39 Yes. Yes. And I I'm assuming that you were familiar before then, but certainly by then with the um various I say various the two routes to compliance, in fact, three routes to compliance if you
01:46:50 three routes to compliance if you include holistic fire engineering solutions in ADB. Well, there are four routes to compliance in ADB. Which is the fourth? Well, the options one to four.
01:47:02 Well, the options one to four. All right. Um, now let's look at your statement at paragraph 134, page 30. You say this. I was not involved
01:47:16 uh I was not involved in the detailed analysis and drafting of the technical points of producing the guidance notes including the BCA guidance note as I have been in the management side of the build of building control since 2001.
01:47:27 build of building control since 2001. Whilst I keep myself up to date from a professional point of view, I recognize that this management role means I no longer hold the day-to-day technical expertise on specific new developments. Excuse me. Now BCA technical guidance
01:47:39 Excuse me. Now BCA technical guidance note 18 was adopted as NHBC policy wasn't it? Yes.
01:47:44 Yes. But it wasn't in fact adopted as NHBC policy I don't think till February 2015 was it?
01:47:50 was it? It was introduced in February 2015 backdated to 1st of January 2014. Yes. Um do you did you not think at the time that you should have been up to
01:48:01 time that you should have been up to date with the technical points that it raised?
01:48:07 I think because of the ongoing dialogue with Kingspan in relation to promised tests and third party reviews, we were trying to engage with them to
01:48:21 we were trying to engage with them to get that information. I don't I don't know
01:48:26 know um if we received option one and option three reports prior to its formal introduction in February 15. Well, according to John Lewis, they
01:48:38 Well, according to John Lewis, they trickled in from the from January 2014 and then increased somewhat after the publication in June 2014. Can you quarrel with that? No, I' I'd have to take his word for
01:48:49 No, I' I'd have to take his word for that.
01:48:49 that. No. Who made the decision that the BCA guidance note should be adopted as NHBC policy?
01:48:56 policy? I think I would have discussed it with Steve Evans and possibly John Lewis. Um, it was common practice for us to adopt the BCA guidance notes because they were
01:49:07 the BCA guidance notes because they were generally reflective of a broad industry view on a significant technical issue. And why did it take until February 2015, more than a year after the change to the BBA certificate itself and some 18
01:49:19 BBA certificate itself and some 18 months or so after WINC had brought the problem to you? Because of our ongoing engagement with Kingspan to try and resolve the issue.
01:49:32 Kingspan to try and resolve the issue. It's quite a long period. Did it not occur to you before February 2015 that something needed to be done rather sooner?
01:49:40 sooner? In hindsight, yes, we should have been more robust with Kingspan. We should have pushed them harder for test information, but the feedback that I was getting from Mr. Evans was that at
01:49:51 getting from Mr. Evans was that at meetings they were promising test results, giving outline timetables for producing the test results. They committed to um appoint BR and ARP to do
01:50:03 committed to um appoint BR and ARP to do an independent review which would have supported some of their information. Um but it it became apparent that there were delaying tactics and and we should have recognized that sooner. I think the
01:50:15 have recognized that sooner. I think the the thing that um although the formal adoption of the policy was in 2015, I believe an update email from Mr. Evans in August 14 asked surveyors and project
01:50:28 in August 14 asked surveyors and project managers to log all projects and raise awareness of the issue with our customer base so that they could consider alternatives. Let's look at um the technical guidance note itself then.
01:50:40 technical guidance note itself then. NHB50760
01:50:42 NHB50760 please.
01:50:45 That's page one. Issue N June 2014. I'm going to assume Miss Marshall that you're familiar with this document. Yes.
01:50:53 Yes. Is that a fair assumption? I I've seen it several times. Yes. Oh, let's go to page two. Option one. Uh option one. the use of materials of limited combustibility for all elements of the cladding system both
01:51:05 elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 m. This includes the insulation, internal lining board and the external facing material. Smaller gasket parts and similar lowrisk items can be excluded from this requirement. The definition of a mulk material
01:51:16 The definition of a mulk material limited combustibility is stated in table A7 of ADB2. Now all elements of the cladding system did that include rain the raincreen
01:51:27 did that include rain the raincreen panel to your understanding? Yes. And external facing material. Did that include the external panel? Yes.
01:51:36 Yes. And presumably all parts of a composite external panel including the core. Yes. Yes.
01:51:43 Yes. And had that had that always been your understanding? I think as as I explained earlier in relation to some of the commentary around filler etc. um my view prior to 2014 was um well I
01:51:58 um my view prior to 2014 was um well I didn't have a view because I hadn't actually applied that requirement of the regulation. So in 2014 when this was discussed internally um both John Lewis and Steve Evans
01:52:09 um both John Lewis and Steve Evans advised of a common interpretation which was supported by the rest of the BCA technical group. Right. So you say it was the word filler within 127.
01:52:20 within 127. Yes.
01:52:20 Yes. Yes. I'm etc. Well, John Lewis says etc. You say filler and Steve Evans says it stands to reason. I think I've summarized his evidence. But for you it
01:52:32 summarized his evidence. But for you it was the word filler, was it?
01:52:36 Yes. I think that that's the um the point that we sought clarification on in relation to communications with MHCLG. I believe it was filler rather than the etc. But I I could be mistaken in terms
01:52:48 etc. But I I could be mistaken in terms of the content of that email. Now looking at option three um if we go to your statement please at page 37 we'll come back to the text if we need to but um go to page 37 of your statement par
01:53:01 um go to page 37 of your statement par 173 when you deal with option three desktop reports you say this prior to issue not of the BCA guidance note in June 2014 I cannot be sure if I was aware of the existence of desktop
01:53:12 aware of the existence of desktop reports which concluded that the use of any combustible product would satisfy the criteria in BR135 also I'm not aware of NHBC BC rely on any desktop report prior to the issue of the BCA guidance
01:53:23 prior to the issue of the BCA guidance note which concluded that a combustible product would satisfy the criteria in BR135.
01:53:29 BR135. Does that mean that desktops were introduced by the NHBC in technical guidance note 18 issue Nort in June 2014 without anybody at the NHBC actually ever having had prior experience of one?
01:53:45 Well, I think as I say, I don't know if we received desktop reports. Um, I'm I'm aware of John Lewis's evidence where he said that they were starting to be seen
01:53:57 said that they were starting to be seen in early 2014, but I I can't confirm that. was the well at the time did you not think to ask John Lewis or indeed anybody else at
01:54:08 John Lewis or indeed anybody else at NHBC whether they'd seen any of these desktop assessments and what they thought of them before enshrining the possibility of getting one as an alternative alternative route to
01:54:20 alternative alternative route to compliance in option three? Well, the the decision to introduce option three as a BCA guidance note was done by the BCA technical group and the BCA
01:54:33 BCA technical group and the BCA executive
01:54:34 executive um on the basis that that was a route to compliance that existed within the approved documents. Sorry, question again. I'll ask it by reference to the BCA, but
01:54:45 I'll ask it by reference to the BCA, but before I do, question again. Did you think to ask John Lewis or anybody else at the NHBC who after all had drafted and put forward option three
01:54:57 and put forward option three whether they'd seen any desktop assessments before and what they thought of them? Did you do that? Not specifically, but we would have had
01:55:09 Not specifically, but we would have had assessments in lie of test for a variety of products and materials previously. But what about for an entire tall building envelope? Not to my knowledge.
01:55:20 Not to my knowledge. No.
01:55:22 No. And that's what BCA technical guidance note 18 is addressing, isn't it? An external wall of a tall building. Yes. It's reflecting the assessment in le of test. Same question in relation to BCA. Did
01:55:33 Same question in relation to BCA. Did you ask anybody in the BCA outside NHBC whether they had seen these desktop assessments before in relation to a whole building envelope and what
01:55:46 to a whole building envelope and what they thought of them? No.
01:55:49 No. Why not?
01:55:50 Why not? Um because I had assumed that the members of the technical group that reviewed the draft and agreed the version to present to the executive
01:56:01 version to present to the executive committee would have debated the um content
01:56:06 content and addressed any concerns that they had with it.
01:56:18 So you weren't troubled by not knowing one way or the other whether desktop assessments were part of a positive experience by uh fire engineers and
01:56:29 experience by uh fire engineers and experienced other fire professionals. The the concept of desktop assessments have has been within the approved documents for a number of years. So we we would see them on a variety of
01:56:41 we would see them on a variety of products and and systems. So it I didn't see this as being significantly different. Well, did it not occur to you that um there may be a significant difference
01:56:52 there may be a significant difference because there's a whole section of ADB devoted to external walls on buildings above 18 m. Did you ask yourself the question, I wonder how these desktop
01:57:04 question, I wonder how these desktop assessments might be applied using the provisions of ADB to the external walls of tall buildings? No, I didn't. and therefore you presumably didn't think to ask anybody
01:57:15 presumably didn't think to ask anybody else how that might work. No, I think given the fact that it was debated widely within the technical group um that that would have been
01:57:26 group um that that would have been considered and discussed. Did you ask anybody why it was that historically largecale full system fire
01:57:37 historically largecale full system fire tests done under 8414 had not been the subject of an extrapolation into a desktop assessment beforehand? Before that no
01:57:47 no why is that?
01:57:51 I don't know if we received desktop assessments for those elements previously. Did anybody at NHBC have firsthand experience of large-scale fire testing?
01:58:02 testing? I I can't answer that question. I'm sorry. I don't know. Was any study undertaken within NHBC before signing off on option three or before having or before agreeing that the BCA could do so to see whether they
01:58:15 the BCA could do so to see whether they had ever been produced in respect of an external wall buildup above 18 m by whom? in respect of what products using what test data and using what methodology was any study undertaken like that?
01:58:28 was any study undertaken like that? Not to my knowledge. Why not?
01:58:31 Why not? This was a BCA guidance note that was produced through the BCA and the technical group would have discussed all pertinent points. But do you I mean do
01:58:42 pertinent points. But do you I mean do you do you know do you have a reason because we've not seen any evidence either from the BCA or from from NHBC of such a study. Now take we have to proceed on the basis that there wasn't
01:58:53 proceed on the basis that there wasn't one. And my simple question to you is do you know why that is? No.
01:58:59 No. If you didn't know why that was and didn't know that there was a good reason for not having that study, how could NHBC and you in particular be at all confident that these desktop assessments now being put forward under option three
01:59:11 now being put forward under option three for a full building envelope above 18 meters could be safely adopted. Firstly, the the limitations on who could produce a desktop assessment. So
01:59:22 could produce a desktop assessment. So you're looking at the testing houses and qualified individuals to create those reports and the specialism of our internal fire engineer in analyzing,
01:59:34 internal fire engineer in analyzing, challenging and assessing those reports. Did you consider specifically which part of approved document B supported the use of desktop assessments in place of specific tests in respect of
01:59:49 in place of specific tests in respect of the external wall buildup of buildings over 18 mters? I wouldn't personally have considered it because it was done as part of the BCA guidance note and it reflected what I
02:00:02 guidance note and it reflected what I understood to be contained within the approved document. So did you understand that what was contained within the approved document applied or could be applied to an external wall buildup?
02:00:13 external wall buildup? Yes.
02:00:14 Yes. Why did you how did you come to that understanding? Because of the existence of the assessments in lie of test contained within approved document B.
02:00:27 within approved document B. Did you yourself put appendix A which is where I think you are referring to extrapolable test data next to section 12 of approved
02:00:40 data next to section 12 of approved document B and ask yourself how they fitted together. It's another route to compliance through the statutory guidance that is available
02:00:51 the statutory guidance that is available to follow and it is replicating what is in that statutory guidance. Sorry, I'm asking you what you did. Did
02:01:02 Sorry, I'm asking you what you did. Did you put appendix A next to section 12 of ADB and ask yourself how do they fit together? Did you do that exercise? No.
02:01:12 No. Why is that? because it was an alternative that was available through the statutory guidance.
02:01:21 So you you assumed that without investigating it? No, I didn't assume that the BCA technical group proposed and debated the options available through approved
02:01:33 options available through approved document B. I think I think the answer sorry I'm so sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. So I've lost my thread now. Well, are you able to tell us uh
02:01:44 Well, are you able to tell us uh um what types of scientific analysis or parameters of comparison would allow the extrapolation of data from largecale fire tests under BS8414
02:01:56 fire tests under BS8414 to other systems which hadn't been tested through the medium of a desktop assessment. I believe that there are guidance that Don Lewis referred to in terms of what
02:02:09 Don Lewis referred to in terms of what processes to follow. I think PFPF and other standards that set out how how the uh assessment in le of test should be used
02:02:17 used right now. He certainly referred to that in his evidence. Are you in that answer referring to the evidence he gave to the inquiry this week or are you referring to something he told you at the time?
02:02:28 to something he told you at the time? I'm referring to his evidence earlier this week. Oh, I see. Um, did the BCA release any um, I hesitate to use the word, but guidance or or um,
02:02:41 to use the word, but guidance or or um, technical notes perhaps about how these reports should be produced in a manner that meant that the same principles and parameters and methodologies were being applied by each of those um,
02:02:52 applied by each of those um, organizations identified to do them so that they would be consistent and comparable. I don't believe so because it reflected what was already contained within the improved document which could be
02:03:03 improved document which could be referenced by anyone that chose to use the BCA guidance note. Now, you're you're not a desktop expert, are you?
02:03:10 are you? No.
02:03:11 No. And John Lewis uh had never had any firsthand experience in large scale fire testing or writing reports like this. G given that, didn't you think that it was dangerous that John Lewis and Steve
02:03:22 dangerous that John Lewis and Steve Evans, who himself had no fire credentials, fire engineering credentials, um, were producing guidance on these topics? They produced a guidance note for debate
02:03:33 They produced a guidance note for debate amongst a broad range of technical experts within the BCA technical group and agreement was such that it reflected what guidance already existed within the
02:03:45 what guidance already existed within the approved documents. So the the guidance was already there and available for any building control professional to follow. Did you think to consult the BR or
02:03:57 Did you think to consult the BR or Chilton or Warrington fire, the test houses specifically identified in option three uh about the concept of extrapolating data from large scale fire tests on external buildups with
02:04:09 tests on external buildups with differing materials without further testing?
02:04:12 testing? I wouldn't have done that because this was a BCA guidance note. I don't know if BCA technical group did that. I don't believe they did, but it would have been for the BCA technical group to carry
02:04:23 for the BCA technical group to carry that out.
02:04:24 that out. Uh I think the answer is you didn't think of it. No.
02:04:28 No. No. And you don't know anybody else who thought of it either. Not to my knowledge. No. And you can't presumably tell me one way or the other if it wasn't thought of by anybody on the big BCA technical group why that was.
02:04:39 group why that was. No. Now, we've heard evidence that there were concerns about the option three reports which began to be produced, I think, as a trickle in early 2014, but more in earnest after June after this
02:04:51 more in earnest after June after this document was published, which contained opinions without sufficient scientific analysis. Were you aware of that? I was aware about concerns of the quality of some of the reports. Yes. Did you take any action when you became
02:05:03 Did you take any action when you became aware of your concerns about or the concerns of the quality? Um, it was to ensure that both John Lewis and Steve Evans maintained a robust approach to
02:05:15 Evans maintained a robust approach to getting the right quality of reports coming through and not lower the standard of accepting anything that was um poor quality. Uh, right. But were you not concerned
02:05:27 Uh, right. But were you not concerned that at source those test houses and experts that you had identified to produce these documents weren't doing so to a sufficient standard? Was that not a concern you had?
02:05:40 I didn't consider it at the time.
02:05:44 We see later on in 2016 that you were part of an email chain with Brian Martin of DCLG who himself expressed concern with the robustness of option three reports.
02:05:55 reports. Uh we can look at it if you like. You may remember it. But did it concern you even at that time that even though government were concerned about the quality of these desktops being produced, you were they were still being
02:06:06 produced, you were they were still being done?
02:06:10 No, I think as I mentioned earlier, government Brian Martin was aware of the uh production of the BCA guidance note. um he supported it and accepted that it
02:06:23 um he supported it and accepted that it was a matter of a statement of the truth of the approved document. When it became apparent that the the quality of some of these reports wasn't um particularly
02:06:35 these reports wasn't um particularly good that that led us down the route of um having the facades conference to try and educate the industry on what good looked like. And um I know that there's
02:06:47 looked like. And um I know that there's email correspondence with Brian Martin to ensure that he came along to support setting the right boundaries for what reports should look like going forward.
02:06:59 reports should look like going forward. Does that tell us that it was in part at least the concerns about the quality of desktop reports that led to the 2016 uh guidance note, the NHBC?
02:07:10 uh guidance note, the NHBC? To a certain extent, yes. Guidance note. Yes.
02:07:12 Yes. Yes. I said in part, but I think you agree. Yes. Yes. Right. Um we'll come back to desktop studies shortly, but I want to ask you about your relationship with Brian Martin who um at that point was working
02:07:23 Martin who um at that point was working for the Department for Communities and Local Government. The department remains the same. Its name has changed over the time. It was that stage called the DCLG. When and where did you first meet Brian
02:07:34 When and where did you first meet Brian Martin?
02:07:38 Um I've known Brian for a number of years. I I couldn't recall exactly when we first met. How would you describe your relationship with him? A professional relationship where contact could be made for advice,
02:07:50 contact could be made for advice, opinion,
02:07:52 opinion, support in terms of um presentations, conferences, etc. What did you consider his role within DCLG to be? I think when I first met
02:08:03 DCLG to be? I think when I first met with Brian, he was um he was the lead on approved document B and then I think he was promoted to head of technical policy at some point. Uh yes. And what was his involvement
02:08:15 Uh yes. And what was his involvement with NHBC? Um there was no direct involvement other than
02:08:22 than correspondence around any topical matters that warranted a contact with within MHCLG or DCLG as it was. Now we know he was a papers only or the
02:08:33 Now we know he was a papers only or the department was a papers only member of the BCA.
02:08:37 the BCA. The BCA technical group. Yes. BCA technical group. Yes. Thank you. Now I want to ask you about an email that he sent to your colleague Neil Smith on the 2nd of July 2014
02:08:48 2nd of July 2014 which we can see you got to see and copy later that day as we'll see. Can we go please to it? It's at NHB50712.
02:08:59 And if we go to the foot of the email chain please we can see um the that email
02:09:06 email we go to the foot of the email chain on page three. Brian Martin to Neil Smith, 2nd July 2014. Hi Neil, I've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facads recently.
02:09:18 about fire safety and facads recently. Allegedly, several buildings have been erected where PI insulation has been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height. Apparently, people are under the impression that P is a material of limiting combustibility,
02:09:29 material of limiting combustibility, which it isn't. Again, allegedly, many of these buildings are blocks of flats. I have no idea how true these allegations are, but they come from relatively reliable sources. The purpose of my email is a friendly warning. You
02:09:40 of my email is a friendly warning. You might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this. Happy to discuss. Regards, Brian. Now, if you go up the chain to page two at the bottom, you can see that later that day, Neil Smith
02:09:52 see that later that day, Neil Smith forwards that to you. Hi, Diane. Please can you suggest how I should respond? Regards Neil. You see that? Yes.
02:09:59 Yes. Foot of the screen. Uh, and uh you then ping that on up to Steve Evans. Uh,
02:10:08 Uh, were you concerned when you saw the email from Brian Martin uh that he was sending the NHBC a friendly warning in this way?
02:10:18 this way? Concerned, yes, but because we shared the same concerns around the issues that he was raising it, this wasn't this wasn't new to NHBC. This was something
02:10:29 wasn't new to NHBC. This was something that we were actively dealing with and I believe Steve Evans had spent the last few months trying to get to the bottom of. Yeah. Was your concern about the problem
02:10:40 Yeah. Was your concern about the problem heightened or um enhanced by the fact that government had now got hold of it and had come to you with it? We were already concerned. What u did you do about this friendly
02:10:53 What u did you do about this friendly warning when you saw it? Did you take it to the BCS board? No, I I asked Steve Evans, as you can see, I asked him to review and provide me with an update on where we were with
02:11:05 me with an update on where we were with the discussions um and draft a response. Uh yes. Uh and if we go up the chain, we can see that Neil Smith sends the email
02:11:16 can see that Neil Smith sends the email to you, copies Graeme Perry in Scroll up, please to page one.
02:11:31 Uh, sorry. I'm so sorry. Page two, we could see that he's copied in the email to you when he it comes to you. You then send it on to to Steve Evans, as you can see from page two. Mhm. And then if you scroll up
02:11:48 um we can see what happens next which is the draft that is sent to you on the 9th of July. Now scrolling back down again if I can please to uh page um two
02:12:03 if I can please to uh page um two at the foot of page two. Do you know why uh Neil Smith was asking you how he should respond?
02:12:14 I assume because the the original issue was one that certainly Graeme Perry and Dave White were aware of, but the
02:12:26 Dave White were aware of, but the sort of the lead on the issue was Steve Evans. So, um, Neil may not have been as up to speed on what the latest activities were from Graham, so
02:12:39 activities were from Graham, so approached me. um to offer advice and as I've just shown you and you can see you send it on to Steve Evans uh a
02:12:50 see you send it on to Steve Evans uh a couple of days later 4th July. Steve, can you review and update me on Kingingspan discussion which may be where this originates from? Given that Mr. Martin had mentioned cladding panels
02:13:01 Mr. Martin had mentioned cladding panels and PI materials of which K15 was neither and makes no mention of Kingpan as we've seen. Why did you think that this might have originated from Kingspan?
02:13:13 Sorry. Could you scroll down to the next page please so I can see the original email?
02:13:18 email? Yes, of course. Page three.
02:13:28 It talks about PI insulation. Yes. In his email. So that was why I thought it was in relation to Kingspan.
02:13:36 Kingspan. Well, Kingspan I mean technically is a phenolic insulation. Yes. Well, it's it's the sort of again my colleague talked about how we put
02:13:47 my colleague talked about how we put similar insulations into that family.
02:13:53 So leaving aside the distinction between P and phenolic uh connecting them as familiar in that way did you think that this had originated from Kingspan because of the
02:14:05 originated from Kingspan because of the discussion about K15?
02:14:12 I don't know if that was the case but that was the the the current issue that was in my mind in relation to insulation products. So, I put two and two together.
02:14:23 together. Now, if we go to the top of the chain, page one, we can see that Steve Evans sends a suggested draft back to you and to you alone on the 9th of July, 2014. Can you see that?
02:14:34 2014. Can you see that? Yes.
02:14:35 Yes. Did the two of you discuss the the situation issue before this draft was written?
02:14:54 [Applause]
02:15:10 No, I don't believe he did. I think it was a summary of his involvement which he would have been more familiar with than I would have been.
02:15:19 Did anybody, when I say anybody, did you or he, Steve Evans, think to call Brian Martin and have a telephone conversation with him instead of responding via a formal email?
02:15:33 No, I think as the the approach came through via email, it was appropriate to respond that way. Yes. I mean the approach was in pretty informal terms as he himself says it was
02:15:45 informal terms as he himself says it was a friendly warning. Was there a reason why you would have to send back a carefully drafted crafted written response rather than picking up
02:15:56 written response rather than picking up the phone and chatting it through as as it were between friends. I don't think it was carefully drafted. It was to appraise Brian of the
02:16:07 It was to appraise Brian of the background to the issue that we were having with Kingspan and the industry was having with Kingspan to make sure that he was aware of all of the facts that we had in our possession at that
02:16:19 that we had in our possession at that point in time. Well, that's a that's a fair answer, but it it addresses the substance, but I'm I'm really just asking you about the format. Why was there a need to send back what I would suggest is a carefully worded,
02:16:31 suggest is a carefully worded, considered, structured email response rather than a friendly chat in response to a friendly warning delivered in less than formal tones.
02:16:40 tones. It was a comprehensive response to a question that was being asked.
02:16:47 Now, the draft email that Steve Evans sends to you is slightly but not materially different from the email which Steve Evans then actually send to Brian Martin on the 11th of July. Did
02:16:58 Brian Martin on the 11th of July. Did you make changes to the draft that Steve Evans sent?
02:17:03 I don't recall making changes. Was anybody else involved in drafting the the response back to Brian Martin other than you perhaps? No, it would have been at Steve's instigation because he was far closer to
02:17:14 instigation because he was far closer to this matter than I was. Let's go to the email that's actually sent by Steve Evans in response to him on the 11th of July. It's at NHB50732, please.
02:17:28 Uh we can see there it is and your copy does is Neil Smith.
02:17:34 And that's from that's the response in fact the same day from Brian Martin. And underneath that we can see what Steve Evans sends to him that day. You see that? Bri, dear Brian, I hope that you
02:17:45 that? Bri, dear Brian, I hope that you are well. It's Can you see that? Yes.
02:17:49 Yes. And I'll read it to you. Neil Smith has discussed your email with me below and has asked me to respond as I've been dealing with this on behalf of NHBC. This is an issue that NHBC are aware of and have been in discussions with
02:18:00 and have been in discussions with industry about for some time. The issue is in respect of the use of Kingspan Cool Thomp K15 rainscreen board in buildings over 18 meters in height. The confusion has arisen from Kingspan's
02:18:11 confusion has arisen from Kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 m. However, the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible. However, since 27th October 2008, the product held the
02:18:24 27th October 2008, the product held the BBA certificate attached which indicates that it's acceptable for use in accordance with the proof document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1. Subject to advice being should be sought from the
02:18:36 advice being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height. It was on this basis that NHBC building control and other building control bodies accepted the use of K15 in buildings over 18 mters in height, including in
02:18:49 over 18 mters in height, including in blocks of flats. We understand that NABC have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 m.
02:18:57 m. In January of this year, we were made aware of a revised BBA certificate for K15
02:19:03 K15 issued on 17th December 2013. also attached the new certificate removed the passage which indicated that it was acceptable for use in accordance with approved document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 and instead states that the product
02:19:15 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire but that it only has only been tested and is therefore only suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls 8.2 two. Now, just
02:19:26 on masonry walls 8.2 two. Now, just stopping there. Um, I just want to ask you about this section of this response. Why did you believe that Brian Martin's concerns extended only to K15?
02:19:43 I think again it was it was an issue that we were aware of and the way that his email was worded two and two together and responded on the issue that
02:19:54 together and responded on the issue that we were we had known about. Did you understand from what was written in those paragraphs that Steve Evans was putting forward the references in the pre- January 2014 BBA certificates to
02:20:07 pre- January 2014 BBA certificates to 12.7 and the contact the manufacturer provision as the reason why K15 had been accepted on buildings over 18 meters by NHBC until the certificate
02:20:19 meters by NHBC until the certificate change.
02:20:23 Sorry, could you repeat that? Did you understand from these paragraphs here that Steve Evans was putting forward the references in the pre-
02:20:34 forward the references in the pre- January 2014 BBA certificate to 12.7 and the contact the manufacturer provision as the reason why K15 had historically been on accepted on buildings over 18
02:20:45 been on accepted on buildings over 18 meters by NHBC up to the point at which the certificate changed. If you could scroll back up to the previous page. Yes. Page uh one, please. Bottom of page one.
02:20:59 Yes. Yes. Now, given that, as we've established, I think you knew before January 2014, that K15 shouldn't be used above 18 m unless it met the
02:21:10 above 18 m unless it met the requirements of BR135, not least because you'd learned that fact by the latest at the time you'd got the wine meeting notes from John Lewis and his analysis that followed. My question is why uh are you identifying
02:21:23 question is why uh are you identifying the changes to the K15 BBA certificate at the end of 2013 as the reason that this had risen this issue had arisen.
02:21:35 I think Steve was giving background to the issues around the BBA certificate to answer the question that Brian had
02:21:46 answer the question that Brian had posed.
02:21:50 The email to Brian Martin also says that K15 had held a BBA certificate since 2008
02:21:56 2008 which indicated that it could be used in accordance with 12.7 of ADB. Now in fact the reference to 12.7 was only included in the certificate in the six months
02:22:07 in the certificate in the six months between July and December 2013. Was that was that known to you or not? I thought it was the 2010 certificate that had 12.7 included.
02:22:20 that had 12.7 included. Did you check the BBA certificates to which you were referring when you compiled this email? I didn't compile the email. When you went through it with Steve Evans?
02:22:32 No, I I trusted Steve to quote the facts of the case without challenge.
02:22:41 Do you know given that the reference to 12.7 in the BBA certificate was maybe you don't accept this but was always self-evidently erroneous why was NHBC
02:22:52 self-evidently erroneous why was NHBC purporting to make its removal from the BBA certificate in December 2013 a matter of relevance when addressing his question
02:23:00 question to provide context and background. Did you deliberately use 2008 as the start date for the reference to 12.7 to make it look as if the BBA reference to 12.7 had been in circulation for many
02:23:12 12.7 had been in circulation for many years and not just a few months in 2013 in order to strengthen the NHBC's historical position. I as Steve drafted the email I I can't answer that question.
02:23:24 answer that question. And did you intend Brian Martin to think that you'd been taken in by and relied on the erroneous statements in the BBA certificate? I think the the statement in the in that
02:23:35 I think the the statement in the in that paragraph sets out why NHBC were accepting the use of K15 in accordance with the BBA certificate. Given that it was well known that the family of plastics,
02:23:48 family of plastics, phenolic insulation, PI and PUR were never materials of limited combustibility. Why did you think that Brian Martin would believe that you'd been misled by the BBA's certificate's reference to 12.7 as opposed to
02:24:00 reference to 12.7 as opposed to dismissing it as a manifest mistake? I can't answer that. Well, I I'm I'm asking you to you don't have an answer. Well, could you rephrase? Well, given
02:24:11 Well, could you rephrase? Well, given that it was well known, as I think you accepted right at the start of your evidence today, that uh the family of insulations which included phenolic, PI, and PUR were never materials of limited combustibility.
02:24:23 combustibility. My question is, why did you think Brian Martin would believe that you had been misled by the BBA certificates reference to 12.7
02:24:30 to 12.7 as opposed to dismissing it as an obvious mistake?
02:24:36 I I assume that Steve included it in his email to provide context to the background to the issue with Kingspan.
02:24:47 background to the issue with Kingspan. Now,
02:24:49 Now, we we we also see uh in this uh email
02:24:58 uh email uh a reference to the LABC registered detail. And if we go to your statement first uh we at page uh 34, we can see paragraph
02:25:09 we at page uh 34, we can see paragraph 154.
02:25:19 And it was you say there since my time working at NHBC I've had nothing to do with LABC type approval certificates and NHBC placed no reliance on these certificates. This includes for K15 or
02:25:30 certificates. This includes for K15 or RS5000 products. I did not read or become aware of the LABC type approval or system approval certificates for K15 or RS5000 prior to 14th June 2017.
02:25:41 or RS5000 prior to 14th June 2017. Now I you you saw and I think approved Steve Evans's response to Brian Martin which refers in terms to the LABC registered detail isn't it on which NHBC said it had also relied.
02:25:55 No I well if you can go back to the email.
02:25:59 email. Yes. Let's go back to it then. It's a BA NHB50732.
02:26:07 I don't believe that Steve's commentary says that we are reliant on an LABC certificate. It's a statement of fact.
02:26:25 Well, if I read this to you, I thought, but if you go to the very foot of page one on your screen, it says, "We understand that LABC have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters." And my question
02:26:37 for use over 18 meters." And my question is is given your attitude NHBC's attitude to LABC registered details uh
02:26:49 uh why was it relevant or helpful to use the fact that LABC had issued one for K15 as a point of reliance? It it wasn't a point of reliance. It was
02:27:00 It it wasn't a point of reliance. It was a statement of fact that we were aware or Steve Evans was aware through the BCA that LABC had a registered detail accepting the product that may
02:27:12 accepting the product that may give an indication as to why it was being used more widely. Well, what was the relevance of referring to LABC there? purely for context.
02:27:24 context. But the pro problem with that is that LHB NHBC have nothing to do with LABC approvals and never place reliance on them. Why placing reliance on it now even as a context to your question?
02:27:36 even as a context to your question? Again, I don't think we were placing reliance of it. We were giving Brian Martin background to the situation in relation to that product which he'd asked for. Some some people might think that you were casting about for further
02:27:48 that you were casting about for further support uh and fastened on the fact of the LABC registered detail as further support.
02:27:54 support. No, not at all. I I would refute that. And I think having done some research through correspondence that Steve had with LABC and and hearing their statements, I I believe that Steve was
02:28:06 statements, I I believe that Steve was raising concerns over the registered detail.
02:28:16 Mr. Chairman, we're in the slightly in the middle of this uh email and there are there quite a few further questions to to run on it and I will not finish them.
02:28:25 them. It'll take about 15 minutes to finish. Might be better to stop there, might it? It might be. We are halfway through though and this is a we're pressing pause rather than a natural break. Right. Well, I think we've probably had
02:28:37 Right. Well, I think we've probably had enough for today anyway, Mr. Marshall. And so we'll finish there. Um, we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow. And once again, please don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it
02:28:48 your evidence or anything relating to it while you're away from the room. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you.
02:29:01 Thank you, Mr. Millet. 10:00 tomorrow then, please. Thank you.